On July 29 2016 06:29 uiCk wrote:
I think humans as a whole are getting extremely smarter by each generation, but, would say there is still a poor environment
Actually its pretty much the opposite, we have pretty much the same brains but we have a different environment than our ancestors
On July 29 2016 12:57 Spitfiree wrote:
Quite sure the global avg IQ has sunk by tons cause of the huge birth rate among lowest classes
Also IQ is only useful up to a certain point, after that other factors are much more important
Hard to say. It definitely has not "sunk by tons" globally (why would you say that?), but there are studies that seem to indicate slower or slight decline in certain developed nations mostly.
Anyways, i suspect that, like everything, the growth will not be linear and i prefer not to limit myself to 10-20-30 year blocks when looking at "intelligence"
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On July 29 2016 06:29 uiCk wrote:
I think humans as a whole are getting extremely smarter by each generation, but, would say there is still a poor environment
Actually its pretty much the opposite, we have pretty much the same brains but we have a different environment than our ancestors
Rather talk about Self-control, no idea how to answer that and don't really understand what you are trying to bring with such a vague statement.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On July 29 2016 12:57 Spitfiree wrote:
Quite sure the global avg IQ has sunk by tons cause of the huge birth rate among lowest classes
Also IQ is only useful up to a certain point, after that other factors are much more important
Hard to say. It definitely has not "sunk by tons" globally (why would you say that?), but there are studies that seem to indicate slower or slight decline in certain developed nations mostly.
Anyways, i suspect that, like everything, the growth will not be linear and i prefer not to limit myself to 10-20-30 year blocks when looking at "intelligence"
i'm pretty ignorant to this topic, but wouldn't increased immigration (relative to the past) be a factor in declining IQ particularly in Europe and NA?
i'd be curious to see if Korea/Japan and to a lesser extent Russia are experiencing IQ drops as well if this is true
On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid
On July 29 2016 12:57 Spitfiree wrote:
Quite sure the global avg IQ has sunk by tons cause of the huge birth rate among lowest classes
Also IQ is only useful up to a certain point, after that other factors are much more important
Hard to say. It definitely has not "sunk by tons" globally (why would you say that?), but there are studies that seem to indicate slower or slight decline in certain developed nations mostly.
Anyways, i suspect that, like everything, the growth will not be linear and i prefer not to limit myself to 10-20-30 year blocks when looking at "intelligence"
i'm pretty ignorant to this topic, but wouldn't increased immigration (relative to the past) be a factor in declining IQ particularly in Europe and NA?
i'd be curious to see if Korea/Japan and to a lesser extent Russia are experiencing IQ drops as well if this is true
Well very simple if a country has avg lower IQ and a lot of its habitants migrate to a country with higher IQ the IQ will drop, but the drop will be insignificant, the IQ is practically the same its the education and culture what has an impact not if the average IQ drops from 103 to 102.7
Maybe changing subject on something more interesting is what pushes humanity forward, what is more important to have a high IQ average or a hight standard deviation?
What I mean is, whats more important for progress, masses of common people or a few super geniuses?
It appears to me that average intelligence dictates the social fabric, our customs, morality, political sytems etc, while the standard deviation dictates our technology, quality of life, average lifespan etc.
On July 29 2016 12:57 Spitfiree wrote:
Quite sure the global avg IQ has sunk by tons cause of the huge birth rate among lowest classes
Also IQ is only useful up to a certain point, after that other factors are much more important
Hard to say. It definitely has not "sunk by tons" globally (why would you say that?), but there are studies that seem to indicate slower or slight decline in certain developed nations mostly.
Anyways, i suspect that, like everything, the growth will not be linear and i prefer not to limit myself to 10-20-30 year blocks when looking at "intelligence"
i'm pretty ignorant to this topic, but wouldn't increased immigration (relative to the past) be a factor in declining IQ particularly in Europe and NA?
i'd be curious to see if Korea/Japan and to a lesser extent Russia are experiencing IQ drops as well if this is true
What I mean is, whats more important for progress, masses of common people or a few super geniuses?
I think you already know the answer to that question. Hermann Hesse's book, Demian, deals with question this in part. It's a pretty quick read and I highly recommend it.
"Hesse was profoundly influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche and many of the ideas expressed in Demian are borrowed from Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche published Beyond Good and Evil in 1886, offering a radical rejection of traditional societal values. His work argued that moral edicts were unnecessary; the distinction between "good" and "evil" need not play a dominant role in the decisions people make and the actions they perform. For those who could see this, action could and would be guided by a will to power. Man has a natural inclination to rise up, but only a few special men would be able to see beyond the values of their society to be able to express this will. The rest, the herd of bestial men, would simply follow along and listen to the rules with which they had been presented. Nietzsche placed a particularly high value on creative genius and often claimed that the world existed only for a few very special men. He displayed an equally strong loathing for Christianity, which he saw as inculcating moral principles that suppressed that which could make man great. Nietzsche's ideas captured the imagination of many intellectuals, particularly in Germany, around the turn of the century." http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/demian/context.html
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 28 2016 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
loco, first, sorry if I misused the phrase 'pleasure trap', I wasn't really referring to an academic work or phrase (of which I am indeed not familiar), rather just my immediate intuitive understanding of the phrase, which is something like 'people end up trapped in bad life situations like obesity or drug abuse because they so highly value the sensation of pleasure associated with foods that make you obese or drugs'.
Secondly, I'm not blaming anyone for anything - I think people's lack of discipline is attributed to factors outside their control, much the same as lack of knowledge. I actually think we're largely in agreement - I just think that 'lack of discipline' is still a valid phrase to use when describing people who knowingly eat unhealthy food despite their better nutritional knowledge. Basically, to me, discipline connotes 'what is required to enable yourself to go against your nature'. Your nature seeks pleasure in every form, quite frequently to a harmful degree, whether you manage to not indulge harmfully depends on a combination of two factors where knowledge of likely future events related to your indulgences is one factor, and where 'willpower' or 'strength of character' or 'discipline' or any other word or phrase with a similar meaning is the other. I don't really think that any of these are 'up to you', so when I say that someone lacks the necessary discipline I'm not actually thinking that they should 'just man up', it's more of a 'sadly, this person did not possess the necessary combination of genetic predisposition and experiences to cultivate the strength of character required to take control of his or her own life'. There's no judgement - it's just that I don't think understanding of nutritional science by itself is sufficient to make people eat healthy - there must also be motivation to be healthy, and there must be this personal ability to not choose instant gratification over later benefit. (As a sidenote, I remember reading some article about how when observing children, one of the primary distinguishing factors in determining 'life success' (wealth, education level, % in jail, even lifespan I think, but that I'm not completely certain of) is how they perform in a simple gratification test. Children who, when offered either one piece of chocolate now or two pieces of chocolate the next day, (maybe it was less time, like 2 hours) choose two pieces of chocolate later, perform much 'better' in life than those who take one chocolate now).
Like, for myself, I know how to eat healthier than I do, but I don't, because I value the pleasure I get out of eating candied bacon with melted cheese more than I value the health benefit of not doing so. I'm in pretty good shape and really physically active so it's not a problem for me really - but I also know how to improve my diet, I know that I'd be in even better shape if I did, but it's not important enough for me to bother doing it. When I actually was kinda overweight and out of shape, losing weight at one point was important to me, so I improved my diet, and then I had the discipline to maintain it until I was content with my health. But I also know some overweight people who think losing weight is really important, who know which foods they should avoid, who know they have to work out, but who still don't manage to control themselves, neither in terms of food they eat nor in terms of exercise. Hell, myself I was kinda overweight for probably like, 4 years or so, before I developed the necessary discipline to fix it - I knew damn well that my beer and snack intake was the root of the problem and that if I started eating only vegetables with some fish mixed in it'd solve the problem.
Is it also a problem that overweight people overwhelmingly have bad understanding of nutrition? Absolutely - but these are not mutually exclusive. I can also certainly accept that it's very possible that even people who feel healthy, who eat what is considered 'good enough' (varied food with moderation of particularly unhealthy elements) oftentimes have a bad understanding of what really feeling healthy can entail, and that if they changed to an almost fully plant based diet they would experience it as somewhat of a revelation.
Word.
I was going to reply but Eri just did it for me... way less swearing.
Maybe you went from fatty to skinny while you educated yourself about nutrition and now overvalue information about it and think that is the key, if only everybody knew that if you eat shit long enough it will taste like glory, but thats not the problem and a legion of obese nutriologists attest to it and now you chant this obvious and patronizing argument, no shit enviroment is the main drive for addition, I thought the drug problem in ghettos were just a big coincidence -_-
Also do you have a source for claiming there is no correlation between IQ and discipline, a couple of studies suggest (obviously not in a conclusive manner) otherwise, so Im interested since you stated it as a fact.
Nutritionists being overweight doesn't prove your point, since it's perfectly in line with what I'm saying. I could also use this same example and reasoning to tell you that obviously it shows that IQ and self-discipline aren't correlated since they are above average intelligence and self-disciplined in order to have a university degree in this field and yet they are fat. The truth is that they are usually clueless about what constitutes optimal human nutrition, just like the average person. They just parrot what they were taught in school when those schools are well known to receive funding from the big food industries which influences what they promote. Mainstream dieticians think for instance that you need dairy products for calcium and that there is "no good reason" to not eat them if you are not allergic, even though there is a mountain of solid scientific research showing otherwise. Information is crucial and it can't be underplayed. The people who get it wrong and have gotten it wrong for decades usually look the part. For instance, when you compare some the most popular low carb gurus to the most popular plant-based doctors/advocates, you see an undeniable trend.
The problem with the intelligence/IQ-discipline argument is that intelligence is a broader thing than what IQ encompasses. Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily translate in "emotional intelligence", which would be what we want to look at when it comes to the correlation with impulse control. I'm not aware of good studies on this, I didn't mean to state it as fact but it seems that way to me. The studies in this area tend to focus on academic success as well, but we know that discipline and hard work aren't just applicable in this area.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 28 2016 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
loco, first, sorry if I misused the phrase 'pleasure trap', I wasn't really referring to an academic work or phrase (of which I am indeed not familiar), rather just my immediate intuitive understanding of the phrase, which is something like 'people end up trapped in bad life situations like obesity or drug abuse because they so highly value the sensation of pleasure associated with foods that make you obese or drugs'.
Secondly, I'm not blaming anyone for anything - I think people's lack of discipline is attributed to factors outside their control, much the same as lack of knowledge. I actually think we're largely in agreement - I just think that 'lack of discipline' is still a valid phrase to use when describing people who knowingly eat unhealthy food despite their better nutritional knowledge. Basically, to me, discipline connotes 'what is required to enable yourself to go against your nature'. Your nature seeks pleasure in every form, quite frequently to a harmful degree, whether you manage to not indulge harmfully depends on a combination of two factors where knowledge of likely future events related to your indulgences is one factor, and where 'willpower' or 'strength of character' or 'discipline' or any other word or phrase with a similar meaning is the other. I don't really think that any of these are 'up to you', so when I say that someone lacks the necessary discipline I'm not actually thinking that they should 'just man up', it's more of a 'sadly, this person did not possess the necessary combination of genetic predisposition and experiences to cultivate the strength of character required to take control of his or her own life'. There's no judgement - it's just that I don't think understanding of nutritional science by itself is sufficient to make people eat healthy - there must also be motivation to be healthy, and there must be this personal ability to not choose instant gratification over later benefit. (As a sidenote, I remember reading some article about how when observing children, one of the primary distinguishing factors in determining 'life success' (wealth, education level, % in jail, even lifespan I think, but that I'm not completely certain of) is how they perform in a simple gratification test. Children who, when offered either one piece of chocolate now or two pieces of chocolate the next day, (maybe it was less time, like 2 hours) choose two pieces of chocolate later, perform much 'better' in life than those who take one chocolate now).
Like, for myself, I know how to eat healthier than I do, but I don't, because I value the pleasure I get out of eating candied bacon with melted cheese more than I value the health benefit of not doing so. I'm in pretty good shape and really physically active so it's not a problem for me really - but I also know how to improve my diet, I know that I'd be in even better shape if I did, but it's not important enough for me to bother doing it. When I actually was kinda overweight and out of shape, losing weight at one point was important to me, so I improved my diet, and then I had the discipline to maintain it until I was content with my health. But I also know some overweight people who think losing weight is really important, who know which foods they should avoid, who know they have to work out, but who still don't manage to control themselves, neither in terms of food they eat nor in terms of exercise. Hell, myself I was kinda overweight for probably like, 4 years or so, before I developed the necessary discipline to fix it - I knew damn well that my beer and snack intake was the root of the problem and that if I started eating only vegetables with some fish mixed in it'd solve the problem.
Is it also a problem that overweight people overwhelmingly have bad understanding of nutrition? Absolutely - but these are not mutually exclusive. I can also certainly accept that it's very possible that even people who feel healthy, who eat what is considered 'good enough' (varied food with moderation of particularly unhealthy elements) oftentimes have a bad understanding of what really feeling healthy can entail, and that if they changed to an almost fully plant based diet they would experience it as somewhat of a revelation.
Word.
I was going to reply but Eri just did it for me... way less swearing.
Maybe you went from fatty to skinny while you educated yourself about nutrition and now overvalue information about it and think that is the key, if only everybody knew that if you eat shit long enough it will taste like glory, but thats not the problem and a legion of obese nutriologists attest to it and now you chant this obvious and patronizing argument, no shit enviroment is the main drive for addition, I thought the drug problem in ghettos were just a big coincidence -_-
Also do you have a source for claiming there is no correlation between IQ and discipline, a couple of studies suggest (obviously not in a conclusive manner) otherwise, so Im interested since you stated it as a fact.
Nutritionists being overweight doesn't prove your point, since it's perfectly in line with what I'm saying. I could also use this same example and reasoning to tell you that obviously it shows that IQ and self-discipline aren't correlated since they are above average intelligence and self-disciplined in order to have a university degree in this field and yet they are fat. The truth is that they are usally clueless about what constitutes optimal human nutrition, just like the average person. They just parrot what they were taught in school when those schools are well known to receive funding from the big food industries which influences what they promote. Mainstream dieticians think for instance that you need dairy products for calcium and that there is "no good reason" to not eat them if you are not allergic, even though there is a mountain of solid scientific research showing otherwise. Information is crucial and it can't be underplayed. The people who get it wrong usually look the part. For instance, when you compare some the most popular low carb gurus to the most popular plant-based doctors/advocates, you see an undeniable trend.
The problem with the intelligence/IQ-discipline argument is that intelligence is a broader thing than what IQ encompasses. Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily translate in "emotional intelligence", which would be what we want to look at when it comes to the correlation with impulse control. I'm not aware of good studies on this, I didn't mean to state it as fact but it seems that way to me. The studies in this area tend to focus on academic success as well, but we know that discipline and hard work aren't just applicable in this area.
Its not knowledge what they lack, they can set a pretty balanced diet that includes meat and dairy that would make you fit and healthy IDGAF if there is a better alternative, they have absolutely enough information to not be fat, yet they arent, its not a problem of knowledge.
Yeah Intelligence is way broader than IQ, but there seems to be a correlation between IQ and all forms of intelligence included emotional control, for example people with very low IQ below 85 have a very hard time controlling their emotions.
IQ is extremely flawed just a number a silly test spits out, but I think its so far the best tool we have to measure intelligence, we could make emotional intelligence tests (not written tests because they can easily be falsifiable), I dont remember reading about such tests like putting people under certain emotions and see their response, I guess its somewhat of a grey area of ethics for psychology
On July 29 2016 12:57 Spitfiree wrote:
Quite sure the global avg IQ has sunk by tons cause of the huge birth rate among lowest classes
Also IQ is only useful up to a certain point, after that other factors are much more important
Hard to say. It definitely has not "sunk by tons" globally (why would you say that?), but there are studies that seem to indicate slower or slight decline in certain developed nations mostly.
Anyways, i suspect that, like everything, the growth will not be linear and i prefer not to limit myself to 10-20-30 year blocks when looking at "intelligence"
i'm pretty ignorant to this topic, but wouldn't increased immigration (relative to the past) be a factor in declining IQ particularly in Europe and NA?
i'd be curious to see if Korea/Japan and to a lesser extent Russia are experiencing IQ drops as well if this is true
What I mean is, whats more important for progress, masses of common people or a few super geniuses?
I think you already know the answer to that question. Hermann Hesse's book, Demian, deals with question this in part. It's a pretty quick read and I highly recommend it.
"Hesse was profoundly influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche and many of the ideas expressed in Demian are borrowed from Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche published Beyond Good and Evil in 1886, offering a radical rejection of traditional societal values. His work argued that moral edicts were unnecessary; the distinction between "good" and "evil" need not play a dominant role in the decisions people make and the actions they perform. For those who could see this, action could and would be guided by a will to power. Man has a natural inclination to rise up, but only a few special men would be able to see beyond the values of their society to be able to express this will. The rest, the herd of bestial men, would simply follow along and listen to the rules with which they had been presented. Nietzsche placed a particularly high value on creative genius and often claimed that the world existed only for a few very special men. He displayed an equally strong loathing for Christianity, which he saw as inculcating moral principles that suppressed that which could make man great. Nietzsche's ideas captured the imagination of many intellectuals, particularly in Germany, around the turn of the century." http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/demian/context.html
I dont, I mean Im certainly inclined to think geniuses carry humanity on their shoulders but its such a complex and chaotic system its really hard to say, but unlike nutrition I find this subject much more interesting
On July 28 2016 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
loco, first, sorry if I misused the phrase 'pleasure trap', I wasn't really referring to an academic work or phrase (of which I am indeed not familiar), rather just my immediate intuitive understanding of the phrase, which is something like 'people end up trapped in bad life situations like obesity or drug abuse because they so highly value the sensation of pleasure associated with foods that make you obese or drugs'.
Secondly, I'm not blaming anyone for anything - I think people's lack of discipline is attributed to factors outside their control, much the same as lack of knowledge. I actually think we're largely in agreement - I just think that 'lack of discipline' is still a valid phrase to use when describing people who knowingly eat unhealthy food despite their better nutritional knowledge. Basically, to me, discipline connotes 'what is required to enable yourself to go against your nature'. Your nature seeks pleasure in every form, quite frequently to a harmful degree, whether you manage to not indulge harmfully depends on a combination of two factors where knowledge of likely future events related to your indulgences is one factor, and where 'willpower' or 'strength of character' or 'discipline' or any other word or phrase with a similar meaning is the other. I don't really think that any of these are 'up to you', so when I say that someone lacks the necessary discipline I'm not actually thinking that they should 'just man up', it's more of a 'sadly, this person did not possess the necessary combination of genetic predisposition and experiences to cultivate the strength of character required to take control of his or her own life'. There's no judgement - it's just that I don't think understanding of nutritional science by itself is sufficient to make people eat healthy - there must also be motivation to be healthy, and there must be this personal ability to not choose instant gratification over later benefit. (As a sidenote, I remember reading some article about how when observing children, one of the primary distinguishing factors in determining 'life success' (wealth, education level, % in jail, even lifespan I think, but that I'm not completely certain of) is how they perform in a simple gratification test. Children who, when offered either one piece of chocolate now or two pieces of chocolate the next day, (maybe it was less time, like 2 hours) choose two pieces of chocolate later, perform much 'better' in life than those who take one chocolate now).
Like, for myself, I know how to eat healthier than I do, but I don't, because I value the pleasure I get out of eating candied bacon with melted cheese more than I value the health benefit of not doing so. I'm in pretty good shape and really physically active so it's not a problem for me really - but I also know how to improve my diet, I know that I'd be in even better shape if I did, but it's not important enough for me to bother doing it. When I actually was kinda overweight and out of shape, losing weight at one point was important to me, so I improved my diet, and then I had the discipline to maintain it until I was content with my health. But I also know some overweight people who think losing weight is really important, who know which foods they should avoid, who know they have to work out, but who still don't manage to control themselves, neither in terms of food they eat nor in terms of exercise. Hell, myself I was kinda overweight for probably like, 4 years or so, before I developed the necessary discipline to fix it - I knew damn well that my beer and snack intake was the root of the problem and that if I started eating only vegetables with some fish mixed in it'd solve the problem.
Is it also a problem that overweight people overwhelmingly have bad understanding of nutrition? Absolutely - but these are not mutually exclusive. I can also certainly accept that it's very possible that even people who feel healthy, who eat what is considered 'good enough' (varied food with moderation of particularly unhealthy elements) oftentimes have a bad understanding of what really feeling healthy can entail, and that if they changed to an almost fully plant based diet they would experience it as somewhat of a revelation.
Word.
I was going to reply but Eri just did it for me... way less swearing.
Maybe you went from fatty to skinny while you educated yourself about nutrition and now overvalue information about it and think that is the key, if only everybody knew that if you eat shit long enough it will taste like glory, but thats not the problem and a legion of obese nutriologists attest to it and now you chant this obvious and patronizing argument, no shit enviroment is the main drive for addition, I thought the drug problem in ghettos were just a big coincidence -_-
Also do you have a source for claiming there is no correlation between IQ and discipline, a couple of studies suggest (obviously not in a conclusive manner) otherwise, so Im interested since you stated it as a fact.
Nutritionists being overweight doesn't prove your point, since it's perfectly in line with what I'm saying. I could also use this same example and reasoning to tell you that obviously it shows that IQ and self-discipline aren't correlated since they are above average intelligence and self-disciplined in order to have a university degree in this field and yet they are fat. The truth is that they are usally clueless about what constitutes optimal human nutrition, just like the average person. They just parrot what they were taught in school when those schools are well known to receive funding from the big food industries which influences what they promote. Mainstream dieticians think for instance that you need dairy products for calcium and that there is "no good reason" to not eat them if you are not allergic, even though there is a mountain of solid scientific research showing otherwise. Information is crucial and it can't be underplayed. The people who get it wrong usually look the part. For instance, when you compare some the most popular low carb gurus to the most popular plant-based doctors/advocates, you see an undeniable trend.
The problem with the intelligence/IQ-discipline argument is that intelligence is a broader thing than what IQ encompasses. Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily translate in "emotional intelligence", which would be what we want to look at when it comes to the correlation with impulse control. I'm not aware of good studies on this, I didn't mean to state it as fact but it seems that way to me. The studies in this area tend to focus on academic success as well, but we know that discipline and hard work aren't just applicable in this area.
Its not knowledge what they lack, they can set a pretty balanced diet that includes meat and dairy that would make you fit and healthy IDGAF if there is a better alternative, they have absolutely enough information to not be fat, yet they arent, its not a problem of knowledge.
I never said they couldn't do that. It's not an absolute thing, it's a matter of degrees. The odds are simply stacked against you if you don't have the right information. The more you get it wrong, the worse off you'll be in the long run (and obesity is just one side effect of that). And again, when you say it's solely about discipline, then it can easily be used to defend my own argument: these people have had the discipline to study rigorously for years to get a degree and yet they can't have enough discipline to be lean? That seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the food itself rather than their discipline if they are overeating. Or at least, it says that the food affects their capacity to exert discipline, which we know is a fact about certain foods that act like drugs. What I would say though is that discipline is a limited resource and people can spend it in some specific places and not in others, but that doesn't mean it's a conscious and calculated choice, it clearly isn't since our prioritization is rooted in the mechanism of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
So you say if a person watches that video so the understand the "trap", and you email them a diet sheet they will become thin or at least a high % of the time?
Of course not. Having the information doesn't mean you have the motivation to apply it. There's many reasons why people eat the way they do and health is only one of them. If you don't care about your health it doesn't matter how well informed you are. I wouldn't confuse this with lacking discipline, it's just a state of indifference. Discipline doesn't enter the question before there is a motivation to change something. Sadly, our default state is to take our health for granted, and only when it is lost do we realize its value and become motivated to regain it.
If the person is motivated (most important) and has a good knowledge of nutrition (specifically the calorie density approach to nutrition) and yet they still can't lose weight or keep the weight off long term, then I think understanding the pleasure trap is the last step that's missing for them to succeed.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 30 2016 01:00 Baalim wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 29 2016 19:16 nolan wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 29 2016 13:37 uiCk wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 29 2016 12:57 Spitfiree wrote:
What I mean is, whats more important for progress, masses of common people or a few super geniuses?
It appears to me that average intelligence dictates the social fabric, our customs, morality, political sytems etc, while the standard deviation dictates our technology, quality of life, average lifespan etc.
that is a good question. my gut instinct is that a higher deviation would probably be better for technological progress, but a higher mean IQ would be better for human rights and corruption, although i'm not sure my instinct is correct on either account.
On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid
On July 30 2016 10:19 Loco wrote:
Of course not. Having the information doesn't mean you have the motivation to apply it. There's many reasons why people eat the way they do and health is only one of them. If you don't care about your health it doesn't matter how well informed you are. I wouldn't confuse this with lacking discipline, it's just a state of indifference. Discipline doesn't enter the question before there is a motivation to change something. Sadly, our default state is to take our health for granted, and only when it is lost do we realize its value and become motivated to regain it.
If the person is motivated (most important) and has a good knowledge of nutrition (specifically the calorie density approach to nutrition) and yet they still can't lose weight or keep the weight off long term, then I think understanding the pleasure trap is the last step that's missing for them to succeed.
I think the biggest motivator for not being fat isnt health, but actually social status and I dont think its even close, actually all these "fat accepting" trend could be a bit dangerous, I perfectly get the point of not hurting peoples feelings but at the same time if there is no social motivation to be thin the obesity problem is going to get exponentially worse.
I think motivation is kind of part of discipline, a disciplined person requires X amount of motivation to do the the task, a undisciplined person requires 2X motivation to do the task.
But we agree that if a preson is motivated and has knowledge he will lose weight but I think motivation is far far more important and I simply dont see how morbidly obese people would get motivated if they havent found yet
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
jeremy5408 United States. Aug 01 2016 04:10. Posts 122
this is prob 1 of 2 videos that i think are worthwhile when exploring nutrition and obesity.
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Aug 02 2016 12:03. Posts 5296
On July 29 2016 12:57 Spitfiree wrote:
Quite sure the global avg IQ has sunk by tons cause of the huge birth rate among lowest classes
Also IQ is only useful up to a certain point, after that other factors are much more important
The opposite is true. There is research done on this by a new zealand academic, average IQ has increased a lot over the past 100 years. Called the Flynn affect, after jim Flynn, the person who researched it.
But i don't consider IQ increase to be an interesting thing to research, of course its going to be true that IQ increases, as education reached the masses in the 19th century it was possible for many people to learn the things that are related to IQ tests. So IQ has increased over time. I don't consider it an interesting question though. It's like asking if increased mass education and welfare has improved people's overall ability to read.
I agree with your latter comment. IQ is not what i see as intelligence. If you look at science, in academia today, what is valued is discovery, which i think is what makes people intelligent. The ability to discover intellectually interesting results is a form of creativity, and it's what makes people interested in learning.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On August 01 2016 03:10 jeremy5408 wrote:
this is prob 1 of 2 videos that i think are worthwhile when exploring nutrition and obesity.
It's amazing to me that in that presentation he admits that sugar consumption isn't the leading cause of obesity (it's the third) and yet in other places he talks so confidently as if it's the case, and he makes the case that all our woes are caused by sugar as well. It's ridiculous. To put things into context, Lustig is not a reputable expert in the field of nutrition. The fact that his talks have exploded in popularity recently doesn't change that fact. He is committed to following in the footsteps of his hero, John Yudkin, whose scientific studies were discredited at the time and with good reason. Yudkin simply failed to account for many confounding factors in his studies.
I've touched on this earlier in the thread, but Lustig, Taubes and co. are essentially conspiracy theorists. They have this neat little story that says that Yudkin was "right all along" and Ancel Keys was the one who did shoddy science, and it paints them as some ingenious detectives who have seen what every scientist has missed in the past six decades. It's clear how comforting this idea is to them in the face of all the complex issues at play in this field, but I think they are mostly committed to it because it's an idea that sells. If Robert Atkins taught us anything, it's that a diet that makes people sick can sell really damn well if there's a neat story to go alongside with it.
Now I'm not saying that nothing he says has value. Just that his narrow-minded focus and his conclusion are misguided. And I think it's a big distraction. People don't learn what human beings are supposed to be eating. They only hear about what they already know. I mean, does anyone in his right mind advises that people eat processed junk and refined sugar? Obviously not. Yet this is all they want to talk about, and they draw the ridiculous conclusion that we should eat a low carb diet as a result. It's that non sequitur that I have the biggest problem with.
Here's some good stuff on these low carb guys and why they shouldn't be trusted. The first 5 minutes of the first video are probably enough to discredit Lustig, but it's worth watching it all:
On July 29 2016 12:57 Spitfiree wrote:
Quite sure the global avg IQ has sunk by tons cause of the huge birth rate among lowest classes
Also IQ is only useful up to a certain point, after that other factors are much more important
Hard to say. It definitely has not "sunk by tons" globally (why would you say that?), but there are studies that seem to indicate slower or slight decline in certain developed nations mostly.
Anyways, i suspect that, like everything, the growth will not be linear and i prefer not to limit myself to 10-20-30 year blocks when looking at "intelligence"
i'm pretty ignorant to this topic, but wouldn't increased immigration (relative to the past) be a factor in declining IQ particularly in Europe and NA?
i'd be curious to see if Korea/Japan and to a lesser extent Russia are experiencing IQ drops as well if this is true
What I mean is, whats more important for progress, masses of common people or a few super geniuses?
I think you already know the answer to that question. Hermann Hesse's book, Demian, deals with question this in part. It's a pretty quick read and I highly recommend it.
"Hesse was profoundly influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche and many of the ideas expressed in Demian are borrowed from Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche published Beyond Good and Evil in 1886, offering a radical rejection of traditional societal values. His work argued that moral edicts were unnecessary; the distinction between "good" and "evil" need not play a dominant role in the decisions people make and the actions they perform. For those who could see this, action could and would be guided by a will to power. Man has a natural inclination to rise up, but only a few special men would be able to see beyond the values of their society to be able to express this will. The rest, the herd of bestial men, would simply follow along and listen to the rules with which they had been presented. Nietzsche placed a particularly high value on creative genius and often claimed that the world existed only for a few very special men. He displayed an equally strong loathing for Christianity, which he saw as inculcating moral principles that suppressed that which could make man great. Nietzsche's ideas captured the imagination of many intellectuals, particularly in Germany, around the turn of the century." http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/demian/context.html
It's pretty clear that Nietzsche is wrong on this topic, as he was on almost everything i think, as well as having moral values that were behind the times when you compare him to other philosophers at the same time, like John stuart mill for example. Human being's are gifted with all sorts of creative impulses that can be used to benefit society. Yes, some of them can be very useful, the ability to do complex pure mathematics proofs can shape the world to a pretty extreme degree. But science is a social activity, anyone in the sciences can tell you that. Progress is largely made by a lot of scientists working together in labs, and LHC's and critiquing each others journal articles and so on. Often the 'intelligent few' are only a few steps ahead of everyone else, and they have a lot of luck and timing. Suppose Newton chose to do chemistry instead of physics first, then he might have been doing alchemy his whole life and discovered nothing and been part of the masses. If we live a society where everyone has the opportunity to pursue their creative impulses, you will maximize creative potential. If not, well their have been many geniuses born into poverty or some repression and not made many contributions because elitists oppressed them. Take ramanujan, one of the great mathematicians in history. You wouldn't be able to do a lot of things if he didn't get lucky and make it to trinity college and prove thousands of things in number theory that is used in coding, ect today. And Alan Turing, what if he didn't get to win the war from nazi's because people found out he was gay a little earlier and put him in jail. We'll these are two examples of possible suppressed intellectual progress because some part of society was repressed, so i think maximizing overall liberty (a lot of hand-waving when i make this statement)-including among the masses would indeed maximize creative potential and therefore intellectual potential.
His views on early Christianity and slave-master morality are so hilariously delusional it does add another data-point to the thesis that human self deception is boundless. Early Christianity was a religious and political-liberation movement that got people to think about basic moral values, and the lying elites of the roman empire.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
YoMeR United States. Aug 06 2016 01:20. Posts 12435
