Why Trump passed up the kill shots

Judgybitch explains how Donald Trump avoided the minefield of defeating Hillary Clinton in the first presidential debate:

He understands he can’t win a fight with a woman, and certainly not with a woman who signals her femininity as strongly as Clinton did last night. Trump has some massive strikes left in his arsenal. Benghazi. The Clinton Foundation. Her private server. Immigration. The Second Amendment. Death Taxes. Bill’s rape roster. Big strikes. If and when he pulls them, he is risking the paradox of fighting with women. Nailing her to the wall can backfire on him badly, because many people simply cannot stomach seeing a woman take a massive punch from a man. No matter how much she begs for it. No matter how justified. For many people, you simply don’t hit women.

Trump is walking a fine line, and he is taking his cues, it appears, from Hillary, which is the smart thing to do. He stood on the debate stage, and let her walk up to him. He’s the alpha, she’s the supplicant. That was perfect. He is very gently laying on a spanking, but only with her consent, and again, that’s exactly how you do it. I’m not an advocate of spanking children ever, but grown women are another story altogether. She may not know she needs it, but she probably does.

As long as Hillary never seems staggered by Trump’s blows, he can hit her. The minute the public perceives that he is actually hurting her, he loses. She gains the pity vote. Trump looks like a bully. A few whiny feminists insist he is a bully, because anyone who disagrees with a woman is a bully, period. But average people are watching to see if Trump can constrain himself and not lose it and just beat the crap out of her. If Trump were up against Bernie Sanders, it would be no holds barred, but he can’t do that with Hillary.

Trump won, because he spanked Hillary just enough to let her know her place, but not so hard he triggered the latent white knight in undecided viewers.

As irritating as this is, Judgybitch is probably right to advise restraint. While most of the readers here would like to see Trump unleash on Clinton and trigger her into collapsing in convulsions on stage, the fact is any such action might well render him unelectable in the eyes of most women and more than a few men.

Reacting to the rage

Life is too short to put up with angry women:

As women hit menopause, they tend to get observably unhappier and angrier. However, Western society no longer permits men to keep middle-aged female anger under control any more than it permits them to restrain young female promiscuity.

Two observations. First, it’s clearly not psychologically healthy behavior: I get heart palpitations and shake. Then I open my mouth without engaging my brain. I shout and use foul language I regret afterwards. It takes me a couple of hours before I can calm down.’

Second, it is milquetoast men who are enabling the self-destructive behavior. As mild-mannered as Jo is volatile, he’s found that the best thing to do is to walk away and let the tantrum burn itself out.

The reason for the behavior is that this is what the unrestrained female psyche looks like.

I used to believe that women civilized men. However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that it is more the other way around. Men civilize women, while women incentivize men to pursue civilization.

Western civilization is not compatible with the unrestrained female psyche or the unrestrained male psyche. It requires discipline and a mutually beneficial partnership between the sexes. African culture is the result of the unrestrained female psyche. Arab culture is the result of the unrestrained male psyche.

In any event, it is important for men to understand that repeated conflict-avoidance in the name of smoothing out the relationship is a strategy for failure. Conflict is a necessary aspect of discipline.

Keep them off the coal

The old challenge for parents used to be keeping their girls off the stripper pole. Now the more pressing challenge is to keep them from burning coal, before they end up as STD-infested single mothers with no paternal support in the best case scenario, or, in the worst case scenario, eaten by alligators.

Drexel was last captured on video on April 25, 2009, leaving the Blue Water Hotel in Myrtle Beach, where she was staying against her parents’ permission. A different inmate serving time at Georgetown County Jail told officials he was informed Da’Shaun Taylor picked Drexel up in Myrtle Beach and transported her to McClellanville.

Munoz said the FBI believes Taylor “showed her off, introduced her to some other friend that were there…they ended up tricking her out with some of their friends, offering her to them and getting a human trafficking situation.”

As the media spotlight grew ever brighter on the desperate efforts to find Drexel, the girl was “murdered and disposed of,” Munoz said.

Given the recent study that reported only two percent of black fathers of mixed race children with white mothers support their children, it would be interesting and informative to work out whether a coal-burning woman’s odds are higher with regards to a) getting married, having children, and being supported by her black husband or b) getting raped and murdered.

They’re both obviously very low. It would be unfair to fail to recognize that the vast majority of black men are simply not going to support a white woman under any circumstances. Or rape and murder one, for that matter. I’m just interested in learning which scenario represents the lower probability.

I should probably note that the aforementioned study was published by an African-American scientist. Please don’t question it, as that would be terribly raciss and I would hate to be forced to disavow any of the commenters here.

On the plus side, the short-lived romance of Da’Shaun and Brittanee does provide a useful answer to parents whose daughters demand to know “what is the worst that could happen?”

Gang-raped, tricked out, shot in the head, and fed to alligators, my dear.

Mailvox: the philosophy of failure

HD would like to avoid wallowing in disappointment and failure:

Will Wheaton’s latest post at his blog illustrates why I read your blog way more than I read his. It seems that every one of his blog posts is about him and his “woe-is-me” life stories. Whereas, at Vox Populi there is no Vox Day crying about how he can’t do anything, get acting jobs, or anything about his “woe-is-me.” In short, Wheaton’s blog is really just solely about him and your blog is about what’s happening in the United States and the world and not about Vox Day.

In regards to Wheaton’s latest blog post about not getting acting jobs, I’m fairly confident it is because he is a prima Donna and is probably a very high maintenance person to work with.

I get the feeling if I hired Will Wheaton for a speaking engagement I would have to hold his hand throughout the entire process, acquiescing to his demands to placate him. Whereas, if I hired you, I wouldn’t have to worry about you much. I suspect it would consist of making the arrangements in a straightforward manner with you and having you show up to do your part with little worry on my part.

Personally, I’m trying to escape the category that Will Wheaton is in. In my younger days I was that person who was that prima Donna, high a maintenance person to be friends with and be around, and now don’t have too many friends to speak of now. But I’m putting myself on a course to change that.

I appreciate the blog posts you have done about failure and writing. They’ve helped to put some things in perspective and have gotten me to think more about the course of my life.

I had no idea what he was talking about; I didn’t even know Wil Wheaton had a blog. But I found the post to which HD was referring and here is a brief summary of Wheaton’s complaints:

  • We can’t seem to get our careers back where we want them. We’re both having the same frustrations and hitting the same closed doors 
  • I couldn’t even get an audition. It’s really frustrating, and if I’m being honest, it’s depressing as fuck.
  • I go back and forth between giving up entirely on having on-camera work, and focusing on writing and voice acting, and working as hard as I can to get back in front of the camera
  • Everything I’ve been doing the last several years just isn’t working.
It’s rather amusing to read this sort of whining, considering that I saw an episode of one of the most popular television shows in America, The Big Bang Theory, last night, and not only Wheaton, but even his podcast, was heavily featured. He can’t figure out how to take advantage of that?

Now, I don’t know if he actually has a podcast or not, but Wheaton gets far more free exposure from his modestly successful acting career than any other blogger, podcaster, or writer on the Internet. Due to that free exposure, his writing and ancillary activities get far more attention than anyone not named “Bill Simmons”. Can you even imagine Stefan Molyneux or Mike Cernovich crying about that sort of thing? I know there are still some people who are dubious about the socio-sexual hierarchy and all, but this sort of thing demonstrates how even very high levels of success and fame are not capable of filling the endless hunger for approval in some men.

Can you even imagine how Wheaton going to react once he figures out that he’s not being published because he’s got any literary talent, or has anything interesting to say, but because he’s a moderately famous actor? Does he really not realize that many people, like John Scalzi, are only “friends” with him because he happens to be of use to them at the moment?

He must, on some level, as that partially explains why he’s so desperate for more success and fame. Wheaton is afraid that if he can’t maintain his status, everyone is going to consider him to be a fraud and abandon him. But who cares if fair-weather friends abandon you? They were never worth anything from the start. Only those who stand by you in times of difficulty matter. And once you have accomplished something, no one can take that away from you.

Life is a challenge. It is a constant series of challenges. But what makes us feel successful is rising to meet those challenges and surmounting them. If life knocks you down and no one deigns to give you a hand up, then push yourself back to your own damn feet. If no one wants to take you by the hand and guide you along the easy path while telling you how wonderful you are, then carve out your own way, even if doing so is laborious and difficult. Trust me, it will be much more rewarding in the end.

You never know what challenge life will send at you next. Last night, I had the distinct pleasure of practicing with my eldest son’s new team; my veteran’s team doesn’t start until next week, and at this time of year, every team is happy to have an additional practice body. Despite my being twenty years older than everyone, it went pretty well, as I not only scored the first goal in the scrimmage but was even asked to play with them in their first team’s first friendly. Score one for the old guys!

But that’s not why I was so pleased about the practice. What made me happy, what was genuinely heart-warming, was seeing my son take the field for the first time in 21 months, run at the front of the pack during the warm-up laps, and participate in the drills and the scrimmage like the healthy young man that he is. Brainstormers know what I’m talking about. And here is the thing. During those hellish 21 months, he never once complained about the pain, whined about being unable to play with his team, or cried about how unfair it all was. He just soldiered on, did what he had to do to get better, and now, almost two years later, he’s back on the field again.

He’s never going to play professionally. Given the disruption in his development at a fairly critical stage, he may not even be able to play for our club’s first team like some of his former teammates are already doing. But he already feels like more of a success than Wil Wheaton ever will, because he has conquered a long and difficult challenge through faith, courage, and willpower. And I would not be more proud of him if he was signed by AC Milan tomorrow.

Do you want to stop being a prima donna? Do you want to stop being a self-pitying, high-maintenance person that no one likes to listen to or be around? Do you want to stop navel-gazing and start accomplishing something that will let you know what success feels like? Then stop thinking about what others can do for you and start thinking about what you can do for yourself and for others. The world existed before you. It will exist after you. Don’t waste whatever time you have by dwelling on your disappointments and feeling sorry for yourself.

And don’t ever worry about what other people think about you, because 99 times out of 100, they’re not thinking about you at all.

Fail faster. Then pick yourself up and move onto the next challenge. As every gamer knows, if no one is shooting at you, you’re not going in the right direction.

Mailvox: Jesus Christ and the SS hierarchy

This was a fascinating take on interpreting the original Alpha and Omega and applying it to the observable socio-sexual hierarchy.

As we believe Jesus is fully God and fully Man, I also believe him to have fully exhibited the redeemed traits of every rank of men. In the Teacher we each see our own place in his Kingdom and our own wavelength of light to the world, forming together as his Body now on earth the same pure light that shone through his flesh many years ago.

 α: Christ was the alpha male when he overturned the tables in the Temple and drove out his enemies with a whip. He as the alpha male when he rebuked the Pharisees to their face in public, demolishing their power and credibility in the most humiliating way possible.

The glory of the alpha male, redeemed, is the power he exerts over immoral and weak leaders. When he asserts his dominance over the corrupt he brings justice to the world as no other can, and he provides upright leadership and inspiration that other men and women thirst for without even realizing it. The alpha has the power and energy to inspire in his followers the best of themselves for his cause.

Read the whole thing at Alpha Game.

Every single time

Seriously, what is it with Gammas? They can’t follow the rules, they get snarky and disrespectful when they’re warned, then they bitch and cry and hurl angry accusations and threats when you follow through and ban them.

And they do this every single time, even though they’ve seen it happen to dozens of other Gammas. Are they totally incapable of learning from either their own experience or others? It’s like they have no ability to recognize that what happened to others is going to happen to them if they do the same thing.

Anyhow, Ray is banned and spammed, so nuke him, moderators, when he pops up crying and flailing about. Everyone else, just ignore the wounded Gamma antics.

When white-knighting goes awry

Due to their self-absorption and addiction to self-delusion, Gammas render themselves so completely incompetent that they can’t even white-knight properly. Jim Treacher is a commentator for the Daily Caller who nobly white-knighted for Michelle Fields when she was raped, her arm was ripped off, and she was beaten to death with it by Corey Lewandowski on the direct orders of Donald Trump.

His outrage at this horribly unchivalrous, ungallant behavior was stoked by Mike Cernovich’s infamous endorsement of Miss Field’s rape, mutilation, and murder, so it’s quite natural that he should have been even more inflamed at Spacebunny’s ignoble failure to decry and denounce the pure and unadulterated evil that is Mike Cernovich.

Jim Treacher@jtLOL
If you want to know why I want nothing to do with you: Just look at the shit Cernovich says, every day.

Mike Cernovich @Cernovich
Did Michelle Fields fiancé, who is violent and angry, abuse her? Could be source of those bruises she posted…

This is why we can’t be friends.

Space Bunnyopoulos ‏@Spacebunnyday
We can’t be friends because of something someone else said that has nothing to do with either of us.  Gotcha.

Jim Treacher@jtLOL 
There is no square centimeter of Cernovich’s nutsack that you haven’t licked. Don’t even pretend.

Jim Treacher@jtLOL
He took great delight in hurting my friend Michelle, because his demigod Trump had already hurt her.

Jim Treacher@jtLOL
Fuck all of you fucking shitheads.

Jim Treacher@jtLOL
Have fun eating Cernovich’s shit.

This demonstrates the fundamental way that being emotionally incontinent renders Gammas totally incoherent. In order to virtue-signal and defend the honor of Michelle Fields, Jim Treacher is spewing vulgar nonsense at Spacebunny simply because she would not agree with him.

The reason for this is threefold. First, Gammas usually double down, at least in the short term. Second, Gammas HATE HATE HATE Alphas, mostly because they envy them. Third, and perhaps most important here, is that Gammas place inordinate importance on the approval of women. Nothing burns them more painfully than female disapproval or rejection.

The fact that Treacher perceived Spacebunny as siding with the evil Alpha rather than him, the noble Defender of Women meant that he felt she was disapproving of him, which therefore justified, in his delusional Gamma mind, treating her far worse than Cernovich has ever treated the memory of the late Michelle Fields.

It’s best not to white-knight at all. But if you absolutely have to white-knight for one psychological reason or another, you might want to, at the very least, refrain from cursing at women and accusing them of being adulterous whores. It’s appalling, really, that The Daily Caller permits its commentators to treat women in such a grotesquely sexist way. Do they really endorse this sort of behavior?

UPDATE: Just because it is almost too funny to believe. And to think he wanted to take on Spacebunny, of all women. She’d fillet him and serve him to his cats without even blinking.

Jim Treacher ‏@jtLOL
As I sat there handcuffed, one Metro DC cop mocked me for crying and another one made fun of my weight. Can’t say I blame them for either.

Gamma self-destruction on stage

There was a fair amount of talk about the socio-sexual rank of the candidates early during the campaign at Alpha Game. One of my readers concluded the following about Ted Cruz:

Ted Cruz: Beta, with a bit of Sigma. Seems to be instinctively serving as a lieutenant to Trump in some aspects, by cornering certain voters who won’t warm up to Trump, such as the evangelicals. Has a Sigma streak with his willingness to offend the Democrats and cuckservatives running the Senate, and which seems to have inoculated him against being an Establishment sellout, or at least less than Rubio or Rand Paul. Indeed, he seems to be rising above the less-“offensive” Rubio and Paul, despite Rubio’s backers having spent far more money than Cruz’s.

I was never confident about that, particularly when Cruz refused to accept the role that could very well have led to being Trump’s Vice-President, but instead very stupidly began attacking Trump through a series of legalistic maneuvers that couldn’t possibly influence the ultimate outcome. Some people saw that as Sigma behavior, but I most certainly did not. It struck me more as a delusional Gamma inflicted with the usual Gamma Alpha-hate.

And last night, we got our confirmation when Ted Cruz sperged out in front of the entire nation, struck a classic Noble Sir pose, and revealed himself to be the Gamma of all Gammas, sabotaging himself in a belated and futile, attempt to dethrone the Republican Alpha.

Republicans from all corners of the party scorned Ted Cruz Wednesday night after the Texas senator delivered a speech before the Republican National Convention that not only failed to endorse nominee Donald Trump, but encouraged audience members to not do so if it would violate their “conscience.”

“I think it was awful,” echoed New Jersey governor and Trump-supporter Chris Christie after Cruz’s speech. “And quite frankly, I think it was selfish.”

“For the life of me, I don’t know why he is doing this,” Fox News Channel and conservative talk-radio host Sean Hannity said. “I think there is going to be long-term damage for the party and for him.”

“Trump trusted Ted and was rewarded with a betrayal,” piled on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Before his speech, some Republicans held out hope that Cruz would succumb to the pressure and endorse Trump. But, when it became clear that he would decline to express support for the GOP nominee, audience members rebelled, loudly booing the once-beloved conservative star until he exited the stage.

“The best unity I saw was everyone booing him off the stage,” Donald Trump Jr. said of the moment during an appearance on Fox News.

And Republicans were apparently not shy about expressing their frustration to Cruz’s face.

CNN reported that some donors were so furious at Cruz they called him a “disgrace” as he tried to enter a suite following his speech. An unnamed state party chair was so angry with the Texas senator that he had to be restrained, the news outlet reported.

Sheldon Adelson, a major Republican Party donor, even denied Cruz entry to his personal suite after his speech, according to CNN and BuzzFeed.

Cruz’s wife, Heidi, also came under verbal assault on the convention floor, with delegates heckling her. She had to be escorted outside by security, according to reports.

Trump, for his part, said Cruz’s speech did not bother him. “Wow, Ted Cruz got booed off the stage, didn’t honor the pledge! I saw his speech two hours early but let him speak anyway,” he tweeted. “No big deal!”

Unbelievable. You can hide your true sociosexual nature, but it is always going to come out sooner or later. As one Twitter wag put it: “I saw a video of a Buddhist monk self-immolate, and Ted Cruz still did it better.”

Wounded Gamma loses again

One significant characteristic of the Gamma male is that he cannot deal with being publicly shown to be wrong. Such an event punctures the delusion bubble in which he, the Secret King, always triumphs, so it creates a wound that never heals, and festers much longer than any higher-rank man can imagine. Even if he manages to control himself and not let it show immediately, it eats away at him and preys on his mind.

The way the Gamma usually deals with a festering wound is to attempt to negate it by subsequently demonstrating his superiority to the party who dealt it to him. This means that he will lie in wait, for years if need be, for what he sees as an opportunity to prove the offending party wrong. This, he believes, will disqualify and discredit the party, which somehow means that the Gamma was not wrong the first time, even though he was. But no matter, the Secret King triumphs in the end!

This behavior is so predictable that I not infrequently find myself able to correctly anticipate when a previously wounded Gamma is going to think he sees an opening and launch what I am coming to think of as a restorative rebuttal. However, I did not see this one coming; I did not think that Camestros Felapton was dumb enough to launch what is either his third or his fourth attempt to repair his delusion bubble since being so publicly humiliated about his lack of knowledge concerning rhetoric in Of Enthymemes and False Erudition. Apparently the sting of his repeated defeats at my hands has become more than he can bear, because he is really grasping at straws now.

The other day Vox was disparaging about the value of scientific evidence. I’m not entirely sure if he is clear himself about what he means but when it comes to IQ he is happy to post anything that he feels supports his case. This time, it is a pair of studies that point to a 4 point decline in IQ in France in a 9-10 year period. Vox quotes a second study that was an analysis of the first. This second study was an attempt to discern the cause of the decline by looking at the magnitude of the changes at a subtest level. This second paper concluded that the decline ‘likely has a primarily biological cause’. Vox declares it was due to immigration.

Did I now? What did I actually write? Let’s review:

My estimate of a post-1965 four-point IQ loss in the USA was a minimum estimate based solely on replacement migration, but considering that dysgenic fertility is also a factor in the USA, the actual decline is almost certainly worse.

If replacement migration is also the lesser factor in the US case, then the post-1965 IQ decline in the USA could be as much as 10 points. However, US immigration has been higher and US native birth rates have remained higher than in France, so something on the order of 7-8 points is more likely. This is not insignificant; it is the difference between the current USA and Sierra Leone.

So, Camestros is obviously wrong. I did not say the decline was due solely to immigration, I merely repeated what the study said, which is that the reported IQ decline in France was primarily due to dysgenic fertility and secondarily due to immigration.

Moreover, this shows that Camestros was not merely wrong, he was lying, because I even pointed out that while dysgenic fertility appears to have been the primary factor responsible in France, in the US it is more likely that immigration is nearly as important a factor for two reasons: US immigration rates are higher and US native birth rates are higher. There is a third reason as well; higher abortion rates among the lowest-IQ population tend to partially counterbalance the lower fertility rate of the highest-IQ population.

We had damn well better hope I am right, because we know the immigration-related decline of IQ in the USA is at least 4 points based on population averages. If the dysgenic fertility decline in the USA is, like France, even worse than the immigration-related decline, then we will have already seen a catastrophic decline in average US IQ of 9 points or more! In his desperation to declare me wrong about immigration and IQ, (and therefore retroactively wrong about Aristotle and rhetoric) Camestros fails to even notice the horrific implications of his argument. Who cares about that, what is important is to patch up that punctured delusion bubble stat!

Finally, after again trying to cast doubt on IQ as a reasonable metric for intelligence as well as upon the possibility of comparing average national intelligence levels, Camestros ends by saying, “neither paper ends up agreeing with Vox’s conclusion.”

Considering that neither paper addresses the USA at all, it would be absolutely remarkable if either of them had.

Once more, Camestros provides us with sufficient evidence to safely conclude that if IQ is a reasonable measure of innate intelligence, his is considerably lower than mine. It’s funny that despite being such a questionable metric, a similar percentile just seems to keep showing up no matter how it’s measured.

Of course, my actual vocabulary is probably more than twice that, but then, we’re not counting Italian, German, French, or Japanese vocabularies.

UPDATE: Gammas never learn. And they never stop lying.

Camestros Felapton ‏@CamestrosF
@voxday declares me beneath his consideration, again

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
You’re lying, again. I take on all comers. Even hapless, midwitted gamma males like you. 

Gamma stalker fail

Camestros Fellatrix is still butthurt over being depantsed in the midst of his attempt to pose as a master of Aristotelian rhetoric that he’s been commenting almost nonstop about me ever since. (shakes head) Gammas are nothing if not predictable. Anyhow, it’s more than a little amusing to see him try to figure out how he can try to figure out how to produce a justification for calling me stupid while simultaneously undermining the significance of IQ:

In Vox Day’s case, his claim is this: the difference in IQ score between man-who-made-Vox-grumpy (MWMVG) and Vox is >50 IQ score points. If we assume the MWMVG is at least in the average range (90-109) Vox is claiming an IQ score of >140 and possibly >159. Note that the upper end of just ‘average’ IQ has Vox claiming to be pretty much at the limit of meaningful IQ scores on the most generous reading of IQ and even at the lower end well above the boundary which most reputable IQ test stop bothering to classify (around 130 IQ points). An informed (and presumably smart) person shouldn’t make a claim any more precise than ‘greater than 130’ – beyond that the figure as some sort of intrinsic property of a person that would be consistent across multiple methods of quantification doesn’t make sense EVEN ASSUMING IQ MAKES MUCH SENSE ANYWAY.

Put let’s take that figure of 130. Let’s say Vox is taking a more grounded view of his own IQ and is seeing himself as 130. A 50 point difference would put the MWMVG at an IQ of below 80. For comparison, an IQ of below 70 is used diagnostically as evidence of intellectual disability. An IQ of 80 to 70 is likely to represent somebody who would struggle with school and many cognitive tasks (assuming the score was representative). Which would be an odd thing for Vox to claim – after he is attempting to write a point-by-point rebuttal of what the MWMVG and struggling to do so, claiming that he is struggling to counter an argument from a person with an IQ lower than 80 would be tantamount to claiming he really doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Aaron doesn’t make me grumpy in the slightest. I find his determination, shared by a few similarly stupid File 770 headcases, to stake his reputation on my being wrong every single time in all circumstances, to be downright funny. It is always a pleasure to see one’s expectations met so reliably.

Especially considering how his fixation led him to publicly conclude that LEEEROY JENKINS was the greatest battlefield commander in military history.

Anyhow, Cammy has unnecessarily occupied himself with trying to assess “a more grounded view” of my IQ, in that its lower limit is a matter of public record. I was a member of Mensa, so obviously my IQ is above 132. More importantly, I was also a National Merit Finalist prior to the 1993 renorming of the PSAT, so it is equally apparent that my IQ must also be above 140. Therefore, the minimum estimated IQ for Aaron is 90, which is in the average range, and may actually be considered a little generous in light of the obvious silliness of his expressed position on tactical matters.

And then, of course, there is the perhaps-not-entirely-irrelevant fact that I already posted it.

We have now reached the point at which you should feel free to:

  • Explain why you reject IQ as a metric for intelligence. Preferably at length and with personal anecdotes.
  • Lecture us on the 34 different types of intelligence, as well as which ones are best.
  • Tell us how you were out partying the night before the SAT and you were totally hungover when you took it and besides you don’t care.
  • Brag about your 800 IQ.
  • Inform us of your Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago!
It’s totally going to fool everyone. I guarantee it. No one will ever be able to ascertain your true motivations. We’ve never seen or heard anyone do anything like it before.
Anyhow, this is nothing more than Vox’s First Law in action: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.