text stringlengths 1 330k |
|---|
PS, I think the crowd on the whole at Manchester last night was spot on everybody was there to enjoy it and have an amazing last look at this quality band. I think i perhaps saw one chap who had resorted to taking alot of drugs, drinking alot and had infact donned a set of safety goggles with metallic spikes around the... |
07/30/09 2:26 PM |
As long as no one gets hurt, I'm cool. smiling smiley I LOVE screaming along with Trent and the crowd and I do it for the entire show. xD |
07/31/09 11:26 AM |
Note to self .. don't stand next to VBPJ at a NIN show. grinning smiley |
Maybe it's me but I think the crowds got live-lier after LITS into the NINJA tour. Those lights zombified a lot of people .. said it before .. Aggressive. |
07/31/09 1:06 PM |
Depends on what you mean by agressive. Sure, I like to move around and dance, maybe mosh a little, but dealing with intoxicated, lunkhead assholes is not my thing. |
My only NIN experience was ruined by badly behaved, boorish fans. I don't know why, but there was a plethora of drunk fratboy and drunk redneck types at this show who were jerks. I was groped - nearly sexually assaulted, was beaten up a bit, and scared for my life as I was being crushed with no way out. I saw this happ... |
I'm usually one to mosh a little, but the way things were at this show was SCARY. I just wish people were nicer to each other and realize that you don't need to go around trying to kill people and be a big bully. I somehow don't think Trent would advocate forcing unwanted sexual attention and brutalizing your fellow hu... |
07/31/09 2:10 PM |
I like to people watch and to each their own. |
I've gotten hurt in the pit....that wasn't fun. Also, there has been times where I've had first row or unobstructed view and sat down for the most part and enjoyed the show. |
Tool actually encourages you to sit back, relax enjoy the show......Nice! |
Sounds Of The Underground....where I had gotten hurt....Every Time I Die might address the pit and say something like....clean it up <------ whatever that means? I guess that's nice too. |
08/01/09 1:30 AM |
I did a rather angry piece about moshing/walls of death/thrashing - things like that - a while back here - [] -. That's where I stand. |
04/11/10 9:31 PM |
You don't want the crowds to be so mellow that the show is boring, but you also don't want the crowds to be so aggressive that no one can stand still for little bit and just listen to the music. At least there should be a good mash pit. |
04/12/10 5:37 AM |
I just like to show up to watch the show and zone out to the tunes. I really do not want some random guy pushing me because he wants to start a mosh pit to "Hurt." Yeah, fuck you assholes who do that on songs that are on the other end of the spectrum. |
Overall, I like calm crowds. |
04/12/10 9:54 AM |
For me? Mellow crowds. But that's because I'm a mellow attendee. When I enjoy the music, I don't dance, I just stay there contently and enjoy despite the fact that I'm CRAZY EXCITED in my head. I don't mind rowdiness, but those fuckers who scream throughout the entire thing need to die in a horrible fire. |
04/12/10 1:28 PM |
Energic crowds, a middle way. Excited, moving, but not violent. Screaming on songs like Terrible Lie and Head Like A Hole and knowing when it comes a moment in wich you have to SHUT UP and listen. La Mer and Something I Can Never Have for example. |
In my only NIN live experience I was lucky, except for a girl who sang EVERY SINGLE WORD on Burn and Gave Up..but It's ok, better on Gave Up than on Fragile or TDTWWA. |
nin forums : General Tour Discussion : Aggressive vs. Mellow crowd... |
Page: < 1 2 3 > |
terms of use | privacy policy |
Against Biology |
It seems that the talking classes in this country think that human biology mostly doesn’t matter. The sexes have exactly equal mean abilities and interests – more than that, even the standard deviation must be the same in men and women. Presumably the third moments as well. |
Race doesn’t exist, so there can hardly be cognitive or personality differences between races. There are no average differences in mental capabilities between classes. IQ is not heritable, so eugenics cannot work. Intelligent women should eschew reproduction – that’s something poor people can do just as well, and wi... |
Homosexuality is the only genetically-determined personality trait – as well as being a valid lifestyle choice, and a floor wax. So slash fiction should be the law of the land. |
About these ads |
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. |
50 Responses to Against Biology |
1. That Guy says: |
It’s great to see some signs of sanity, making a come back of sorts – the link is about Susan Patton’s ‘Daily Princetonian’ Article, which urges female students to find husbands before graduating: |
In my 9 yo daughter’s class a few weeks ago, the young female teacher started a discussion of girl’s/women’s role in society, and asked for a show of hands of which girls planned to have kids – many – then were there any girls who planned to have 3 or more kids – very few. My daughter said she planned to have 5 kid... |
2. Jim says: |
When I was twelve years old I read a book on the Negro problem in the US. The author mentioned the differences in average IQ between blacks and whites in the US. He argued that these were most likely due to environmental factors such as lead exposure, poor education, etc. Reading the book at first I found the autho... |
The scientific view of reality is psychologically very difficult for most people to grasp. The natural inclination for most people is to veiw the world animistically as governed by gods and spirits existing in an intrinsically moral universe. The way things are then must make moral sense. It is very difficult for m... |
• Greying Wanderer says: |
Most people or most WEIRD people? |
3. It depends who is teaching us our biology. Here is Britain’s best known geneticist apparently arguing that mixing races is an intrinsically good thing, because it reduces the number of relatives held in common. Ashkenazis and Finns are lumped together with Pakistanis, without reference to PISA scores, IQ scores, o... |
• gcochran9 says: |
Steve Jones is a pinhead. I’ve never seen him be right about anything. I would say that he is a liar, too, but it’s hard to tell sometimes with pinheads. |
Let us suppose that you take two population( same size), one with average IQ 100 and the other with an average IQ of 85, and mix them evenly. The average IQ of the new mixed population (with twice as many people) will be about halfway in between. This means that the number of people whose IQs exceed a high thresh... |
• Florida resident says: |
Dear Dr. Cochran: |
In your statement “The number that exceed 145 would down by a factor of about 3, assuming a Gaussian distribution” you assume that the resultant population will have Gaussian distribution with the _new_ mean, but with the _old_ standard deviation. |
Was it your statement ? If so, can you explain biological reasons for it ? |
Respectfully, F.r. |
• Florida resident says: |
To James Thompson, April 3, 2013 at 6:53 am . |
Yes, the smart fraction will be diminished. I am ready to agree with (published in 2002), |
that quite possibly it is smart fraction — what is important. |
But Dr. Cochran’s statement looked like absolute number or smart people would also diminish. I have no my own opinion on the subject, but would like to see _all_ the assumptions made. |
Respectfully, F.r. |
• Matt says: |
Florida Resident – “Dr. Cochran’s statement looked like absolute number or smart people would also diminish” |
If the standard deviation remains constant and does not increase, then an increase in population size of 200% would not be sufficient to maintain the same absolute number of people beyond 145 high threshold in the wake of a 7.5 point IQ decrease. |
E.g. with a population of mean IQ 100, SD 15 and population size 100,000, you would expect 135 people to exceed threshold 145, while with a population of mean IQ 92.5, SD 15 and population size 200,000, you would expect 46 people to exceed threshold 145 (reduction by a factor of 3, as Dr Cochran describes). |
If the population with IQ 92.5 had an increased SD by even 10% (let alone the maintained the full level of variation that the two populations, mean 85 and mean 100, would have had as a pooled sample, which btw would still present as approximately Gaussian, not bimodal)… then the number of greater than 145 peopl... |
But that doesn’t seem to happen with mixed populations… (conversely sibling groups reportedly have an SD around 80% the size of the whole population SD). |
• Anon says: |
I have difficult time accepting this assertion. Wouldn’t mixing of races increases number of advantageous mutations specific to the race passed to the offspring? |
• gcochran9 says: |
You’re mixing different time scales, and different selective regimes. if selective pressures favored higher IQ, which they don’t right now, a population with greater genetic variety might respond more rapidly than one with limited genetic variety. The ultimate response to those selective pressures might be grea... |
Since there isn’t any selective pressure for higher IQ today, the extra genetic variety doesn’t do any good. |
If there were such pressures, the response (under most plausible scenarios) would take a a long time – centuries or probably longer. |
On human time scale, in current conditions, this kind of admixture significantly reduces IQ. And then it continues to decrease, as it probably is in every population, mixed or not. |
• Isabel says: |
“If that population ran into a situation that required exceptional smarts, they’d probably die.” |
I would love to hear a scenario where this could occur, and when it may ever have allegedly occurred in history. The people in control of the US for example are not the smartest, nor are the smartest respected and listened to by the voting public. eg climate change. |
• Henry Harpending says: |
It’s AgSci 101: r=h^s where r is the response and s is the selection differential, the difference between the population mean and the mean of the parents. So if parents were selected such that their mean IQ was 100 then s=15=(85-100) and the response would be 12 if the additive heritability is 0.8. The mean IQ of... |
• Anonymous says: |
Are there any known quantitative traits for which the narrow-sense heritability is over 0.8? (By that, I mean, other than obvious things like skin color in a sample of Brazilians.) |
• misreavus says: |
(Commenter above was me) |
• Matt says: |
For a population of mean IQ 85, a subset with mean IQ 100 would basically be all the population on the right hand side of the normal distribution. So that would be a situation where the RHS each have twice (like 2 to 1?) the children of the LHS in one generation (>). |
• Richard Sharpe says: |
So, would than mean that 84% of the population would not be allowed to reproduce? All those below one SD above the mean, assuming an SD of 15. |
• The fourth doorman of the apocalypse says: |
Surely the last two are wrong. The mean of all those individuals above 1SD above 85 is going to be a little more than 100, while all those above IQ 85 would have a mean closer to 85 than 100 (because 68% of them are in the SD from 85 to 100 again with a larger proportion between 85 and 92.5 than between 92.5 an... |
Unfortunately I am not smart enough to come up with an analytic expression for how many SDs above the population mean would give you a population with a mean of 100. |
• Matt says: |
Doorman – I don’t have enough math ability to give an analytic expression, but generated up a normal distribution in Excel, and the top 50% of a mean 85, SD of 15 does have a mean of 97. Of course, that is 97, and the cutoff would need to be the 90 to give exactly 100. |
What you say re: “68% of them are in the SD from 85 to 100 again with a larger proportion between 85 and 92.5 than between 92.5 and 100″. was exactly right, but the outcome was still as it was. |
I was still wrong though. Given the equation Dr Harpending has given, you would actually need a parental mean of 104, which is actually the top 25% of a mean 85, SD 15 distribution. |
4. K says: |
Is it possible for a population with IQ 85 to raise their intelligence by intensive selection, and if so how long will it take? |
• gcochran says: |
Sure. Time required would depend on intensity of selection. You could do it in one generation if you could stop the bottom ~95% from breeding. |
Right now I don’t think that any population is selecting for higher IQ. |
• Especially not the population K means… |
• JayMan says: |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.