The Intelligence Paradox

I think it's fairly well established that very high IQ people often struggle in life. I read one study that found income peaks around IQ 120 and actually falls after that. I imagine sexual partners follows a somewhat similar pattern in men.

It's good to be a little more clever than the herd, but not so much one can't relate to the herd.

Obviously I'd take an IQ of 140 vs 60 (I'm roughly 130). Perhaps it's a bit like height for men; being above average height is a great thing, but being 6'9" can be a liability unless one is good at basketball.

This is an interesting topic and I've been thinking about examples from my own past.

My college roommate and best friend is a smart guy who could wind circles around everyone in just about everything. He breezed through two grad degrees at a top-10 school -- but he flamed out miserably in corporate life. Good thing he has rich parents.

Next-door neighbor growing up was a bit of a dipshit (and I think he knew it). I always imagined he would go on to managing a grocery store, or something. He ended up being great at sales and ended up a VP for high-tech company.

You can never tell. Yes, I've observed that being too smart is really a curse. The most successful are usually a little smarter than average and good physical specimens with plenty of charisma.

^^^^ lol after reading the original post I immediately had a similar thought.

I went to grade school with a guy whose was so intelligent he went to the high school next door to take his math classes when we was in 4th grade. Today he has an insignificant job at the local university, and at times almost looks homeless today.

A friend of mine, actually was in the special education program in middle school because he struggled. Today he is a damn police chief in his town. Very personal ale guy and very likable, just like randommembers example!

A person's emotional intelligence (EQ) is a much higher indication that a person will become successful, but emotional intelligence isn't something you can test, and it is almost as difficult to teach someone. Either you have it or you develop it through growing up.

Some intellectuals can't grasp intelligence of others or even put their own intelligence into perspective. We've all seen gifted people "push the envelope" and become their own worst enemy. Just look at politicians, whom are not the brightest yet can play the buttons of the voting crowd. Unless you're looking at something in science, technology, engineering, or math fields you are likely to be successful reading the emotions of people and how to interact effectively. Those who have a strong IQ coupled with emotional intelligence are extremely skilled, but I would take emotional intelligence over IQ any day.

I have a reasonably high IQ but have never pursued money for the sake of money. Playing in a rock band is a really good way to ensure you never make the big bucks, but that's never been my goal anyway.

Most interesting and thought provoking comments. I hadn't expected this much response.

Unfortunately this Satoshi Kanazawa author seems intent on attacking any intelligence higher than that of the herd, like say even 5 IQ points higher. This seems to be his main area of attention. He is saying that intelligent people are weird. His philosophical premises are not unlike those of Martin Heidegger. He wants us to return to animal herding and the open Savanna, and abandon agriculture and settled living. He sees intelligence as not being "evolutionarily relevant".

And of course his approach would have absolutely no ability to deal with something like voluntary celibacy or childlessness. As I grow older, I see it as increasingly relevant to understand the impulses behind these, developing in the East and the West around the same time.

But I agree that intelligent people can often have way more difficulties in life than others. All the more so if they grow up in hostile environments, as families and schools very often are. I don't however see this as justification for abandoning the goal of intelligence. Quite the opposite.

I also do not put much stock in IQ tests, and I am not at all impressed with those like Stanford's Lewis Terman who have promoted them.

Someone was asking if I wanted something like Brave New World. Absolutely not. I am convinced that the inspiration for that was actually when Lewis Terman went to New York at the start of America's involvement in WWI. He administered his IQ tests to all the new recruits, classifying them A through E. A's were put into officer training school, and E's were dismissed from the service.

Huxley must have used this to come up with his Alpha through Epsilon. What they say about Science Fiction is true. It is not science. It is not fiction either. Nor is it a serious attempt to predict the future. It is rather a perspective from which to offer a criticism of the way things already are, and of where they seem to be headed.

I think intelligence is just as much an acquired trait, as one people are born with. So whatever may be the correlation to birth rates, our culture, still largely herd mentality based, destroys intelligence continuously and on an unbelievable scale.

This author associates himself with Charles Murray, 1994 co-author of the Bell Curve. And I kind of had suspected that, as their work traces right back to the 1930's Eugenics Movement in both Germany and the United States.

I'm only going to hold on to the book long enough to make sure that I can argue against anything else he has in it.

I had said that I probably would not go along with it. Glad I had not suggested that any libraries buy it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Ka…

I also have never pursued money for the sake of money. I think too highly of myself to ever reduce myself to that. Likewise I have always tried to resist the herd. The most disappointing aspect of my own life was to see over and over again that my parents and their world view was just that of the herd, and that they were like the then teenagers I saw around me. And then further, it was a great disappointment to see just how much most of those my own age ended up like them. And now as we have good online people search tools, I have seen how much those of my own high school class have become the herd.

Sure, these sorts of people don't have much trouble in life, they just blend in.

Also, I am quite sure that most of these people are more intelligent than they have learned to appear to be.

I've spoken of securely middle class girls who have turned against me, going back to one in high school who completely rejected me with an astonishing degree of prejudice.

Though it has taken decades to come to this point, I now do very strongly support prostitution, though not as an end in and of itself.

Having dismantled matrilineal society, we have this Marriage - Prostitution system.

I certainly do not want to restore the matrilineal or matriarchy system. There are places where that still exists, like in church groups. And then some schools of feminism operate in similar ways. I tolerate this, but that is all.

Likewise, I don't see prostitution in and of itself as being the solution to anything. And I have stated this various places. But because Marriage and Prostitution are poles of the same phenomenon, and because Prostitution is at the devalued end of the scale, that is where you start if you want to make war.

So I mean one is going to look to children who are cognizant of abuse, to prostitutes who are fighting back by undermining marriage, and to the intelligent who have suffered persecutions in the family, the schools, and the doctors office, to build a revolutionary cadre.

I'll be reading J. K. Rolling's Casual Vacancy. It returns to the area she opened in the prologue to the first Harry Potter story, Muggles.

Thanks,
SJG

I helped put a Pentecostal Daughter Molester into San Quentin, but it would have been even more fun to deal with him myself.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-…

https://www.change.org/p/fire-satoshi-ka…

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gues…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/satos…

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kan…

https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/01/…

Heart- Unchained Melody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJBNfCEh…

I know a lot of M.D.s including psychiatrists and other specialists. Generally speaking they indicate that the higher the human intellect the higher the chance of mental health issues, lack of common sense or poor social skills,

I have definitely seen this over and over again amongst the geniuses I deal with on a daily basis.

Apparently the paradox applies to other species too and other traits beyond just intelligence or cognitive abilities. Generally speaking some biologists say the more "extreme" or "remarkable" of specific trait an individual demonstrates comparatively within his/her species the more like they are significantly deficient in some other aspect(s).

Apparently when mother nature "giveth" she also "taketh" away in some fashion.

Odd how this seems to demonstrate both entropy (natural tendency toward disorder) and balance simultaneously.

what this author seems to be saying is that more intelligent people lack common sense. So you see that what he picked for his cover is a chicken crossing the road.

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Parad…

So his basis is because more intelligent people are more politically liberal, and since he doesn't agree with this, they must lack common sense.

So the whole book is just saying that if you don't follow the herd, then you are evolutionarily inferior. And mostly this comes down to conservative politics.

Now of course this author himself is so much more intelligent that he can see the fallacy of the ordinarily more intelligent and expose them to us.

Stupid book, but since the ideas are quite common, I want to understand them and know how to diffuse them.

SJG

Liberal people tend to see the world as they want it to be, whereas conservative people see the world as it actually is. It's why liberals are considered progressive, and conservatives are considered realistic. Or as Churchill once stated, "if you're not liberal when you're in your 20's, u have no heart. But if you're not conservative by the time you're in you're 40's then you got no brains." Churchill is definitely considered one of history's geniuses.

Actually, Churchill didn't say that. Well, he did, but he plagiarized it. He got that phrase from French Prime Minister and historian Francois Guizot who died in the 1870s. I even recall reading a French poem/play that seemed to say something similar, but it was in français so the English translation wasn't entirely clear and I can't remember what year the play was (not later than the 1800s).

Also, what Churchill said makes no sense. I would say education, culture, experience, and environment shapes political ideals more than age. People don't just wake up on their 40th birthdays and say, "I think I'll change political parties now!"

Stephen Hawking is one of the smartest guys alive. Did he turn into a conservative when he got older? NOPE.

Politics aside, the character this thread is reminding me of? SHELDON LEE COOPER.

"Apparently when mother nature "giveth" she also "taketh" away in some fashion"

Nina is right about this thread reminding her about Sheldon Cooper. No need for a PhD to publish a research study -- they just need to watch the Big Bang Theory!

Liberals don't 'see the world as they want it to be' but rather have ideas and visions on how to improve it. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes not. Conservatives are afraid of anything that changes their current mind set. Sometimes the status quo is best, and sometimes change is necessary.

Hmmmm....thinking about myself here:
IQ: near genius or genius (depending on where you draw the line)
EQ: probably moron (was worse when I was younger, I fake it better now)
IQ-> Successful engineer
EQ-> I hang out in strip clubs

Meat72 wrote, "Liberal people tend to see the world as they want it to be, whereas conservative people see the world as it actually is."

That is ridiculous!

We live in a world where people are continually being told that their own talents and abilities are worthless, and so they get shunted into putting their time, talents, and abilities into nonsense. People who could be doing interesting things get turned into Homer Simpson. I certainly don't want the world to be this way. But this is how indeed it is.

So I am glad that there are some like Elon Musk how were somehow able to avoid this. As far as I can tell, Never Had a Job in His Life, and never put a penny of his money into anything he was not substantially and personally involved in. I like that, and though I do not claim to be the equal of an Elon Musk, I am living much like he has when it comes to where my talent, ability, and money go.

And I do not give a shit what the financial markets do. If the DOW could get down under say about 9000 and the Nasdaq maybe under 4000, then that would indicate that our country and our economy where in much better condition than they are now. Going higher means that people are gambling, and this is not good.

I agree with Nina,

"I would say education, culture, experience, and environment shapes political ideals more than age. People don't just wake up on their 40th birthdays and say, "I think I'll change political parties now!""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Co…
Hadn't know about this. Don't watch television.

Best not to try and cast people into stereotype derived fictional character types.

Lots of people have made the mistake of thinking that I can be pressured by such things. Online they can get away with this, but it still does not work. F2F they don't get away with it.

Yes, I agree completely with what rockstar666 is saying. Mostly what it comes down to is that conservatives have submitted to injustice, usually inflicted upon them by their parents. So they believe now that everybody else has to also submit.

So it is important to stand up to them and publicly demonstrate that they are wrong by making sure that their actions carry consequences.

The last guy I did this with was the Pentecostal Daughter Molester. He was intent on making sure that his daughters became just like him and like the members of his church, believing that their sexuality is dirty. So now he is residing in San Quentin. I'm happy with this outcome, but I still would have had more fun if I'd dealt with him myself.

Most of the time liberals are actually focusing on what is wrong with the world, and then suggesting how to change it. How could there ever be anything wrong about this?

I can relate to what Dtek is saying. But I also think that children are forced to grow up in negative environments, so this low EQ issue is bogus, a product of the crazy places they are force to be.

Someday I'll tell the story of someone I knew who was a bullying target in high school. One letter from a lawyer to the School Board solved everything.

SJG

This book is silly, but it is worth understanding as the ideas being laid out are common throughout the writings of the political right.

SJG

This Satoshi Kanazawa is trying to say that intelligence is evolutionarily unnatural. So the intelligent are more politically liberal, as well as being into other unnatural things like having less children and staying up late at night and rejecting religion.

He defines political liberalism is a very narrow way. He sees it as simply being will to support and pay higher taxes in order to provide for those without, seeking to have equality of results rather than equality of opportunity.

Well I don't agree with him at all. First of all, there should not be competition just to be able to live in our society. So there need be no trading off of one equality issue versus another. Everyone should be able to live well, without competition.

But I think even more important is what he is forgetting. Political liberalism comes out of the enlightenment, and mostly what it comes down to is building a more just society. So some of the high points have been the revolutions intended to over throw monarchies and colonialism, like the American, French, and Russian Revolutions, and then efforts in the United Stated States to abolish slavery and unjust wars.

So today, we still have forms of injustice. Setting up equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes does not resolve this, as there should not be competition just to be able to live. This is not someone's high school biology experiment.

And then raising taxes to be able to pay money to support those who have not is only at best a temporary remedy to a systemic problem.

Right now most abuses are perpetrated against children, simply because they are children, and they are perpetrated in the middle-class family. This is something unfair along the lines of slavery, and so actions are needed to remedy it.

I believe that most of our other social injustices arise from the middle-class family.

SJG

Thanks to all the libtards who helped substantiate my point. The progressives believe they know more than everybody else, but most left wing representatives have no real life experience of leadership to understand what is actually happening to provide real leadership. Look at Obama and Clinton, both have degrees in law but I'm not sure they have even passed the bar exam or even practiced. Hillary may have briefly in her 20's before becoming a ruthless liar and killer with husband Bill. Lots of bodies have come up missing connected to Bill, and Hillary helps the cover up. Watergate was an indication of Hillary's unethical ways.

Obama has idealistic views, but his greatest accomplishment before being president was being a community organizer. I can't find one example outside of JFK that shows leadership/unification qualities from a liberal. The GOP is the only party that has stood the test of time since the days of Abraham Lincoln, because they focus on more realistic solutions than dreaming of Utopia like the libtards. Libtards never factor into the equation that 1/3rd of people have no motivation or gumption for a better life, so any idealistic policy they put in place is automatically weighed down and dragged by 30% of the population.

Liberals always want to level the outcomes, and conservatives want to level the playing field. The first 35 years of my life I had idealistic, progressive, and liberal intentions until the real life working experiences I dealt with. They taught me that there is a large entitlement mentality with the youth and poor, who don't know the true meaning of you get what you work for.

All of this discussion proves no point, most people are a combination of liberal progressive on some issues, and conservative regressive on others. Very few are pure ideologues' that exclusively only see things in such simplistic terms. if that is you are destined for disappointment because the world doesn't work that way.

I really find it funny when people use Abraham Lincoln as a representative of the GOP. The republican party of the 1800s is not significantly comparable to the Republican party of modern times. If Honest Abe were alive today, he would probably be a democrat.

Yeah, all the southern Democrats who hated Lincoln switched to Republican in the 1960s

^^^^And it took 100 years and the civil rights movement crystalized by Johnson signing the voting rights act to make them switch.

"If Honest Abe were alive today, he would probably be a democrat."

Agreed. And the same goes for the GOP's first Presidential nomine from 1856, Senator John C. Fremont from California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Fr…

There is nothing idealistic about seeing to it that everyone has food, shelter, clothing, medical, education, and career opportunities. That is just the barest minimum of what our nation has to provide in order to be credible. In JFK's time, progress was being made. But in the decades since, especially since Ronald Reagan, NO!

Everyone wants to do well. There is no playing field, as having that chance is supposed to be guaranteed just by virtue of following the rules. If not, then people have to take to the streets, or even take up arms. Sometimes riots are necessary.

It used to be that people were oppressed by monarchs or slave masters. Now they oppressed by parental voices telling them that they are somehow deficient and that this is why they have not. Motivationalism and Social Darwinism stop the people at the bottom from organizing and standing up for themselves. These are all just ideologies intended to lock people out, but of course still keeping them consuming.

Lyndon Johnson was a brave man to sign the 1964 Civil Rights Act, knowing that it would destroy his party in the South and launch Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy and this Red State - Blue State divide, but it had to be done.

I say that Reconstruction, the federal occupation of the Confederacy was ended far too early. It might have needed to go on for 100 years.

The reason it was ended was because the world was already experiencing the first of these over production caused world wide recessions. So the Grant Administration was pressured into ending it in order to make the South into a market for manufactured goods, rather like an internal Third World, while the West would be a natural resources base. Capitalism never solves problems, it just keep on exporting them on a broader scale.

Today the people at the bottom need to get out from under the accusations being laid on them, and instead start fighting back.

Frances Fox Piven on the Welfare Rights Movement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQBgRPtL…

SJG

Etta James, Gladys Knight and Chaka Khan - Ain't Nobody Business (live BB King & Friends)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoBlmp9c…

Unfortunately for people who are smart enough to intellectualize everything -- sex ain't in the cards for them because woman don't like men "who think too much"

The one thing I've learned is that human are the only animals in denial that they're animals.

woman don't like men "who think too much"

?

As I have always seen, women like men who are assertive and who put on a little bit of a show for them. So if by "think too much", you mean someone who is not engaging with them and is absorbed in reflection, then yes I agree. A woman wants to see that a guy is paying attention to her and is not afraid to approach and engage.

So I don't think this means "sex ain't in the cards".

I have consistently seen, and especially with strippers who are talking to guys all day long, that women really go for guys who are conversant and insightful.

And I agree with what one posted on Stripper Web, that she felt she was smarter than 90% of her custies. I think this is common.

I would also point out that I feel that the people on an online forum like TUSCL are on the whole way above average for strip club customers. So TUSCL is not representative of what strippers have to deal with.

SJG

Frances Fox Piven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQBgRPtL…

SJG is right that women love assertive men, especially in regards to intellect. However you and Nina need to be reminded that the more things change the more they stay the same, and life experiences will teach you that.

Abraham Lincoln stood for what made sense, and at that time it was unifying the country around common sense. Watching "Lincoln" gave a great perspective on how he stepped on several toes to accomplish the sensible agenda, including abolishing slavery so the ones who do the work would get rewarded, as to oppose the wealth gap widening. That is what the liberal agenda today says they want to do(close the wealth gap) but instead has polarizing agendas that divides the people. Example, it's not the rich that are evil like the liberal agenda states, because never in the history of the world has the poor had it this good with free cell phones and free food/medical care(Medicaid=read about it). Obama just stated how he wants all community college tuition be free, but who will be paying for it? It will be the property owners because that is who pays the majority of community college revenue(along with state funding derived from income and business).

The liberals live in a fantasy world of economics and tout feel good stories, unrealistic. I'm not endorsing the GOP as much as having such a disrespect for the liberal bias the media displays pandering to their base. It's got to stop soon before we enter into a dangerous inflection point of debt to no return. If u tax the common man too much he quits, like many of the voting democrats. If I own a house for $1000/month payment as opposed to paying rent for $1000/month then I have an incentive to own, but once taxes go up for homeowners to $1,200 month where as renters must begin paying more because the market demands it, then people begin to be priced out of the market for ownership due to wage stagflation. This isn't a conservative led problem, because of entitled programs draining the system.

Lincoln clearly wanted to put more people into the working incentive class, which today's liberal agenda alienates. I'm more for voting anything but a liberal, rather than pro-conservative. It's ruining American values the way how Western Europe has gone in it's socialistic pussification.

Spain has 30% unemployment with the under age 35 crowd, and nobody hires in that country because if you are fired, your business has to pay for unemployment for that fired employee until he/she gets hired again. It's a sad state of affairs when u dis-incentivize effort. Clinton/Obama are far from the political spectrum of Abraham Lincoln.

How does this relate to stripper life? We know that it's all "feel good" in the bubble of a strip club fantasy world and quite an unrealistic way of life. The majority of providers at the club are highly liberal with an unrealistic view of the big picture. They think the way they believe the world should be, instead of actually realistically facing the world. Sure there are a few in the minority, intellectual ateippers who get educated and move onto professional fields of respectful community work, but most are looking for the easy way out. I find most strippers working for their next fix, and talking about how if such and such an idealistic domino affect would occur, the world would be a rosy place, but it's all poppycock. You have to work hard and stick with a game plan over a lifetime, not just go along with a feel good agenda, like free health care. That's like stating since they are strippers we all must purchase a lap dance from the local club even though we are a 65 year old grandma watching 5 grandchildren but because the fathers and mothers can't take care of them. It's not an apples to apples comparison, but fairly close.

@Meat are you smoking weed today? There was nothing coherent about the last two post, and the 65 year old grandma ... what sorta reach were you going for?

Conservatives are only about maintaining the status quo. It wasn't a conservative who freed slaves, or passed civil rights. Conservatives tend to be self-centered "it's working for me screw everyone else" people who are afraid change would bring about a serious loss of comfort to their life style. There is nothing realistic or utilitarian about conservatism.

On the other hand, unfortunately the Left is pandering for votes. They definitely have an agenda of perpetuating a 2nd class low informed citizenry for to be easily manipulated.

I still think the lesser of those two evils are the left. At least they screw you in comfort

Sorry Meat72, but you are most mistaken about Abraham Lincoln. He came into office with no agenda of ending slavery. Though he did find it to be abhorrent, he pledged not to try and end it where it was practiced.

But this was not enough for Southerners, as they wanted it expanded into the West. So 7 states announced secession before Lincoln was even inaugurated.

And Lincoln was still committed to putting down the rebellion and restoring the nation as it was. But they had the problem of slaves escaping in large number. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act required that they would be returned to their owners.

And then there was the French puppet Maximillian in Mexico, clearly a threat to the Western Hemisphere and to our Southern border and to the blockade of the rebellion. And then England with a 2 million man army in Canada, "for possible intervention in the American Civil War."

From the perspective of these European powers, better to break he US, as nothing would be improved by restoring it.

Up through 1862, Lincoln was still looking at plans to compensate slave owners or exile former slaves to a colony in Africa.

Finally the situation just got so serious that he had to break his campaign pledge. But the Emancipation only applied to areas in "open rebellion against the authority of the United States". So in Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, slaves were not freed. Not in other occupied areas either like around New Orleans or areas of the Virginia coast.

And then West Virginia was allowed to break away from Virginia. Though they did not have many slaves, those they had were not freed.

Yes, Lincoln was pragmatic, but he did not go into office with the agenda of ending slavery.

Yale's David Blight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXXp1bHd…

Poor people suffer in the US today because they are basically shut out, shut out of some or all employment, and shut out of careers which will pay a living wage.

Free college would be a huge improvement. It educates people, and it also takes pressure of the labor market. The less jobs we need to have, the better.

There is not one shred of fantasy in this. Rather, industrialization means that less and less labor is needed. The majority of paid employment today produced nothing of social value, but it consumes scarce resources. Better if it could evaporate.

There is lots which needs doing, like caring for children, the disabled, and the elderly, but there is not money to pay people to do this. The needs of those with money are always met. It is the needs of the poor which go unmet.

Just as Lincoln found himself in an unworkable situation, today the very structure of our economic system is completely unworkable. This is not an attempt to actualize any fantasy, it is simply that if we do not make radical changes, things will explode.

We cannot allow free market ideology to further direct the development of our country. Everyone wants to do well, but what they do to achieve this is not always good. We don't need to incentivize employment, quite the opposite.

Spain is a good place to look to see how the problems are going to be solved, and Europe has a great deal that we should be learning from.

http://www.amazon.com/European-Dream-Eur…

SJG

Education For Whom and For What?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_EgdShO…

Meat72 also posted, "You have to work hard and stick with a game plan over a lifetime, not just go along with a feel good agenda, like free health care."

Everyone wants to do well. They don't need you lecturing to them and they shouldn't stand for it. But, more and more people find themselves shut out, and universal health care is a necessity. You've got this idea of fantasy. Well that is your fantasy, no one else's. Universal health care helps small businesses and it helps people pursue careers.

We need to learn from how things have gone in Europe.

SJG

Sorry I went on a buzzed fuel rant. Without the context of what I was picturing in my head it won't seem to make much sense unless much of the rat of the picture has been filled in. Impossible to do with the limited time/span of attention. If we go the way of Europe we begin to stagnate as a people. It's many an entrepreneur from Europe that come to America with good ideas. They can't stand to give up to 50% of their income to their government, unless you don't make much money, then free healthcare and subsidies to live a lifestyle like the middle class had sounds like a good deal to me.

One thing is for sure the health plan that we ended up with sure ain't working. My health insurance has been completely destroyed by the Affordable Health Care Act. It used to require a small co-pay $20-25 dollars per visit now has become a $4000. dollar deductible before anything is covered and then only pays 80% of the bill and the monthly insurance cost has increased from $375. to $425. this is a disaster and not what we were led to believe was coming. I might as well be uninsured for the amount of benefit I get from this bullshit, I haven't had $4000. in medical bills in any of the last 20 years so the net result is my medical care is all out of pocket, what good is the insurance ?

^^should say plus the cost of insurance.

" If we go the way of Europe we begin to stagnate as a people."

Europe might not be the whole solution, but I think there is much we should learn and emulate. Part of the reason Europe has gone the way it has is less religion. Another is that with WWII, their own Right was discredited. Our Right still goes on.

So I disagree with you.

"It's many an entrepreneur from Europe that come to America with good ideas."

Maybe, but maybe they'd also like to go into outer space, or into the Amazon Rain Forest. Not a reason we should be influenced.

"They can't stand to give up to 50% of their income to their government, unless you don't make much money, then free healthcare and subsidies to live a lifestyle like the middle class had sounds like a good deal to me."

Meat72, taxing and spending pays YOUR salary too. Without government expenditure the middle section of our employment market would collapse. What you get paid is in large measure caused by government expenditure. Without that, we would become like most other historical nations, one of the very rich and the very poor.

You should stand up for taxation and spending, so that your own post tax income does not get diminished.

http://www.amazon.com/Screwed-Undeclared…

SJG

I'm done with this book and I'm returning it. In all fairness to Former_Stripper I need to say that I would be very interested in books which talk about those who are childfree by choice. I find that to be a very interesting idea, as it is one of the clearest statements of conscientiousness which one can make.

This book does deal with this, but only so that the author can try to discredit intelligent people so that he can discredit liberal politics.

SJG

Mostly this book is devoted to discrediting intelligent people, in order to discredit liberal politics. But it is the author's own very narrow interpretation of liberal politics. He sees it only as the desire to raise taxes to better pay for social programs, and to try and get equality of outcomes instead of just equality of opportunity.

But once you talk about equality of either opportunity or outcomes, the game is already over as you have signed on to this idea of people competing with each other just to live. If they have to do this, then those shut out are right to take up arms and to kill.

So I don't go along with this. As I see it, the issue is overthrowing oppression. It was monarchs. Then it was slave masters, and then it was institutional racism and sexism. What it is today seems to be is a parental voice telling people that they lack ambition or motivation or morals, or something. This is what keeps people from being able to live. It turns Einstein's, Mozart's, and Elon Musk's into Homer Simpson's. So we need to look at where this voice is coming from and how it's views are being enforced, and then strike back.

Simply raising taxes for more social programs in only an interim bandaid until we can completely remake society based on respect for each and every human being, and stop the familial child abuses and discredit their premises in the lives of children and adults.

SJG

The City Addicted to Crystal Meth , Fresno California!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNPHh82X…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_A…

Louis Theroux Swingers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl5WPGOs…

Louis Theroux Extreme Love s1 E 1 1 ( autism )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9fKdvb…
http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/louis-…

?????

This one seems to work:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kbn0t

This seems to work
http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/louis-…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Lo…

SJG

Check out this:

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/27/li…

SJG