Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘dunning-kruger’

Leftism is Reality Denial

Thursday, February 2nd, 2017

Very few people make it through the thought required to analyze Leftism to its roots. On the surface, we all know what it is: an outlook of supposed compassion which supports feminism, diversity, social welfare programs and gay rights.

Underneath the surface, Leftism reveals itself as fundamentally an ideology, or a notion that human preferences for how the world “should” be are more important than how the world functions. This was formalized in The Enlightenment™ as the idea of seeing the world through human reason as expressed in the individual.

Ideology does not compromise. It functions as a binary: the ideology is the new proposed idea, to which people either assent or dissent. Dissent means the idea will not come to pass, so in a passive-aggressive way, is seen as an attack and attempt to kill the idea. Thus the idea and its adherents feel comfortable in engaging in pre-emptive self defense by targeting those who disagree.

This gives the ideology virulence. It has an inherent “my way or the highway” approach to it, and those who dissent face outright hostility, which cows most into accepting it. This allows it to style itself as normal, and present dissenters as aberrant and to call them names like Nazi, fascist, racist, homophobe, sexist, classist and ableist which connote a failure to conform to social standards.

Historically, Leftism arose during the French Revolution and consisted of a single idea. Egalitarianism, or the notion that all people are equal in basic ability, converted utilitarian thinking into a political morality. This appealed to a fundamental weakness in humanity, the Dunning-Kruger (or r/K) derived tendency toward hubris, or assuming that oneself is more important than the way the world works.

Leftism is egalitarianism through ideology, not practical methods. For example, a king who wanted his people to be equal might try rewarding the good so that they bred out the rest, and established equality through extremely similar genetics and ability. He might separate them by ability into regions so that in each region, all people were roughly of the same abilities.

Ideology however provides a double benefit: public virtue signaling conceals private intent to exploit. Egalitarianism is the voice of the salesman, promising Utopia but laying claim to profit, with no concern for how well the consumer will fare. For this reason, ideology makes people feel intelligent and powerful for having manipulated the world to reflect their own intent and desires.

As such, Leftism replaces identity because it is an identity. To be Leftist is to identify with the strong-looking people who are taking over society, those who can be bold and controversial, and to benefit from social popularity and the career, sexual and in-group benefits it provides.

History tells us that Leftism took over and everyone who did not follow — both explicit dissenters and those who were simply not convinced and remained neutral — was thrust into the Right, which made it from the beginning both a compromise with Leftism, and a “big tent” mixed bag of non-Leftist ideas. This weakened it by creating indecision, infighting and other confusion.

The Right has finally discovered its core through the Alt Right: realism. We base our actions on what is, as seen through history, and not what we want to believe is true, starting with the illusion of equality. Recognizing that people are different and exist in a hierarchy of ability and moral goodness is massively taboo because it is anti-social in appearance.

Social thinking dominates when ideology appears because what people want to think is true becomes more important than what is real. The Right is anti-social because we recognize that the most common human tendency is self-delusion and that this is amplified in groups. The Christians call this “original sin,” but it is more Darwinian: without self-discipline, we are monkeys, and only some of us have that self-discipline.

We cannot have self-discipline without realism. We need something to discipline ourselves to that is not “of us,” like the various airy principles and navel-gazing emotional gestures that are so common in humanity. Instead, we must point ourselves toward the world, learn it and come to appreciate its wisdom, and use that to expand our minds.

This in turn leads us to a realization about Leftism. As a pathology, Leftism consists of the denial of the need for us to understand the world, and advances the counter-argument of “humanism,” or the idea that people are more important than reality. Even though that leads to disaster every time, it remains the most popular argument created by humans, and realism is the only bulwark against it.

Did Universal Education Destroy The West?

Saturday, October 1st, 2016

universal_education

In the midst of a standard Leftist rant about how education is failing because the people who were not all geniuses before education are still not all geniuses, The New York Review of Books goes full greebo with a wishful thinking history of American public education:

Death may be the great equalizer, but Americans have long believed that during this life “the spread of education would do more than all things else to obliterate factitious distinctions in society.” These words come from Horace Mann, whose goal was to establish primary schooling for all children—no small ambition when he announced it in 1848. Others had already raised their sights higher. As early as 1791, exulting in the egalitarian mood of the new republic, one writer declared it “a scandal to civilized society that part only of the citizens should be sent to colleges and universities.”

How that part has grown is a stirring story. It begins in the colonial period with church-funded scholarships for the sons of poor families. It continued after the Revolution with the founding of public universities such as those of North Carolina and Virginia. In the midst of the Civil War, it was advanced by the Morrill Act, by which Congress set aside federal land for establishing “land-grant” colleges, many of which became institutions of great distinction. By the later nineteenth century, when most colleges still admitted only white men, the cause was advanced again by the creation of new colleges for women and African-Americans.

Hillary Clinton may have recently shocked people by referring to Bernie Sanders fans as “basement dwellers,” but in the quarter of the population that is above 115 IQ points — this is a terrible sign, by the way, when only one in four people in your nation can halfway make sense of even moderate complexity problems — it is not exactly a secret that most people are basement dwellers, greebos, geeks, or otherwise dummies. In fact, it is openly mentioned all the time.

The reason is that while the Dunning-Kruger effect limits what we can understand, and makes smart people cowed as a result, it also allows us to see what those dumber than us cannot, which is that their idiocratic solutions are laughable and insane. Society is a cascade, with the upper levels looking down on the lower and laughing, not out of malice but sheer absurdism. When you are not an idiot, what idiots do is usually slapstick because of the wide gulf between anticipation and reality.

Most of us bumble our way through life, stumbling onto working combinations more by accident than anything else. This is even more prevalent at lower intelligence levels, which is why those groups are even more rigidly conformist so that they can take advantage of what has worked for others in similar situations. The bizarre conventions of the ghetto or inbred isolated community seem odd to us, until we realize that in those groups, signaling normalcy is more important than trying to distinguish oneself, no matter how ludicrous the results (sagging pants, “No Fear” stickers, etc).

And so we have the Bell Curve — the standard mathematical distribution of intelligence that occurs in all populations, of the same shape but varying according to the mean on which it is centered — appearing yet again. To the people on the far-right side of the curve, the left side is inscrutable and vice-versa. To the people in the middle, the far-left is nonsense, but what the far-right goes on about is equally weird. Translation: most people oppose intelligence.

How to deal with this? The principle of equality is that we cannot agree on a direction, so we should pacify individuals by offering equal inclusions in society, ignoring the differences in capabilities and the bad decisions made by others. In order to keep that mythos of illusion alive, the new religion of education springs up: we will educate them, and then, everyone will be equal, or at least roughly so.

Modern citizens cling to symbols and education is one of them, along with book fetishism. External appearance is more important than reality as always. Are they capable of making intelligent decisions? What is the content of those books? These questions of actual importance are denied so that the illusion can keep functioning, and so we insist that educating the three-quarters of the Bell Curve who cannot be educated will mysteriously, magically solve the inner inequality of individuals.

This results in a large number of people memorizing what they do not understand, and applying it rigidly because in the absence of understanding, they have conclusions given to them by others which become assumptions that take on a religious role. One cannot question the orthodoxy because the orthodoxy is what allows most people to feel good about themselves, and like heroin addicts, they prize feeling good over being realistic.

In essence, education legitimates a lie. Those who can learn generally will do so on their own, by reading books, experimenting and thinking. Many if not most of history’s greatest contributors were autodidacts. But for the pretense of keeping the group together, this cannot be, and so education falls prey to control, or standardization in order to limit the role of each individual to a universal, abstract and pre-determined form.

As with all utilitarian systems, in order that education be universal, it is dumbed-down or reduced to the lowest common denominator. This means that in addiction to people parroting conclusions that they do not understand as if they were universal law, they are getting these with a removal of all nuance. They have no idea how to correlate details to a larger argument, so they memorize assumptions and interpret every detail according to those, which results in mastery of detail and utter obliviousness to any larger point, as if those could be understood.

One reason for this is that in Europe and America, the wise choices of our ancestors led to an overflowing of the lower castes who breed at higher rates than the upper castes. This means that we are awash in fools, and under democracy, they must be made to feel equal too or there will be unpopularity. As Vice observes about the composition of the American population and in turn, the excesses of its originating population:

Although your textbooks are silent about it, most historians agree that two-thirds of ALL whites came to the colonies in some form of bondage. Legal papers on both sides of the ocean referred to them as “slaves.”

We are taught early in life that education is essential to democracy. In fact, it is the reverse: democracy is what produces education, which is designed to remove intelligence from the process and replace it with factory-made assumption-spouting robots who cannot analyze anything for which they do not have a template. If you wonder why our leaders and functionaries are shockingly but blithely incompetent, the reason is found in that saint of liberal democracy, “education.”

“I Do Not Understand” Is Not An Argument

Monday, July 18th, 2016

The internet is the ultimate extension of democracy in that all get a voice, and through what they are saying, we see how the problem with humanity is us: as a group, we make poor decisions, and most individuals do not understand or focus on the issues at hand.

A common trope in comments is the “I don’t see” or “I don’t understand” argument. In it, the person arguing wants you to believe that because they do not comprehend the particular argument, it cannot be true, because everyone must understand and agree in order for something to be true.

This is obvious nonsense. Besides the Dunning-Kruger effect, there is raw history. Throughout the human story, there have been a few brave people who saw what was real and unrecognized, and spoke it, earning the ire of the crowd. Truth is always elusive because most humans are bigoted against truth.

Smart People Will Never Understand Dumb People

Sunday, May 15th, 2016

white_trash_panda

Most of us by now have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where every person does not understand his limitations and will not comprehend anything more complex than his mind can grasp, thus will assume it’s nonsense and he is right.

But let us look at the flip side: to anyone smarter than certain person, the actions of that person will be mistaken for the actions of a smarter person, and misinterpreted.

The simplest way to see this in action is to watch Leftist and third-world grievance groups. These people are not the brightest even among their own ethnic groups. They come up with a stream of theories, perceived slights and injuries, and the like, and smart people sit down with a cup of tea and try to figure out what they are on about.

Don’t.

Smarter people — in degrees, depending on intelligence — look at a situation, come up with a theory, test it and act on it. They are generally driven by honesty because dishonesty leads to bad data, confusion and screwup.

Dumber people — also in degrees — know only what they personally want, and so when they encounter a situation, they find something in it they can manipulate to their advantage. They are driven by de facto dishonesty because they think of nothing but themselves.

Thus when Islamists take over a school and demand “respect,” or Black Lives Matter demands “justice,” or even white Democrats start hive-mind fetishizing about transgender bathrooms, there is no factual or logical underpinning to what they do. They are simply emoting from the Ego.

The sooner we learn to recognize and ignore this stupidity, the better off all of us — including liberals and third-world peoples — will be.

Intelligent People Are Marooned In A Vast Wave Of Incompetence

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016

brussels_terror_attacks_are_business_as_usual

The force of denial in a group is an ancient force. It goes back to our days in the jungle. When a storm threatened on the horizon, the monkeys would go into collective denial. This helped because it was clear that some of them would die, and every one hoped it would not be him.

Denial serves an evolutionary purpose. When the disaster is so huge that nothing can be done about it, having all of the monkeys panic would result in more injuries. Having them do nothing, knowing that casualties will occur, is the best possible outcome.

In our modern form, denial lives on through our willful rejection of any information which does not fit the Everything Will Be Just Fine narrative which makes people into productive workers, happy shoppers and willing voters. This is not government action; it is the act of the people themselves!

Intelligent people — and by that I mean those above the magic threshold of approximately 120 IQ points, where complex grammar and in-depth analysis start — have no idea that they are the world’s only minority. At most they are 15% of any population, and the populations that have more than a handful of them are a minority worldwide and usually under attack by all the others.

As an actual minority, this group should realize that not only are products never designed for them, but they are designed to be hostile to them. Abrasively stupid and simplistic pop music, sugary and salted fast food, bureaucracy that misses the point, education based on memorizing details, and government by the dumbest but least offensive idea are all part of that discrimination.

Today in Europe, and across the world, intelligent people are having a few thoughts in common. One is that the shocking ineptitude of Western governments is appalling and still seems to be completely out of control, and the second is that our elected representatives seem to have something in mind other than our best interests. Both are true and miss the point.

Your elected representatives know exactly what they are doing. They are System People who grew up in education and jobs and other forms of modern tests for competence. They know how to succeed at these tests. You find out how success is measured and achieve that, while cutting out everything else that might slow down that goal. This means that if 51% of the voters will approve of something, you do it.

And you ignore the rest.

Intelligent people — by our definition above — at a generous 15% of the population do not even count. The point is to pander to morons. Like McDonald’s, Coca-Cola and Hollywood movies, democracy aims to make products for morons because they are an easier audience to please. Why spend time and energy on something intelligent, when something stupid will win the day?

This is the whole point of democracy, by the way: to ensure that morons have more power than the intelligent. These morons do not fit whatever stereotype you have seen in media about them. They are normal people, doing normal jobs. They do not have the faculty of judgment or higher reason, however, and so their opinions are always simplistic, “right” in a few ways but wrong in the big picture.

If we look at intelligence critically, we see that it is time-awareness. Smarter people can visualize events farther into the future, even when they are not always correct in their predictions, and are aware of consequences beyond themselves in the period between paychecks. The average person knows only himself and what he wants right now, and the includes to “feel good” about the future direction of his society.

For this reason, whatever is popular is usually wrong. By usually, I mean that out of a hundred times, once it may be right, not that it may be right half the time. This is an important distinction. Most people accept rule by popularity because it seems to be “mostly” right, but in fact, it is rarely so.

Even when the masses pick a better than average leader like Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, we have to ask: who else was excluded from the running, long ago, who might do a better job? And what about the other people in the system who are “keeping them in check” who will sabotage any realistic action?

The point, intelligent people, is that you are alone in a vast sea of incompetence, ineptitude and selfishness. You alone are thinking the system should work, because if everyone was like you, it might. You alone are “trying to do the right thing” where everyone else is acting for what feels good, right now, and the future is ignored. The crowd is self-deluding because it chases its own hopes, dreams and desires and these have nothing to do with reality.

Nick Land asks a great question over at Outside In. He wonders why the individualistic side always seems to win:

Everyone’s seen this argument a million times: “So what’s the problem with libertarianism? The problem is that if you put two groups one against another, the one who is best able to work together will overcome the group of individualists.”

An example would be nice. Here are the major modern wars of necessity (or existential conflicts) the Anglosphere has been involved in (‘win’ here meaning ‘came out on the winning side’ — conniving to get others to do most of the dying is an Anglo-tradition in itself):

English Civil War (1642-1651) — Protestant individualists win.
War of the Spanish Succession (17012-1714) — Protestant individualists win.
Seven Years War (1756-1763) — Protestant individualists win.
American War of Independence (1775-1783) — Protestant individualists win.
Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) — Protestant individualists win.
American Civil War (1861-1865) — Protestant individualists win.
First World War (1914-1918) — Anglophone individualists win.
Second World War (1939-1945) — Anglophone individualists win.
Cold War (1947-1989) — Anglophone individualists win.

Have I missed any big ones? I’m simply not seeing the “history is the graveyard of failed individualist societies” picture that seems to be consolidating itself as a central alt-right myth.

The answer comes back to awareness of time. In the short term, individualists always win because their ideas are more popular. In the long term, they make civilization collapse. The result of all of the above “wins” is that the individualists have made a society in the West that is moribund and dying out. What is popular is usually wrong. What is individualist is always popular. This is why empires fall and what is left of great civilizations are third-world ruins.

Your great enemy are the clever. These people are not intelligent, but they are able to make intelligent choices within a narrow scope. This is why they succeed at business, academia, media and the like. They displace the intelligent because the intelligent are unpopular, and the clever want to succeed so they want only popular people around them. They dumb down standards and are content with the resulting mess because they thrive in it, being oblivious to longer-term consequences.

They are masters of insincerity because it is the only way to control the herd:

Politicians and celebrities and sportspeople don’t mean it when they say sorry and they don’t care. They just want the baying mob of online morons to go away, and a worthless and insincere apology is the best way to make this happen.

Your society is falling apart from within at the hands of the partnership between the clever and the idiotic. People are miserable and are not having children; drugs, drink and suicide are rampant; all the leaders and even all the business leaders have no judgment skills. This is the long term result of democracy, and before that of individualism or the refusal to rank people in hierarchy by ability, and it means the terrorism will never end.

Until we end it, by ending the domination of ineptitude.

How to end terrorism

Friday, November 27th, 2015

how_to_end_terrorism

After an attack, our politicians and media like to slam the barn door really hard to show that escaped horse that it was wrong. Many people have made many statements about how to stop terrorism, and almost all of them are unrealistic and wrong.

Terrorism arose from guerrilla warfare and succeeds the same way guerrilla warfare does: by convincing the people making the decisions that there are too many costs of doing business to make it worth continuing to participate. In the American revolution, the guerrillas made a king back down after heavy losses; in the Vietnam war, the guerrillas learned a new weapon: the television. If they could get a whole lot of voters, who we all know are useful idiots, to panic and emote over what they see on the teevee screen, then the guerrillas win because the politicians will retreat.

And that’s exactly what happened.

Much of the techniques of those Viet Cong guerrillas involved terrorism, both active and passive. Active terrorism means going into a village that has supported your opposition and maiming, killing and otherwise terrorizing the population so the voters back at home squeal and cry and demand a withdrawal. Passive terrorism means giving 8-year-old hand grenades to throw at Americans, knowing that at some point a My Lai will result. The Afghans did the same thing during the Russian occupation and ensured that the Russians had two types of soldiers: one, killers who wanted every duhkh dead, and two, hesistant killers who shortly would be dead from an inability to comprehend how profoundly they were hated.

Terrorism relies on two things: (1) opportunity and (2) audience. Opportunity means that it is generally far easier to stage a terrorist strike than, say, an invasion or commando raid. It requires lower skills, less equipment, and generally just a nasty will to kill and maim, which conveniently attracts sociopaths that you want out of your society anyway. Audience means a whole bunch of people watching television and poised over computer keyboards, so that when they see the horror you can count on them to flatter themselves as empathetic geniuses by engaging in public displays of weeping, mourning, why-can’t-we-all-get-along and think-of-the-children style behavior.

I suggest applying Occam’s razor and realizing that we can end all terrorism very quickly.

First, we deny opportunity. This action involves two parts:

  1. Anyone who is not of the indigenous populations to Western civilization — national groups in Europe and mixed Western Europeans in America — needs to get a welfare check and a plane ticket sending them back to their continent of origin. Asians to Asia, Africans to Africa, lawyers to Antarctica, and mixed-race/culture people to north Africa.
  2. Destroy the welfare state. A cynic sees humanity correctly: people who act in self-interest, especially by denying the interests of others. Each group wants to prevail. If you let them in, and you are wealthier than they, they will both show up en masse and try to exterminate you because the sight of you succeeding offends their self-image. If we remove our welfare, benefits, free stuff, etc. that politicians use to attract voters, we will stop inviting people in by conspicuously waving our wealth in their faces.

Then, we deny audience. I do not suggest government make any laws or take any action here; laws and government are the most impotent form of action. Instead, our smartest people should begin spreading the word that the correct response to a terrorist attack is to ignore it, and put our support behind those rounding up and beheading the perpetrators. Stop the public heaps of flowers, the endless mourning, the switching of your masturbatory Facebook profile selfie to a French flag. All of that is personal drama in which people engage to make themselves look more compassionate, wealthy and important. (If anything, we should send those people to north Africa, too.).

We do not need laws and restrictions on media. If our smart people hammer out this message, those that admire them will also emulate it, on down to the least thoughtful among us. This changes demand for the product in media, and means that media will stop following the Jane Fonda route as useful idiots for guerrillas and terrorists.

These ideas may be a bit ahead of their time, and are certainly less exciting than the other stuff the talking heads and blog zombies are raving about, but unlike those, they have at least a chance of success.

Leftists conceal their agenda behind accusations

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

urban_hell

Leftists are a variety of the Crowdist, or the person who decides that he desires no oversight by social standards and so joins others in a lynch mob to overthrow culture, hierarchy and morality.

Conservatives normally mistake these for nihilists, or people who believe in nothing, but the grim fact is that Crowdists believe very much in their new God: themselves, and the pretense that they have created which says their selfish power seizure is in fact “altruistic” or “egalitarian.” In reality, it is neither.

Like a scam artist caught in the act, a Crowdist will turn and attack when confronted. They will promptly accuse you of whatever they are doing. If they say you are stealing, then check their pockets because assuredly they are. In the same way, Crowdists pre-emptively attack by using an accusation to force you to relinquish control.

The pattern never changes, although most people cannot see it because it takes form with different issues and slogans. They find a person or group of persons who are in some way having a hard time in life, invent a story about how this is a systematic event — in other words a product of the culture, hierarchy and morality they wish to destroy — and then march up to their leaders and demand to know “what is being done” about this.

Usually, their leaders have nothing to say about it, because the people who are having a hard time, like most of us until we learn discipline, are victims of themselves and no one else. The winos and criminals of the world usually in the process of deceiving others come to deceive themselves and fall prey to their own illusions when they collide with reality. Think of the man who insists he does not have a gambling problem and can quit any time when the loansharks show up during dinner hour.

Back in 1789, the Crowdists stumbled into a perpetual “blank check” for all of their activities. This was equality, which was designed as a weapon for class warfare, in which those who are not succeeding demand that those who have succeeded redistribute the wealth and power on the basis of the non-succeeders being human too. This morphed into Civil Rights at the time of the American civil war when Crowdists realized that as long as they could find a black victim, they could seize power much as they did any time they found a group of starving peasants near the Bastille. From there they have expanded to other groups: women, other ethnic and religious minorities, gays/etc and even extreme sexually nonconforming people like polygamists, pedophiles and incest participants.

Their old refrain goes like this, courtesy of Peter Singer:

Why do racism, sexism and discrimination against people with disabilities still exist, despite the widespread acceptance that they are wrong? There are several reasons, but surely one is that many people act unthinkingly on the basis of their emotional impulses, without reflecting on the ethics of what they are doing. That, of course, invites us to discuss why some people have these negative emotional impulses toward people of other races, and that in turn leads to the old debate whether such prejudices are innate or are learned from one’s culture and environment. There is evidence that even babies are attracted to faces that look more like those of the people they see around them all the time, so there could be an evolved innate element, but culture certainly plays a very significant role.

The message in the above is an accusation: you do what is convenient for you, not what is right, because — see, here we have these people who are not succeeding. Since we are all equal (we assume) the only reason for their lack of success is that some horrible injustice has been done to them. Even more, the message above equates opposing miscegenation with knee-jerk responses and animal instincts, which makes us feel unsuccessful and un-evolved if we choose it. Yet our gut instincts often save us in time of stress and danger, and — as conservatives will note — those ideas which have succeeded longest are probably best.

But let us think strategically here. What might Singer and his liberal cohorts be concealing? In other words, what are they using to accuse us, while actually being guilty of it themselves? Discrimination, obviously, which was once a word for having high standards but now means failure to include anyone, no matter how broken or useless, in your activities. We mind wonder what they are actually discriminating against, except that it becomes clear: defense of the less-equal means penalizing the more-equal. As analyzed by one IQ researcher, the discriminated group is not a tangible ethnic or religious grouping, but intelligent people — those who might notice the flaws in our ideology — who rise above the “equal plus” standard of marginally talented that guarantees success in the herd:

By dividing the distribution function of the elite professions’ IQ by that of the general population, we can calculate the relative probability that a person of any given IQ will enter and remain in an intellectually elite profession. We find that the probability increases to about 133 and then begins to fall. By 140 it has fallen by about 1/3 and by 150 it has fallen by about 97%. In other words, for some reason, the 140s are really tough on one’s prospects for joining an intellectually elite profession. It seems that people with IQs over 140 are being systematically, and likely inappropriately, excluded.

All of recent history represents a vast conspiracy to avoid those who might notice. The intelligent, or those above 120, are most suspect; those who hover at 120 or just below are intelligent enough to be clever but fall short of genius. This makes them perfect drones because they will feel vastly accomplished for simple tasks, and cannot understand anything more complex, but are arrogant enough based on their superior status to the real doofuses that they will ignore anything they do not understand. They are the perfect zombies for an army united by ideology.

Most people fall to understand that Crowdism exists for a single reason, which is to avoid consequences of the actions of those in the Crowd. They fear any higher standard which will reveal them to be dumber, more shortsighted, less moral, or of deprecated utility compared to others. They want a zero standard which approximates the lowest possible so that they have no chance of failing. Their hope is to avoid any confrontation with reality, or those who notice reality, by discriminating against those of higher intelligence while simultaneously accusing that group of discriminating against the “disadvantaged,” a.k.a. anyone not doing so well under a reasonably realistic social system.

The goal of Crowdism — and by extension, of liberalism — is to avoid those who might notice that the Crowd ideal is out of line with reality. Crowdists work to make jobs into mind-numbing tedium, society into a series of bureaucratic tasks, and to ruin the family and any other honest attributes of society. This drives away the smarter people, who require more from life than bread and circuses, and allows the idiots to take over. This is the sole reason for their focus on discrimination; they are guilty of it themselves, and they want to distract from this so that no one notices the ongoing removal of the smart and their replacement with obedient near-dunces who, in the time-honored tradition of those smart enough to make fun of others but not understand their own failings, will proclaim themselves natural leaders and promptly push their civilization into ruin.

“Educated” people

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Let’s talk about the word “educated.” It’s a snotty little word, when you think about it. It’s a way we can both insist that we are all equal, and still be elitist. In the past, people were chosen for an elite based on who their parents were (which makes sense, given that most traits are heritable). Now, we have this fiction that we’ve all “proved ourselves” by becoming educated.

This nasty little sleight-of-brain lets us both pay heed to the great fiction of equality and also indulge our egos. We are not where we are because we were privileged; oh no. We got ahead because we work harder and just had a knack for that education thing.

This forgets of course that education in the United States and Europe at this point is a certification program more than anything else. It tests basic intelligence in some areas; in other areas, such as the liberal arts, it increasingly tests nothing but political allegiance and the ability to recite dogma in different forms (such “A Feminist Analysis of Cetacean Symbolism in Public Policy”).

Even in the sciences, we do not test intelligence so much as obedience, memorization and application of rote. This enables us to stop relying on smart people and to instead promote lots of interchangeable cogs. They may not be smart, but that means they’re easy to replace, and they do exactly what we tell them to. Even better, they’re very proud of having reached more-equal-than-equal cog status, and so they’ll keep the others in line.

“Educated” is a nasty word that reeks of compensatory elitism. It’s a word of the head trusty at the prison, or the Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst at Treblinka, or the kid who gets asked to keep order while the teacher is out of the room. It’s the same privilege-abuse that occurs at Wikipeda, by power-hungry security guards, or in kids put in charge of rooms in virtual worlds. One little group feels superior to the others on the basis of a dubious attainment.

Not all education is a dubious attainment. If you went to a school and had no special political or social category to give you external help, and dedicated yourself to learning and gained actual skills, that’s significant — especially if it’s a good school. But most colleges at this point are little more than High School II, and most degree programs little more than advanced coloring books, which in part explains why our graduates are less capable than ever before, and the market has correspondingly re-evaluated college degrees as having less value.

This media spin wants to give our citizens a sense of control, mainly because as our society decays, everyone is experiencing a loss of control. As a result, they set up a politically-correct dichotomy. The “educated,” or those who were not born into money but through “hard work” achieved it, are opposed to those lazy good-for-nothing non-college-educated ignoramuses.

But the more regimented we make our system, and the more people we force it to include despite a lack of aptitude, the less “educated” means anything but someone who has bought into the system and is now defending it with snotty elitism and destructive political opinions.

The Dunning-Kruger effect

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

Dumb and Dumber (Screengrab)

The Dunning-Kruger effect states that incompetent people are also incompetent in assessing their own performance. Therefore, less competent people think their performance is competent, while smarter people focus on their own flaws.

It explains, among other things, how in a society that places too much value on image, idiots and insane people are able to get ahead by overestimating their value and getting fools to agree with them.

The essence of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than knowledge.” Studies have shown that the most incompetent individuals are the ones that are most convinced of their competence. At work this translates into lots of incompetent people who think they are superstars. And what is worse is that if you have a manager that doesn’t closely supervise work, he or she may judge performance based on outward appearances using information like the confidence with which these incompetent blockheads speak.

An important corollary of this effect is that the most competent people often underestimate their competence. This is a result of how you frame knowledge. The more you know, the more you focus on what you don’t know. For instance, people who can name 15 of the 50 state capitals tend to think “I know 15.” People who know 45 of the 50 state capitals tend to think “I don’t know 5.”1

Dunning and Kruger, two researchers at Cornell University, described their findings in a paper entitled “Unskilled and Unaware Of It: How Difficulties In Recognising Ones Own Incompetence Lead To Inflated Self-Assessments” in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Their conclusions can be summarized this way:

  1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill,
  2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others,
  3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy,
  4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

Translation: without leadership at the top of the curve who is willing to call people on their incompetence, the incompetents will appear competent to other incompetents and be advanced, possibly even to the presidency.

This causes a mathematical problem for democracies since most people are not particularly competent at leadership, government or logical argument, meaning they are both unable to assess the best leadership choices and sure that they’re right.

It’s essentially similar to the Downing effect:

One of the main effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ. The propensity to predictably misjudge one’s own IQ was first noted by C. L. Downing who conducted the first cross-cultural studies on perceived ‘intelligence’.

His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others’ IQ was proportional to one’s own IQ. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others’ IQ. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as having a higher IQ than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others’ IQ overall, are still likely to rate people of similar IQ as themselves as having higher IQs.

The disparity between actual IQ and perceived IQ has also been noted between genders by British psychologist Adrian Furnham, in whose work there was a suggestion that, on average, men are more likely to overestimate their intelligence by 5 points, while women are more likely to underestimate their IQ by a similar margin.2

That tendency could go a long way toward explaining why many successful societies have relied on strong leaders who had no problem beating down the incompetent with force. Unless suppressed, the 90% of humanity who per the “Bell Curve” are unskilled and unaware of it will take over and, being incompetent, run society into the ground.

In addition, while people can be taught specific tasks, they cannot be taught to reason in general; education does not raise IQ and in the process of trying, becomes dumbed-down to the point where no one intelligent will get any benefit from it, which discriminates against the intelligent.

When you combine the Bell Curve, the Dunning-Kruger and Downing effects, and the natural tendency of human beings to compromise, you have a working explanation why human societies inevitably begin the pursuit of a “race to the bottom” once they become powerful enough to stop losing so many people to natural events, disease and war.

Monkeytime

Saturday, March 14th, 2009

What’s sad about a dying civilization is that the only people who see it are those who have these traits:

  • Intelligent. 125 IQ points or above. It helps to have real-world experience, but that cannot substitute for what Nietzsche calls “sensitivity,” or a fineness of discernment.
  • Sincere. They believe in the scientific method of finding truth and value truth and believe pursuing it is their salvation.
  • Moral. They are, as a great author paraphrased said, at a state of moral attention at all times, being aware of how people’s actions will impact the world at large as well as other humans.

Everyone else is oblivious to consequences beyond the next paycheck, and cannot predict the outcomes of more than a single factor over more than a few days anyway. Thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, they have no idea they’re incompetent, so they pick theories that make them sound smart (to them) but in fact disregard whole ranges of vital data. They are quintessential sophomores.

They like to use one-sentence, glib answers where thought is required; in that alone they reveal they are not sincere, intelligent or moral. But they think their cleverness hides the truth. It’s no wonder these things run in cycles: society gets wealthy, this enables people who are at the moral level of monkeys to become parasites, and then the parasites band together and make it illegal to point out truth, reality or other things that make unstable individuals experience self-doubt. They make monkeytime, or an age of irresponsible lack of accountability, the law of the land, even though it’s contrary to the laws of mathematics, information and nature.

As a result, the society plunges into dark ages for a while until a strongman comes along who legalizes reality and boosts people out of denial. Then the process of civilization can restart.

Recommended Reading