[DOC44]

Originally Posted by LASTRESORT20

~ Average IQ of Countries ~


http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Doc44

[series1811]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

See I'd disagree. I'd bet most of them are. I think it's a trait that probably is very common among preeminent leaders. A necessary one.

The irony of muscogee's post is that he fails to see how he's served by it. People like him blame their failures on others. He's relegated to leech status because someone else caused it.

That was a poorly written post, on a computer that logs me out of GT when I try to edit.

I meant that CEOs, high ranking government officials, and most military of general rank, are sociopaths, and out of necessity. Otherwise, how could they live with the decisions that are absolutely necessary for them to carry out as part of their job, if they allowed empathy and compassion for those who would suffer to affect them? How could you order an attack on an enemy stronghold, knowing that dozens of families were going to be destryed forever, if you had empathy? How could you lay off 20,000 people, who hadn't done anything wrong, and destroy their lives, if you had empathy? I hate to say it, but I saw it where I worked and even in myself in some ways, because of what my job made it necessary for me to do.

I didn't think this up. It was pointed out to me in training by a psychologist who was contracted to work with these very people for many years. Not all sociopaths are evil, but all sociopaths operate with no or little empathy for others, and with great concern for themselves.

Most of our laws are designed to try and make people not act like people act with no controls over them. Sometimes, it works better on certain people than others. The only thing that affects sociopath's behavior is the possibility that their behavior may negative affect themselves. That's what the law does, and rules do.

[ditto1958]

Originally Posted by series1811

I meant that CEOs, high ranking government officials, and most military of general rank, are sociopaths, and out of necessity. Otherwise, how could they live with the decisions that are absolutely necessary for them to carry out as part of their job, if they allowed empathy and compassion for those who would suffer to affect them? How could you order an attack on an enemy stronghold, knowing that dozens of families were going to be destryed forever, if you had empathy? How could you lay off 20,000 people, who hadn't done anything wrong, and destroy their lives, if you had empathy? I hate to say it, but I saw it where I worked and even in myself in some ways, because of what my job made it necessary for me to do.

With all due respect, I can't disagree more. Despite what a psychologist may have told you, you are incorrectly labeling a whole lot of folks as sociopaths. One does not become a sociopath "out of necessity."

Moreover, true sociopaths have difficulty with school and work, and are thus unlikely to ever rise to the level of being a CEO of a large company.

As for having to make decisions to lay off thousands of employees. Yes, that kind of a job is not for everyone, just as not everyone is suited to be an officer who leads troops into combat in war.

The truth is, though, that the CEO who is forced to lay off employees works for the shareholders of corporations. The owners of the stock in those companies is not just rich folks. It's actually also people like you and me who have pensions, 401(k) plans and IRA's that are invested in stocks, bonds and mutual funds. I sure would not have to be the guy who has to decide to lay off workers to keep the company afloat. That's probably a big reason why I am not in a position like that. But making those decisions does not require one to be a sociopath. Nor can you assume that the person making the decision has no remorse for having to do it.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by ditto1958

With all due respect, I can't disagree more. Despite what a psychologist may have told you, you are incorrectly labeling a whole lot of folks as sociopaths. One does not become a sociopath "out of necessity."

Moreover, true sociopaths have difficulty with school and work, and are thus unlikely to ever rise to the level of being a CEO of a large company.

As for having to make decisions to lay off thousands of employees. Yes, that kind of a job is not for everyone, just as not everyone is suited to be an officer who leads troops into combat in war.

The truth is, though, that the CEO who is forced to lay off employees works for the shareholders of corporations. The owners of the stock in those companies is not just rich folks. It's actually also people like you and me who have pensions, 401(k) plans and IRA's that are invested in stocks, bonds and mutual funds. I sure would not have to be the guy who has to decide to lay off workers to keep the company afloat. That's probably a big reason why I am not in a position like that. But making those decisions does not require one to be a sociopath. Nor can you assume that the person making the decision has no remorse for having to do it.

Okay. Examine the reason why you don't think you would like to be in that position. What is it about laying off workers to keep a company afloat that would bother you?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by series1811

That was a poorly written post, on a computer that logs me out of GT when I try to edit.

I meant that CEOs, high ranking government officials, and most military of general rank, are sociopaths, and out of necessity. Otherwise, how could they live with the decisions that are absolutely necessary for them to carry out as part of their job, if they allowed empathy and compassion for those who would suffer to affect them? How could you order an attack on an enemy stronghold, knowing that dozens of families were going to be destryed forever, if you had empathy? How could you lay off 20,000 people, who hadn't done anything wrong, and destroy their lives, if you had empathy? I hate to say it, but I saw it where I worked and even in myself in some ways, because of what my job made it necessary for me to do.

I didn't think this up. It was pointed out to me in training by a psychologist who was contracted to work with these very people for many years. Not all sociopaths are evil, but all sociopaths operate with no or little empathy for others, and with great concern for themselves.

Most of our laws are designed to try and make people not act like people act with no controls over them. Sometimes, it works better on certain people than others. The only thing that affects sociopath's behavior is the possibility that their behavior may negative affect themselves. That's what the law does, and rules do.

Yes we're in complete agreement.

It was just the other day that my wife and I were talking about something and I said, "I have enough sociopath in me to do it."

[English]

Originally Posted by LASTRESORT20

~ Average IQ of Countries ~


http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Both frightening and fascinating.

English

[Flying-Dutchman]

Originally Posted by LASTRESORT20

~ Average IQ of Countries ~


http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

And while the Chinese are studying genes and IQ to improve their genetic health, the West is pushing dysgenics at an alarming rate.

We are too rich to care…for now…

[barbedwiresmile]

Unfortunately, the predominant philosophy of western culture renders us incapable of serious purpose when discussing such issues as race and intelligence (or of racial differences more broadly).

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Originally Posted by Wil Ufgood

Are boring NBA games a black problem?

No, they still get paid.

[certifiedfunds]

Well, you get more of what you subsidize


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[rj1939]

I have come to believe that a sociopath with a complete lack of gag reflex can achieve anything.

Lately I have shortened it to: Scum rises to the top.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

IQ tests are biased by whites.




Okay, let's see who takes the bait.

[English]

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty

IQ tests are biased by whites.

Crap! I assume you got your prepositions wrong in the above and meant in favor of rather than by. Great efforts have been made to make IQ tests that are unaffected by cultural background. They then produce the same results. Amerindians living in more deprived circumstances than American Blacks score above average for IQ. Blacks score about a standard deviation below average. This is approximately the reality. Nothing is gained and much is being lost by pretending that it is not so.

English

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty

IQ tests are biased by whites.




Okay, let's see who takes the bait.

They're designed Caucasians by to make Asians appear more intelligent than Caucasians.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by English

Crap! I assume you got your prepositions wrong in the above and meant in favor of rather than by. Great efforts have been made to make IQ tests that are unaffected by cultural background.

That's not true and not possible. IQ test are based on the average (mean) responses across the culture. You never see any questions about Juneteenth nor questions about the differences between an 8 round upset and a 10 round regular because they're outside "mainstream culture". That's why if you spend you life outside the mainstream culture you're at a great disadvantage when taking these tests.

Many students grow up in homes where they never hear English spoken. Then they're sent to schools where they're supposed to learn complex concepts taught in a language in which they're not proficient. Children who grow up hearing nothing but Eubonics really struggle in typical suburban schools.

[Vic777]

Originally Posted by muscogee

That's why if you spend you life outside the mainstream culture you're at a great disadvantage when taking these tests.

True there is much wrong with IQ testing. There are also a lot of very average intellects graduating from Ivy League Colleges. There are a lot of degrees granted for studies in areas that are less than challenging. Law comes to mind. Any Engineer can get a Law degree, far fewer Lawyers can graduate as an Engineer.

[aspartz]

Originally Posted by Gundude

To what extent can social mores be enforced by law? To what extent should social mores be enforced by law?

The civil rights act(s) removed mores from the equation. Now everyone has to look to the government rather than simple community pressure.

ARS

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Vic777

True there is much wrong with IQ testing. There are also a lot of very average intellects graduating from Ivy League Colleges. There are a lot of degrees granted for studies in areas that are less than challenging. Law comes to mind. Any Engineer can get a Law degree, far fewer Lawyers can graduate as an Engineer.

Truth. That's because of government money. It creates degree fields like poli sci, English lit, criminal justice, women's studies to create a larger degree candidate field for the less intelligent.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Skyhook]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

Violence in America: The History of a Catastrophe - YouTube

Outstanding video.

Thanks.

(In Feb I attended two major pro-second rallies in Albany, NY. One of the striking things about the crowds- numbering in the thousands from all over the state & VT- were the very few blacks in attendance. There were a few and those were staunch pro-seconds-types, but those few in no way represented the % of population of blacks in NYS. Interesting.)

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by Vic777

True there is much wrong with IQ testing. There are also a lot of very average intellects graduating from Ivy League Colleges. There are a lot of degrees granted for studies in areas that are less than challenging. Law comes to mind. Any Engineer can get a Law degree, far fewer Lawyers can graduate as an Engineer.

"Average intellects" don't score a 170 on the LSAT, which is what would be required to get into an Ivy League law program, in addition to an undergrad from a reputable program with corresponding GPA.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Truth. That's because of government money. It creates degree fields like poli sci, English lit, criminal justice, women's studies to create a larger degree candidate field for the less intelligent.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

I would say some of those programs at run-of-the-mill universities leave graduates woefully unprepared and unqualified for a tough job market. Being interested in literature and studying it at a university doesn't make one less intelligent, just less useful in the real world.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[ditto1958]

Originally Posted by series1811

Okay. Examine the reason why you don't think you would like to be in that position. What is it about laying off workers to keep a company afloat that would bother you?

I have had money in my life, and have been in positions where I had a fair amount of power and authority, but have learned that those things do not buy happiness in life.
If those are the main rewards that come with being a CEO of a big company, I'm not interested. That would not be worth it to have to endure the stress involved with the responsibilities that a CEO has.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

I would say some of those programs at run-of-the-mill universities leave graduates woefully unprepared and unqualified for a tough job market. Being interested in literature and studying it at a university doesn't make one less intelligent, just less useful in the real world.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

No, but programs like those I mentioned create a receptacle for the less intelligent and an avenue for them to receive diplomas.

They wouldn't exist or would be much more rare if student loan candidates had to demonstrate the bankability of their degree fields.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[English]

Originally Posted by muscogee

That's not true and not possible. IQ test are based on the average (mean) responses across the culture. You never see any questions about Juneteenth nor questions about the differences between an 8 round upset and a 10 round regular because they're outside "mainstream culture". That's why if you spend you life outside the mainstream culture you're at a great disadvantage when taking these tests.

Many students grow up in homes where they never hear English spoken. Then they're sent to schools where they're supposed to learn complex concepts taught in a language in which they're not proficient. Children who grow up hearing nothing but Eubonics really struggle in typical suburban schools.

Some are and some aren't! It is possible to select question types where there is no cultural reference such as diagrams where changes in successive abstract diagrams follow unstated rules which allows the testee to predict the next in sequence. One of the main trusts of IQ test design over the last few decades has been culture and education neutral tests.

If you want to test for the use and comprehension of English than there will obviously be a major disadvantage to those brought up speaking Ebonics, but there are similar disadvantages to various regional white groups who speak a variety of dialects within the UK. Children who grow up pronouncing "th" as "ff" and with other non standard pronunciations are at an obvious disadvantage when it come to learning to read. Since the politically correct view is that all such variations are equally valid, these problems are maintained through their school years but that should have little impact on their IQ scores.

English

[series1811]

Originally Posted by ditto1958

I have had money in my life, and have been in positions where I had a fair amount of power and authority, but have learned that those things do not buy happiness in life.
If those are the main rewards that come with being a CEO of a big company, I'm not interested. That would not be worth it to have to endure the stress involved with the responsibilities that a CEO has.

We're not talking about happiness. We're talking about empathy.

So, would it bother you, or not bother you, to lay off 20000 workers, knowing it was going to destroy the lives of many of them, to make an extra $.20 share dividend return?