A just condemnation

Chris Langan, who is a) a lot smarter than I am, b) definitely UHIQ, and c) may in fact qualify for an entirely different category of intelligence, rightly condemns the modern system of education as a massive waste. And worse, an institution literally designed to cripple the most intelligent students subjected to it.

Owing to the shape of a bell curve, the education system is geared to the mean. Unfortunately, that kind of education is virtually calculated to bore and alienate gifted minds. But instead of making exceptions where it would do the most good, the educational bureaucracy often prefers not to be bothered.

In my case, for example, much of the schooling to which I was subjected was probably worse than nothing. It consisted not of real education, but of repetition and oppressive socialization (entirely superfluous given the dose of oppression I was getting away from school). Had I been left alone, preferably with access to a good library and a minimal amount of high-quality instruction, I would at least have been free to learn without useless distractions and gratuitous indoctrination. But alas, no such luck.

While my own background is rather exceptional, it is far from unique. Many young people are affected by one or more of the same general problems experienced by my brothers and me. A rising number of families have severe financial problems, forcing educational concerns to take a back seat to food, shelter, and clothing on the list of priorities. Even in well-off families, children can be starved of parental guidance due to stress, distraction, or irresponsibility. If a mind is truly a terrible thing to waste, then the waste is proportional to mental potential; one might therefore expect that the education system would be quick to help extremely bright youngsters who have it rough at home. But if so, one would be wrong a good part of the time.

Let’s try to break the problem down a bit. The education system is subject to a psychometric paradox: on one hand, it relies by necessity on the standardized testing of intellectual achievement and potential, including general intelligence or IQ, while on the other hand, it is committed to a warm and fuzzy but scientifically counterfactual form of egalitarianism which attributes all intellectual differences to environmental factors rather than biology, implying that the so-called “gifted” are just pampered brats who, unless their parents can afford private schooling, should atone for their undeserved good fortune by staying behind and enriching the classroom environments of less privileged students.

This approach may appear admirable, but its effects on our educational and intellectual standards, and all that depends on them, have already proven to be overwhelmingly negative. This clearly betrays an ulterior motive, suggesting that it has more to do with social engineering than education. There is an obvious difference between saying that poor students have all of the human dignity and basic rights of better students, and saying that there are no inherent educationally and socially relevant differences among students. The first statement makes sense, while the second does not.

The gifted population accounts for a very large part of the world’s intellectual resources. As such, they can obviously be put to better use than smoothing the ruffled feathers of average or below-average students and their parents by decorating classroom environments which prevent the gifted from learning at their natural pace. The higher we go on the scale of intellectual brilliance – and we’re not necessarily talking just about IQ – the less support is offered by the education system, yet the more likely are conceptual syntheses and grand intellectual achievements of the kind seldom produced by any group of markedly less intelligent people. In some cases, the education system is discouraging or blocking such achievements, and thus cheating humanity of their benefits.

His experience in grade school was very similar to mine in fourth and fifth grades.

Kids who score that high on IQ tests tend to be so far ahead of their peers and teachers that they’re often bored out of their minds in school and thus, ironically, don’t tend to be considered great students by their teachers. Is this how it was for you?

Much of the time, yes. I had more than one teacher who considered me a let-down, and sometimes for what must have seemed good reason.

For example, I sometimes fell asleep in class. I can remember trying to resist it, but I wasn’t always successful. I was even known to fall asleep during tests, sometimes before completing them. And by “asleep”, I do mean “asleep”. It was once reported to me by one of my teachers that she had amused the entire class by repeatedly snapping her fingers in front of my face and eliciting no reaction whatsoever.

In fairness, this wasn’t always due to boredom alone. I was often tired and exhausted by distractions. For example, what pugnacious little thugs would be waiting in ambush as I left the school grounds at the end of the day? How many friends and helpers would this or that bully bring with him to the after-school fight for which I had been reluctantly scheduled? Would my stepfather be in his typical punitive mood when I got home? And so on.

Sometimes, I had trouble paying attention even when I wasn’t asleep. I had a habit of partially withdrawing from the class discussion and writing down my own thoughts in my notebook; this made me appear to be attentively taking notes. However, when the teacher would sneak up on me from behind or demand to see what I was writing, the truth would out, and one can imagine the consequences.

As time passed, I would have to say that I grew increasingly resistant and unresponsive to the Pavlovian conditioning on which much educational methodology is based. I suspect that between home and school, there had been a certain amount of cumulative desensitization.

These problems eventually got me stationed nearly full-time in the school library, where I greatly preferred to be anyway. Later, I was finally excused from attendance except as required in order to collect and turn in my weekly assignments.

I wasn’t beaten at home and I didn’t fall asleep in class, though. I simply read books while the teacher was talking. I’d read the textbook until I finished it, usually by the end of the first week, then whatever novel I was reading at the time. My fourth-grade teacher initially let me do that after I correctly answered the questions she directed at me during her lectures, but as my reading eventually proved distracting and even offensive to the other students, they finally just sent me to the library with the understanding that I would only be allowed to skip my classes as long as I turned in the assigned papers and did well on the class tests. They didn’t even make me do any homework, which was nice. As a result, I didn’t attend many classes for those two years, with the exception of science class, if I recall correctly.

We were warned

Of course, there is a certain amount of irony in this guy citing (((Cathy Young))) in response to the problem of social justice spilling out of the universities and into everything else, including the law:

For quite a while now, readers of SJ have “informed” me that they agreed with my posts about criminal law, but hated my posts that addressed the blight of identity politics and social justice. How could I be so right about one thing and so wrong about . . . wait for it . . . JUSTICE!!!

But it wasn’t just that I was wrong, but needlessly and gratuitously wrong, since none of this had anything to do with the real world. Until it did.

For some time, a fixation on identity politics, a culture of reflexive outrage, and a scorched-earth approach to trivial transgressions have been all hallmarks of student activism and academic radicalism. They are now becoming increasingly evident in American life as a whole. In the name of defending women and ethnic and sexual minorities — all reasonable goals — progressives on and off campus are taking illiberal stances that polarize society, put a chill on free speech, and erode respect for due process.

Not long ago, tropes such as “white privilege” or “rape culture,” which reduce a vast range of social dynamics to racism and misogyny, were seldom heard outside the radical wing of the academy; today, they’ve joined the mainstream.

But let us not get caught up in the genetic fallacy. The point he and Young are making is relevant, which is that all of those little lunatics are now out of the asylums and creating havoc everywhere from the NFL to Marvel and Google.

Coming soon to a company near you, if it hasn’t already.

Who needs truth?

A seriously converged professor attempts to square the circle by claiming that social justice warriors are the true defenders of free speech and open debate:

Do universities still educate their students or does political correctness hinder genuine intellectual development?

The political polarization that has divided the nation escalated last year on many campuses. Evergreen State in Washington witnessed a virtual campus takeover by left-wing student activists, leading to the departure of two prominent professors. NYU’s Jonathan Haidt argues that the leftist turn on campus, especially as expressed in the “social justice” orientation of the humanities and social sciences, poses as great a danger to society as the hyper-partisan politics of Fox News.

To Haidt’s point, a scandal erupted in the fall in Canada when Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate teaching assistant for an introductory communications course at Wilfrid Laurier University, played a video clip in which Jordan Peterson, a controversial professor, declared his refusal to address trans students by their preferred gender-neutral pronouns. Shepherd claims she was showing the video neutrally, just to start a debate about grammar usage, but she was reprimanded by her supervisors in a now-infamous meeting that she recorded and released to the media.

One prominent commentator, while decrying the seeming censorship evinced by Shepherd’s ordeal, likened Peterson’s challenge to current campus orthodoxies to the skepticism practiced by Socrates — just the kind of thing that should lead to increased knowledge. Indeed, many now insist that healthy skepticism and free inquiry, the supposed heart of the Socratic method and what Haidt labels the “disinterested pursuit of truth,” are in dire need of a revival in the academy.

I’m not so sure.

In fact, in important ways the social justice approach — which emphasizes the dynamics of power and oppression — that many fear has taken over the humanities and social sciences at its best is actually an improvement over the “disinterested pursuit of truth” and more in line with the Socratic method. In fact, rather than constituting an attack on knowledge, the social justice lens reflects new ideas generated by academic disciplines and experts within them, and generally encourages expanding our knowledge and opening up subjects to new perspectives, much like Socrates advocated.

Translation: we’ll write fiction, call it definitive, and you’ll like it, you outmoded relics with your outdated affection for “truth”, “history”, and “science”.

George Orwell would not have been even remotely surprised. SJW Konvergenzsprache is real-world Newspeak. And this namedropping appeal to “Socratic dialectic” is pure pseudodialectical rhetoric from the Aristotelian perspective.

As the old Italian admiral told me, in the end, it always comes down to Aristotle vs Plato.

This is what winning looks like

A readers sends an example of Generation Zyklon upsetting a guidance counselor. It appears to be an actual, first-hand account from an SJW school counselor and his terrifying encounters with the fed-up, disaffected and angry white kids who never got to experience the economic prosperity nor the ethnically homogeneous homelands that their Baby Boomer, and, to a lesser extent, Gen X predecessors enjoyed.

I work as a counselor at a school where there’s a lot of 4chan-esque right wing boys who are coming up. The previous generation a year or two ago wasn’t too bad, but this generation coming up now is much more right wing.

My question is, how the fuck do I deal with this shit? How am I supposed to honestly give council to a kid with a pepe shirt on. How do I talk to these kids who literally come to me and rant about affirmative action? 2 years ago these types barely existed and now they are everywhere, not only men but women too. They literally cannot control their right wing beliefs, they talk about it constantly, everywhere. They can’t have a discussion about fucking math without bringing up how women hate math and science and that is why they are unsuccessful. They can’t talk about english classes without talking about colleges are wiping away white authors because of cultural marxism. A kid came to me and ranted that his history classes ‘blamed white people too much’ for tragedies in the past and that made him uncomfortable.

I know my job is that people can come to me with whatever possible problems they want, no matter how controversial. But this is getting fucking out of hand. How do I do this?

I don’t expect you to do anything, Mr. Guidance Counselor. I expect you to continue to be irrelevant and outdated. But in the meantime, you might direct those promising young students to the 16 Points of the Alt Right, because the Alt-Right is an inevitable consequence of the 1965 Naturalization Act.

Still not tired.

SJW doesn’t pay

The saddest thing about this post by a disillusioned woman is that only some corporations view a Gender Studies degree as a negative:

I’m a graduate of UC Berkeley with a major in Gender and Women’s Studies. I had a 3.94 GPA and a 750 on the GMAT. My WE isn’t that good, I’ve been a “Youth Outreach Coordinator” for Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach. I make like 30k a year.

To be honest, I was overly idealistic and extremely naive. I was extremely liberal/socialist, and that got worse at Berkeley, where I thought good intentions and a pedigreed university would empower me to change the world. I was deluding myself of the employability of my Gender Studies degree. It’s actually been a con to some corporate employers. I’m disillusioned.

Social justice work isn’t for me, and I want out. The fact that I’ve learned, is that some marginalized groups are definitely victims of their circumstances, but others are there for genuinely poor decisions, and not all are deserving of unvarnished empathy. I can’t take this anymore. But I haven’t been able to get non-retail or non-low-level sales jobs in the business sector.

My dad was a management consultant at Bain, and I miss my family’s lifestyle and standard of living. I want to go into management consulting now. I’m fine with tier 2/big4/boutiques, doesn’t have to be MBB. What are my options?

Her best option is to get a retail job, get married, have children, then quit the job. A university education is worse than wasted on most intelligent women, being an observably dysgenic and societally destructive accomplishment.

The chief consequence of encouraging women to pursue college degrees is lowering the average national IQ. This is not merely a negative consequence, it is a catastrophic one that future historians will be sure to note played a role in the collapse of various Western societies.

Taleb calls out Mary Beard

This online relationship between these two intellectuals continues to be highly entertaining:

NassimNicholasTaleb @nntaleb
1/ Many aggressive pseudolibs have smthg highly politically incorrect hidden in them.
-Weinstein demeans women
-Mary Beard is deeply racist
73 replies 83 retweets 299 likes

mary beard‏ @wmarybeard  3h3 hours ago
Could you please take this tweet down.
28 replies 10 retweets 262 likes

NassimNicholasTaleb‏ @nntaleb
Dear Prof. Beard,
I am aware of your attempts (direct & via an overactive mob) at constraining my rights of expression. The answer is no.

About the only way it could get better is if Beard is dumb enough to take Taleb, who never backs down from a fight, to court. I have no doubt that he’d be able to prove his case six different ways and end up with Beard being forced to pay for an official court determination of her own racism.

For crying out loud, all Taleb has to do is cite any of 500 different African-American scholars to conclusively prove that Mary Beard is white, therefore his assertion is true and cannot possibly be considered defamatory.

In fact, this may be an interesting new anti-SJW front in the cultural war.

Too clever for love

This, in a nutshell, illustrates why pushing women into higher education is a waste of human talent, a net producer of human misery, and unnatural selection for a less intelligent population:

We’re just too clever to find a boyfriend! It may sound insufferably smug, but these women say their high intellect means they struggle to meet someone. Natasha Hooper, 22, says men do not know how to deal with educated women. She is worried about not finding love because of a shortage of educated men. Becca Porter, 23, says a man factory worker turned her down for being too clever. She says the sense of achievement derived from learning is alien to most men. Andrea Gould, 41, believes her intellect has prevented her from finding love. ‘I get the impression they’d rather date a girl without a degree, said Andrea.

The issue, she explains, is the calibre of men she attracts. ‘I’m not claiming to be Albert Einstein, but I can’t seem to meet a man I find intellectually stimulating,’ she says. Nor is she the only well-educated young woman who says she is too clever to find love. Indeed, she is one of a growing breed of women who fear — perhaps with good reason — they will be left on the proverbial shelf because of a shortage of educated men.

Recent figures from the university admissions service UCAS showed that 30,000 more women than men are starting degree courses in the UK. On A-level results day last month, 133,280 British women aged 18 secured a university place compared with 103,800 men of the same age. The effects of this carry over into the workplace, where women aged from 22 to 29 typically now earn £1,111 more a year than their male peers.

This is what happens when Man attempts to outwit Mother Nature. Speaking as a man who is, statistically speaking, more intelligent than 99.9 percent of the species, I can attest that I don’t particularly value female intelligence. The cognitive differences between a normal smart girl and an average girl is virtually undetectable to me, and the most noticeable difference is that the former tends to behave in a much more challenging manner, which is the real reason that men “would rather date a girl without a degree”.

It’s not about about the intelligence, the cleverness, or the credentials, but rather, the attitude that tends to come with it. Men know perfectly well how to deal with educated women: they avoid them. They do so because they want an attractive and pleasant companion, not an argumentative opponent trained by her professors to regard every conversational interaction as a formal debate.

The essential problem is that the combination of female solipsism with female hypergamy means that too many women now desire the logically impossible and the statistically improbable. Women are attracted to men who possess qualities of size, earning potential, education, and, yes, intelligence, that are superior to their own. That’s fine, but the problem is when they believe that men are attracted to the same thing.

And it’s a damn good thing we’re not, because if we were, no couple would ever pair off and get together, because if X > Y for Z, then Y !> X for Z. Mutual attraction would be logically impossible. These women, both young and not-so-young, have subscribed to a false and incoherent philosophy of romance that quite literally cannot exist and has rendered both their intelligences and their educations moot. Furthermore, as believe I was the first to point out more than a decade ago, the rising F/M ratio of women at institutions of higher learning mean that at least one-third of all college graduates cannot ever marry a man with equivalent or better academic credentials.

So, it should come as no surprise that these intelligent, educated women have found neither romance nor love, have not married, and most likely, have inadvertently removed themselves from the gene pool.

Another left-wing backfire

At this point, the Left can almost be defined as the ideology which regularly features policies which, when implemented, are guaranteed to provide results that are the reverse of those predicted.

Adriana Kugler, who teaches economics at Georgetown, recently published her research on the gender-gap in STEM fields. She found that STEM recruitment efforts that stress the gender-gap in STEM actually serves to discourage women.

“With the media, women are getting multiple signals that they don’t belong in the STEM field…”

“Society keeps telling us that STEM fields are masculine fields, that we need to increase the participation of women in STEM fields, but that kind of sends a signal that it’s not a field for women, and it kind of works against keeping women in these fields,” Kugler says.

Many of the common explanations for the lack of women in STEM don’t hold up under investigation, Kugler explained to Campus Reform. While previous research suggests women are less “resilient,” or more negatively impacted by “bad grades,” Kugler says there’s “no evidence” to support that.

Likewise, the claim that women do poorly in STEM solely because it’s male dominated isn’t supported by evidence either, Kugler says, noting that an aspiring female computer scientist won’t necessarily be turned away from knowing that the field is male dominated.

The trouble begins when the media and recruitment efforts capitalize on that preponderance of men, since it “sends an additional message to women that they don’t fit into those fields, and that they don’t belong there.”

“With the media, women are getting multiple signals that they don’t belong in the STEM field, that they won’t fit into the field. That’s what we find,” Kugler told Campus Reform. “It’s very well intentioned, but it may be backfiring.”

It’s not really that hard. If you write “here there be dragons” on a map, some people are going to believe you. And a disproportionate number of those people are going to be women.


mary beard @wmarybeard
I’m afraid I dont think that academic debate is about ‘fights’ or freaking out. It’s about debate: one thing I hope I have learned in 40 yrs

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
But you don’t debate, Mary. You run crying to the media, whining that someone hit a poor wittle girl by criticizing your erroneous ideas.

mary beard‏ @wmarybeard
just for info, i never ‘ran to the media’ or even approached them. They have eyes for what goes on on Twitter! Now i’m back to writing

NOTHING academic in calling pple “misogynists” for dissenting, using Lewinski/Rowling & misrepresenting debate

mary beard‏ @wmarybeard  2h2 hours ago
oh come on. I never ‘used’ anyone; if they supported me, it was because they saw exactly what was going on. I dont recall using ‘misogyny’.

This should refresh your memory. For a “historian”, you keep being caught with misrepresentations.

NassimNicholasTaleb@nntaleb  1h1 hour ago
Mary Beard retweets n accusations of “misogyny” & articles in press & claims she never accused me of “misogyny” Historians shdn’t Fabricate!

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
It could have been worse. Just wait until she writes the inevitable book about the incident.

Bad picture.  Use these.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
The second edition of Mary Beard’s heart-rending case for scholarship sans criticism.

I think the goatee and the confident leaning back really pulls the whole thing together, don’t you? I can honestly say I never expected to have one of my intellectual heroes critiquing and polishing my meme magic. It’s almost as astonishing as the time Umberto Eco invited me to join him on a visit to a monastery. So, to find out that Taleb is now reading SJWAL is just the icing on the cake.

Lesson I leared from UK thoughtnazis. Appease/correct them w/”I am not saying…”; they destroy you. Be aggressive, disrespect: they freakout

A. Epiphanes 4th‏ @A_Epiphanes4
I can’t help but to think of @voxday rule #1: do not apologize!

This morning, at page ~ 45 of his book.