Monday, June 18, 2018

How ordinary women think, how intelligence works, how people become bipolar, why news is ignorant






Intelligence level can be defined as the ability to delay a knee-jerk reaction.


Now imagine a mind that cannot suppress a knee-jerk reaction, that just drifts from emotion to emotion, everything provoking a knee-jerk reaction, with no sense of moral obligation, with no idea that a moral obligation would ever get in the way of a feeling, that there are morals that would make you obligated to suppress you emotions sometimes. Imagine a person who is so totally dominated by knee-jerk reactions they think like an animal, see no reality outside of themselves, and have an effective IQ below 70 even if the can do calculus, because what you are imagining is a mind where even the pretense of self-accountability is never entertained, where logic is not required, where there is no world outside what she feels, and what you have imagined is the mind of an extreme female brain. She lives in a world where every thought is an attempt to articulate a feeling that she is certain is absolutely true. I know what this world is like because I used to be INFJ, and am now INTJ. Such a mind believes that feelings are the basis of truth, that attempts to argue facts are about deceiving and oppressing people — about ignoring their lived experience. Truth is supposedly about articulating that which is within so that it can change that which is without, it is the feeling that drives the conclusion over what is real.


This is why you can game a woman of regular IQ so easily. All you have to do is provoke all the right knee-jerk reactions and she will provide the emotional justifications for sleeping with you. Remember that you are basically talking to her body and not her mind.


Asperger's mimics genius for a reason. A person with Asperger's has an extreme male brain, views the world in terms of facts, numbers, logic, definitions, etc. Everything is objective to the point where the feelings of others may not seem real other than the fact that they inexplicably exist even though they should not. People are a mystery. Their intentions are hard to decipher. They are always getting upset when it is totally inappropriate. If the sperg does understand people, and he understands them from the outside, as an entomologist understands insects: they are all patterns of predictable irrationality.


Intelligence advances the more knee-jerk reaction is delayed. Thought is a series of steps. If a person observes a behavior and comes to a conclusion that is one step of logic. If a person simply reacts emotionally that is < than 1 step of logic. If a person goes through 2 steps of logic they exhibit behavior characteristic of a higher IQ person. If 3 steps of logic they exhibit behavior even higher in intelligence, at 4 steps, at 5 steps, higher and higher. An artificially intelligent superintelligence would go through so many steps it would run hundreds of simulations for all probable events. Each simulation would represent hundreds or thousands of steps of logic.


A person's intelligence is defined by how knee-jerk they are, or in other words, the point at which emotion sabotages their ability for continued thought: the more knee-jerk the more stupid.


Logic can get compulsive: a person who suppresses their emotions long enough may develop a bi-polar hypomania. Trauma can be related to hypomania. If a person suppresses their emotions during a traumatic event and develops a persona "trigger" around the subject matter of the trauma, then the combination of trigger and "repetition compulsion" may cause bipolar hypomania which is caused by a trigger.


Say a person is raised by drug addicts, and develops a trigger on the subject of people behaving irresponsibility. Repetition compulsion is the behavior where a person gets themselves into another stressful or traumatic situation because they are trying to gain power or mastery over the feelings of powerlessness they felt in the past. The person suppressed their emotion during a traumatic event, thus, they suppressed the thing that sabotages thought, and returns the brain to an emotional state — to a resting state, because emotion returns the brain to a resting state and prevents both genius and mania.


Combined with repetition compulsion, they unconsciously seek out the stimulus that triggers them, subject themselves to it, and become manic because they cannot turn off their racing thoughts. Because the past trauma is consuming them, they see their personal trigger everywhere, and engage in repetition compulsion with every manifestation of it. The are constantly cycling through some kind of hypomania as a result.


There is another form of mania, or pure mania, that is when a person cannot turn off their knee-jerk reactions, and they have an emotionally driven thought process where the first emotion COMPELS them to experience another emotion, and another, and another, because a trigger set it off. These people suffer from real mania, rather than just the more calm version of hypomania. Mania is driven by compulsive feeling, while hypomania is driven by compulsive thought. A genius is not a manic, though there are manic geniuses. The difference is that a regular genius can turn his flood of thoughts off while a manic cannot.


A sperg cannot turn emotion on.


So there are 4 types.


Compulsive thought: a hypomanic. Bipolar II.
Compulsive emotion: a manic. Bipolar I.
Voluntary ability to engage in emotional self-suppression: genius.
Involuntary emotional self-suppression: sperg. Autism.



When faced with an external threat to survival people will engage in emotional self-suppression in order to raise their ability to solve problems. This can become a chronic crunch that ruins a persons emotional health, or makes them abusive towards others. Similarly, one who never gets trained by parents to control emotional outbursts may develop an hysterical personality.


A person can become a genius by suppressing their emotions. They can also try to become a genius this way, and develop symptoms of bipolar disorder, so it is not recommended to try too hard.


A persons politics is based on the number of steps of logic they go through before encountering a knee-jerk reaction. Humans evolved in societies where losing political arguments could get you killed or ostracized, so the brain is wired to win arguments, and politics is the most compulsive and least logical subject there is, and the entire field is undeveloped as a result. A pile of Noble prizes are waiting for anyone who can think logically where politics is concerned. A person can think rationally about chemistry for 10 years straight, but cannot think logically about politics for 10 minutes straight. Politics is so irrational it corrupts even the subjects nearby with its motivated cognition.


As a person becomes more capable of suppressing knee-jerk reactions they move up the IQ scale and their politics changes.


Imagine that a college professor say something simple, like "when you impose rent control on housing units you cause rental prices to rise on all the surrounding units."


Interpretation of this statement will change based on the IQ of the listener.


At 90 IQ a person will hear "the professor is making excuses for capitalism. He is trying to fuck me over."

At 100 IQ the person will think "The only reason that rental costs rise on the surrounding units is because the landlords are greedy, and they are getting revenge on people."

At 110 IQ a person will begin to interpret the statement correctly. They will think something like, "so what the professor is saying is that by limiting the price of rent a shortage of units is created because it decreases the financial incentive to build housing, and this causes a decrease in supply that raises the rent on all the other units."

At 120 IQ a person will think, "limitations on the supply of housing cause an increase in the prices of the surrounding units, duh, but the limitations are themselves caused by special interests who want to inflate prices for their own profit, and by entrenched neighborhood groups trying to discriminate against minorities."


At 130 IQ a person will think, "limitations increase costs, discriminate against minorities with high crime rates, (so that's OK). All the other logic has already been intuitively grasped.

Notice what happened here? At 90 IQ no logic occurred, only a knee-jerk reaction, or a reaction driven by emotion. At 100 we get an attempt at a single step of logic, but it is still probably wrong. At 110 we get a correct interpenetration of the statement being made, since the statement is a 110 IQ statement, and requires that level to understand. It is 2  steps of logic. At 120 we get 3 steps;


  • 1. limitations cause shortage.
  • 2. shortage raises rents.
  • 3. high rents are discriminatory.


At 130 IQ 4 steps enter the picture.

  • 1. limitations cause shortage.
  • 2. shortage raises rents.
  • 3. high rents are discriminatory.
  • 4. because of genetics the people discriminated against are mostly troublesome.

At 140 we reach 5 steps.

  • 1. limitations cause shortage.
  • 2. shortage raises rents.
  • 3. high rents are discriminatory.
  • 4. the people discriminated against are mostly troublesome.
  • 5. the whole situation is caused by the lie of egalitarianism.

150 IQ;

  • 1. limitations cause shortage.
  • 2. shortage raises rents.
  • 3. high rents are discriminatory.
  • 4. the people discriminated against are mostly troublesome.
  • 5. the whole situation is caused by the lie of egalitarianism.
  • 6. the structure of democracy must change or be overthrown for problems like that to be solved.

A person can "push" their intelligence above what comes naturally by suppressing emotion and going through more steps the slow way. To do this safely you have to avoid emotional disregulation and take breaks, and do it slowly. A lot of academic stress is caused by people pushing themselves to understand subjects that are above their natural IQ. Higher math is an example of this, having been developed by people in the 190 range.


The pattern will mimic itself in all politics. Immigration is about simple ideological ticks at 90 to 120, and thoughts about dysgenics only come into play at 150. There are steps of logic beyond 150 where we begin to come up with solutions, but ideas like genetic engineering, statriarchy, and family capitalism will be unconvincing to people, since they involve 6 or more steps of logic, and the person has no way of evaluating that kind of thought, since they simply can't push their logic that far, or aren't knowledgeable enough to anticipate the consequences of these ideas. At a high enough level of problem complexity humanity runs into the problem where even the experts can't develop solutions for technologically-induced problems since they are pushing the limits of their own cognition.


Pardon my knee-jerk, but this is a fucking disaster since the number of people in Earth with 160 + IQs are less than 1 in 11,307, and if people in these super high rages can't figure it out, and if the problems keep getting more complex, then the human race is simply fucked in the face of overwhelming technological forces beyond its comprehension. This is why I have advocated for a genetics revolution in IQ. What happens is that the level of problems outstrips the IQ of the population to solve them. It is a kind of ultimate problem, this problem of being too stupid to handle your own technology, and it happens in other societies at a lower level. Right now in Cape Town South Africa there is a water crises, and the city is in danger of running out of water. It is hard to imagine that the Chinese, Scandinavians, or Arabs would let an entire city run out of water, but this is Africa and the median IQ is 77. The point here is that technology already exceeds the natural ability of IQ in some parts of the world. The higher the level of technology, the fewer people on earth can understand its moral, political, and environmental consequences.


There are only one person of IQ 115 for every 5.74 people. At 130 there are only 1 for every 96.96 people. This affects how the media works, and how many readers you can get. The more knee-jerk the news report the more people it will appeal to, and the more clicks, views, and ratings it will get. There is a reason journalism is one of the lowest IQ majors. Conversely, the more logical an article is the smaller its audience will be. This is worsened by the fact that highly educated people often specialize, and thus, break their minute community of information into a bunch of little subject-based slices. In consequence, neoreaction and other 5 + logical step subjects are really, really, really, tiny. Add to this multiple languages in the world, so that the world's population of high IQ people cannot communicate with each other, small languages where there might only be a few people in the entire country with that IQ, all working in different fields, and you get an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Academics used to all speak Latin in order to expand their small community of geniuses.



Controversy sells because at 115 IQ there are 20 times as many people willing to read your product as at 130 IQ. Outrage modulates readership: the more outrage the more readers can understand your product. The key to large news circulations is manufacturing outrage so you can catch and hold the attention of the 95 - 120. This necessarily means not really understanding anything.


Journalism majors are low IQ because anyone smarter instinctively realized that the business depended on stupidity and controversy for existence, that to make money in journalism you had to NOT understand the issues fully, since a smart writer would be falsely perceived as a sociopath by a dumber audience, and run out of the profession by their stupid peers. Most likely anyone smarter already instinctively grasped the fact that there is no place in journalism for actually understanding anything, and they self-selected themselves out of the profession. Maybe they got sick of it later when they saw the business from the inside. Stupidity sells, and only stupid people can be consistently outraged enough by reality to sell it. Smart people don't get outraged by reality. It's reality.


If you want to get dumb people to understand high ideas your have to map out the entire sequence of logical steps involved in understanding that concept, and then get them to remember each conclusion you make by wrapping it is an emotion sufficiently strong enough to hold their attention. You drag the logic out, jerking their emotions with each and every step of logic, building one piece of logic upon another, and dragging them towards your conclusion. You avoid being perceived falsely as a sociopath by demonizing the source of social dysfunction. You have to produce outrage for each and every point you are trying to make, produce that outrage against an external target, and hold their attention long enough to drag them through all 6 or 7 steps of logic. The best medium for this is the documentary. Unfortunately the right has allowed the left to feed people the wrong conclusions, and the most skilled provocateurs are all liars and leftists, and never move beyond 2 steps.


You have to do this or they will get bored and forget what you have said. You have to do this without getting hung up on any particular detail. Infuriate and feed a conclusion, infuriate and feed the second conclusion, infuriate and feed the third, infuriate and feed the fourth., etc. You have to make sure you are angering them against other people and not yourself, otherwise they will lash out at you. Moldbug was an expert at this.


I could be wrong about the exact borders of IQ and number of steps, but the general pattern holds. Higher intelligence = longer delay before a knee-jerk reaction, and more steps in any given thought process in the meantime.


P.S.


I never meant to imply that I thought domestication was automatically a bad thing when I wrote The Concise Domestication Thesis. It is what it is.





No comments:

Post a Comment

All spam will be deleted