You need to exploit a cheap and emotionally loaded topic to write about if you want attention. Effort posts on some novel unexplored topic barely get any attention but writing for the two hundredth time about something like black crime always works. We’re all slaves to the masses. Time to get to work!
"There is no respect for the writer. The cultural determinists told me otherwise, which is part of why I started writing."
The popular writer is a sugar dispenser for goycattle. That's why all writing today is either grifting / academic scams (low resolution and bad research being peddled to the masses in the form of self-help and feel-good books) or the literary equivalent of junk food: Pornography in written form for women, wish-fulfillment fantasies for immature pöbel, unimaginitive regurgitated fiction slop written at a 5th grade English level etc.
The writer is no longer an artist aspiring to newer and intelligent expressions of ideas and sentiments through art or science, but a cog in the machine serving the self-satisfaction of stupid, entitled and promiscuous masses.
It is truly dark times that we live in. We need eugenics ASAP.
There are still modern works of literature that have literary value, were you to bother looking for them. Also, you are not clear when you talk about "academic scams" - self-help nonsense is in bloom, yes, but every field of science, detached from contact with the general public, is still producing decent work and trying to get itself in order, even those with well-established awful practices and statistical illiteracy.
I can assure you, the popular writers that you talk about and the slop they produce have existed for as long as the printing press moved beyond holy texts. Pornography, cheap novels, crap writing, all has co-existed with the greats - it's just that it has been forgotten (being garbage), while modern garbage is visible to us, because we see it.
Also, the Flynn effect points to the simple fact that "the masses" have always existed and, in fact, might be at a peak. Its reversal should be stopped somehow, yes - what do you specifically have in mind when you say "eugenics"?
"but every field of science, detached from contact with the general public, is still producing decent work and trying to get itself in order"
Hardly. Most "scientific work" in most fields is incremental stuff pushed out with bad statistics to keep the researcher's career afloat. There is a reason why we're living through a replicability crisis in academia.
"even those with well-established awful practices and statistical illiteracy."
How can a field admittedly unscientific with "awful practices" and "statistical illiteracy" be producing "decent work"? Either your definition of what constitutes "decent work" is horribly bad, or you're simply a dishonest man.
"There are still modern works of literature that have literary value"
Few and far between, and they don't get rewarded like they used to. The best that today has to offer is vastly inferior to the best that the past used to offer.
"were you to bother looking for them"
How do you know I don't? This condescension and arrogance is unbecoming.
"the slop they produce have existed for as long as the printing press moved beyond holy texts"
Hardly to this degree and this prominent. The argument of "it always existed" fails to account for scale and prominence as well as changes in broad social acceptability.
"all has co-existed with the greats "
The crap of the past is superior in many ways to the crap of today. The whole bell-curve shifted to the left.
"Also, the Flynn effect points to the simple fact that "the masses" have always existed and, in fact, might be at a peak. "
I fail to see how the former follows from the latter, and also, you seem to misunderstand what the Flynn effect actually is. Actual cognitive ability isn't at a peak. If anything it is the lowest among developed Western countries that it has been since the past century.
"Its reversal should be stopped somehow, yes "
Again, its reversal doesn't point to any change of direction for the selection of the underlying values of intelligence. Selection for intelligence reversed in the 19th century, Flynn effect doesn't reflect any actual rise in the g-value.
"what do you specifically have in mind when you say "eugenics"?
"Hardly. Most "scientific work" in most fields is incremental stuff pushed out with bad statistics to keep the researcher's career afloat. There is a reason why we're living through a replicability crisis in academia."
I know and I agree. The replicability crisis is what I was referring to - steps are being taken to remedy it. I was really happy to have seen multiversal analysis (statistically testing every possible combination of factors, every possible hypothesis, from the data to reduce model uncertainty) in a few papers recently. Incremental stuff will also be a majority of scientific work if the field is mature and well-established - the number of paradigm shifters will always be small, unless the field is in its infancy.
"How can a field admittedly unscientific with "awful practices" and "statistical illiteracy" be producing "decent work"? Either your definition of what constitutes "decent work" is horribly bad, or you're simply a dishonest man."
I should have been clearer - SOME decent work. I apologise for my lack of clarity. The percentage of decent work depends on the field - there is more of it in mathematics, for instance, than in psychology or economics.
"Few and far between, and they don't get rewarded like they used to."
I suppose that this is true, with the massive increase in publishing taking away from the talented writers. You are correct.
"How do you know I don't? This condescension and arrogance is unbecoming."
Sorry, that was rude of me. I have read too many people still referencing songs or films they don't like which are decades-old as examples of civilizational downfall, which has made me paint every argument about a lack of good cultural products as coming for ignorance. I forgot the space I was in - I apologise.
"Hardly to this degree and this prominent. The argument of "it always existed" fails to account for scale and prominence as well as changes in broad social acceptability."
This is true, though I feel it might be a more-or-less linear relationship with the percentage of people who are literate - though capitalism and spectacle are part of it, yes.
"The crap of the past is superior in many ways to the crap of today. The whole bell-curve shifted to the left."
Bad porn and creepy abusive romance, for instance, are not well remembered, but they have always existed. I suppose that there was more milquetoast or silly moralistic and religious slop in the past than today, now replaced with self-help and pop-sci, which might be better by some metrics.
(EDIT:
"they don't get rewarded like they used to."
How? Past geniuses received, at best, decent employment (sometimes under patronage) and fame, with many receiving nothing or less in their lifetimes - just like today, while the number of awards/grants from governments/crowdfunding possibilities/internet fame has risen dramatically. I genuinely do not know what you are referring to.
)
"I fail to see how the former follows from the latter, and also, you seem to misunderstand what the Flynn effect actually is. Actual cognitive ability isn't at a peak. If anything it is the lowest among developed Western countries that it has been since the past century.
"Again, its reversal doesn't point to any change of direction for the selection of the underlying values of intelligence. Selection for intelligence reversed in the 19th century, Flynn effect doesn't reflect any actual rise in the g-value."
I was responding to your general distaste for "the masses", not following the previous argument. I know what it is - if you are saying that it does not count because it is not on g, do you feel that this is relevant for the public's consumption of literature? That being able to take in and appreciate something more intellectually demanding is on g? Or that the non-g gains are not relevant in general, or the decreases have not been masked by the Flynn effect?
"Whatever the word denotes."
There is a spectrum from reproduction policies (like what the author's proposed in other articles), to forced castration, to genocide, and in parallel embryo selection/gene editing, or welfare cutting, or promoting protection and sex education in developing countries etc. Which were you referring to?
I'm not complaining about my sub count, it's higher than it should be for what I currently post. I'm complaining that the market incentives are SHIT. The masses want gay CRAP
You need to exploit a cheap and emotionally loaded topic to write about if you want attention. Effort posts on some novel unexplored topic barely get any attention but writing for the two hundredth time about something like black crime always works. We’re all slaves to the masses. Time to get to work!
"There is no respect for the writer. The cultural determinists told me otherwise, which is part of why I started writing."
The popular writer is a sugar dispenser for goycattle. That's why all writing today is either grifting / academic scams (low resolution and bad research being peddled to the masses in the form of self-help and feel-good books) or the literary equivalent of junk food: Pornography in written form for women, wish-fulfillment fantasies for immature pöbel, unimaginitive regurgitated fiction slop written at a 5th grade English level etc.
The writer is no longer an artist aspiring to newer and intelligent expressions of ideas and sentiments through art or science, but a cog in the machine serving the self-satisfaction of stupid, entitled and promiscuous masses.
It is truly dark times that we live in. We need eugenics ASAP.
There are still modern works of literature that have literary value, were you to bother looking for them. Also, you are not clear when you talk about "academic scams" - self-help nonsense is in bloom, yes, but every field of science, detached from contact with the general public, is still producing decent work and trying to get itself in order, even those with well-established awful practices and statistical illiteracy.
I can assure you, the popular writers that you talk about and the slop they produce have existed for as long as the printing press moved beyond holy texts. Pornography, cheap novels, crap writing, all has co-existed with the greats - it's just that it has been forgotten (being garbage), while modern garbage is visible to us, because we see it.
Also, the Flynn effect points to the simple fact that "the masses" have always existed and, in fact, might be at a peak. Its reversal should be stopped somehow, yes - what do you specifically have in mind when you say "eugenics"?
"but every field of science, detached from contact with the general public, is still producing decent work and trying to get itself in order"
Hardly. Most "scientific work" in most fields is incremental stuff pushed out with bad statistics to keep the researcher's career afloat. There is a reason why we're living through a replicability crisis in academia.
"even those with well-established awful practices and statistical illiteracy."
How can a field admittedly unscientific with "awful practices" and "statistical illiteracy" be producing "decent work"? Either your definition of what constitutes "decent work" is horribly bad, or you're simply a dishonest man.
"There are still modern works of literature that have literary value"
Few and far between, and they don't get rewarded like they used to. The best that today has to offer is vastly inferior to the best that the past used to offer.
"were you to bother looking for them"
How do you know I don't? This condescension and arrogance is unbecoming.
"the slop they produce have existed for as long as the printing press moved beyond holy texts"
Hardly to this degree and this prominent. The argument of "it always existed" fails to account for scale and prominence as well as changes in broad social acceptability.
"all has co-existed with the greats "
The crap of the past is superior in many ways to the crap of today. The whole bell-curve shifted to the left.
"Also, the Flynn effect points to the simple fact that "the masses" have always existed and, in fact, might be at a peak. "
I fail to see how the former follows from the latter, and also, you seem to misunderstand what the Flynn effect actually is. Actual cognitive ability isn't at a peak. If anything it is the lowest among developed Western countries that it has been since the past century.
"Its reversal should be stopped somehow, yes "
Again, its reversal doesn't point to any change of direction for the selection of the underlying values of intelligence. Selection for intelligence reversed in the 19th century, Flynn effect doesn't reflect any actual rise in the g-value.
"what do you specifically have in mind when you say "eugenics"?
Whatever the word denotes.
"Hardly. Most "scientific work" in most fields is incremental stuff pushed out with bad statistics to keep the researcher's career afloat. There is a reason why we're living through a replicability crisis in academia."
I know and I agree. The replicability crisis is what I was referring to - steps are being taken to remedy it. I was really happy to have seen multiversal analysis (statistically testing every possible combination of factors, every possible hypothesis, from the data to reduce model uncertainty) in a few papers recently. Incremental stuff will also be a majority of scientific work if the field is mature and well-established - the number of paradigm shifters will always be small, unless the field is in its infancy.
"How can a field admittedly unscientific with "awful practices" and "statistical illiteracy" be producing "decent work"? Either your definition of what constitutes "decent work" is horribly bad, or you're simply a dishonest man."
I should have been clearer - SOME decent work. I apologise for my lack of clarity. The percentage of decent work depends on the field - there is more of it in mathematics, for instance, than in psychology or economics.
"Few and far between, and they don't get rewarded like they used to."
I suppose that this is true, with the massive increase in publishing taking away from the talented writers. You are correct.
"How do you know I don't? This condescension and arrogance is unbecoming."
Sorry, that was rude of me. I have read too many people still referencing songs or films they don't like which are decades-old as examples of civilizational downfall, which has made me paint every argument about a lack of good cultural products as coming for ignorance. I forgot the space I was in - I apologise.
"Hardly to this degree and this prominent. The argument of "it always existed" fails to account for scale and prominence as well as changes in broad social acceptability."
This is true, though I feel it might be a more-or-less linear relationship with the percentage of people who are literate - though capitalism and spectacle are part of it, yes.
"The crap of the past is superior in many ways to the crap of today. The whole bell-curve shifted to the left."
Bad porn and creepy abusive romance, for instance, are not well remembered, but they have always existed. I suppose that there was more milquetoast or silly moralistic and religious slop in the past than today, now replaced with self-help and pop-sci, which might be better by some metrics.
(EDIT:
"they don't get rewarded like they used to."
How? Past geniuses received, at best, decent employment (sometimes under patronage) and fame, with many receiving nothing or less in their lifetimes - just like today, while the number of awards/grants from governments/crowdfunding possibilities/internet fame has risen dramatically. I genuinely do not know what you are referring to.
)
"I fail to see how the former follows from the latter, and also, you seem to misunderstand what the Flynn effect actually is. Actual cognitive ability isn't at a peak. If anything it is the lowest among developed Western countries that it has been since the past century.
"Again, its reversal doesn't point to any change of direction for the selection of the underlying values of intelligence. Selection for intelligence reversed in the 19th century, Flynn effect doesn't reflect any actual rise in the g-value."
I was responding to your general distaste for "the masses", not following the previous argument. I know what it is - if you are saying that it does not count because it is not on g, do you feel that this is relevant for the public's consumption of literature? That being able to take in and appreciate something more intellectually demanding is on g? Or that the non-g gains are not relevant in general, or the decreases have not been masked by the Flynn effect?
"Whatever the word denotes."
There is a spectrum from reproduction policies (like what the author's proposed in other articles), to forced castration, to genocide, and in parallel embryo selection/gene editing, or welfare cutting, or promoting protection and sex education in developing countries etc. Which were you referring to?
Why are so many of your streams/vids/articles just complaining about how little growth/success you have? Grow up bro. Get better.
I'm not complaining about my sub count, it's higher than it should be for what I currently post. I'm complaining that the market incentives are SHIT. The masses want gay CRAP