ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Mailvox: why flaunt IQ?

NorthernHamlet doesn't understand why I flaunt - not flout - my intelligence:
How would one describe that you trot out "superior IQ" during conversations, even while you acknowledge that neither you nor many of your readers think the criteria for it is legitimate?
First, I wouldn't say that IQ is totally meaningless or even illegitimate. It clearly measures something real and objective; you will try in vain to discuss anything even remotely intellectual with an individual possessed of a 50 IQ, and I have yet to see someone with an IQ of 100 that I consider, upon the basis of non-IQ related factors, to be more intelligent than someone with an IQ of 150. That being said, it is clearly an imperfect measurement, and it can even be misleading as two people with the same IQ, one stronger on the verbal side and one stronger on the mathematical side, can look either much smarter or much more stupid than the other depending upon the subject.

Ironically enough, I'm a very good example of someone whose measured IQ score tends to significantly underestimate my relevant intelligence in my primary areas of interest because I am so handicapable when it comes to spatial relations. Anyone who has seen me packing a car or even a suitcase would be justified in thinking that I should qualify for special parking privileges, and probably three spaces at that. On the other hand, my ability to recognize patterns and generate useful predictive models from them has been considered to be rather remarkable by many. Am I a retard or a genius? The IQ score is an ineffective metric because it alternatively answers both and neither, depending upon the perspective.

(My answer, of course, is neither. I don't believe genius is denoted by IQ or any other quantitative measure, but rather unique and significant intellectual accomplishments.)

Long before I wrote my first WND column 11 years ago, I recognized that the arguments presented by the Left, especially those that were blithely accepted by the Right, seldom amounted to more than crude appeals to intelligence. We've seen it on this blog time and time again, most recently in the recent series that focused on the dissection of the skeptics. Their main argument, indeed, their only real argument, is "don't argue with me because I'm smarter than you." It's often couched in terms of academic credentials, but since universities no longer provide educations, but primarily serve as intellectual brand markers, credentialist-based arguments are simply slightly modified version of the same position. The reason a Harvard PhD trumps one from Auburn University isn't because there is any legitimate reason to believe the Harvard PhD has received a better education, indeed, in at least some fields it can be easily demonstrated that the reverse is the case, but because Harvard places more stringent IQ requirements on its applicants. An appeal to academic status is mostly an appeal to intelligence, once-removed.

This is, of course, why the Left repeatedly cites study after study, many of them fake, showing that Blue state residents possess higher average IQs, why Democratic presidents are smarter than Republican presidents, and so forth. It's all they've got. And so, when I flaunt my official, Mensa-approved, readily observable high intelligence in their faces, it removes from them their only rhetorically effective argument by virtue of their own metric. In other words, I'm simply playing by the rules of their game that they have established. Notice how few on the Right, even if they are highly intelligent academics with hard science PhDs, take any exception to my assertions of superintelligence, especially compared with the way the Left instinctively reacts to it rather like vampires to holy water. Of course, since they can't convincingly claim that I am not every bit as intelligent as they are, they have no choice but to resort to the customary claim of craziness. The path that Delavagus recently trod was not only predictable, it was inevitable, as we've been witnessing exactly the same responses to exactly the same stimuli for more than a decade now. One could quite credibly write a paper on it with a larger sample set than one often sees in the social sciences.

Is the appeal to intelligence game nonsense? Of course it is! This is where and why I part company with the modern philosophers. Since true belief is true regardless of whether it is justified or not, whether it is known to be true or not, whether it is even believed or not, it is entirely possible for the 50-IQ retard to be correct and the 175-IQ statistical genius to be completely wrong, regardless of whether the former can even begin to reasonably articulate his beliefs or not, let alone justify them. Indeed, the history of the 20th century is riddled with example after example of the false beliefs to which the intelligentsia subscribed that were rightly rejected by hoi polloi. The reason is that tradition is more than the democracy of the dead, it is also the cumulative intelligence of the centuries. It takes considerable intelligence, intellectual humility, and usually, significant temporal and technological advantages to correctly supersede that cumulative intelligence. No doubt that is why even the most brilliant of the ancient skeptics demanded that custom and traditions be given their due.

Labels: ,

112 Comments:

Anonymous The other skeptic May 19, 2012 11:39 AM  

Have those geniuses at Facebook stumbled

Anonymous Anonymous May 19, 2012 11:58 AM  

We're reaching the end of human IQ mattering anyway. I think you may have a point of Europe's descent, but I think either the US or China will achieve the Singularity...though maybe not for another 50-100 years.

SJP

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 12:14 PM  

Well put.

Speaking of pattern recognition, your belief in the Bible on the basis of it being the superior game manual is making more and more sense to me.

Also, speaking of pattern recognition, your face looks like this and so does mine. And pretty much all the other geniuses behind theoretical advances in history have the same eyes.

Neanderthal facial reconstruction

Pay particular attention to the recessed preorbital sockets and "haunted ghost" look in the eyes. The brow and lower face are still somewhat primitive in this example.

A random list of people with the same eyes:

kant
tim ferriss
mencius moldbug
mark manson
marilyn manson
cal newport
ron paul
Theo Epstein
Newton
arthur schopenhauer
Dr. Albrecht Schröte
Michel_de_Montaigne
leonardo da vinci
benjamin franklin
plato
william jennings bryan
Czeslaw Milosz
Gilbert Murray
George Washington
Amos Kendall
Sigmund Freud
stonewall jackson
albert einstein
andrew jackson
Jacques Lacan
jacques derrida
arnold schwarzenegger
Steve Carrell
Cesar Tort
Don Draper
Josh McDowell :)
Audrey Hepburn
roissy
konrad zuse
werner von braun
Goran Reljic

Anonymous bw May 19, 2012 12:15 PM  

it removes from them their only rhetorically effective argument by virtue of their own metric

Exactly. By far, the best tactic to use.
It winds up proving (though they will never admit it to themselves or anyone else because they are dishonest..not really interested in the Truth or Reality) that they themselves are actually the very thing they claim to hate.
They refute themselves by religiously (literally) being information biased.
It is high entertainment to see someone get their ass kicked by the use of their own metric - simply because they are biased, agenda and religiously driven liars.

Anonymous rycamor May 19, 2012 12:33 PM  

The reason is that tradition is more than the democracy of the dead, it is also the cumulative intelligence of the centuries.

Amen. The older I get, the more I have come to respect ancient wisdom tempered by centuries of trial and error. The 20th century was perhaps the biggest experiment in history at the consequences of disregarding ancient wisdom, and the 21st century is shaping up to be a massive I-told-you-so.

Anonymous Roundtine May 19, 2012 12:42 PM  

Notice how few on the Right, even if they are highly intelligent academics with hard science PhDs, take any exception to my assertions of superintelligence, especially compared with the way the Left instinctively reacts to it rather like vampires to holy water.Few on the Right would take exception whether it was true or not, because the Right has a sense of humor.

Anonymous Anonymous May 19, 2012 12:45 PM  

"but since universities no longer provide educations, but primarily serve as intellectual brand markers,"


Amen, Amen!!!!!


I am so sick of discussion with people who base their superior opinion entirely on the importance of their alma mater.

I don't give a flying rodents posterior where you matriculated. Give me facts, logic and reason, don't just wave your diploma around and tell me how smart it makes you.

farmer Tom

Anonymous Baseball Savant May 19, 2012 1:13 PM  

VD,

What do you think about your handicapable ability with spatial relations with respect to your abilities in martial arts? Does that not matter a little bit?

Anonymous the abe May 19, 2012 1:22 PM  

One of the biggest red pills I've swallowed was learning that collegiate success is defined by test-taking skills and not mental cultivation. University was simply an extension of grade school.

What is inscrutable to Vox's leftist detractors is that virtually none of the Ilk were ever impressed with the MENSA label. Anybody that has had the epiphany stated above realizes we respect and consider Vox's thoughts in spite of it.

Blogger Vox May 19, 2012 1:25 PM  

What do you think about your handicapable ability with spatial relations with respect to your abilities in martial arts? Does that not matter a little bit?

I don't think so. There is no time for reasoning, in fact, the whole purpose of the training is to get you to respond correctly without thinking about it. It could be related to one's ability to control the gap properly, but I never noticed any problem with that although I wasn't unusually good at it either.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 2:08 PM  

The only thing that distinguishes Koanic's picture from Adult Male Finn is that the Neanderthal has slightly larger (but exactly same shape) nose and he has less fat.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 2:20 PM  

Case in point: Antti Reini

Anonymous Noah B. May 19, 2012 2:27 PM  

That's a wonderful way to look at and explain the importance of tradition. One should not be locked into it without thinking, but one should be mindful when departing from it.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 19, 2012 2:27 PM  

VD

Whilst my command of English isn't what it could be, please take another look at what I wrote.

I asked how one would describe, not how one would explain the use of your tactic.

Blogger Vox May 19, 2012 2:39 PM  

I asked how one would describe, not how one would explain the use of your tactic.

Oh, I see. All right, in that case, I would describe it as challenging an opponent's claim to authority by appealing to the metric upon which that claim is based.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 19, 2012 2:49 PM  

Oh, I see. All right, I would describe it as challenging an opponent's claim to authority by utilizing the opponent's metric.

Perhaps I am again using the wrong word. We were discussing that one would describe Scott as "dishonest". I asked how one would describe someone who uses a standardized metric neither they nor readers hold against others.

Grazie mille for allowing me to belabor the point again

Blogger Vox May 19, 2012 2:55 PM  

We were discussing that one would describe Scott as "dishonest". I asked how one would describe someone who uses a standardized metric neither they nor readers hold against others.

I would call it "speaking the opponent's language". There is nothing wrong with using someone else's metric in order to address their arguments, whether you believe it or not. In fact, it is absolutely necessary if you are going to show their arguments to be false. I don't believe in Gross Domestic Product either, for example, but I certainly use the Samuelsonian economic metrics whenever I am discussing macroeconomics with an economist.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick May 19, 2012 3:11 PM  

Thanks for this Vox. I wish you would make happy posts more often.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick May 19, 2012 3:13 PM  

@Koanic

Do you have a link to Roissy's pic? I have been wondering what he looks like since I saw a pic of Athol.

Anonymous Outlaw X May 19, 2012 3:46 PM  

Also, speaking of pattern recognition, your face looks like this and so does mine. And pretty much all the other geniuses behind theoretical advances in history have the same eyes.

I thought this was done by measuring the distance between the tip of the nose and forehead.

Anonymous Other Josh May 19, 2012 4:11 PM  

Goodness is far more important than intelligence. I'd rather have a circle of good, honest friends who are filled with integrity and value what is right & just than friends who are merely intelligent.

I realize the two aren't mutually exclusive. A person who is intelligent & good and seeks to use what is good to help others is a true treasure, indeed. But, such people are rare.

Anonymous Boogeyman May 19, 2012 4:16 PM  

Wish there were a test for wisdom. Would much rather be or deal with an unschooled wise man than a highly degreed fool. God knows I've dealt with enough morons with half the alphabet tagged at the end of their name.

Oh, and that Neanderthal picture, I've worked with that guy. Would recognize him anywhere.

Anonymous Suomynona May 19, 2012 4:19 PM  

Vox May 19, 2012 2:32 PM
Oh, I see. All right, I would describe it as challenging an opponent's claim to authority by utilizing the opponent's metric.


But the vast majority of opponents are snakes who have no interest in engaging the opposition but instead shutting it down. This is why Delavagus, for all his purported unknowing, certainly knows enough to declare you insane. Your logic and intelligence will never be considered a challenge to their claim, but viewed as a direct threat to their imaginary utopia.

As would be expected of snakes, their appeal to reason, logic, and intelligence is merely a facade in order to make their leftist fascism palatable to the masses. Their level of hostility is directly proportional to the level of intelligence used in the arguments against them.

Of course, you realize this, Vox. You simply enjoy poking your big intellectual stick into the viper's pit to make them hiss and writhe. You've said yourself that the delusions and contra-reality aspirations of these utopian-minded retards will not be sustainable once the SHTF. Where reason and logic are insufficient to make even the tiniest of dents, starvation and eminent destruction easily rip open a giant hole. In the meantime, we can only sit back and watch the freak show, of which the most recent one put on by Bakker's gaggle of goons was quite entertaining. You certainly got them going.

Anonymous Suomynona May 19, 2012 4:27 PM  

That should be "imminent", not "eminent".

Blogger Vox May 19, 2012 4:47 PM  

Of course, you realize this, Vox. You simply enjoy poking your big intellectual stick into the viper's pit to make them hiss and writhe.

It's a bit more than that. Yes, I enjoy it, but the point is actually to expose their true nature to those who are less capable of seeing it, who accept their pretensions and poses at face value.

Anonymous Despair May 19, 2012 5:06 PM  

Wow. One of your best straight to the point answers on why you flaunt your Mensa membership (IQ) to date.
Excellent!

Anonymous The Great Martini May 19, 2012 5:42 PM  

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

John Stuart Mill

Make of that what you will.

Anonymous chokemaster robben May 19, 2012 5:53 PM  

What a choke job there for the ages by Bayern.

Anonymous Suomynona May 19, 2012 5:59 PM  

Vox May 19, 2012 4:47 PM
It's a bit more than that. Yes, I enjoy it, but the point is actually to expose their true nature to those who are less capable of seeing it, who accept their pretensions and poses at face value.


Yes, I realize your efforts aren't merely for laughs or exercising your neurons. Your challenges serve a useful purpose, and you do a fine job of exposing the logical fallacies of their venomous ideology. There are far too few people willing to take them on, along with the viciousness and personal attacks this entails, and I commend you for that.

I was merely commenting from the perspective that must be common to the readers of this blog who possess a functioning brain, and don't so much required that you show them that water is wet, but do rather enjoy watching you throw a bucketful in the faces of our ideological adversaries.

Anonymous Outlaw X May 19, 2012 6:04 PM  

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

John Stuart Mill

Make of that what you will.


People throw out conservative and liberal quite frequently, yet no one ever defines them. Would you care to give it a shot, Martini?

Anonymous The other skeptic May 19, 2012 6:11 PM  

People hyperventilating about comments made about women in tech

Anonymous DonReynolds May 19, 2012 6:22 PM  

There were always two important life-lessons I wanted my (6) children to see for themselves: 1) That people more intelligent than themselves can be wrong (for a variety of good reasons), and 2) that authority figures can be wrong. Sometimes it is possible to do both at the same time, but not necessarily. I especially like it when I can be there at the time to do a bit of voiceover and point out what we actually see in front of us. Yes, authority figures can be wrong. Yes, brighter people can be wrong too. They do not have to be, some simply cannot help but be wrong because they follow rules that are wrong and that is what they are paid to do....so we have to be understanding at times.

Anonymous DonReynolds May 19, 2012 6:33 PM  

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

John Stuart Mill

Posted by the Great Martini.

Of course you realize, that conservative and liberal to JS Mill bears no resemblence to how we understand the terms today....add to that the fact that English society and American society use the terms entirely differently. We truely are two people separated by a common language.

To JS Mill a conservative is a monarchist, a believer in the divine right of kings, an absolutist, who firmly believes that the king (or the queen, if that is all you have) is right and correct, no matter what anyone says. They are intensely loyal to the monarchy and believe in inheritability of wealth, position, power and position in society. More predictably, a conservative has no use for democracy (or mob-ocracy, as he would say), and very little patience with democratic institutions like Parliament and political parties.

In JS Mill's time, a liberal would be more like an American politically....they would believe in the ability of a democratic society to rule itself, that the people have (in the aggregate) a good sense of what is good for the nation and can govern themselves through representatives, who will pass sound and prudent legislation when they can. Such a liberal would believe in what Americans call Liberty, even to the point of being Libertarian, while calling for less regulation of commerce, promotion based on ability and merit, and freedom of conscience and conviction.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 19, 2012 6:41 PM  

VD

I would call it "speaking the opponent's language"

Do you always wait until your opponent has made claims to smarts or IQ tests before bringing up the subject?

One also can't always know who one's opponent actually is. What would you think if a young man came here and misread your claims to intelligence and was stunted in perusing his own education? Given your bravado, could a young man read you as saying "don't bother arguing with me because I'm smarter than you"?

the way the Left instinctively reacts to it rather like vampires to holy water.

Haven't you said before that the Left are the first one's to claim that IQ tests aren't legitimate?

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 6:43 PM  

@Markku "The only thing that distinguishes Koanic's picture from Adult Male Finn is that the Neanderthal has slightly larger (but exactly same shape) nose and he has less fat.

Case in point: Antti Reini"

The nose is either an error of reconstruction or due to the skull being more primitive than the late-period Amud.

Antti Reini has precisely the eyes I'm talking about, combined with a fully modern brow and lower face. Nicely done.

It is almost certain that your eyes have the same look, based on your personality, Markku.

I'm not going to link to Roissy's pic, but Google is your friend.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 7:05 PM  

I don't think that is really a feature of the eyes, but of the current state of mind. That is, when you are in yellow alert and you want to be sure that you absorb information with 100% efficiency in case there is any signal of an emerging threat.

Anonymous Stickwick May 19, 2012 7:14 PM  

Notice how few on the Right, even if they are highly intelligent academics with hard science PhDs, take any exception to my assertions of superintelligence ...

I take exception! (See what I did there?) Except, of course, that I don't.

One of my projects is a science-and-faith ministry, and I make sure to present my highfalutin science credentials up front in most of what I do, since it cuts atheist critics off at the pass. As Vox has pointed out, having a trump card from your opponent's deck is an excellent way to beat them at their game.

Now, I've never had any opponents outright tell me I'm crazy, but I have had several critics imply that I'm functionally neurotic via my "intense emotional need to believe in religion." That's always fun.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 7:17 PM  

Bone structure is not a state of mind:

"retreating periorbital sockets, cube shaped forehead (bigger frontal lobes) and strong jaws and cheekbones."

Read here for more.

For comparison, cro-magnon eyes are set forward, more shallow, and have less peripheral sweep. Some examples:

tony robbins
david deangelo
paris hilton
richard nikoley
David Beckham
russell crowe
matt damon

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 7:20 PM  

Now, I've never had any opponents outright tell me I'm crazy

Notice how in the thread when one of his own challenges Delavagus about "insane", he says that he didn't mean literally insane, just pathological. Which Vox is, according to his own words (Narcissistic & Machiavellian). This is the essence about fighting withdrawal, yet I'm sure he wouldn't find anything even remotely dishonest about making that switch without at any point admitting that he has misstated something.

Anonymous Stickwick May 19, 2012 7:21 PM  

The only thing that distinguishes Koanic's picture from Adult Male Finn is that the Neanderthal has slightly larger (but exactly same shape) nose and he has less fat.

I just did one of those trace-your-roots DNA thingies, and not only found out that I have significant Finnish heritage on my maternal side, but I'm also in the 72nd percentile in terms of what % of my genome is Neanderthal. Guess I probably shouldn't flaunt that.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 7:22 PM  

"retreating periorbital sockets, cube shaped forehead (bigger frontal lobes) and strong jaws and cheekbones."

Those things are obviously about bone structure, but I was talking about "haunted ghost" look in the eyes.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 7:24 PM  

That explains why you're one of the few women who comments here.

What % puts you in the 72nd percentile?

You should flaunt it. Neanderthals are the thinkers.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 7:27 PM  

Right, well, looking for that expression makes identifying the relevant bone structure much easier. Or inversely, those with that bone structure tend to make that expression, whether they are actually haunted or not.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 7:29 PM  

I don't have a camera handy (I'm not at home right now) but my most noticeable facial feature is indeed my very protruding browline, which comes from my father's side of the family.

Anonymous VD May 19, 2012 7:31 PM  

Do you always wait until your opponent has made claims to smarts or IQ tests before bringing up the subject?

No, of course not. I don't have to. I have over two decades of experience of this sort of thing. It never changes.

Given your bravado, could a young man read you as saying "don't bother arguing with me because I'm smarter than you"?

Only if he wasn't paying any attention at all, because I permit everyone to try arguing with me and I give everyone the chance to ask me a few questions. Consider yourself as an obvious example.

Haven't you said before that the Left are the first one's to claim that IQ tests aren't legitimate?

Yes, and that's an easy way to catch them in one of their many incoherencies. They appeal to intelligence, but turn around and try to claim that the primary metric used to determine intelligence isn't legitimate. If you press hard enough, you can sometimes even force them to declare "I'm intelligent and you are not because I say so". It's marvelous.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 7:37 PM  

Markku, I would guess that your mother also has eyes more like Audrey Hepburn's than Paris Hilton's. I speak particularly of the outer corners, whether there is a ridge or falloff.

Anonymous Stickwick May 19, 2012 7:39 PM  

What % puts you in the 72nd percentile?

2.7%. The average is 2.5% within a measured range of 0 - 4%. Apparently, all people of European descent have some % of their genome traceable to Neanderthals.

You should flaunt it. Neanderthals are the thinkers.

Really? Shows what I know.

Blogger Simon May 19, 2012 7:54 PM  

Stickwick,

Read this:

http://vault-co.blogspot.com.au/search?q=neanderthal

It will tell you all you need to know.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 7:55 PM  

more like Audrey Hepburn's than Paris Hilton's

Comparing the photos, I can't be sure enough of the difference you are talking about in order to tell with any degree of certainty.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 8:00 PM  

I mean obviously one of them is pretty and the other butt-ugly, but I'm not able to isolate the feature.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 8:21 PM  

It's cuz Paris uses makeup to hide her cro magnon eyes.

You can see them quite clearly here.

Compare that with Audrey in profile.

You can see the underlying bone structure quite clearly here.

Fight the spatial retardation! It took me a while too.

Amusing that the thinkers couldn't recognize each other this whole time, because they were so spatially retarded.

Anonymous Anonymous May 19, 2012 8:22 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 8:27 PM  

Here are a couple more Paris makeup malfunctions

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/LRG/14/1434/CNCR000Z.jpg

http://popgoestheweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/paris_hilton.jpg

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 8:29 PM  

And here are a bunch of famous scientists and thinkers, all displaying an identical gaze.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 8:45 PM  

It's cuz Paris uses makeup to hide her cro magnon eyes.

Right, you mean how what you might call the horizontal part of the face continues beyond the eyes, whereas in the other case the face is already curving into the vertical at the outer corners of the eye. Yes, she would be like Hepburn in that regard and moreover, the Hilton feature doesn't look familiar so it's probably not common for Finns.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 8:46 PM  

Or, not vertical but along the depth axis.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 8:48 PM  

Haha, now I've heard the engineer's description.

Yes, that's exactly it.

Now you can look into someone's face and know whether they can communicate intelligently with you or not.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 9:06 PM  

Some finns with cro magnon faces:

http://i.pbase.com/g3/30/681730/2/111189634.iOE5wKqB.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bystedt/2832577235/

http://viking-nevo.narod.ru/images/games/2001/juha-mieto.jpg

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 9:23 PM  

If you are referring to this: it's probably not common for Finns then what I need is Finnish women that have that same feature in the eye area as Hilton.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 9:26 PM  

OK, here are a couple (fuglies)

http://wondrous.ipl.netdna-cdn.com//wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Lithuanian.jpg

http://www.hs.fi/kuvat/iso_webkuva/1135260099447.jpeg

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 9:30 PM  

Let's take C.S. Lewis from two angles:

Front and 45 degrees

Clearly cro magnon, right?

Blogger Anonymous May 19, 2012 9:36 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous Koanic May 19, 2012 9:39 PM  

No, just fat and old.

1

2

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 9:58 PM  

I don't know, even when old and fat, Jean Sibelius still browbeats* the whole world.

*According to the word's etymology

Anonymous Suomynona May 19, 2012 10:12 PM  

Paul Krugman has always struck me as a clueless idiot, an impersonator of an intellectual who wears that beard to hide his stupid mellon head, but still comes off as a bearded buffoon.

I don't know about your cro magnon v neanderthal theory of intelligence, but I've always been able to read a person just by their face.

Something about Henry Paulson's face tells me the man is 100% evil.

Clinton's small mouth relative to the width of his face tells me he's a weasel. This correlation was always instinctive to me, then I realized what it was that I was seeing there. It has held true for people I've personally run across.

Anonymous farmland investment May 19, 2012 10:27 PM  

I do not think there is a 100pc correlation between IQ and intelligence, but it definitely means something. However intelligence is ultimately about what you do and produce. I have no idea what Steve Jobs' intelligence was, but the man was truly a genius in every sense of the word.

Blogger Markku May 19, 2012 10:32 PM  

Googling reveals that Jobs' IQ is unknown, but there's this:

"Jobs was smart enough to skip the 5th grade. His fourth grade teacher challenged him greatly, and after tests, the school offered Steve’s parents the opportunity to let him skip all the way to high school.

His parents said they would only allow him to skip one grade."

Anonymous Stickwick May 19, 2012 11:11 PM  

Juha Mieto looks like he taped a badger to his face.

How about Jorma Tommila -- Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon?

Anonymous Suomynona May 19, 2012 11:30 PM  

Beginning directly at the outer corners of my eyes, the contour of my face turns 90 degrees and starts going straight back.

Woohoo! I am a total neanderthal! But I'm much prettier than your model there, Koanic.

Anonymous modernguy May 20, 2012 1:15 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 1:18 AM  

"Jorma Tommila"

Neanderthal. Try to get younger and thinner pics to see the bones better. Relaxed face muscles also helps.

http://www.radio957.fi/files/content_fullsize/2010_12_01_4cf5e8ec6dee3.jpg

http://vicmackey.trakt.tv/images/people/2653.jpg

Anonymous QuickSilver May 20, 2012 1:22 AM  

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad"... or make to know too much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=AL94UKMTqg-9AObeQMyKfwyP1mK50iOdrA

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 1:24 AM  

"Steve jobs"

Neanderthal. Hard to tell in old pics, easy in young.

1
2

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 1:56 AM  

I would place Krugman as more Mousterian than Amud. His periorbital sockets are right but the eyes themselves are a bit oddly narrow and smaller, as if there's some cro magnon hybrid. His entire face and manner gives off an impression of fear, dishonesty and manipulation.

Paulson looks like a blend. I can't find young pics.

Bernanke looks very similar to Krugman. The elongation of the back of his skull is reminiscent of this.

Actually, both Krugman and Bernanke may belong to a third race, the melonheads 2 3. Lincoln was another.

OpenID ampontan May 20, 2012 1:58 AM  

Just in time, the new cover of Mensa Magazine

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329402.php

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 2:00 AM  

Ah, melonhead eyes are supposed to be piercing, not haunted. That explains the narrowness.

Paulson and Bernanke sitting together, you can see piercing eyes, elongation at back of head, and retreating periorbital sockets.

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 2:04 AM  

In other words, nothing's changed. The people ruling America today are the same ones who built the pyramids in Ancient Egypt.

The transition from the early virtuous free American republic to the modern unfree imperial America is one from Neanderthal leadership to melonhead leadership.

Anonymous Boogeyman May 20, 2012 2:11 AM  

So, the thread has descended into a discussion about brow ridges and skull shapes. Quick! Someone get me a phrenologist!

As for Paul Krugman, I've always hated his eyes. They are shiny, little teddy bear button eyes, and it seems he hardly ever blinks. It makes him look like a lunatic and gives me the impression his head is full of a happy, dazzling sort of chaos that even he can't follow.

When I look into his eyes I see a person condemned to a nuthouse, a person who seems pleasant, but he could produce a knife at any second and slice you to ribbons, all while wearing a smile and looking at you with his shiny little eyes.

Blogger Doom May 20, 2012 2:40 AM  

Ah, okay. You have probably written about the super-intelligence thing before. Either I missed it, didn't quite catch it, or... something.

Slapping Bigus Dickus upside the head with a real salami... gotcha.

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 3:26 AM  

"So, the thread has descended into a discussion about brow ridges and skull shapes. Quick! Someone get me a phrenologist!"

We know that modern human DNA comes from at least 3 species. We know that intelligence, skull shape and personality vary between modern races. I'm suggesting that genetic contributions from other species affect the intelligence, personality and skull shape of modern humans.

Do you have a rational objection, or are you just programmed to hoot when someone contradicts the troupe-think?

Anonymous Boogeyman May 20, 2012 3:32 AM  

I just like to use the word phrenologist. I find so few occasions to do so. I makes me think of stuffy Austrians in double breasted suits and wire rim glasses at the turn of the last century, standing with drawings of the human head, discussing bumps and lobes, all as a way to prove that this or that group is sub human.

Really, just trying to make with the funny. Hooting can be good for the soul, and it doesn't have to be mean spirited or angry.

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 3:43 AM  

I am certain on the Neanderthal eyes, and much shakier on cro-magnon and Amud vs Mousterian.

I'm completely new to recognizing melonheads in the field. As in, I just started on this thread.

But I do think the resemblance between Paulson, Bernanke, Lincoln, and ancient melonhead skulls is striking.

Krugman seems to be a Mousterian-melonhead mix, which would explain his position as lightweight pet regime academic. And his instinctive hybrid repulsiveness.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 20, 2012 5:00 AM  

America has got to keep the world safe for vibrancy, so we gotta pay to upgrade the military aircraft fleet

Anonymous The other skeptic May 20, 2012 5:17 AM  

Will the police pursue this case or is it just white on white anti-racist agitation

Anonymous The other skeptic May 20, 2012 5:39 AM  

Just how effective does all that diversity make the US military especially when they have to face a competent opponent?

Anonymous Idle Spectator May 20, 2012 6:51 AM  

Hear ye, hear ye.

VIBRANCY ALERT!!!

//rings bell

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 9:03 AM  

After a bit more Googling...

Both Hitler and Stalin have the same retreating eye corners, but eyes that are piercing rather than haunted, and a suggestion of elongation at the upper back of the skull.

Hitler 1
Stalin 1 2

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 20, 2012 9:56 AM  

Only if he wasn't paying any attention at all, because I permit everyone to try arguing with me and I give everyone the chance to ask me a few questions. Consider yourself as an obvious example.

Young men and women often aren't paying full attention. But you are willing to engage more than some. However, my point is not that you don't engage. Could it be possible some people could take you as saying, "why should you even bother" in a way similar to Scott's "Don't argue"?

Yes, and that's an easy way to catch them in one of their many incoherencies. They appeal to intelligence, but turn around and try to claim that the primary metric used to determine intelligence isn't legitimate. If you press hard enough, you can sometimes even force them to declare "I'm intelligent and you are not because I say so". It's marvelous.

I'd like to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You believe that a) bringing up a superior trait you have in abundance first as a subject of conversation and then b) appealing to a standardized metric that you recognize in some likelihood many of your opponents don't accept and c) that you also don't accept, is "speaking the language of the opponent"?

Blogger Markku May 20, 2012 10:23 AM  

I'd like to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You believe that a) bringing up a superior trait you have in abundance first as a subject of conversation and then b) appealing to a standardized metric that you recognize in some likelihood many of your opponents don't accept and c) that you also don't accept, is "speaking the language of the opponent"?

Right, only making sure you understand, and not making a passive-aggressive statement at all.

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 10:44 AM  

Whoops, Napoleon has it too.

All of them?

Blogger Markku May 20, 2012 11:38 AM  

What about this guy?

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 20, 2012 11:42 AM  

Markku

Is your question a passive-aggressive statement? Does this pertain to anything?

We're discussing possible interpretations of VD's tactics. I've asked Mr Day to reconsider how one would describe his tactic in light of several comments he's made. I haven't intended to give my opinion, because I wasn't asked, though I would have nothing but good things to say about the man.

Blogger Markku May 20, 2012 11:44 AM  

Is your question a passive-aggressive statement? Does this pertain to anything?

Which question would that be?

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 11:51 AM  

Amud Neanderthal.

See here. Deep eye sockets.

Interesting mix of cro magnon and neanderthal in the crowd. Chimpy vs reflective joy.

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 12:02 PM  

It's damn subtle, and I'm almost too retarded to see it, but it's there.

Melonhead eyes have the shaved corners, but are almost flush.

Neanderthal eyes are deeply recessed.

Young Stalin and thin Hitler just can't make Walesa's young eyesocket profile.

And then of course there's the back of the head.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 20, 2012 12:23 PM  

Pardon my blunder, Markku. I meant to ask, was your statement a passive-aggressive statement?

Blogger Markku May 20, 2012 12:27 PM  

Pardon my blunder, Markku. I meant to ask, was your statement a passive-aggressive statement?

No, it was openly hostile. It didn't look even on the surface as anything other than a sarcastic remark.

You, on the other hand, couldn't possibly have expected that Vox was going to say that yours was an accurate description of his view. It was really a criticism, and it would have been much more straightforward to offer it as such. If it needed to be a question, you could have simply added "how would you respond to this?"

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 20, 2012 12:34 PM  

Markku, does any of this pertain to the topic?

Blogger Markku May 20, 2012 12:40 PM  

Markku, does any of this pertain to the topic?

My original remark was directly related to the topical discussion. Mud-slinging towards the participants of the on-topic discussion may be considered bad form by some, but not off-topic. The rest of it was answers to your questions, which I'm obliged to give according to the rules.

The skull discussion, on the other hand, is genuinely off-topic and is probably already annoying Vox.

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 12:44 PM  

Hamlet, how long have you been a homosexual?

Oh, FFS, Julius Caesar.

Anonymous Anonymous May 20, 2012 12:49 PM  

Or we could just simplify and say "Smart people can lie and they are better at it."

This alone is enough for "simple" people to be skeptical of "helpful advice". You know, like go to college.

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2012 12:58 PM  

Actually no, Neanderthals lived in extremely small tribes and their descendants today, particularly aspergers/autism spectrum, practice pathological honesty.

Ambivalence and easy deception are features of large social groups.

I suspect Krugman seems so dishonest because his Neanderthal half knows he's lying.

Blogger Vox May 20, 2012 1:00 PM  

Could it be possible some people could take you as saying, "why should you even bother" in a way similar to Scott's "Don't argue"?

Possible? Sure. But it would be an obvious mistake.

You believe that a) bringing up a superior trait you have in abundance first as a subject of conversation and then b) appealing to a standardized metric that you recognize in some likelihood many of your opponents don't accept and c) that you also don't accept, is "speaking the language of the opponent"?

Not quite. First, I don't believe my opponents don't accept the metric, regardless of what they say. Second, I do accept the metric, I simply don't think that it is a perfect one and it can be misleading in some situations. Of course, I am always open to any alternative metrics that an opponent who appeals to intelligence might suggest.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 20, 2012 2:04 PM  

VD

Not quite.

Thank you for all your clarification.

Blogger RobertT May 20, 2012 2:08 PM  

This post helped me understand my situation better. Despite my high iq measurements, I often wondered why I had absolutely no interest in some things that are candy to most intelligent people, like philosophy and piling up advanced degrees. (I tried three times but the boredom factor always won out.) And I also wondered why I seemed surprisingly deficient in some areas. It didn't keep me awake at nights but I noticed it. I have no one to compare notes with because all the people I know who claim to have genius iqs are all atheists and don't strike me as all that bright, especially mensans. Despite the fact you're a mensan, finding your blog and following you for a couple of years has been pretty interesting. You are certainly brighter than the typical high iq person, whatever the h*ll that means.

Blogger Aeoli Pera May 20, 2012 4:11 PM  

Vox,

Since we're on the topic, I'm curious whether you think there's overlap in abstract reasoning and visuospatial reasoning. You clearly demonstrate one and not the other, but where does your ability begin and end?

Do some mathematical subjects come easily to you (formal logic and probability are examples of abstract reasoning), and others give you trouble (vector calculus is a good example of visuospatial reasoning)?

Anonymous The One May 20, 2012 5:45 PM  

Considering who both the strongest and the wisest men were, Samson/Soloman, people should rely more upon God and less upon genetics.

Anonymous VD May 20, 2012 7:21 PM  

Do some mathematical subjects come easily to you (formal logic and probability are examples of abstract reasoning), and others give you trouble (vector calculus is a good example of visuospatial reasoning)?

Precisely.

Anonymous dude May 21, 2012 1:13 AM  

So are we cool ask about the "elephant in the room?"

The Vox vs VD distinction.

Sorry if I missed this previous post

Anonymous dude May 21, 2012 1:14 AM  

to cool to ask about elephantitus syndrome

Blogger Markku May 21, 2012 2:14 AM  

The Vox vs VD distinction.

It depends on whether or not he is signed to his gmail account when he posts.

Anonymous Koanic May 21, 2012 4:11 AM  

Technically correct, but leaves out the humor: the implausibility of writing a Game blog as "VD".

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts