zurew

Its not about him not being open to the possibility of porn being harmful. He is right about his criticism about the paper you cited. It doesn't prove causality. You still have the opportunity to prove your point with a different study.

Don't just tell me, that I'm wrong, show me exactly how I'm wrong and whats wrong with the study i linked. I told you what was the problem with you trying to use your second study to prove your point. Firstly, its funny that you are accusing me of not reading every page of all your sources, when your own source disagreed with you on one of you major point (which implies that you didn't read more than a few sentences from your own source). You sent me two sources, the first source is saying the opposite what you are saying , the second source is about Ashkenazi Jews and their intelligence . I already told you, that your source about Ashkenazi Jews won't be enough to prove your point , because it doesn't take into account the environmental factors and you still haven't been able to disprove, that environmental factors are insignificant. Thats why there is this thing called peer review. Other scientists will test your hypothesis using their own data and see if your conclusion is true or not. Its not like you can pass randomly any idea to be accepted by the general scientific consesus. So far, the scientific consensus seem to disagree with environment not being significant and with your study, (that IQ difference between groups is explained mainly by genetic difference.) Most researchers disagree with you, most study disagree with you. So knowing all that, why do you still have a strong confidence in your narrative? Notice, that I am open to the possibility, that your narrative is right, but I don't sense the same from your side. I already told you a way how to prove your point, or at the very least how to strengthen your point, but I think there is no way that I could show you, that would change your opinion on this matter. Whats that, if not motivated reasioning and ideological bias?

Thats one study, and even if I take that study for granted, that study didn't take into account the environment factors. Again, you either have to prove or show me a study that make the same point that you made (that the environment has no signifanct effect on one's iQ) or you need to show me a study, where that study takes into account the environment factors and still results in large IQ differences between an average jewish person and a person who is not Jewish. That study only proved that certain group of Jews have really high IQ, but didn't prove, that it must be because of genetical superiority. Also, the one who tries to prove a point is you, so the burden of proof is not on me , but on you. Thats a good caricature of the points, that your own source made, but it seems that you still don't think that environment can have a significant effect on iq , although your own source and mine doesn't agree with you. I could bring even more studies that would prove my point but its insignificant , because you don't even bother to try to learn how this topic works. No certain parts of your argument was not relevant, and I even told you how to construct your own argument, but you didn't do that. There is a way for you to prove your point at the very least to some degree even if you can't prove it totally, but your current way of doing it is not sufficient and I didn't just say that its not relevant, I told you what parts are relevant and why. The more study we do about this topic and the more variables are taken into account the clearer picture we can get. So for example if certain variables are high and we still don't see that much of a difference in IQ , then we can start to properly weight those variables , so we can find the significant variables. Its not just a random article , its a study where links are provided ,reasons are provided, sources are provided, methodology is provided etc. You can for example directly attack the methodology if you want to, but you have to give reasons why that particular study is weak or misleading or biased. Thats when we start to dig into those studies and look what methodology was used, what groups of people were involved in that study , and how it was done etc, and then we can attack those parts and decide which one is more reliable or if there is any study that reliable at all on this topic. I am open to the possibility, that the genetics part could be significant, but that part have to be properly established, and there is way to establish that, or at the very least to try to make that point more plausible or stronger. You don't need to listen to me, you can check the study, that I linked and attack it if you want to, then we have something to debate/talk about. Also, if two people disagree on a topic based on personal intuition, then the next step is to find a new way other than appealing to our own knowledge about a certain field or problem and that is when the discussion/debate should shift to studies. Our disagreement is a factual disagreement, and obviously just from our own observations and intuitions we don't have access to all the data and we don't neccesarily know how to properly process that data, so its reasonable to try to find some studies about it, where experts can have a say about it and hopefully properly gather and process the data. The only way to test our biases and assumptions on this topic, is to find studies that are taking into account our assumptions. The good part is that you don't have to blindly believe in those studies, you can analyze them, and you can maybe find contra studies and you can analyze where they disagree, and hopefully you can figure out why they disagree

Sure, I won't disagree that it is indeed a good tool to develop the "fighting spirit" , I am just saying that thats not the only tool to develop that aspect and we have to also keep in mind what fighting is capable giving(hard work, discipline, learn how to fight) and what not (an ability to fight most of your insecurities)

Getting punched in the face is just one option from the many ,that you can use the "put yourself under adversity". You can challenge yourself in many ways, also keep in mind that its not just about putting yourself under adversity, but more about challenging your insecurities. Even the best professional fighters have certain things that they avoid, and for them its much easier to endure getting punched in the face than to face their fears.

Haha. Bobby is the most trustable and unbiased source on Earth, academics and scientists should rely on his observation, instead of gathering data and trying to make a study about complex topics. This doesn't strengthen your argument, and it seems that you want to attack the validity of studies, because you have nothing really to refute the points my linked study makes. You don't know that, you just assume that. It seems that you haven't read the study that I linked here, because it goes against your narrative. Read the actual study instead of making assumptions about what it does or doesn't do. Your point about environment having a small impact one one's IQ is false, and multiple studies are showing that. You make confident claims without bothering to read and to look at actual studies. There are like 20+ sited links in the study I linked, and you can read and look through all of those and you can read the methodology and everything. You are making points that are not relevant to the discussion and things that no one refutes. It seems you have a hard time sensing what arguments and points you have to prove in order to prove your consclusion. You have to show that the impact of enivronmental factors on IQ are really insignificant, or if you concede that they are significant , then you need to show a study, where all the environmental factors are taken into account and with similar environmental factors and an average Jew will have a significantly higher IQ than any other average person. If you bother to read two more sentences after that then you can see this point: Your own source disproving your point.

If you are that confident ,then go for it, but don't bullshit yourself with high confidence, if you haven't validated things yourself. You do you, but you don't have to be a professional fighter to improve those aspects. Only you can know what you want to do, however be conscious of what things you are relying on. Check if those things are just assumptions, or are things that were directly validated by you.

Healing might be possible via some spiritual technique / power, however why would you count on it, and why not prevent the damage in the firstplace? Also, I would assume that most healing techniques would either require talent or enourmous amount of practice, so I wouldn't assume that its just an easy given that you can safely count on.

I agree with that, my point was that it would be much harder to detect and trace back in a decentralised system. And any system that involves markets and provides the ability to individuals to engage in a market and the right to own some things sounds very capitalistic to me, but labels doesn't matter here, what matter here is to see whether or not certain socalist changes would provide the necessary solutions to the problems it wants to solve in the firstplace. Depending on how serious of a legal case we are talking about,,making up a random reason isn't necessarily sufficient if evidence is not provided. Thats not the argument, the argument was artificial demand, which would mean, that you make stuff addictive and by the result of that, you take away peoples agency from being able to properly participate in the market. They wouldn't waste any manpower because if they make stuff addictive, then they can sell more shit. The exact same dynamic goes down in a capitalist system. The Boss doesn't ask himself (why the fuck would I waste my manpower and resources and money on shit people don't need and don't demand in the moment?) he rather ask himself this: "how could I make my service or item more addictive?" But they can't, because they are living on the edge, because they are earning exactly as much money as much the production cost is. You can't build something from nothing. Its not a baseless assumption. You can't build new shit from nothing. If you have a constant income and no profit you can only go so far, so this is actually an argument you have to provide a solution for if you have that type of socialist system. You can't grow the economy if there is no profit. So again in that system, that government couldn't do these things: What does that mean "you can start a business whenever", you wouldn't own the business, at the very best you would give an idea for a business. So you say the government would be involved as well, so ultimately the government would be the gatekeeper to decide how the market would go and transform and what new demand it would want to create. Not necessarily, there are things that can go unnoticed for a long time, and because of the decentralized structure, people wouldn't even be suspect that there would be people changing and editing stuff with a corrupt incentive, because they would just assume that in a decentralized system its impossible to make it corrupt. But again I concede that from the bottom-up it would be harder to do corrupt things, however that wouldn't necessarily be the case from the top-down.

1997 Berserk is perfect.

Some parts of wikipedia are indeed corrupt and you don't necessarily have to be a highly influencial people to achieve it. People can pay money to people to edit some parts of the wikipedia for their benefit or for their bias. How would you know if the people who are participating in the voting process are not heavily influenced by any party at all? Capitalist organization are generally for profit and give less fuck about ideology. But again, if you really want to protect people from an injustice like that you could make some laws or rules that would prevent them from doing firing on unnecessarily reasons. Now, what do you think would be easier? To make a law that restricts a boss from doing this or to make a law that restricts a large group of people from doing this? It seems that you only focus on the negative effects and ignore all the positive effects. Bias and profit orientation doesn't exclude the fact that it can have a positive impact on the world. Perfect working condition part has no effect on the point I made. You can have perfect working conditions people would still aim to earn as much profit as possible even if that would make other peoples life worse. Most people don't give a fuck about other people. Socialism doesn't mitigate this part. People working at a company and making its service or goods more addicting would have no direct effect on their salary, so why would they care? Your reasoning was that if the government owns all the companies, then thats necessarily indicates, that there will be less artifical demand, but you haven't provided a reason why that would be the case. So you are telling me, that the government would sell everything at the price of production cost? If thats the case, then that system will have many problems. For example, what would the government do with the increase of population, or with the increase in demand if it doesn't have any profit at all? It wouldn't be able to create more business(es), it wouldn't be able to provide more jobs, It wouldn't be able to maintain any business or service(because if things crash or if things break down that requires unexpected costs), It wouldn't have any power to change things even if people vote to change things etc, It wouldn't be able to deal with any catashropes or any crisis at all, it would have no power over things and that government would necessarily fail. And how many people would have the right to vote on it? All the people in the whole country, or just local people or something else?

You don't need a perfectly controlled study, we don't want you to provide a perfect study, but at least provide any study on this topic, because I can't do anything with your observation. Generally speaking controlled studies are much more reliable than your personal observations, so if you want to say, that you personal observation and assumptions about this subject will be more reliable ,then I have to disagree. When we are talking about studies we can see what methodology was used, what was the experiment, how many people were involved etcetc. We can see all the data and then other researchers can try to replicate the data. If replication ends in similar results by many repeated studies, then the conclusion can get stronger and stronger. Personal observation in this context means nothing. You have no idea how high a normal Jews IQ is based on your personal observations, you have to measure it. You don't know what are the relevant variables that affects one's IQ or intelligence based on your personal observations, you have to measure those as well, once you have a hypothesis you don't just conclude that it is true, because it sounds true to you, you have to test it and let other people to test it and see if they get similar results to you. You don't know how many variables can affect one's success in school , you don't know how many factors can affect one's IQ or intelligence. Again here you just begging the question and your assumption is your conclusion. This part is not relevant to your argument, so even if what you say about controlled environment would be true, that still wouldn't make your argument true about Jewish people. Noone is denying that part, but you haven't established or shown any study or evidence that would conclude and show that an average level Jewish person indeed will have a higher IQ than other average people. Yes , but again you can't ignore the environmental parts if you want to be very precise about this. If you really want to make sure that you are right ,then why not do these experiments and studies rigorously? No. None of those things proved your conclusion and you still haven't provided any study that would prove or strengthen your argument.

I haven't seen any rigorous studies that would conclude this or studies that would take into account many variables at the same time and do very isolated and controlled experiments and conclude that "yes, the reason or the main reason why certain group of people outperform other groups of people intellectually, is because of their genetics". Maybe, but 15 point difference would be a big difference. First you would have to establish and show that there is actually that much of a difference in iq between Jewish people and not Jewish people. First you have to establish and show that Jewish people have higher IQ, If you can prove that, then we should look at a study, that take into account all the effects that are outside of one's genetic, that can have an effect on a person's IQ. If you could show a study like that, and show that Jewish people still have higher IQ, then you might start to strengthen your hypothesis, but even then we wouldn't be done. Basically you would have to do and show many studies, and exclude many other explanations and do studies for all those.

One thing that we know statistically, that people who learn in private schools are consistently outperforming students who learn in mainstream schools. I think given a normal level of IQ, and very effective methods of teaching most people could get through college. Yeah IQ definitely matters, however, I don't think we did enough experiments with effective teaching methods to conclude confidently , that the main drive is always about genetics. These experiments are very hard to do, because you need to control many variables at the same time. Many things can have an effect on a kid's education and learning ability What classes are you reffering to? Even if you want to go with IQ there are things that can affect your IQ at the very least negatively. if you don't get certain things or if you suffer certain things that might cause that your IQ won't be as high as it would have been otherwise. So if we would want to do a proper analysis of this issue, we would have to look at many many things.

Based on what would you filter people?

Its not just about regular education, but finding effective ways to teach. One thing with Jews, is not just that they get education, but probably how they get their education. Having private teachers from an early age could make a massive difference. Regular people who go to school don't get nowhere near as much attention from teachers, because they generally have many classmates and the teacher don't have time to focus too much on one kid.

So if we go back to the home made porn example, then this doesn't apply.

Depends on how you evaluate it. If we evaluate it by how realistic it is, and how authentic it is, then its much better than other forms of porn, because these people are most of the time genuinely attracted to each other, and have sex in the same way, when the camera is turned off. Depends on the women, and why would porn create the expectation that women horny all the time? Many people who are virgin and watch porn knows, that not all people horny all the time.

Higher standards in this case means including stuff that normal people wouldn't necessarily associate with the word of 'intelligent', so at the end of the day, you are using it differently.

Yeah, I understand that, but I think its still worth to explore our disagreement(s) about certain parts of socialism. Basically, because it is decentralized and its hard to find the corrupt center. I will give a concrete example and the reason afterwards. So the example would be an instance, where a wealthy person would pay money to the workers in order to make the voting system in his favour. Lets say 'in his favour' in this case would mean firing certain people from the company. So he offers some money to some people, that he assumes, he can trust, and then they make the voting system corrupt, and fire those people. In that case, it would be hard to detect corruption, because those people weren't fired randomly by one person or a small number of people, but they were fired because the majority of the workers agreed to it. Even if some people would recognize that there is some corruption going on, they wouldn't know where to search for it, because at least 51% of the people who are working at that company voted to fire those people, so you need to do a really big investigation to find out who paid who. Opposite to that, generally speaking, under a system where there is no voting involved, almost every corruption investigation would start from the top of the hierarchy, because everyone knows where the power is centered at, but in a decentralized system, its much harder to try to find the corrupt piece. Other example for corruption would be ideologically driven votes. Of course, under a capitalist system this is also possible, however generally, because the boss is success and profit driven that boss will most likely overlook the ideological differences. Also, under a capitalist system with laws its easier to reduce bigoted thinking and biased ideological decision in the context of a company, because only the boss has to be targeted, but opposite to this, under a system ,where there is a democratized workplace, in that case people could collectively fire people just because they don't agree with their ideology, and the key part here, is that it would be almost impossible to write laws to prevent that. That being said, I will concede, that in a decentralized system, its harder to make it corrupt for one person (because you have to make 51% of the people to play your game), however, once you manage to make it corrupt, it requires much more time and a big investigation to trace back the crime. Thats sad, but your friend could choose to use his skills more wisely at a different company, where they would work towards a more conscious goal. I don't think this is necessarily true. I could bring up medicine in general, like big pharma (although I know it has many problems, but its still hugely beneficial), I could also bring up vaccines.I don't think that research that is done for profit will be generally bad. I would say, that positive ROI says almost nothing about the quality of the research , but says more about what the current market values. The government owning the companies doesn't necessarily indicates less orientation towards profit. The reason why is because those companies under your system would be run by workers, and workers generally want to earn as much money as possible. So how can they earn more money under a socialist system? I assume it would either be determined by the success of the company (so they can distribute more money between the workers, if the company generates more profit) or it would be determined by the government. If its solely determined by the government, in that case, I still wouldn't necessarily agree that the government wouldn't have an incentive to generate as much profit as possible, because all the power would be in the government's hand, so why would they suddenly not care about earning more money? The government would have almost all the leverage and they could do whatever they want , because they would own all the companies, so people wouldn't even have a chance to break from that system. Or if the workers money only determined by the market, in that case, they would still have the incentive to create artifical demand. Also, I would be very curious how new businesses would be created under the system you are talking about, like how the process would go down exactly, because that can be a key part to the demand discussion.

So, would you say, there is no possible way to create healthy porn? Like scenes that are much more realistic like amateur home-made porn.

This has nothing to do with good sex. When it comes to word usage, of course I will assume, that person is using certain words the same way as most people would use them, unless its very clear, that they mean something different. Why would I assume otherwise? Also, this is all a definition game now. I say it again we probably agree, you just use the word "intelligent" in a different way than most people, and thats where my disagreement came from.

If its easy to see and measure a good and effective leader, then human input is not releavant there. The other problem is that you need some level of intelligence to vote for the right person. That level of intelligence is not a given and giving this choice in this isn't smart, if the effective financial guy could be determined without human input. If a thing is very clear cut and we know that we want that thing, then human input is not just not relevant, but can be harmful. I would also add, that corruption under socialism would be different but not in a good way. People there could still use their money for the purpose of corruption but the difference is that under a capitalist system when the shady shit comes to light, you can almost automatically see who should be hold accountable (and you know what patterns to search for), but on the other hand, how the fuck can you hold a group of people properly accountable and how could you properly trace back who did the corrupt funding? The other corruption problem that would be not appliable to capitalism is that people who are in charge of the government, they have all the power in their hands. They are basically ruling almost the whole market, and they can decide how much money people can earn, and how much profit they want to take, they can close any business any they want. If you say that nonono its not government owned its owned collectively, then my question would be, how would people get paid. Earlier you gave this answer "The rewards would be the same as they are now." but it wouldn't be, because earlier there was a market that determined the price of labour, but right now that part of the market is gone (because that part of the competition is gone), so when a collectively owned company earns x amount of money, based on what factors would it give a salary? Some can get away with stuff but others can't. For example, there are laws that are protecting employees: you can't pay people under minimum wage, there are ethic laws about what you can and can't do to your employees etc. The solution is not socalism (where the main corruption factors are still present), but probably more well thought out restriction(s) or a different system (which is neither socialism, nor capitalism) This is true, those are good examples, however, giving our current state of society and the fact that the current society is stage orange at best, it would undermine innovation greatly, but yeah thats true, that innovation is not exclusive to profit incentive. But, It would also slow down research, unless you compensate the research group properly, but you its not sustainable in the longrun to have a negative ROI. I didn't agree with that, and I don't think you have properly established that point. I gave reasons why I think there wouldn't be less incentive for corruption, you can attack those points if you want to. Your points would be true, if people would have the same desires and goals, and those goals and desires wouldn't be opposite to each other. We always need to see what incentive people have in a certain system ,and then we can make relatively correct predictions about how it would go down or at the very least how it would not go down. Lets say you choose a socialist system where everyone can vote on every decision, now the problem is that , that system is super inefficient and I don't see how for example a hypothetical Joe should have a direct say in every companies decision making. Can you imagine how insane that would be? Every people would need to vote on a thousand different things every day. Above a certain number, the more decisions you give to people the poorer decision they will make, because to properly make decisions you need to have some factors in check (like knowing all or if not all , most information about the subject you want to make a decision about | being properly educated about that subject to have the necessary structre to put the relevant information in/through and that way you have a way to properly evaluate that information). We disagree about the effectiveness of socalism and we are still in hypothetical land. We still haven't talked about many things like how would a socialist country would react to crisis or how it would coodinate itself with foreign countries, whether or not this socialist country would want to participate in the global market, how it would deal with outside pressure, how it would deal with other countries outsourcing it, whether or not investment would be possible or not, whether or not foreign investment would be allowed or not, how would an actual investment would even go down if a socialist country would want to invest some of its money in a foreign country The most important would be if you could show me a real world example of your hypothetical socialist system or an example that is very similar to it (because in that case you have much less explaning to do, because then I would have a tangible thing to evaluate and to grapple with).

Check the Stargate project out. If you are interested here is two video extensively talking about focusing on remote viewing. You can find sources sited in the video description

Yeah this is crazy. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/12/13/jewish-educational-attainment/ Here is an explanation from a Jewish person: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Nobel-prize-winners-are-Jewish