Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #831628 > unrolled thread

You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2021-08-31 22:44 -0500
    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-08-31 23:29 -0700
      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 06:06 -0500
        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 17:43 -0700
        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 22:31 -0700
      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-09-01 12:07 -0400
        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 17:45 -0700
      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 15:12 -0700
      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 17:02 -0700
        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 17:39 -0700
          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 19:50 -0700
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 20:53 -0700
              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 21:34 -0700
                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 23:05 -0700
                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-09-17 13:01 -0400
    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Loughall Tomartyrs <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 09:51 -0700
      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2021-09-01 13:42 -0500
        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 11:52 -0700
          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 15:10 -0500
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 14:19 -0700
              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 18:25 -0500
                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 17:45 -0700
                  Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 19:50 -0500
                    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 18:06 -0700
                      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 21:03 -0500
                        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 19:27 -0700
                          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-02 07:01 -0500
                            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 05:22 -0700
                              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-02 11:11 -0500
          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2021-09-01 20:28 -0500
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 18:43 -0700
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 21:15 -0500
        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Loughall Tomatoes <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 12:41 -0700
          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 12:47 -0700
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Loughall Tomatoes <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 14:39 -0700
        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 15:08 -0500
        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 16:51 -0700
          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Loughall Tomatoes <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 17:46 -0700
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 20:03 -0500
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 20:17 -0700
              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 22:55 -0500
                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Bobby Smith <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-13 16:43 -0700
                  Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Bobby Smith <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-13 17:38 -0700
                    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-13 18:53 -0700
                      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-13 22:23 -0500
                        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-13 21:05 -0700
                      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Bobby Smith <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 10:03 -0700
                        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 15:16 -0700
                  Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-13 19:22 -0700
                    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-13 22:26 -0500
                      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-13 21:06 -0700
                        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-13 23:44 -0500
                          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-13 22:36 -0700
                            Banerjee Shows his inabilities (was Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-14 00:40 -0500
                              Re: Banerjee Shows his inabilities (was Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity) Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 13:57 -0700
                                Re: Banerjee Shows his inabilities (was Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-14 17:16 -0500
                                  Re: Banerjee Shows his inabilities (was Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity) Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 15:41 -0700
                    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 01:05 -0500
                      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Bobby Smith <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 12:43 -0700
                    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Bobby Smith <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 12:14 -0700
                      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 12:23 -0700
                      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 16:23 -0700
                        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Plain dumb <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 17:49 -0700
                          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 19:43 -0700
                            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Plain dumb <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 11:13 -0700
                              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 19:54 -0700
                                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-15 22:01 -0500
                                  Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 20:05 -0700
                                    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-15 22:17 -0500
                                      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 15:00 -0700
                                        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-16 17:51 -0500
                                          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 16:36 -0700
                                            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-16 19:35 -0500
                                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 20:04 -0700
                                  Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-15 22:12 -0500
                        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 22:00 -0700
                          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 01:22 -0500
                            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-14 23:51 -0700
                              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 12:59 -0500
                                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 15:40 -0700
                                  Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 13:10 -0500
                                    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 14:59 -0700
                              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Plain dumb <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 11:45 -0700
                          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Plain dumb <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 11:56 -0700
                          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Plain dumb <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 12:34 -0700
                            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-15 16:14 -0500
                              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Plain dumb <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 15:00 -0700
                                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-15 18:02 -0500
                              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 19:52 -0700
          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2021-09-01 20:35 -0500
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 21:16 -0500
              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2021-09-01 22:14 -0500
                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-01 23:00 -0500
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 00:25 -0700
          Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-09-02 00:58 -0400
            Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 22:09 -0700
              Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-09-02 01:44 -0400
                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 22:53 -0700
                  Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-09-02 09:04 -0400
                    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-02 15:54 -0500
                      Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 15:03 -0700
                        Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 16:22 -0700
                    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 15:00 -0700
                Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-02 07:05 -0500
    Re: You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 11:41 -0700

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#832378

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:14:24 PM UTC-7, Bobby Smith wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:22:14 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:43:25 UTC+10, Bobby Smith wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 8:55:46 PM UTC-7, Clutterfreak wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > I just checked that IQ site. Evidently two cro-magnons (a Brit and a 
> > > > scandinavian) computed nations’ average IQs based on their average 
> > > > incomes! Hahhahahah :-)) 
> > > Oh, is this wrong?
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off/ 
> 'Even though smart people earn more, on average, it does not protect them from financial difficulty.'
> ---------------------=============================
> 'Zagorsky’s analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income.
> =======================================================================================
> On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth.
> ===============================================================
> The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.'
> > Controversial, based upon cultural and moral outlook. 
> > A vegetarian country will always be poorer income wise. 
> > Just as low consumption societies. 
> > There are many attributes of wealth apart from money. 
> > Mental and moral and physical health, for one.
> Roughly the same order of IQ is given from other sources. 
> 
> 1. East Asia on top 
> 2. Europe and America in the middle 
> 3.
> > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off/ 
> > > 'Even though smart people earn more, on average, it does not protect them from financial difficulty.'
> -------------------------- =============================
> > If they are really smart and so live within their means they should have less trouble.
> "What does 'really smart' mean and why are you introducing it?
> > > 'Zagorsky’s analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income.
> ---- =======================================================================================
> “Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year,” he says. For example, a person with a score of 130 (in the top 2%, in terms of IQ) might earn about $12,000 more per year than someone with an average IQ score of about 100. 
> > > 
> > > On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth.
> ---- ===============================================================
> > > The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.' 
> > > >God give me a break‥ 
> > > Who he? 
> > > > Points nicely to the IQ of the dude who threw that link though! 
> > > But low IQ does have advantages. 
> 
> > > 1. Must be lonely at the far right hand side of the Bell Curve, huh? 
> > Yes and don't I love it.
> Opinion seems to be divided on what part of the spectrum you occupy :-)
> > > When was 
> > > the last time you partnered with your intellectual equal? 
> > All the time, within my family and some friends, who specialise in other areas.
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. 
> 
> > > Has it ever happened? 
> 
> So, does your wife revise core physics for a hobby?
> > > 2. I can watch typical movies and not feel disgusted by the mediocrity of them. 
> > Why watch them at all,
> Entertainment. 
> 
> >if you are superior. 
> 
> Do superior people avoid entertainment? I mean, have you ever been to a boxing match?
> >You should be creative, not a loser watching boring stuff.
> See how isolated you are?
> > > 4. I don't have the mental health problems that smart people get. 
> > > Intelligence has a price, it seems. 
> > > https://www.originsrecovery.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/High-intelligence-risk-factor-for-psychological-and-physiological-health.pdf 
> > Good for you. Ignorance is bliss when those smarter pay to keep you that way.
> See? You share the contempt for your inferiors that Orwell alluded to above. 
> You think that we can't survive without you.
> > > 3. The Universe is still a mystery to me! I suppose ultimate 
> > > intelligence is a Weltanschuung that resembles Einstein's 
> > > block Universe, where everything that ever happened is known. 
> > > That doesn't seem very enjoyable. 
> > If you are stupid you will believe any bullshit from grinning well-ensconced bullshitters.
> Well, my references show the reverse is the case.
> > If you are smart you will not follow the programming and find out what is what. 
> > That provides satisfaction, not calculable in any currency.
> From scratch? I mean, do you start with earth, air, water and fire and work your way forward?
> > > 3.5 Smart people have unfortunate politics. 
> > > Consider the droves of intellectuals who supported (and support) 
> > > communism. Isn't it the case they are steeped in power worship, 
> > > hostility towards ordinary social mores, with a penchant for 
> > > ostracizing critics who rejected their orthodoxies with sneers and 
> > > boycotts? 
> > No. Communists are those who want to share resources on an equal basis.
> I don't see that the resources of NK are shared on an equal basis. 
> 
> https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/kim-jong-un-net-worth/ 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_North_Korea
> > > We rightly condemn the evil of Holocaust denial, but wasn't 
> > > the earlier Holodomor-denial also evil? I agree that the Nazis 
> > > practiced a virulent form of eugenics but it is also true that in 
> > > the 1920s the left wing - our brightest and best - also supported 
> > > eugenics, e.g., socialist maven George B. Shaw wanted to 
> > > exterminate weak-minded people using gas chambers. 
> > Stupid people are most easily motivated by propaganda which becomes unquestionable truth for them.
> GBS wasn't a stupid person. 
> 
> He believed in eugenics and wanted to murder stupid people, like 
> many people of that era. 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left 
> 
> The question I asked - maybe in another thread - is 'was he right?'
> > Clever people can find out the truth and cannot be easily misguided 
> >to think that a robotic or slave state run by elites is superior to a free 
> >state run by equals.
> No, this is not the case. 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/20081345 
> 'Intellectuals and Communism' 
> 
> 'the attraction of communism to intellectuals, and the willingness' 
> of intellectuals to suspend their critical faculties in the name of the] 
> cause'.
> > Killing is bad, whether weak people or strong people with wars and pandemics.
> But you think the Taliban are "mopping up" when in fact 
> they has resumed their wicked and monstrous ways of 
> punishing those weaker than they are. 
> 
> Anyway, this was my original point. The IQ of the West is 
> falling steadily. Should we have implemented eugenics to 
> prevent this? Did eugenics work for India? Should we have 
> done something hateful for the greater good?
> > Proper management on strong moral basis must be universal. 
> > > 
> > > No dialectical materialism for me! Just want free education, 
> > > free healthcare, animal rights, and effective Armed forces. 
> > That is communism you want.
> Nope, it's democratic socialism. 
> 
> I don't want communism or any other form of tyranny. 
> 
> Communism is not good for intellectuals (or anyone else). 
> 
> Communism just means lots of dead people and the operation of Gulags. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai 
> 'The system has been estimated to have caused tens of millions of deaths and it has also been likened to slavery by its critics.' 
> 
> https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/anne-applebaum
> > > >The two 
> > > > cro-magnons at least knew what crookery it was they were practicing, but 
> > > > this dude‥ I don’t think so. Plain dumb.
> Yes

Our modern is still ancient.
Consider our 3000 civilization
to a future world million's
of years old? and how much
older that we can't know
until maybe contact?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832396

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 05:14:24 UTC+10, Bobby Smith wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:22:14 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:43:25 UTC+10, Bobby Smith wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 8:55:46 PM UTC-7, Clutterfreak wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > I just checked that IQ site. Evidently two cro-magnons (a Brit and a 
> > > > scandinavian) computed nations’ average IQs based on their average 
> > > > incomes! Hahhahahah :-)) 
> > > Oh, is this wrong?
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off/ 
> 'Even though smart people earn more, on average, it does not protect them from financial difficulty.'
> ---------------------=============================
> 'Zagorsky’s analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income.
> =======================================================================================
> On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth.
> ===============================================================
> The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.'
> > Controversial, based upon cultural and moral outlook. 
> > A vegetarian country will always be poorer income wise. 
> > Just as low consumption societies. 
> > There are many attributes of wealth apart from money. 
> > Mental and moral and physical health, for one.
> Roughly the same order of IQ is given from other sources. 
> 
> 1. East Asia on top 
> 2. Europe and America in the middle 
> 3.

IQ evaluations are rubbish.
Animal IQs are less than humans but they manage very well on their own.

> > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off/ 
> > > 'Even though smart people earn more, on average, it does not protect them from financial difficulty.'
> -------------------------- =============================
> > If they are really smart and so live within their means they should have less trouble.
> "What does 'really smart' mean and why are you introducing it?

Really smart relates to success for leading a serene and peaceful life, like a goat on a high cliff. I am introducing this to clarify that wealth and smartness are but tenuously allied, or not at all in many cases. Like a trader with wealth among pirates. The wealth of Iraq did not help Iraqis when they got invaded.

> > > 'Zagorsky’s analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income.
> ---- =======================================================================================
> “Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year,” he says. For example, a person with a score of 130 (in the top 2%, in terms of IQ) might earn about $12,000 more per year than someone with an average IQ score of about 100. 
> > > 
> > > On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth.
> ---- ===============================================================
> > > The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.' 
> > > >God give me a break‥ 
> > > Who he? 
> > > > Points nicely to the IQ of the dude who threw that link though! 
> > > But low IQ does have advantages. 
> 
> > > 1. Must be lonely at the far right hand side of the Bell Curve, huh? 
> > Yes and don't I love it.
> Opinion seems to be divided on what part of the spectrum you occupy :-)

I have no use for the opinions of whodumbos or their sock puppets. I flush them like turds out of my sight. Out of kindness I do this notice, as opposed to ignoring them, as I am often asked to.

> > > When was 
> > > the last time you partnered with your intellectual equal? 
> > All the time, within my family and some friends, who specialise in other areas.
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. 
> 
> > > Has it ever happened? 
> 
> So, does your wife revise core physics for a hobby?

She specialises in literature and education, and helps me very much indirectly with her vast knowledge.
For instance, she knows a lot about the early inventors and the difficulties they faced.
She is an excellent judge of character.
I rely upon her faith in me.
She also finds what passes for core physics to make no sense, and finds what I say to be reasonable. Most encouraging for me.

> > > 2. I can watch typical movies and not feel disgusted by the mediocrity of them. 
> > Why watch them at all,
> Entertainment. 
> 
> >if you are superior. 
> 
> Do superior people avoid entertainment? I mean, have you ever been to a boxing match?

No. Nor football matches paying for it.
I pay to see theatre and shows, museums and exhibitions, travel and dining, books and research work as a hobby, gifts and donations, fostering unwanted dogs, etc.

> >You should be creative, not a loser watching boring stuff.
> See how isolated you are?

I am so lucky.

> > > 4. I don't have the mental health problems that smart people get. 
> > > Intelligence has a price, it seems. 
> > > https://www.originsrecovery.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/High-intelligence-risk-factor-for-psychological-and-physiological-health.pdf 
> > Good for you. Ignorance is bliss when those smarter pay to keep you that way.
> See? You share the contempt for your inferiors that Orwell alluded to above. 

You are wrong to think I show contempt for those inferiors who do not attack or suppress me.
I contempt my inferiors who attack or suppress me.
I do what I can to improve the lot of all others, being altruistic following my upbringing.
Even those who attack me, I do not hate, waste of emotion and time, that.

> You think that we can't survive without you.
> > > 3. The Universe is still a mystery to me! I suppose ultimate 
> > > intelligence is a Weltanschuung that resembles Einstein's 
> > > block Universe, where everything that ever happened is known. 
> > > That doesn't seem very enjoyable. 
> > If you are stupid you will believe any bullshit from grinning well-ensconced bullshitters.
> Well, my references show the reverse is the case.
> > If you are smart you will not follow the programming and find out what is what. 
> > That provides satisfaction, not calculable in any currency.
> From scratch? I mean, do you start with earth, air, water and fire and work your way forward?
> > > 3.5 Smart people have unfortunate politics. 
> > > Consider the droves of intellectuals who supported (and support) 
> > > communism. Isn't it the case they are steeped in power worship, 
> > > hostility towards ordinary social mores, with a penchant for 
> > > ostracizing critics who rejected their orthodoxies with sneers and 
> > > boycotts? 
> > No. Communists are those who want to share resources on an equal basis.
> I don't see that the resources of NK are shared on an equal basis. 
That is a dictatorship.
> 
> https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/kim-jong-un-net-worth/ 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_North_Korea
> > > We rightly condemn the evil of Holocaust denial, but wasn't 
> > > the earlier Holodomor-denial also evil? I agree that the Nazis 
> > > practiced a virulent form of eugenics but it is also true that in 
> > > the 1920s the left wing - our brightest and best - also supported 
> > > eugenics, e.g., socialist maven George B. Shaw wanted to 
> > > exterminate weak-minded people using gas chambers. 
> > Stupid people are most easily motivated by propaganda which becomes unquestionable truth for them.
> GBS wasn't a stupid person. 
> 
> He believed in eugenics and wanted to murder stupid people, like 
> many people of that era. 

Why should I believe that he wanted to murder stupid people?
If he really did want to, he was very stupid.
But you are lying I am sure.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left 
> 
> The question I asked - maybe in another thread - is 'was he right?'
> > Clever people can find out the truth and cannot be easily misguided 
> >to think that a robotic or slave state run by elites is superior to a free 
> >state run by equals.
> No, this is not the case. 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/20081345 
> 'Intellectuals and Communism' 
> 
> 'the attraction of communism to intellectuals, and the willingness' 
> of intellectuals to suspend their critical faculties in the name of the] 
> cause'.
> > Killing is bad, whether weak people or strong people with wars and pandemics.
> But you think the Taliban are "mopping up" when in fact 
> they has resumed their wicked and monstrous ways of 
> punishing those weaker than they are. 

Why do you think I should believe anything you say? Let alone accept!
> 
> Anyway, this was my original point. The IQ of the West is 
> falling steadily. Should we have implemented eugenics to 
> prevent this? Did eugenics work for India? Should we have 
> done something hateful for the greater good?

The West has no moral basis following their adherence to relativity and bogus physics on one hand, and their sets of self-forgiving superstitions on the other that allow them to rob and kill with a good conscience.
That makes them stupid in the long run. Now they need AI for survival.
The prosperity from good engineering from good science has made them cowardly and decadent, lazy and stupid. They are not attractive to each other for societal growth, so there is negative ethnic population growth to be supplemented by brown Muslim immigration with the associated perils.

> > Proper management on strong moral basis must be universal. 
> > > 
> > > No dialectical materialism for me! Just want free education, 
> > > free healthcare, animal rights, and effective Armed forces. 
> > That is communism you want.
> Nope, it's democratic socialism. 
> 
> I don't want communism or any other form of tyranny. 
Communism is the opposite if tyranny. Its purpose is to make better humans and a better world by sharing rationally and peacefully.
> 
> Communism is not good for intellectuals (or anyone else). 
Silly.
> 
> Communism just means lots of dead people and the operation of Gulags. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai 
> 'The system has been estimated to have caused tens of millions of deaths and it has also been likened to slavery by its critics.' 
> 
> https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/anne-applebaum
> > > >The two 
> > > > cro-magnons at least knew what crookery it was they were practicing, but 
> > > > this dude‥ I don’t think so. Plain dumb.
> Yes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832397

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > No. Communists are those who want to share resources on an equal basis. 
> > I don't see that the resources of NK are shared on an equal basis.
> That is a dictatorship.

Yes, a communist dictatorship.
 
> > https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/kim-jong-un-net-worth/ 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_North_Korea 
> > > > We rightly condemn the evil of Holocaust denial, but wasn't 
> > > > the earlier Holodomor-denial also evil? I agree that the Nazis 
> > > > practiced a virulent form of eugenics but it is also true that in 
> > > > the 1920s the left wing - our brightest and best - also supported 
> > > > eugenics, e.g., socialist maven George B. Shaw wanted to 
> > > > exterminate weak-minded people using gas chambers. 
> > > Stupid people are most easily motivated by propaganda which becomes unquestionable truth for them. 
> > GBS wasn't a stupid person. 
> > 
> > He believed in eugenics and wanted to murder stupid people, like 
> > many people of that era.
> Why should I believe that he wanted to murder stupid people? 
> If he really did want to, he was very stupid. 
> But you are lying I am sure.

Well you seemed to ignore the reference I gave  so it's not surprising you'd say that.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left 

https://eugenics.us/mass-extermination-and-lethal-chambers-widely-considered-by-eugenicists-in-america-england-and-germay/88.htm

'A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber.  A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832400

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 10:49:54 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> > > > No. Communists are those who want to share resources on an equal basis. 
> > > I don't see that the resources of NK are shared on an equal basis. 
> > That is a dictatorship.
> Yes, a communist dictatorship.
> > > https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/kim-jong-un-net-worth/ 
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_North_Korea 
> > > > > We rightly condemn the evil of Holocaust denial, but wasn't 
> > > > > the earlier Holodomor-denial also evil? I agree that the Nazis 
> > > > > practiced a virulent form of eugenics but it is also true that in 
> > > > > the 1920s the left wing - our brightest and best - also supported 
> > > > > eugenics, e.g., socialist maven George B. Shaw wanted to 
> > > > > exterminate weak-minded people using gas chambers. 
> > > > Stupid people are most easily motivated by propaganda which becomes unquestionable truth for them. 
> > > GBS wasn't a stupid person. 
> > > 
> > > He believed in eugenics and wanted to murder stupid people, like 
> > > many people of that era. 
> > Why should I believe that he wanted to murder stupid people? 
> > If he really did want to, he was very stupid. 
> > But you are lying I am sure.
> Well you seemed to ignore the reference I gave so it's not surprising you'd say that. 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left 

Read that. It put words in Shaw's mouth, as opposed to quoting what he wrote where.
Quoting from a lying website is a lie.
Do better research if you want to bake an impression.
> 
> https://eugenics.us/mass-extermination-and-lethal-chambers-widely-considered-by-eugenicists-in-america-england-and-germay/88.htm 
> 
> 'A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832433

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 7:44:01 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 10:49:54 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > 
> > > > > No. Communists are those who want to share resources on an equal basis. 
> > > > I don't see that the resources of NK are shared on an equal basis. 
> > > That is a dictatorship. 
> > Yes, a communist dictatorship. 
> > > > https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/kim-jong-un-net-worth/ 
> > > > 
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_North_Korea 
> > > > > > We rightly condemn the evil of Holocaust denial, but wasn't 
> > > > > > the earlier Holodomor-denial also evil? I agree that the Nazis 
> > > > > > practiced a virulent form of eugenics but it is also true that in 
> > > > > > the 1920s the left wing - our brightest and best - also supported 
> > > > > > eugenics, e.g., socialist maven George B. Shaw wanted to 
> > > > > > exterminate weak-minded people using gas chambers. 
> > > > > Stupid people are most easily motivated by propaganda which becomes unquestionable truth for them. 
> > > > GBS wasn't a stupid person. 
> > > > 
> > > > He believed in eugenics and wanted to murder stupid people, like 
> > > > many people of that era. 
> > > Why should I believe that he wanted to murder stupid people? 
> > > If he really did want to, he was very stupid. 
> > > But you are lying I am sure. 
> > Well you seemed to ignore the reference I gave so it's not surprising you'd say that. 
> > 
> > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left
> Read that. 
>It put words in Shaw's mouth, as opposed to quoting what he wrote where. 
> Quoting from a lying website is a lie.

Trying to cover up support for eugenics is far worse.

It seems you have no shame.

Well, you are an intellectual.  I expect nothing better from you.
 
> Do better research if you want to bake an impression.

No, thank you.  I prefer citing a reputable liberal newspaper.

> > https://eugenics.us/mass-extermination-and-lethal-chambers-widely-considered-by-eugenicists-in-america-england-and-germay/88.htm 
> > 
> > 'A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832463

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 04:13:45 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote:
some dumb things, chap is at least honest.
> It seems you have no shame. 
I have no shame in flushing basTURDS like whodumbo and their sock puppets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832466

On 9/15/2021 9:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 04:13:45 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote:
> some dumb things, chap is at least honest.
>> It seems you have no shame.
> I have no shame in flushing basTURDS like whodumbo and their sock puppets.

Here is the fool, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman of
Melbourne, who doesn't know the meaning of shame where it is used
to describe him. He'll flush this away demonstrating that "Plain
Dumb" was spot on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832468

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 13:01:32 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
dumb dishonest things, worthy of his basTURD status.
- flush -
Stalkers like these are getting bold,  They are coming out of the toilets and sticking on shoes!  evolution!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832473

On 9/15/2021 10:05 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman
of Melbourne wrote:

> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 13:01:32 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
> dumb dishonest things, worthy of his basTURD status.
> - flush -
> Stalkers like these are getting bold,  They are coming out of the toilets and sticking on shoes!  evolution!
> 

The angrier you get facing truths like these the better you are 
understood by all the readers.

deleted text restored below:

On 9/15/2021 9:54 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman
of Melbourne wrote:
 > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 04:13:45 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote:
 > some dumb things, chap is at least honest.
 >> It seems you have no shame.
 > I have no shame in flushing basTURDS like whodumbo and their sock 
puppets.

Here is the fool, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman of
Melbourne, who doesn't know the meaning of shame where it is used
to describe him. He'll flush this away demonstrating that "Plain
Dumb" was spot on.

And for a second time, it was so.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832544

- flush -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832547

On 9/16/2021 5:00 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman
of Melbourne wrote:

> - flush -
> 


Restored:


On 9/15/2021 10:05 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman
of Melbourne wrote:

 > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 13:01:32 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
 > dumb dishonest things, worthy of his basTURD status.
 > - flush -
 > Stalkers like these are getting bold,  They are coming out of the 
toilets and sticking on shoes!  evolution!
 >

The angrier you get facing truths like these the better you are 
understood by all the readers.

deleted text restored below:

On 9/15/2021 9:54 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman
of Melbourne wrote:
 > On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 04:13:45 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote:
 > some dumb things, chap is at least honest.
 >> It seems you have no shame.
 > I have no shame in flushing basTURDS like whodumbo and their sock 
puppets.

Here is the fool, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman of
Melbourne, who doesn't know the meaning of shame where it is used
to describe him. He'll flush this away demonstrating that "Plain
Dumb" was spot on.

And for a second time, it was so.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832556

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:51:23 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
his usual lies and rubbish
- flush -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832569

On 9/16/2021 6:36 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:51:23 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
> his usual lies and rubbish
> - flush -
> 

Easy to say, as you have, but difficult to argue, as you have failed to
do. All you've done is taken a cheap shot. Got anything worthwhile,
because what you wrote above sure isn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832467

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 12:54:35 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 04:13:45 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote: 
> some dumb things, chap is at least honest.
I mean, honest in his self-appraisal as Plain dumb.
> > It seems you have no shame.
> I have no shame in flushing basTURDS like whodumbo and their sock puppets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832472

On 9/15/2021 10:04 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 12:54:35 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 04:13:45 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote:
>> some dumb things, chap is at least honest.
> I mean, honest in his self-appraisal as Plain dumb.

Cut that isn't what you wrote, you stupid man...


>>> It seems you have no shame.
>> I have no shame in flushing basTURDS like whodumbo and their sock puppets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832404

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 09:23:20 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 05:14:24 UTC+10, Bobby Smith wrote: 
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:22:14 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:43:25 UTC+10, Bobby Smith wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 8:55:46 PM UTC-7, Clutterfreak wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > I just checked that IQ site. Evidently two cro-magnons (a Brit and a 
> > > > > scandinavian) computed nations’ average IQs based on their average 
> > > > > incomes! Hahhahahah :-)) 
> > > > Oh, is this wrong? 
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off/ 
> > 'Even though smart people earn more, on average, it does not protect them from financial difficulty.' 
> > ---------------------============================= 
> > 'Zagorsky’s analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income. 
> > ======================================================================================= 
> > On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth. 
> > =============================================================== 
> > The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.' 
Wonder what is the IQ of Covid19, any variant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832406

On 9/15/2021 12:00 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Wonder what is the IQ of Covid19, any variant.


Ahah. Bull’s-eye. This was the main objection to the concept of IQ when 
it was first introduced. Then it was deliberately let to fade away under 
the clutters.

Again, it is a case of a one way link that crooks insidiously used 
through decades as a two-way link to fool the public. Higher 
intelligence can lead to higher effectiveness if it is so desired, but 
higher effectiveness doesn’t presuppose higher intelligence! :)

The concept of IQ had flaws from the very beginning.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832409

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 16:22:30 UTC+10, Clutterfreak wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 12:00 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > Wonder what is the IQ of Covid19, any variant.
> Ahah. Bull’s-eye. This was the main objection to the concept of IQ when 
> it was first introduced. Then it was deliberately let to fade away under 
> the clutters. 
> 
> Again, it is a case of a one way link that crooks insidiously used 
> through decades as a two-way link to fool the public. Higher 
> intelligence can lead to higher effectiveness if it is so desired, but 
> higher effectiveness doesn’t presuppose higher intelligence! :) 
> 
> The concept of IQ had flaws from the very beginning.

Of course.
It is still useful as an instrument of oppression.
> -- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832432

On 9/15/2021 1:51 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> 
>> The concept of IQ had flaws from the very beginning.
> 
> Of course.
> It is still useful as an instrument of oppression.

It can’t win the test of analytical compartments’ activity of modern 
human. It only fools the Cro-Magnons (it doesn’t seem to be fooling 
Blacks). It is used mainly as one of those myopic managerial decisions 
to get rid of long-term possibilities of growth just to secure a short 
term limited incentive.


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832456

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 03:59:35 UTC+10, Clutterfreak wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 1:51 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > 
> >> The concept of IQ had flaws from the very beginning. 
> > 
> > Of course. 
> > It is still useful as an instrument of oppression.
> It can’t win the test of analytical compartments’ activity of modern 
> human. It only fools the Cro-Magnons (it doesn’t seem to be fooling 
> Blacks). It is used mainly as one of those myopic managerial decisions 
> to get rid of long-term possibilities of growth just to secure a short 
> term limited incentive.

Yes, but with all their supposed intelligence they have negative population growth. Rabbits have more IQ that way, as viruses.
> -- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web