Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill [Serious][Theory]Normies: A Primer on the Theory of the Average Normalfag

B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command, Psychological Operations
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
29,059
This thread will be a bit of a rough introductory analysis, as well as somewhat of a theoretical primer, on normies in an effort to try and better understand them, their motivations, and *how to efficiently navigate them in our daily lives. We all loosely know what they are. We see and deal with them practically everyday (full-time, LDARing NEETs excepted).

But we generally don't think about normies and what makes them tick. Tbf, there isn't much to think about, so if this thread generally seems lacking, it's mostly by consequence, not by design. Mostly. I had originally intended this thread to be much more in-depth, but between water, dnr, and the subject matter itself, who here honestly gives that much of an intellectual fuck about normies? They are, by default, common and uninteresting, and so you wouldn't expect much attention on the subject.

*Thread may or may not include instructions.

Let's start with a definition.


A person gravitating to social standards, accepted practices, and fads of their own time & geographic grouping without broader cultural perspectives from which they draw.

Normies possess a lack of interest in ideas not easily accessible or being outside of their/society's current range of acceptance. A straight. A follower.

Most normies adopt a "popularity is the only measure of good or bad" mindset at an early age.

Normies typically have a sense of cultural superiority over "counter culture" movements & foreign cultures. They will often try to discredit out cultures or choices falling outside of their majority think claiming those of other dispositions are mentally ill or out of touch with reality.

By perspective normies of this generation would have been the social outcasts of the uber conformist 50s.

Most normies don't believe they are so. A deep generational delusion has since persisted -allowing them to believe they are defying a system of social rules long since defunct.

This group can easily be molded to suit virtually any desired value system. In Americas capitalist system, normies have been adapted to consume whats easily attainable with little to no resistance. Popular is good. Therefore all that has been perceived to be vetted by their peers then is accepted.

As their majority cultural definitions are rooted in shallow concepts and fads that soon expire they're often then called old.


This is a definition of normie, and though it's informal and slang (no shit), it's sufficiently comprehensive with which to construct a tentative operational definition.

A normie is a person who adopts the dominant cultural norms, values, ethics, and ideology of a given society. Each of norms, values, ethics, and ideology constitute a weighted variable (ranging from 0<=1). The mean of the sum is then taken and used to compute a person's normie index. A normie is then defined as a person having a normie index of at least 0.3.

I'm not going to delve any deeper into this and do the work, because A) this would be a full-blown paper, which I'm not incentivized to pursue, nor do I have any real reason to, B) I'm lazy, and C) fuck you, this is an internet forum, not a social science journal. My get-out-jail-free card is set to go.

I want to note here that, while there is some overlap between NPCs and normies, they're not the same. An NPC is a person - lacking in individuality, yet ironically believing to be in possession of said attribute - who is preloaded with a set of thoughts and beliefs vis-à-vis cultural or systematic indoctrination. Such thoughts and beliefs effectively serve as subroutines which direct their daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly lives. Normies differ in that their programming is not native and has degrees of latitude (though not much) that perturb, and allow deviation from, the bounds of what's considered "normal," hence the root. The difference is analogous to the distinction between psychopaths and sociopaths - similar, but different.

Now I'm going to do something that some would consider to be extremely offensive, sophomoric, pedestrian, and possibly even profane ("the sacred and the propane"). I'm going to simplify all of human behavior and reduce it to a crudely distilled handful of motivations and drives. If you don't like that, I don't care, go fuck yourself (some of you are probably doing that right now as you're reading this... fucking degenerates).

Every single human being on earth is fundamentally motivated to do any given thing by one or more of the following things - five to be exact:

1. Reason.
2. Ideology.
3. Ego.
4. Sex.
5. Fear.

The astute amongst you have indubitably noticed the pattern contrived in this list. (I can feel your eyes rolling from reading that sentence. KEK) As the list ascends in number, it descends from the higher self to the lower self (it gets more and more debased - less prefrontal cortex and more limbic system, if you're so inclined). You will also note the glaring ommission of wealth from this list. Why? Because wealth is a tool that always serves another purpose in the end. No one truly seeks to accrue wealth for its own sake, as this is illogical even in the most irrationally selfish of frameworks that would exemplify the spirit of Scrooge himself. Even the most insipid, idiotic, and juvenile of reasons ("I want to get rich so my neighbor stays poor") has at least ego and some kind of logic attached to it - however fucked up it may be.

Another entry that is absent from this list is status. Like wealth, status is objective-oriented. That is, people want status because it feeds their ego and allows them access to sex through the perceived or actual access to resources.

You may also have noticed (stop noticing things, goy) that ideology is listed as both a variable in the normie index and as a fundamental motivator. What gives? In the former case it's a measurement of the degree of alignment towards one specific ideology i.e., the dominant one in society, whereas in the latter case ideology is a category and not a variable.

Normies are predominantly motivated by fear, sex, and ego. In uncommon cases they are motivated by ideology. Their normie index may be towards the lower bound, since the ideology that drives them may not be the dominant one e.g., a group of fervent communists that exist in a capitalist society is not unheard of, if your birth year doesn't start with a 2. And in outlying cases, they are motivated by reason, in which case they have a higher likelihood of diverging from "normalcy" altogether.

How do we put all of this into practice? I have no fucking idea, mang, get off my nuts. The easist thing to do would probably be to decontexualize any of their behaviors that you would naturally dislike e.g., always finding some way to interject a conversation with the phrase, "my girlfriend/my boyfriend." It's to weasel in the status signal for the ego boost, in addition to the usual shit you'll have evo psych explain to you. "Look at me, I'm sexually desired and I get regular sex. That makes me better than you on some level." Of course, they never verbalize such an absurdly arrogant and cringey statement, but it's what they're subconciously communicating. They're not necessarily saying that kind of shit because you're around (though that might make it more convenient), but because someone is around.

So there you go, buddy boyos. The next time you think to yourself, "God, I fucking hate normies," you'll now understand why.
 
Tagging potentially interested users (I think?):
@cvh1991 @GeckoBus @Simulacrasimulation @PLA1092 @Grim_Reaper @Azaylias @DarkStarDown @AsiaCel @gymletethnicel

Tag roulette:
@Lobo @Vendetta @wereq @Michael15651 @AsakuraHao @Zer0/∞ @THE TRUE DIGLET

The one-mod minimum quota for effort posts:
@SlayerSlayer

Tagging @kay' for the one free bump, and so he feels like he contributed.
 
Being average means you’ve lost in a way which is so similar to others that you think it's ok to lose.You didn’t win. Do you understand?
 
Tagging potentially interested users (I think?):
@cvh1991 @GeckoBus @Simulacrasimulation @PLA1092 @Grim_Reaper @Azaylias @DarkStarDown @AsiaCel @gymletethnicel

Tag roulette:
@Lobo @Vendetta @wereq @Michael15651 @AsakuraHao @Zer0/∞ @THE TRUE DIGLET

The one-mod minimum quota for effort posts:
@SlayerSlayer

Tagging @kay' for the one free bump, and so he feels like he contributed.
Will respond later brother, I'm busy with some college stuff right now; already know it's a good thread.

You also forgot @WorthlessSlavicShit
 
You also forgot @WorthlessSlavicShit
Fuck. I knew I forgot someone who would have wanted the tag. Sorry, @WorthlessSlavicShit buddy boyo.
 
Tagging potentially interested users (I think?):
@cvh1991 @GeckoBus @Simulacrasimulation @PLA1092 @Grim_Reaper @Azaylias @DarkStarDown @AsiaCel @gymletethnicel

Tag roulette:
@Lobo @Vendetta @wereq @Michael15651 @AsakuraHao @Zer0/∞ @THE TRUE DIGLET

The one-mod minimum quota for effort posts:
@SlayerSlayer

Tagging @kay' for the one free bump, and so he feels like he contributed.
just tag half the forum while making a witty comment at @kay' to have a double bump without looking like im upset about the 0 replies theory
 
just tag half the forum while making a witty comment at @kay' to have a double bump without looking like im upset about the 0 replies theory
Legit.
 
Tagging potentially interested users (I think?):
@cvh1991 @GeckoBus @Simulacrasimulation @PLA1092 @Grim_Reaper @Azaylias @DarkStarDown @AsiaCel @gymletethnicel

Tag roulette:
@Lobo @Vendetta @wereq @Michael15651 @AsakuraHao @Zer0/∞ @THE TRUE DIGLET

The one-mod minimum quota for effort posts:
@SlayerSlayer

Tagging @kay' for the one free bump, and so he feels like he contributed.
 
Based modcel who moved and pinned this. Thanks.
 
Did read, now I wonder where am I on the normie index.
 
Will respond later brother, I'm busy with some college stuff right now; already know it's a good thread.
No worries, brocel. Focus on the important things. This thread will be here when you get back, unless I get trolled by the mods. :feelskek:

I myself have a backlog of tl;dr threads I need to read and respond to.
 
You didnt tag me. Youre not sigma
 
Will respond later brother, I'm busy with some college stuff right now; already know it's a good thread.

You also forgot @WorthlessSlavicShit
Fuck. I knew I forgot someone who would have wanted the tag. Sorry, @WorthlessSlavicShit buddy boyo.
No problem:feelsaww::feelsokman:. Great thread as could be expected, brocel:feelzez::feelsstudy:.
 
Did read, now I wonder where am I on the normie index.
Probably higher than you would believe about yourself. We all like to think that we're special or different in some way, but nearly all of us aren't, and most of us are painfully average across many domains. The idea (of setting the number moderately low) being that the bar for being a "normal" member of society should - both in theory and practice - be an easy threshold to meet.
 
It makes sense why people look at me with disgust, I am basically as non normie as a non retard can get.
 
Tagging potentially interested users (I think?):
@cvh1991 @GeckoBus @Simulacrasimulation @PLA1092 @Grim_Reaper @Azaylias @DarkStarDown @AsiaCel @gymletethnicel

Tag roulette:
@Lobo @Vendetta @wereq @Michael15651 @AsakuraHao @Zer0/∞ @THE TRUE DIGLET

The one-mod minimum quota for effort posts:
@SlayerSlayer

Tagging @kay' for the one free bump, and so he feels like he contributed.
this is one of the highest IQ posts ive ever read. Thank you

"Look at me, I'm sexually desired and I get regular sex. That makes me better than you on some level."

Is exactly what Komesarj did, and fuck it, what i'd probably say to normies (not to this forum though) if I had sex. So on some level even if incels ascend the autism does not
 
Last edited:
operational definition.

A normie is a person who adopts the dominant cultural norms, values, ethics, and ideology of a given society. Each of norms, values, ethics, and ideology constitute a weighted variable (ranging from 0<=1). The mean of the sum is then taken and used to compute a person's normie index. A normie is then defined as a person having a normie index of at least 0.3.
This is the polar opposite of operational. Psychometrics is basically impossible to do well. If measuring IQ is already a challenge, good luck actually trying to measure the normativity of these "variables" which have overlap to boot.
Every single human being on earth is fundamentally motivated to do any given thing by one or more of the following things - five to be exact:

1. Reason.
2. Ideology.
3. Ego.
4. Sex.
5. Fear.
Where do activities that are purely fun fit in? Like, e.g., for which of those reasons do people watch comedies or comedians?
 
This is the polar opposite of operational. Psychometrics is basically impossible to do well. If measuring IQ is already a challenge, good luck actually trying to measure the normativity of these "variables" which have overlap to boot.
The bolded is not true, unless your definition of "well" is limited to being exactly precise. While the psychometric scores themselves are intended to be some number, the results are usually (from what I understand) interpreted in groups or brackets across a range of results and not according to the specific results themselves. For example, there is no functional difference between an IQ or 89 and 90, whereas you don't even need a test score to so much as observe with the naked eye the difference between 90 and 110 (whether that number is true or estimated).

In any case I haven't proposed (or given it serious thought beyond this thread, tbh) a reliable and passable method beyond self-report questionnaires, which is a given. I don't even think there is a reliable method beyond that, tbf (not to suggest that self-reporting is consistently reliable KEK). But maybe there have been rapid and serious metholodogical changes that I'm completely oblivious to. Regardless, I'm not a researcher or academician by trade, but I do make some effort to at least passably learn how it's done, before adding in the details.

You're a mathematician, so I can honestly appreciate your need for minute numerical differences to have different meanings, but that's not necessary in the social sciences, because that kind of precision is not useful as far as I can tell. This is probably why they're called "soft sciences" and aren't taken nearly as seriously as the "hard sciences." As well, they really shouldn't. :lul:

Where do activities that are purely fun fit in? Like, e.g., for which of those reasons do people watch comedies or comedians?
Numbers 3-5. The fear of not fitting in to the group (or a group), which then leads to not having your ego validated as a valued and accepted member of the group (along with the risk and anxiety that being tribelessness brings along with it). And, of course, less (or no) sex as a result from being outcasted. Try fitting into a group or being friends with people with whom you have absolutely nothing in common. It's not hard to see that such a social union is doomed from inception.

People are, for the most part, extremely simple creatures, despite any adamant claims to the contrary. The negative motivation of fear is perhaps the strongest, because the consequence is potential bodily harm and death. We're relatively physically fragile in the animal kingdom, so fear is a very useful motivator for survival, both physically and genetically (groundbreaking stuff, I know). Not every living thing can have a reason, but they can all have a fear.

I do think that all forms of leisure activity, whether social, asocial, or anti-social, can be eventually be reduced to those motivators. It can be hard to see sometimes, and appear to be nothing more than weird mental gymnastics and rationalizations after the fact.
 
Last edited:
I dislike normies because they don't care about ideas and aren't interested in truth, either. It feels like there is some sentience divide between us and them. (Not to come off big headed; society would be much much better if normies were free-thinking and self-aware people.)

I define normie as somebody who is not blackpilled, because in our communities that is the most useful definition. Normies in this sense act so predictably and like some collective consciousness, and a fearsome one at that.
 
The bolded is not true, unless your definition of "well" is limited to being exactly precise. While the psychometric scores themselves are intended to be some number, the results are usually (from what I understand) interpreted in groups or brackets across a range of results and not according to the specific results themselves. For example, there is no functional difference between an IQ or 89 and 90, whereas you don't even need a test score to so much as observe with the naked eye the difference between 90 and 110 (whether that number is true or estimated).

In any case I haven't proposed (or given it serious thought beyond this thread, tbh) a reliable and passable method beyond self-report questionnaires, which is a given. I don't even think there is a reliable method beyond that, tbf (not to suggest that self-reporting is consistently reliable KEK). But maybe there have been rapid and serious metholodogical changes that I'm completely oblivious to. Regardless, I'm not a researcher or academician by trade, but I do make some effort to at least passably learn how it's done, before adding in the details.

You're a mathematician, so I can honestly appreciate your need for minute numerical differences to have different meanings, but that's not necessary in the social sciences, because that kind of precision is not useful as far as I can tell. This is probably why they're called "soft sciences" and aren't taken nearly as seriously as the "hard sciences." As well, they really shouldn't. :lul:
I should've probably been more detailed. I think we're largely in agreement, just with a different definition of "well". I believe you're right in how psychometrics are interpreted. In my simplistic view, however, if you're going to admit that the exact number is meaningless and is instead only indicative of some range, then why not work with a range based system that possibly allows overlaps? Not to mention that the whole thing becomes particularly useless when those ranges can be eyeballed (as you mention with IQ) but I digress.

The whole thing just feels disingenuous to me. It feels like they're pretending to be able to measure something with a degree of granularity that's just plainly impossible. In my mind, the entire goal of psychometrics -- quantitatively measuring mental traits -- is fundamentally infeasible, hence why I say it's impossible to do well. In the same way that we wouldn't consider "the length of a finger" to be a good quantitative length measurement. It's workable of course, just not a proper quantitative measurement.

Another problem I have with psychometrics is that the things it tries to measure are often nebulously defined themselves, which strictly speaking means that, e.g., IQ is just the score you get on a standardized test (as opposed to a direct measure of intelligence, unless you want to define intelligence via IQ) which then correlates with our vague notion of intelligence. Now, with intelligence this is still fairly doable, but when you get to things like ideologies, this problem becomes even worse. While there are different kinds of intelligence, there aren't that many (or so I'm led to believe based on the categories IQ tests measure). In other words, intelligence is kinda "low dimensional". Ideologies, on the other hand, is "I dunno how many dimensional". Combining many different "dimensions" into one score is a fool's errand.

I dunno if I'm making sense. It's hard to put some of these things into words, at least for me. Also it's late, so I doubt I'm all that sharp right now.
Numbers 3-5. The fear of not fitting in to the group (or a group), which then leads to not having your ego validated as a valued and accepted member of the group (along with the risk and anxiety that being tribelessness brings along with it). And, of course, less (or no) sex as a result from being outcasted. Try fitting into a group or being friends with people with whom you have absolutely nothing in common. It's not hard to see that such a social union is doomed from inception.

People are, for the most part, extremely simple creatures, despite any adamant claims to the contrary. The negative motivation of fear is perhaps the strongest, because the consequence is potential bodily harm and death. We're relatively physically fragile in the animal kingdom, so fear is a very useful motivator for survival, both physically and genetically (groundbreaking stuff, I know). Not every living thing can have a reason, but they can all have a fear.

I do think that all forms of leisure activity, whether social, asocial, or anti-social, can be eventually be reduced to those motivators. It can be hard to see sometimes, and appear to be nothing more than weird mental gymnastics and rationalizations after the fact.
I can see how such reasoning might apply in some cases, but, as you said, I'm having a hard time seeing how everything could be reduced to your five motivators. If I may, here's a more concrete example. I like to watch (obscure) comedic anime. Yet, I can scarcely imagine I'm doing this to fit in. I suppose you could say it's fear of boredom, but then again, any action could be seen as motivated by fear of boredom. What's more boring than doing literally nothing after all?

I feel like there has to be something to fun that cannot be explained by your five motivators tho. Or can you really boil down fun in its full abstraction to your five motivators?
 
I should've probably been more detailed. I think we're largely in agreement, just with a different definition of "well". I believe you're right in how psychometrics are interpreted. In my simplistic view, however, if you're going to admit that the exact number is meaningless and is instead only indicative of some range, then why not work with a range based system that possibly allows overlaps? Not to mention that the whole thing becomes particularly useless when those ranges can be eyeballed (as you mention with IQ) but I digress.

The whole thing just feels disingenuous to me. It feels like they're pretending to be able to measure something with a degree of granularity that's just plainly impossible. In my mind, the entire goal of psychometrics -- quantitatively measuring mental traits -- is fundamentally infeasible, hence why I say it's impossible to do well. In the same way that we wouldn't consider "the length of a finger" to be a good quantitative length measurement. It's workable of course, just not a proper quantitative measurement.
Well, I didn't say that the numbers are meaningless. I said that the level of precision expected (required?) is not useful, as in the case of IQ
measurement which you brought up. Your concern about granurality is valid, however. One of the big problems is that IQ tests become less and less reliable as a measure with repeated testing, especially in a brief window. This is why I think it's better to assign a score as a range and not a fixed number, even though it's technically an average of many scores itself. The scorings are different between one test and another anyhow.

The utility of precision in measurement and its importance is dependent upon what is being measured and what that measurement is used for. In medicine, for example, blood tests have very precise measurements of various hormones, enzymes, and proteins, but those precise measurements - assuming that they're accurate - form a health profile when compiled together based on cutoff points that are established from the medical literature and used as guidelines in practice. If we measure something like blood sugar, for example, I think it's <=7.0 that is classified as diabetic and something between 6.0 and 6.9 is classified as pre-diabetic. The numbers are used in specific ways to determine health risks and prescriptions of advice/treatment. Beyond that, nobody is splitting hairs between something like 6.3 and 6.4. In other words there's no functional difference between those two specific measurements.

As far as IQ measurement goes, there aren't any conventional groupings of scores that are used for clinical and/or psychiatric assessments beyond determining if someone is clinically retarded. At least, there wasn't last I checked when I was obsessed about the topic. Psychometricians use standard statistical language to describe where the scores fall (on the normal curve). Governments have their own "aptitude tests" and internal cutoff points for organizations like the army, and some major corporations have their own customized, TOTALLY-NOT-IQ-TESTS-BRO tests that they use for hiring and promotions but don't call it that for reasons that should be obvious.

In either case there are no standardized cutoff points for various scores. I don't know why, but I'm guessing that the reasons for this are mostly political and social, in addition to the original purpose of the test, which was to meant to weed out the functionally retarded from the rest of population. It might also have to do with pragmatism. Telling someone that their score puts them in the genius, retard, almost there buddy, not quite there pal, a few cards shorts of a full deck but you can still contribute, one N fart away from the next Nikola Tesla, and various other categories is not very useful. It can have negative effects in both cases (self-esteem, productivity aka laziness etc.). I don't see a practical utility to it (doesn't mean it isn't there, though). It's far more useful to make evaluations on specific competencies.

Another problem I have with psychometrics is that the things it tries to measure are often nebulously defined themselves, which strictly speaking means that, e.g., IQ is just the score you get on a standardized test (as opposed to a direct measure of intelligence, unless you want to define intelligence via IQ) which then correlates with our vague notion of intelligence.
Yes.

Now, with intelligence this is still fairly doable, but when you get to things like ideologies, this problem becomes even worse. While there are different kinds of intelligence, there aren't that many (or so I'm led to believe based on the categories IQ tests measure). In other words, intelligence is kinda "low dimensional". Ideologies, on the other hand, is "I dunno how many dimensional". Combining many different "dimensions" into one score is a fool's errand.
Ideologies (both political and religoius) are generally quite well-defined. There are clear boundaries that demarcate one from the other. If you're talking strictly about the use of ideology as a measurement to determine the "normie index" however, then the measurement itself needn't be complex or granular, if you prefer that term. It would simply be a score derived from a questionnaire on your usual 1-5, strongly disagree-strongly agree scale or something equivalent. You can contest the content of the questionnaire, though. It would have to be very thorough to the point where basically the personificiation of whatever the dominant one in culture is (if that can be established and accurately defined) scores close to 1.

I dunno if I'm making sense. It's hard to put some of these things into words, at least for me. Also it's late, so I doubt I'm all that sharp right now.
You are. And you are.

I can see how such reasoning might apply in some cases, but, as you said, I'm having a hard time seeing how everything could be reduced to your five motivators. If I may, here's a more concrete example. I like to watch (obscure) comedic anime. Yet, I can scarcely imagine I'm doing this to fit in. I suppose you could say it's fear of boredom, but then again, any action could be seen as motivated by fear of boredom. What's more boring than doing literally nothing after all?

I feel like there has to be something to fun that cannot be explained by your five motivators tho. Or can you really boil down fun in its full abstraction to your five motivators?
I suppose that boredom could be rooted in fear with some individuals, but it's generally accurate (I think) to say that having fun serves the ego. I don't know, I'd have to give it some more thought before I can justify and properly argue the claim that all leisure activity is reducible to the fundamental motivators.

Ironically, I wrote this thread because I was bored and figured I was due for an effort post. :feelskek: Does that feed my ego? If I'm being honest, yes. It's also a cope to distract myself from the brutality of the black pill, so in that sense it's also motivated by fear to some degree.
 
Last edited:
How do we put all of this into practice? I have no fucking idea, mang, get off my nuts. The easist thing to do would probably be to decontexualize any of their behaviors that you would naturally dislike e.g., always finding some way to interject a conversation with the phrase, "my girlfriend/my boyfriend." It's to weasel in the status signal for the ego boost, in addition to the usual shit you'll have evo psych explain to you. "Look at me, I'm sexually desired and I get regular sex. That makes me better than you on some level." Of course, they never verbalize such an absurdly arrogant and cringey statement, but it's what they're subconciously communicating. They're not necessarily saying that kind of shit because you're around (though that might make it more convenient), but because someone is around.
Oh! I know this. The "I'm busy" phrase has soured so many human relationships. The dread of calling a friend at an 'odd' time and hearing their annoying groan when they pick up.
 
Last edited:
Oh! I know this. The "I'm busy" phrase has soured so many human relationships.
Yeah, that one is a real gem. It's less, "I'm honestly busy," and more, "you're not important enough for me to make time for you." It's much more socially expedient to save face and say that you're busy, rather than burning the bridge you're likely never going to be crossing again anyway. It's more beneficial in your immediate circles to be known as, "the friend who I used to hang out a lot with but barely hear from these days," rather than, "the asshole who I thought was my friend."

Some people do move on and change priorities, but if that's the case and they happen cycle out their friends with the new chapters in their lives, then I question their conception of friendship.

Your friend with whom you grew up and been through thick and thin is still getting high every day and playing video games all day, while you're the CEO of your own publicly traded company. Do you still call him a friend and make an effort to connect with him? If you're noble and honorable, the answer should unequivocally be yes. If you're an opportunist who views people as tools and resources, then what even is friendship to you, if not another tool for gain? Admittedly, that's quite black and white and leaves no room for a moderate middle-ground. I guess that it would depend on your values and your conception of friendship then.

I don't really see it that way because when you break it all down you're either friends with someone or you're not. It really is binary. Once you call someone a friend, then it becomes a matter of degree. You've consciously placed that person in a different category. If you don't call them a friend, then you probably call them an acquaintance or a friend of a friend.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
 
I would say the first four motivators can be categorised into 'masturbatory' tendencies. Ego and Sex is quite self explanatory as to why it's masturbatory so I'm not going to elaborate too much, Reason and Ideology is where it gets difficult, but essentially both can be seen as a way for individuals to justify their actions and beliefs in order to feel a sense of self-satisfaction, clarity, righteousness, certainty or validation in their larger scheme of behaviours. All these feelings ignite a sense of fulfilment within us and can be considered as masturbatory because we crave it non-stop throughout our lifetimes. Even fear can be intertwined with masturbation in some cases, humans fear out on missing potential masturbatory tendencies, the fear in is there in the first place because of masturbation. I understand it's not applicable in every case and is not direct either, which is why I've considered it separate to the first four.

This leaves us with a simplification, human behaviour is fundamentally motived by masturbation and fear, in the bigger picture our actions are a vast complex combination of these two. As reductionist as it sounds (the 5 you proposed already did this), I believe this isn't too far fetched.
 
Last edited:
Well, I didn't say that the numbers are meaningless. I said that the level of precision expected (required?) is not useful, as in the case of IQ
measurement which you brought up.
I know. However, I am claiming the exact numbers are meaningless. I think it's safe to say that the advantage of numerical measurements is their precise comparative nature. Being able to distinguish a length of 3 from a length of 5 is useful because we know with 100% certainty that a length of 5 is longer than a length of 3, but not quite twice as long.

Is someone who scored 124 on an IQ test definitively smarter than someone who scored 120? The fact that the measurement might change upon remeasuring is also fairly damning nail in the coffin I'd say.
The utility of precision in measurement and its importance is dependent upon what is being measured and what that measurement is used for. In medicine, for example, blood tests have very precise measurements of various hormones, enzymes, and proteins, but those precise measurements - assuming that they're accurate - form a health profile when compiled together based on cutoff points that are established from the medical literature and used as guidelines in practice. If we measure something like blood sugar, for example, I think it's <=7.0 that is classified as diabetic and something between 6.0 and 6.9 is classified as pre-diabetic. The numbers are used in specific ways to determine health risks and prescriptions of advice/treatment. Beyond that, nobody is splitting hairs between something like 6.3 and 6.4. In other words there's no functional difference between those two specific measurements.
A fair point. However, choosing to disregard precision (as doctors might do with blood sugar levels) is fundamentally different than the measurements themselves being imprecise (as is the case for IQ).
In either case there are no standardized cutoff points for various scores. I don't know why, but I'm guessing that the reasons for this are mostly political and social, in addition to the original purpose of the test, which was to meant to weed out the functionally retarded from the rest of population. It might also have to do with pragmatism. Telling someone that their score puts them in the genius, retard, almost there buddy, not quite there pal, a few cards shorts of a full deck but you can still contribute, one N fart away from the next Nikola Tesla, and various other categories is not very useful. It can have negative effects in both cases (self-esteem, productivity aka laziness etc.). I don't see a practical utility to it (doesn't mean it isn't there, though). It's far more useful to make evaluations on specific competencies.
I'm inclined to agree.
Ideologies (both political and religoius) are generally quite well-defined. There are clear boundaries that demarcate one from the other. If you're talking strictly about the use of ideology as a measurement to determine the "normie index" however, then the measurement itself needn't be complex or granular, if you prefer that term. It would simply be a score derived from a questionnaire on your usual 1-5, strongly disagree-strongly agree scale or something equivalent. You can contest the content of the questionnaire, though. It would have to be very thorough to the point where basically the personificiation of whatever the dominant one in culture is (if that can be established and accurately defined) scores close to 1.
Named ideologies are generally fairly well-defined, yes. But what of unnamed ideologies? Most people's ideologies can only be approximated by agglomerating named ideologies. Arguably they cannot be precisely put into words regardless, but that's all the more reason why trying to assign a number to it is doomed to be wishy-washy.

There's another problem with having people fill in questionnaires like the ones you describe. And that's that there's no guarantee that my strong (dis)agreement is just as strong as yours or anyone else's. Yet another issue is that you in some sense need distances between ideologies, and putting a consistent metric (e.g., satisfying a triangle inequality of sorts) on a very "complicatedly shaped high-dimensional manifold" is very difficult to do judicially. Sorry for the math jargon, but I dunno how else to express it.

I know I'm just being a Debbie Downer by basically saying that the only way to do this is in a wishy-washy way that's dissatisfactory for perfectionists such as myself. But dammit I just can't help it.
I suppose that boredom could be rooted in fear with some individuals, but it's generally accurate (I think) to say that having fun serves the ego. I don't know, I'd have to give it some more thought before I can justify and properly argue the claim that all leisure activity is reducible to the fundamental motivators.
I think I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not quite buying it. To get a bit technical, ain't (dis)liking something ultimately a case of chemicals in the brain? Can (dis)liking certain foodstuffs really be explained by motivators in general? Ain't it just a case of "the brain is simply hardwired that way" in many cases? Same with fun. Are toddlers having fun with a rubber ducky in the bathtub really feeding their ego?
Ironically, I wrote this thread because I was bored and figured I was due for an effort post. :feelskek: Does that feed my ego? If I'm being honest, yes. It's also a cope to distract myself from the brutality of the black pill, so in that sense it's also motivated by fear to some degree.
To me this sounds more like you decided to do something that feeds your ego to alleviate your boredom. You could've just as well pleasured yourself to alleviate boredom (at least in principle) thus feeding número quatro (or cuatro if prefer Spanish over Portuguese) instead.
 
I would say the first four motivators can be categorised into 'masturbatory' tendencies. Ego and Sex is quite self explanatory as to why it's masturbatory so I'm not going to elaborate too much, Reason and Ideology is where it gets difficult, but essentially both can be seen as a way for individuals to justify their actions and beliefs in order to feel a sense of self-satisfaction, clarity, righteousness, certainty or validation in their larger scheme of behaviours. All these feelings ignite a sense of fulfilment within us and can be considered as masturbatory because we crave it non-stop throughout our lifetimes. Even fear can be intertwined with masturbation in some cases, humans fear out on missing potential masturbatory tendencies, the fear in is there in the first place because of masturbation. I understand it's not applicable in every case and is not direct either, which is why I've considered it separate to the first four.

This leaves us with a simplification, human behaviour is fundamentally motived by masturbation and fear, in the bigger picture our actions are a vast complex combination of these two. As reductionist as it sounds (the 5 you proposed already did this), I believe this isn't too far fetched.
Ain't this just a rephrasing of the not unheard of POV that everything we do is to pursue things that make us (indirectly) feel good or to avoid things that (indirectly) cause discomfort? "Masturbatory" activities are essentially things that make us feel good, and fear is discomforting.
 
Last edited:
Ain't this just a rephrasing of the not unheard of POV that everything we do is to pursue things that make us feel good or to avoid things that cause discomfort? "Masturbatory" activities are essentially things that make us feel good, and fear is discomforting.
Not quite because not all masturbation feels good and many instances of masturbation forces us to be uncomfortable as a sacrifice and make us do things we don't want to, some masturbation is more difficult and uncomfortable to perform than others, furthermore not all masturbation would have immediate 'feel good' effects.

For what I said previously, I should have elaborated that I believe we have to masturbate in some manner, there's no escape in that, depending on how you choose to masturbate, the actions will produce different outcomes. For example, it's obviously better to keep the streets clean than throw garbage on the floor even though the latter is easier and 'comfortable', whereas the former will cause slight discomfort because you might have get up from your ass and walk to a bin. We still masturbate over the former option because ultimately we know this action is better for the environment, to act 'clean' and care about the mental health of the community, all this will provide clarity for our action. These thoughts don't have to be laid out like that every time you perform such a simple action because you're used to doing this as a small child, it was pushed to us by teachers and parents so it makes sense. It can manifest itself in an instant subconscious thought, but nonetheless even if it's extremely subtle it still counts as a masturbatory action because ultimately there's deeper reasons as to why you're doing it in the first place even if you haven't actually thought of them in fine detail.

Take these differences to a bigger scale, our actions are just a complex combination of the different variants of masturbation and fear.

Where do activities that are purely fun fit in? Like, e.g., for which of those reasons do people watch comedies or comedians?
I feel like everything I said here and on the previous post would explain the fun case, because fun being part of the broad masturbatory activity is self explanatory, not much to dissect there. What do you think?
 
Ain't this just a rephrasing of the not unheard of POV that everything we do is to pursue things that make us (indirectly) feel good or to avoid things that (indirectly) cause discomfort? "Masturbatory" activities are essentially things that make us feel good, and fear is discomforting.
On a second thought I might have misinterpreted the question, if you meant that if someone believes that in the long term it makes them feel good ignoring every single sacrifice and uncomfortable action in between the 'feel good' part and the moment you decided to masturbate, then I suppose you would be right
 
Last edited:
Nice post I enjoyed reading it

always finding some way to interject a conversation with the phrase, "my girlfriend/my boyfriend." It's to weasel in the status signal for the ego boost, in addition to the usual shit you'll have evo psych explain to you. "Look at me, I'm sexually desired and I get regular sex. That makes me better than you on some level." Of course, they never verbalize such an absurdly arrogant and cringey statement, but it's what they're subconciously communicating. They're not necessarily saying that kind of shit because you're around (though that might make it more convenient), but because someone is around.
Oh my god I have always FUCKING hated this, no one mentions their girlfriend and they will be like "oh my girlfriend" or whatever I dont even need to make examples but that shit always pissed me the fuck off, because that is EXACTLY what they are trying to fucking do, I always tried to talk to people to genuinely talk to them not to subversely signal value or whatever but normies really LIVE for this fucking shit.

It's fucking worse when they do it around single guys too like fuck off, and you can't even call it out because they will be all like "woah man thats not true I just got to go see my girl" "you're probably just frustrated because your single"
I dislike normies because they don't care about ideas and aren't interested in truth, either.
Thats always annoyed me too, unfortunately we did not primarily evolve to want the truth above all else.

Galileo is a good example of this, he almost died for telling the truth about the solar system.
 
On a second thought I might have misinterpreted the question, if you meant that if someone believes that in the long term it makes them feel good ignoring every single sacrifice and uncomfortable action in between the 'feel good' part and the moment you decided to masturbate, then I suppose you would be right
That's what I meant yes. A Christian, for example, might avoid avoid all manner of worldly indulgences because they don't wanna end up in Hell. This would be a very indirect avoidance of discomfort way down the line.
 
I feel like everything I said here and on the previous post would explain the fun case, because fun being part of the broad masturbatory activity is self explanatory, not much to dissect there. What do you think?
I can indeed see how fun fits into your system. The question was specifically targeted at @based_meme because I fail to see how it fits into his system.
 
That's what I meant yes. A Christian, for example, might avoid avoid all manner of worldly indulgences because they don't wanna end up in Hell. This would be a very indirect avoidance of discomfort way down the line.
makes sense, what do you think of this perspective?
I can indeed see how fun fits into your system. The question was specifically targeted at @based_meme because I fail to see how it fits into his system.
true dont mind for bumping in, was just curious
 
makes sense, what do you think of this perspective?
I can get on board with the whole "feelgoods" and discomforts train of thought, because both categories are fairly broad. I'm a bit more skeptical of more reductionist takes such as reducing discomforts to fear or "feelgoods" to ego and sex.

I'm not huge on replacing "feelgoods" with "masturbation" either tbh. The reason why is because I feel like feeling good is more fundamental than "masturbation". Feeling good is ultimately a chemical reaction in the brain. "Masturbation" is an action whose effect is ultimately a chemical reaction in the brain. Since perceiving something as uncomfortable is also a chemical reaction is the brain, using "feelgoods" is also more symmetric.

I feel like the whole point of the "feelgoods" and discomforts idea is that the thing that ultimately matters is whether the brain says "again" or "avoid" (with varying degrees of intensity). This can also take slightly more complicated forms such as "next time do X (again) to avoid Y because X is preferable to Y". "Masturbation" is the action driven by a (sufficiently intense) "again" response, so its counterpart should be "avoidant behavior", no?
 
I would say the first four motivators can be categorised into 'masturbatory' tendencies. Ego and Sex is quite self explanatory as to why it's masturbatory so I'm not going to elaborate too much, Reason and Ideology is where it gets difficult, but essentially both can be seen as a way for individuals to justify their actions and beliefs in order to feel a sense of self-satisfaction, clarity, righteousness, certainty or validation in their larger scheme of behaviours. All these feelings ignite a sense of fulfilment within us and can be considered as masturbatory because we crave it non-stop throughout our lifetimes. Even fear can be intertwined with masturbation in some cases, humans fear out on missing potential masturbatory tendencies, the fear in is there in the first place because of masturbation. I understand it's not applicable in every case and is not direct either, which is why I've considered it separate to the first four.

This leaves us with a simplification, human behaviour is fundamentally motived by masturbation and fear, in the bigger picture our actions are a vast complex combination of these two. As reductionist as it sounds (the 5 you proposed already did this), I believe this isn't too far fetched.
Sure, they're all self-oriented, so yes, I suppose you could say break it down to "masturbatory tendencies" (I prefer the term self-serving, as that's more neutral and generic).

I know. However, I am claiming the exact numbers are meaningless. I think it's safe to say that the advantage of numerical measurements is their precise comparative nature. Being able to distinguish a length of 3 from a length of 5 is useful because we know with 100% certainty that a length of 5 is longer than a length of 3, but not quite twice as long.

Is someone who scored 124 on an IQ test definitively smarter than someone who scored 120? The fact that the measurement might change upon remeasuring is also fairly damning nail in the coffin I'd say.
Yes, I see what you're saying (I think). I'll quote Richard Haier - one of the leading researchers on the subject - about this issue you've pointed out and hope that what he's saying is satisfactory in allaying your concern.

There is a myth that there is no definition or assessment of intelligence precise enough for scientific investigation. For most empirical research studies, intelligence is defined as a general mental ability common to all specific mental abilities. This is the g-factor, first described by Charles Spearman more than 100 years ago. There are other more specific factors as well, including verbal, numerical, and spatial. Some mental abilities are more g-loaded than others but g is pervasive.

IQ tests sample several mental abilities so IQ is a good estimate of g. So is the total SAT score. The g-factor is normally distributed (i.e. the Bell Curve) in the population so where you fall is relative to other people and can be described as a percentile. An IQ sore of 130, for example, is in the top 2 percent of the population. However, IQ points are not like pounds or pints—they are not absolute measures, so caution is required when interpreting changes in IQ or other intelligence test scores. Note that advances in technology usually lead to more precise definitions—think about how the definitions of an atom or a gene have changed with research advances. The same is true for intelligence.

A fair point. However, choosing to disregard precision (as doctors might do with blood sugar levels) is fundamentally different than the measurements themselves being imprecise (as is the case for IQ).
Did you mean accuracy? IQ is actually one of the more stable measurements of an individual across the span of their life. There is obviously a decline with age, but you can stave off some of the degeneration with the usual (diet, exercise, stimulation). It's possible that the way in which we test for the thing we believe to be general intelligence is highly inaccurate, but it does have consistent results, which make it precise. Based on everything known about g so far, though, it's unlikely that it's far off the mark.

I'm inclined to agree.
No, you can't do that. I'll have nothing to reply to and the thread will die. :feelsbadman: :feelskek:

Named ideologies are generally fairly well-defined, yes. But what of unnamed ideologies? Most people's ideologies can only be approximated by agglomerating named ideologies. Arguably they cannot be precisely put into words regardless, but that's all the more reason why trying to assign a number to it is doomed to be wishy-washy.
I don't know, I didn't get that far ahead. I stopped thinking about it by the time I flushed the toilet. Those unnamed ideologies, like the ones that are the result of current-day far-left ideologies, one of which we call "wokeism," have yet to be properly fleshed out and outlined. Of course, a belief system has to be established and identified well before measuring the degree of people's beliefs in regards to that (formalized) set of beliefs, since you won't be sure what it is you're in fact measuring.

There's another problem with having people fill in questionnaires like the ones you describe. And that's that there's no guarantee that my strong (dis)agreement is just as strong as yours or anyone else's. Yet another issue is that you in some sense need distances between ideologies, and putting a consistent metric (e.g., satisfying a triangle inequality of sorts) on a very "complicatedly shaped high-dimensional manifold" is very difficult to do judicially. Sorry for the math jargon, but I dunno how else to express it.
The jargon is fine, I don't care. I think we and a handful of others here could actually understand that and follow along. :feelshaha:

It be might be better to think of the measurement categories as four separate graphs with each of vertices having various strengths connecting with different nodes. The measurements would be convoluted, but it would give us a more refined measurement towards the index.

The inherent problem of getting the data in first place remains, however. I mean, even if you could connect people's brains to a machine interface and read their thoughts on the variables as language outputs in their primary language of thought, you still won't need to prompt them for a stimulus response by formulating effective questions in the first place. The limitations of questionnaires highlight a problem that is instrinsic to this sort of empirical measurement. We just have to make do.

I know I'm just being a Debbie Downer by basically saying that the only way to do this is in a wishy-washy way that's dissatisfactory for perfectionists such as myself. But dammit I just can't help it.
No, this is good. The thread was intended to be somewhat light-hearted (if you couldn't tell), which is why I had made it in the lounge. But now that we're dissecting it, I guess we can decide if we want to take it seriously or not.

I think I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not quite buying it. To get a bit technical, ain't (dis)liking something ultimately a case of chemicals in the brain? Can (dis)liking certain foodstuffs really be explained by motivators in general? Ain't it just a case of "the brain is simply hardwired that way" in many cases? Same with fun.
I mean, yeah, if you want to be a hardcore, purist materialist, you could say that it all comes down to various neurotransmitters and ion gates and whatnot in the brain and take it from there. We don't pedantically go that far deep, however. We tend to keep things at higher orders so that communicating and organizing the thing in question (human behaviors in this case) becomes much easier.

Think of it sort of like skipping some steps in that proof because of course the reader knows how to do the algebra and of course they know about that specific lemma or theorem that is always supposed to be invoked in step 5 that takes us to step 8 or whatever. You mean, you don't take those shortcuts? :feelskek:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcaLMS67aaU


Are toddlers having fun with a rubber ducky in the bathtub really feeding their ego?
It's implied (and I thought not necessary to state) that decisions are something that are made consciously with full awareness. A toddler doesn't - can't - make decisions, let alone has a developed psyche with an ego.

To me this sounds more like you decided to do something that feeds your ego to alleviate your boredom. You could've just as well pleasured yourself to alleviate boredom (at least in principle) thus feeding número quatro (or cuatro if prefer Spanish over Portuguese) instead.
How do you know I didn't do exactly that for some post-nut clarity before writing the thread? :feelsaww:
 
Last edited:
Galileo is a good example of this, he almost died for telling the truth about the solar system.
Galileo died while under house arrest for being a heretic as deemed by the Roman Catholic Church. I wonder if any parallels can be drawn from this to our community.

I guess it's not quite the same as our idea is a grand one about human nature. If our ideas are suppressed they are suppressed by the very thing they describe. And the idea that women aren't these high-virtue, shy and virginal persons is much less groundbreaking and watershed than discovering moons of Jupiter or that objects fall to Earth at a fixed rate. Our idea is also a lot less useful because there are no solutions besides coping so you don't kill yourself too early, or planning expensive and risky surgery.

It's science nonetheless. If the blackpill allows us to model human or social patterns with some predictability, then it is science. If you disagree, then you have to concede that it is a lot closer to science than anything bluepillers say without any evidence whatsoever.

normies really LIVE for this fucking shit.

They really do. Normies are all about people and the now. I had this realisation, and then I stopped making anything other than small talk with normies. It's also behind the enormous growth of sensationalism in media: mass media is marketed towards normies, who don't give a shift about ideas and talk about people endlessly and tear each other apart for social momentary social status, so mass media is going to be about people (celebrity worship, what toliet princess cum cake shit in this morning, or what celebrity Chad #29316 is sticking his cock in this week). Elections, like the big one in the US coming up, are basically about who panders to normies the best.

And if that's what there is to say about normies, women are like normies² in that their biology makes them far more feelings-lead, and even more sensationalist.

I would pitty women if they weren't given unlimited SMV, weren't the objects of endless desire, and didn't have their lives handed to them on a sliver platter.
 
I'll quote Richard Haier - one of the leading researchers on the subject - about this issue you've pointed out and hope that what he's saying is satisfactory in allaying your concern.
I feel like he's largely corroborating what I'm saying. E.g., "IQ points are not like pounds or pints -- they are not absolute measures". The only real difference is that he talks about the so-called g-factor. I fail to see how the g-factor differs from intelligence however.
Did you mean accuracy? IQ is actually one of the more stable measurements of an individual across the span of their life. There is obviously a decline with age, but you can stave off some of the degeneration with the usual (diet, exercise, stimulation). It's possible that the way in which we test for the thing we believe to be general intelligence is highly inaccurate, but it does have consistent results, which make it precise. Based on everything known about g so far, though, it's unlikely that it's far off the mark.
I meant numerical precision. I guess you could call that accuracy. I disagree that consistency implies precision, however. In my mind precision = accuracy. What do you mean by "precise" here? Lastly, how could we possibly know that g is indeed quantifying general intelligence accurately?
No, you can't do that. I'll have nothing to reply to and the thread will die. :feelsbadman: :feelskek:
Don't worry this thread is far from being dead yet. Also, I think the number of parallel discussions is growing so if we don't round some of them up it's gonna get messy.
I don't know, I didn't get that far ahead. I stopped thinking about it by the time I flushed the toilet. Those unnamed ideologies, like the ones that are the result of current-day far-left ideologies, one of which we call "wokeism," have yet to be properly fleshed out and outlined. Of course, a belief system has to be established and identified well before measuring the degree of people's beliefs in regards to that (formalized) set of beliefs, since you won't be sure what it is you're in fact measuring.
What you care about is measuring how deviant some person's ideology is from the "average ideology", no? Said person's ideology mightn't align with any of the named ideologies particularly well. In that case, questioning them only on named ideologies is bound to give poor results, no? Questioning someone on hundreds of named ideologies get impractical anyhoo.
It be might more better to think of the measurement categories as four separate graphs with each of vertices having various strengths connecting with different nodes. The measurements would be convoluted, but it would give us a more refined measurement towards the index.
sorry you lost me there
The inherent problem of getting the data in first place remains, however. I mean, even if you could connect people's brains to a machine interface and read their thoughts on the variables as language outputs in their primary language of thought, you still won't need to prompt them for a stimulus response by formulating effective questions in the first place. The limitations of questionnaires highlight a problem that is instrinsic to this sort of empirical measurement.
I take it the "won't" I made strikethrough shouldn't've been there? If so, you're right.
We just have to make do.
Man I hate that phrase. The bane of my existence fr.
I mean, yeah, if you want to be a hardcore, purist materialist, you could say that it all comes down to various neurotransmitters and ion gates and whatnot in the brain and take it from there. We don't pedantically go that far deep, however. We tend to keep things at higher orders so that communicating and organizing the thing in question (human behaviors in this case) becomes much easier.
I'm equally if not more comfortable sidestepping the neuroscience and saying that (dis)liking certain things are primitives (or -- in math lingo -- axioms). I think I misunderstood what you were doing tho. Instead of saying that the primitives are ensuant on motivators (which would make little sense) the motivators are categories of similar primitives, right?
Think of it sort of like skipping some steps in that proof because of course the reader knows how to do the algebra and of course they know about that specific lemma or theorem that is always supposed to be invoked in step 5 that takes us to step 8 or whatever. You mean, you don't take those shortcuts? :feelskek:
Of course I do, but less than most I reckon.
It's implied (and I thought not necessary to state) that decisions are something that are made consciously with full awareness. A toddler doesn't - can't - make decisions, let alone has a developed psyche with an ego.
A toddler cannot oversee the consequences of their actions, but I'm not convinced this means they aren't fully aware of what they do. I don't think this is measurable tho.
How do you know I didn't do exactly that for some post-nut clarity before writing the thread? :feelsaww:
I stopped thinking about it by the time I flushed the toilet.
So that's what you flushed down the toilet -- sperm. But wait, that means you were thinking about all of this while nutting... Very interesting... Very interesting indeed. Please do elaborate :feelswhere:
 
I feel like he's largely corroborating what I'm saying. E.g., "IQ points are not like pounds or pints -- they are not absolute measures". The only real difference is that he talks about the so-called g-factor. I fail to see how the g-factor differs from intelligence however.
G-factor is designed to represent the total of all positive correlations between cognitive tasks. IQ is just a measure of g and how we quantify it, which is meant to represent overall intelligence more generally. Two people can have the same IQ using the same test, but their intelligence is not the same, because one could be stronger in something like visuospatial intelligence and memory, while another could be stronger in logic and processing speed, with all else being equal. The measure is not directly analogous to something like a measurement of speed where you can have two completely different objects with different properties moving at the same speed, because the thing you're measuring - speed - is not composed of smaller parts. It's just the thing itself.

There are certainly problems with it, but tests are the best tool currently available at estimating it.

I meant numerical precision. I guess you could call that accuracy. I disagree that consistency implies precision, however. In my mind precision = accuracy. What do you mean by "precise" here? Lastly, how could we possibly know that g is indeed quantifying general intelligence accurately?
Precise and accurate are not the same thing. Precision is the closeness between measurements of the same thing, whereas accuracy is how close you are with what you intended to measure between measurements of the same thing.

What you care about is measuring how deviant some person's ideology is from the "average ideology", no? Said person's ideology mightn't align with any of the named ideologies particularly well. In that case, questioning them only on named ideologies is bound to give poor results, no? Questioning someone on hundreds of named ideologies get impractical anyhoo.
Not the average, no. The dominant one. For example, in a religious theocracy, it would be a measure of how close you adhere to the beliefs of the religion. Secular societies (especially under the umbrella of 'the West') don't really have a well-defined and uniform dominant ideology. It's a fractured mishmash or varying political ideologies coming together with different cultural values. It's a mess, and it would indeed be a nightmare to measure. Try not to take it too seriously here. KEK

sorry you lost me there
Don't worry about it. Not important.

I take it the "won't" I made strikethrough shouldn't've been there? If so, you're right.
Yes, my mistake. I sometimes make edits on long posts after the fact and miss a few errors in the process.

Man I hate that phrase. The bane of my existence fr.
It is what it is.

:feelskek:

I'm equally if not more comfortable sidestepping the neuroscience and saying that (dis)liking certain things are primitives (or -- in math lingo -- axioms). I think I misunderstood what you were doing tho. Instead of saying that the primitives are ensuant on motivators (which would make little sense) the motivators are categories of similar primitives, right?
Categories of primitives, yes. Similar, no. The primitives are intended to be ordered and tiered from first being the highest (tier) with the last being lowest.

The primitives also don't have inverse analogues like they do with mathematics. I'd tell you to try not to math the shit out of this, but I know you can't help it. :feelsbadman:

A toddler cannot oversee the consequences of their actions, but I'm not convinced this means they aren't fully aware of what they do. I don't think this is measurable tho.
I don't think so either, but that's besides the point anyway. Toddlers are conscious, but the level of it is too low to develop enough awareness to reach the point of conscious decision-making, which entails understanding the concept of consequence. Their brains haven't developed that far ahead yet.

So that's what you flushed down the toilet -- sperm. But wait, that means you were thinking about all of this while nutting... Very interesting... Very interesting indeed. Please do elaborate :feelswhere:
No, I thought about this during a dump, forgot about it for a few days, then thought about making a thread, then decided to write the thread with a clearer head afterward when...yeah. :feelscomfy:
 
Mentally we're no different from normies. We have only differentiated ourselves from them because they have completely ostracized us, which ended up making our "thinking" deviate from theirs.
 
G-factor is designed to represent the total of all positive correlations between cognitive tasks. IQ is just a measure of g and how we quantify it, which is meant to represent overall intelligence more generally.
Wait. If IQ measures g and g is a correlation of sorts, then performing really well when it comes to visuospatial intelligence and memory, but quite poorly when it comes to logic and processing speed should result in a negative correlation and thus a low IQ. More jarringly, being shit at everything should produce a positive correlation and thus a high IQ. What am I missing?
Precise and accurate are not the same thing. Precision is the closeness between measurements of the same thing, whereas accuracy is how close you are with what you intended to measure between measurements of the same thing.
I don't think I've ever seen "precise" used that way, but so long as I know what you mean.
Categories of primitives, yes. Similar, no. The primitives are intended to be ordered and tiered from first being the highest (tier) with the last being lowest.
How would you tier them if not via similarity?
The primitives also don't have inverse analogues like they do with mathematics. I'd tell you to try not to math the shit out of this, but I know you can't help it. :feelsbadman:
Inverse analogues? :feelsaww:
 
Wait. If IQ measures g and g is a correlation of sorts, then performing really well when it comes to visuospatial intelligence and memory, but quite poorly when it comes to logic and processing speed should result in a negative correlation and thus a low IQ. More jarringly, being shit at everything should produce a positive correlation and thus a high IQ. What am I missing?
It's the strength of the positive correlations between the tasks that you perform. The idea is that if you perform well one test, generally you would tend to perform well on others as well, hence the correlation. The wiki entry on g-factor goes into detail, if you want to look into it.

I don't think I've ever seen "precise" used that way, but so long as I know what you mean.
It's just the English term. There are no domain-specific synonyms. Here's a picture illustration to show the difference.

iu


How would you tier them if not via similarity?
Complexity and higher order vs lower order brain functions.

Inverse analogues? :feelsaww:
Yeah, like addition and subtraction being inverses of one another. Fear, for example, is negatively-oriented, but it doesn't have some positively-oriented counterpart (or inverse). Maybe I didn't understand what you meant.
 
It's the strength of the positive correlations between the tasks that you perform. The idea is that if you perform well one test, generally you would tend to perform well on others as well, hence the correlation. The wiki entry on g-factor goes into detail, if you want to look into it.
I indeed misunderstood what the g-factor entails. Reading the Wikipedia page helped. But then IQ is not strictly speaking a measurement of the g-factor, right? IQ aggregates various cognitive test scores whereas an individual's g-factor is some sort of correlation between the different cognitive test scores, right? In mathematical terms, it's kinda like Sklar's theorem. IQ can be likended to single number trying to summarize the marginal distributions whereas g can be assimilated to a single number trying to summarize the copula, right? If you don't know what I'm talking about, a quick glance at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(probability_theory)> should suffice (specifically the "Mathematical definition" and "Sklar's theorem" sections).
Precision is the closeness between measurements of the same thing
It's just the English term. There are no domain-specific synonyms. Here's a picture illustration to show the difference.
The picture makes sense, but consider this. Suppose I'm measuring lengths by rounding to the nearest decimeter. Then every finger I measure will be 1 dm. Exceedingly consistent. Would you really call such measurements exceedingly precise? I sincerely doubt most people would. I really do feel precision also has a fine-grainedness component to it.
Complexity and higher order vs lower order brain functions.
And how would you determine those? Sorry for the Socratic dialogue btw.
Yeah, like addition and subtraction being inverses of one another. Fear, for example, is negatively-oriented, but it doesn't have some positively-oriented counterpart (or inverse). Maybe I didn't understand what you meant.
Technically binary subtraction is not an inverse to binary addition. Your mathematical analogy is kinda suspect because most mathematical operations aren't invertible, but I get your point now.
 
Galileo died while under house arrest for being a heretic as deemed by the Roman Catholic Church.
I thought he didnt die but he almost did if it was not for wealth and connections, the specifics are not really important anyway he is just a famous example, the idea is more that humans did not evolve to seek the truth, they evolved to be apart of a herd to survive, being alone would mean death as 1 on 1 you are vulnerable against a lot of animals.
I wonder if any parallels can be drawn from this to our community.
I think there is, getting persecuted for the truth and suffering consequences, imagine if we spoke out publically with our full names lol
I guess it's not quite the same as our idea is a grand one about human nature. If our ideas are suppressed they are suppressed by the very thing they describe. And the idea that women aren't these high-virtue, shy and virginal persons is much less groundbreaking and watershed than discovering moons of Jupiter or that objects fall to Earth at a fixed rate. Our idea is also a lot less useful because there are no solutions besides coping so you don't kill yourself too early, or planning expensive and risky surgery.
Yeah well acceptance of the idea does not really do much on a grand scale either and its not that interesting or groundbreaking very well put
I would pitty women if they weren't given unlimited SMV, weren't the objects of endless desire, and didn't have their lives handed to them on a sliver platter.
Lol yeah I have thought about this too, if they did not have all their advantages, would be a bad way to live for sure.
 
I indeed misunderstood what the g-factor entails. Reading the Wikipedia page helped. But then IQ is not strictly speaking a measurement of the g-factor, right? IQ aggregates various cognitive test scores whereas an individual's g-factor is some sort of correlation between the different cognitive test scores, right?
It's not a direct measurement, but an estimate of g.

In mathematical terms, it's kinda like Sklar's theorem. IQ can be likended to single number trying to summarize the marginal distributions whereas g can be assimilated to a single number trying to summarize the copula, right? If you don't know what I'm talking about, a quick glance at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(probability_theory)> should suffice (specifically the "Mathematical definition" and "Sklar's theorem" sections).
I don't know my probability theory that in-depth. This is the first time I'm seeing Sklar's theorem or the theory of copulas. This looks like the stuff in graduate probability theory that I didn't study.

The picture makes sense, but consider this. Suppose I'm measuring lengths by rounding to the nearest decimeter. Then every finger I measure will be 1 dm. Exceedingly consistent. Would you really call such measurements exceedingly precise? I sincerely doubt most people would. I really do feel precision also has a fine-grainedness component to it.
If we're using decimeters as the unit of measurement, then yes it's precise. It's obviously still not accurate though.

And how would you determine those?
By level of cognitive complexity. Reason takes effort and we can do so because we have a prefrontal cortex, whereas fear happens in the reptilian brain and doesn't require any effort. That's why I put reason first and fear last. The rest I ballparked.

Sorry for the Socratic dialogue btw.
Why are you sorry? Don't be.

Technically binary subtraction is not an inverse to binary addition. Your mathematical analogy is kinda suspect because most mathematical operations aren't invertible, but I get your point now.
I understand. As long as I got the point, that's what matters.
 
It's not a direct measurement, but an estimate of g.
I don't know my probability theory that in-depth. This is the first time I'm seeing Sklar's theorem or the theory of copulas. This looks like the stuff in graduate probability theory that I didn't study.
What I was essentially trying to verify is that the individual scores corresponding to each type of intelligence can indeed be used to estimate g. However, after combining them into one number (one's IQ) this is no longer indicative of g. By (say) averaging the individual scores, you've lost any correlative information.
If we're using decimeters as the unit of measurement, then yes it's precise. It's obviously still not accurate though.
The way I see it, .1 dm is indeed more precise than 1 cm, but a measurement of .1 dm is still not very precise. Something like 1.02 dm is already a bit preciser. But let's just agree to disagree at this point. We're just using the word differently.
By level of cognitive complexity. Reason takes effort and we can do so because we have a prefrontal cortex, whereas fear happens in the reptilian brain and doesn't require any effort. That's why I put reason first and fear last. The rest I ballparked.
Technically grouping by cognitive complexity is grouping by similarity (of conginitve complexity) but I understand why you interpreted "similarity" differently when I first mentioned it. So did I. What I'm worried about tho is that you'll potentially group very outwardly dissimilar motivators into the same group because they of could be of similar cognitive complexity.

Another thing I'd like you to elaborate on is what exactly you mean by "cognitive complexity". Which part of the brain is used? How much time it took the brain to decide?
 

Similar threads

Moroccancel2-
Replies
36
Views
484
lifesucksandyoudie
lifesucksandyoudie
L
Replies
5
Views
141
looksmaxxertheguy
L
P
Replies
3
Views
158
Logic55
Logic55
Cobscell
Replies
3
Views
205
NiggerSlayer
NiggerSlayer
R
Replies
6
Views
225
Regressive
Regressive

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top