You need not judge them to contribute to their being judged and prevented from success. The judgments are "baked in" to the system. The systems themselves are what judge those individuals ...and ruin them. ...You simply provide a functioning excuse for the systems that do so.
I have always rejected the concept of racial superiority or inferiority – Just as I have always rejected judging individuals by group averages.https://twitter.com/Freak__Power__/status/1164338088979681280 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Just as I have always rejected judging individuals by group averages.” Well, apart from women...
#NotAPhilosopherThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Making things up account makes things up.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
I like your new word....weapon eyes. Haha I'm sure you know it's weaponize....just thought that was funny.
End of conversation
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
OK, we agree about that. ...Do you believe that increased "g" makes one superior in capacity to avoid destructive outcomes? + Do you believe that "stupidity"(lack of capacity in proper domain selection/modeling AND processing power capacity) produces bad outcomes? (I do.)
-
Very smart people do very, very dumb things all the time. Lots of less smart people live very long, happy, and fulfilled lives. A computer with less processing power than a modern calculator got man to the moon. One less powerful than your cell phone got us beyond Pluto
-
Yes. I think Bertalanffy really nailed this concept with his idea of equifinality and domain variance. (Building on Shannon's and Wiener's notion of "variety" within systems.) Often, simply selecting the right domain at the right time yields huge successes.
-
Or just the random signal of a chaotic system.
-
That's also possible, but iterated through millions of years of evolution, it's almost as unlikely as those who owe their success to "g" being iteratively selected and bred together. (Domain based intelligence selects the domains, and g-based intelligence processes those domains)
-
The prior is, of course, a generalization. (Talented domain modelers have to have enough logic or "g" to balance their checkbooks. Talented processors have to have enough domain modeling to select a 'worthy enough' domain in which to apply their high "g" levels.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You’re known as being something of a racist though. I mean, just Google yourself. I’m not saying the mainstream is always 100% correct, but you have to wonder why you’re thought of that way, don’t you?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Except that cats are superior to dogs, obviously.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
Oddly, while it should be quite obvious, in the world we live in people don't automatically assume that by discussing group averages you are analyzing/trying to get a better understanding of groups. As opposed to judging anyone especially individuals.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In God's eyes we are all his children -- we should work to see things in that perspective
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.