Monthly Archives: June 2007

Women and criminal males

Now this story aboutawomanmarryingadeathrowprisonerillustratesjusthow
sicksomewomenare:

Tracy told WRAL TV in North Carolina Morgan’s crime was no longer a concern to her once she found out all the details.

Yes, I bet the murderer told everything very honestly to her girlfriend (the supreme court file definitely doesn’t paint him as a particularly deserving guy). It’s also telling that the woman appears to be a Christian. Once you believe shit like that you can believe anything. And I do guess that Christian beliefs regarding that such things as forgiveness are good (hardly not the case in general in my opinion as it tends to reward evil behavior) play a part in this kind of craziness which in real world benefits unjustly evil criminals and does little if any good.

Anyway, thanks to women like that one, criminalmales are breeding faster than law-abiding males.Justhowcananywomanwithanactualfunctioningbrainthinkthat
canbeagoodthing?
Don’ttheyever thinkabout whattheiractionscause in the longer run?Aretheirbrainssimplyincapableofunderstandingsimplefacts
aboutgenetics without succumbing to politally correct bullshit that downplays genetic factors?

In any case,forevery sick male criminal there seems to be at least one crazy woman (quite often more than one.. like all those women who were crazy about young Stalin… and don’t let me get started with that woman who just wanted to make sure Ted Bundy’s genes would continue to enrich humanity). Again, this indicates that women can hardly be considered more ethical than meneventhoughtheymaydoless(at least violent) crimesthemselves, since by having children with sickos instead of good guys they are very responsible for more sick crimes in the future when their children start making them. In this day and age, ignorance of the fact that personality traits which lead to criminal behaviour are very heritable, should be no excuse for their behaviour.

Report This Post

Birth order (probably) really matters

Yes, according to emerging scientific consensus, firstborns really tend to be smarter than their siblings.

From NYTimes:

In the study, Norwegian epidemiologists analyzed data on birth order, health status and I.Q. scores of 241,310 18- and 19-year-old men born from 1967 to 1976, using military records. After correcting for factors that may affect scores, including parents’ education level, maternal age at birth and family size, the researchers found that eldest children scored an average of 103.2, about 3 percent higher than second children (100.3) and 4 percent higher than thirdborns (99.0).

My first thought about how to utilize this information, was to givefromnowon those girls who are not firstborns some slack if their intellectual capabilities aren’t quite up to the parin the marriage market, sinceatleasttheymayhavegeneticallymorepotential than their expressed thinking skills otherwiseseemto indicate. As long as they are pretty enough and good in bed that’s all that matters from now on! The added benefit is of course that later borns are younger than their elder siblings (very important!).

Then some quite conventional wisdom:

This kind of experimentation might explain evidence that younger siblings often live more adventurous lives than their older brother or sister. They are more likely to participate in dangerous sports than eldest children, and more likely to travel to exotic places, studies find. They tend to be less conventional than firstborns, and some of the most provocative and influential figures in science spent their childhoods in the shadow of an older brother or sister (or two or three or four).

Firstborns have won more Nobel Prizes in science than younger siblings, but often by advancing current understanding, rather than overturning it.

“It’s the difference between every-year or every-decade creativity and every-century creativity,” Dr. Sulloway said, “between innovation and radical innovation.”

Vive la difference! Anyway, I think it should be clear to anyone who has read what I’ve written on this blog that I’m not a firstborn.

Update: On second thought, I may have been too eager to jump to any conclusions, since the IQ difference might well be at least partially genetical. After all firstborns tend to have less mutations in their genes since their parents had less time to have their genetic material damaged where it matters. And mutations of course are less often beneficial than not which might be explain the IQ difference and other things too.

I guess I have to reconsider cutting later borns some slack if their behaviour isn’t so good.

Report This Post

Liberty for teens

I meant to blog about Robert Epstein’s book “The Case Against Adolescence” as soon as I read about it but got lazy. Still, here’s one interview with him.

Again, I agree with him that the ongoing infantilization of teens is quite irrational (all things considered) andIthinkthefactthatitishappeningis another important indication of how far from good modern societies still are.

Some samples:

We have completely isolated young people from adults and created a peer culture. We stick them in school and keep them from working in any meaningful way, and if they do something wrong we put them in a pen with other “children.” In most nonindustrialized societies, young people are integrated into adult society as soon as they are capable, and there is no sign of teen turmoil.

Teens in America are in touch with their peers on average 65 hours a week, compared to about four hours a week in preindustrial cultures. In this country, teens learn virtually everything they know from other teens, who are in turn highly influenced by certain aggressive industries. This makes no sense. Teens should be learning from the people they are about to become.

What can be done?

I believe that young people should have more options—the option to work, marry, own property, sign contracts, start businesses, make decisions about health care and abortions, live on their own—every right, privilege, or responsibility an adult has. I advocate a competency-based system that focuses on the abilities of the individual. For some it will mean more time in school combined with work, for others it will mean that at age 13 or 15 they can set up an Internet business. Others will enter the workforce and become some sort of apprentice. The exploitative factories are long gone; competent young people deserve the chance to compete where it counts, and many will surprise us.

Now, that recommendation is something to think about! Though in addition I also support giving more powerandresponsibility to even younger real children. I think the only major thing that the kids are inherently really lacking is knowledge (not brainpower to think for themselves if given the opportunity) and with the help of the internet even very young children could learn things like never before in human history. Thus I’m inclined to think that keeping kids in chains is monstrous!

Report This Post

Lies about lying

Stuff like the following is always worth knowing Detecting Lies: Top 3 Myths, Top 5 Proven Factors:

Lies are extremely difficult to detect. Research shows the average person barely does any better than chance. Part of the reason may be there’s so much misinformation about how to detect lies floating around.

So it seems liers have been busy lying how to detect lies. I really wonder why. Hey, it almost seems liers don’t want to be caught when they lie and it seems they have been quite succesful. It’s worth thinking about that. Of course they haven’t been lying only about lying as any sensible person should realize. I have no idea how much of what politicians say about certain things are blatant lies (instead of stupidity) but I am definitely often very suspicous (and it’s just crazy that there might really be many people who think that a politician isn’t lying whenhe’s promising “free education” or some such things because he doesn’t fidget or look away while doing it). There’s not often good reasons to believe they are telling the truth about why they are supporting certain causes and policies. They often just want to loot more of what taxpayers produce.

Report This Post

On consistent morality

Stefan Molyneux has occasionally some really interesting writings on his blogcalled Freedomain.

One post titled “Universal Morality: A Proposition” includes the following:

Newton’s challenge was not to convince people that apples fall down, but that the same force that moves apples also moves everything else. Extending the principle of gravity from immediate experience to interplanetary motion is quite a mental feat – and even more is demanded from libertarians! Our real challenge is to extend the moral principles everyone already accepts – thus if we lack a solid argument for the universality of those moral principles, we are unlikely to gain much ground. I believe that our lack of a compelling argument for universal principles is one reason we have made so little progress over the last century or so. If moral rules are accepted (i.e. murder = evil), but universal consistency is optional, we have no real leverage to change people’s thinking. Everyone thinks that apples and planets move according to separate – and probably opposing – principles.

There’s of course a lot more to that post, but I’d like to make my small attempt of unification. As I am little radical in that respect that I’m both quite libertarian anda vegan, I have sometimes wondered why more people don’t see that both positions can be justified from the very same principles. You see, libertarians think that it is not justified to force other people to do your bidding (for example by taxing them without their consent because you think they ought to pay for your health care you are in need of because of yourown unhealthy habits) and vegans think that it is not justified to use animals just because you can and you like to eat meat no matterthat to do that in a modern world youmostlikely support growing animals in oftenquite horrible environments before having them butchered. The only generalization(orunification) that is needed is the realization that both other humans and animals have their own goals (however primitive they may be for some animals) and are sentient (which makes their well-being something to take into considerations.. though of course I can’t prove animals are sentient but neither can you prove that other humans are sentient and some animals do indeed have very similar brains as humans do and they certainly act like they would feel; based on the evidence I can hardly ignore their possible suffering) and thus if you shouldn’t have the right to force humans to do some things, you shouldn’t have the right to force animals to do some equivalent things.

Also, many people do justify their meat-eating by some weak arguments (such as that because animals eat other animals too and I’m on the top of the food chain so I’ll eat them if I want!) But then again, if you want to be consistentandnotholdarbitrarilydifferentstandardsindifferentdomains and *if* you agree with something like that (might makes right – and as animals are in no position to say no, I can eat them) then you probably should think that if somebody can beat you to pulp he has the right to do it or some equivalent craziness not that many people agree with who nonetheless are quite happily eating animals.

Anyway, I have now lived more than 7 years on mostly vegan diet and so far I’ve been feeling quite good (and of course I plan to live forever on my reasonably healthy vegan diet without harming any animals unnecessarily!!!).

Report This Post