Banter/Off-topic Thread & Community Stoning Platform

[Paladin]

It looks like the Creator of Gacha Life, Lucas Darend Lee, a.k.a Luni, is a pedo.
In one case, Lucas was preying on a 17 y.o girl since she was 11.

 

[BlueSharkTV]

Ame's graduation triggered another episode of sandYamanba vs sandYamanba

 

[RestlessRain]

 

[CalciumAnimal]

damn i thought scalping was illegal.

 

[Awoogers]

It looks like the Creator of Gacha Life, Lucas Darend Lee, a.k.a Luni, is a pedo.
In one case, Lucas was preying on a 17 y.o girl since she was 11.

holy fuck

 

[Dispirited Helmet]

Sadly, there's a far more technical answer: cousin marriage. Because the limitation is not 1 man, 1 woman and fairly heavily enforced, it completely destabilizes the marriage market instantly. The Caliphates were able to expand before that issue caught up. It's causes almost a 1 SD loss of average intelligence in a society over 100-150 years. There's been a couple of deeper studies on it, but I'd have to go track those down as it's been a while. Before the social media era, it wasn't exactly hard to find discussions of the issue. It's actually similar to the 120:100 Male:Female ratio in China from the 1 Child Policy. It's just consequential in a different way.

While you still have some really bright spots around (and there's a 100+ year lag time from the conquest to the issue catching up), the rapid drop in group intelligence brings everything down. It's an actual dark age taking over and a devolution of knowledge & understanding.

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. We can't measure intelligence accurately now, particularly for people from non-Western cultures, and ESPECIALLY for people from the past. Every attempt do so ends up leaning on IQ, which is a notoriously fucked up and flawed way to measure intelligence that is inherently based on standards set by a couple of old guys with no oversight in the early 1900s (just like every other fucked up and flawed idea in the "science" of psychology). Attempting to measure the average intelligence of people long dead from a civilization long dead off of nothing but a few academic tomes is a fool's errand. It's the usual attempt by modern academia to portray everything from the past as unenlightened retardation.

To go into a little bit more detail on why this is actual hogwash:

So IQ right? A system designed off of the idea of the standard deviation. Average intelligence is (supposedly) 100, one deviation is 15 points. That's the whole point of the system, a comparative system meant to tell you if you're more or less intelligent than your peers. The problem is, IQ tests are so fucked that you don't get the same score when you go to different proctors, and over a third of kids tested will have a 15+ point difference in IQ (so, a full deviation) after less than a year between tests from the same proctor. There are also like 4 different styles of IQ tests, all of which claim to be universal despite the fact that they're only proofed on English-speaking children rich enough to get selected for experimental IQ tests, and all of which give drastically different results for the same children. You also supposedly drop a full deviation in IQ by the time you've become an adult, which is bullshit because no one in their right mind thinks 8 year olds are actually "smarter" than 30 year olds.

The IQ powers that be keep constantly having to change the higher ranges for their bullshit ranking as well, because people with substandard tested IQ keep getting Nobel prizes and making the entire system look bad. It's why they gave up on using the "genius" terminology and started using "gifted" for the higher ranges instead. Someone with 145 IQ ends up flipping burgers because he has authority issues? Too bad, he squandered his "gifts," it's his fault for not being.... smart enough with his gifts? Nah it was his environment or something. Someone with a paltry 90 IQ becomes an engineer, designing the fantastical buildings that all these pompous academics live out of and take for granted everyday? Wow, he sure made the most of his gifts with his average intelligence! Must have had a wonderful environment...


The best you ever get out of IQ is the identification of actual brain-dead retards. And those aren't hard to find, what with the drooling and the autistic screeching. Hell, some savants even test pretty high in IQ, so even that is hit or miss, but if someone gets 40 IQ on a test they're usually pretty stupid. Anything else is a fiction made up to squeeze money out of stupid parents.

 

[PassiveUnaggressive]

Listening to Shiori stream and the Vance/Walz debate together is interesting because of the music. Adds an extra surreal tone to it

 

[Nenélove]

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. We can't measure intelligence accurately now, particularly for people from non-Western cultures, and ESPECIALLY for people from the past. Every attempt do so ends up leaning on IQ, which is a notoriously fucked up and flawed way to measure intelligence that is inherently based on standards set by a couple of old guys with no oversight in the early 1900s (just like every other fucked up and flawed idea in the "science" of psychology). Attempting to measure the average intelligence of people long dead from a civilization long dead off of nothing but a few academic tomes is a fool's errand. It's the usual attempt by modern academia to portray everything from the past as unenlightened retardation.

To go into a little bit more detail on why this is actual hogwash:

So IQ right? A system designed off of the idea of the standard deviation. Average intelligence is (supposedly) 100, one deviation is 15 points. That's the whole point of the system, a comparative system meant to tell you if you're more or less intelligent than your peers. The problem is, IQ tests are so fucked that you don't get the same score when you go to different proctors, and over a third of kids tested will have a 15+ point difference in IQ (so, a full deviation) after less than a year between tests from the same proctor. There are also like 4 different styles of IQ tests, all of which claim to be universal despite the fact that they're only proofed on English-speaking children rich enough to get selected for experimental IQ tests, and all of which give drastically different results for the same children. You also supposedly drop a full deviation in IQ by the time you've become an adult, which is bullshit because no one in their right mind thinks 8 year olds are actually "smarter" than 30 year olds.

The IQ powers that be keep constantly having to change the higher ranges for their bullshit ranking as well, because people with substandard tested IQ keep getting Nobel prizes and making the entire system look bad. It's why they gave up on using the "genius" terminology and started using "gifted" for the higher ranges instead. Someone with 145 IQ ends up flipping burgers because he has authority issues? Too bad, he squandered his "gifts," it's his fault for not being.... smart enough with his gifts? Nah it was his environment or something. Someone with a paltry 90 IQ becomes an engineer, designing the fantastical buildings that all these pompous academics live out of and take for granted everyday? Wow, he sure made the most of his gifts with his average intelligence! Must have had a wonderful environment...


The best you ever get out of IQ is the identification of actual brain-dead retards. And those aren't hard to find, what with the drooling and the autistic screeching. Hell, some savants even test pretty high in IQ, so even that is hit or miss, but if someone gets 40 IQ on a test they're usually pretty stupid. Anything else is a fiction made up to squeeze money out of stupid parents.

I don't need any system to tell you that you're a retard like the rest of us.

 

[PleaseCheckYourReceipts]

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. We can't measure intelligence accurately now, particularly for people from non-Western cultures, and ESPECIALLY for people from the past. Every attempt do so ends up leaning on IQ, which is a notoriously fucked up and flawed way to measure intelligence that is inherently based on standards set by a couple of old guys with no oversight in the early 1900s (just like every other fucked up and flawed idea in the "science" of psychology). Attempting to measure the average intelligence of people long dead from a civilization long dead off of nothing but a few academic tomes is a fool's errand. It's the usual attempt by modern academia to portray everything from the past as unenlightened retardation.

To go into a little bit more detail on why this is actual hogwash:

So IQ right? A system designed off of the idea of the standard deviation. Average intelligence is (supposedly) 100, one deviation is 15 points. That's the whole point of the system, a comparative system meant to tell you if you're more or less intelligent than your peers. The problem is, IQ tests are so fucked that you don't get the same score when you go to different proctors, and over a third of kids tested will have a 15+ point difference in IQ (so, a full deviation) after less than a year between tests from the same proctor. There are also like 4 different styles of IQ tests, all of which claim to be universal despite the fact that they're only proofed on English-speaking children rich enough to get selected for experimental IQ tests, and all of which give drastically different results for the same children. You also supposedly drop a full deviation in IQ by the time you've become an adult, which is bullshit because no one in their right mind thinks 8 year olds are actually "smarter" than 30 year olds.

The IQ powers that be keep constantly having to change the higher ranges for their bullshit ranking as well, because people with substandard tested IQ keep getting Nobel prizes and making the entire system look bad. It's why they gave up on using the "genius" terminology and started using "gifted" for the higher ranges instead. Someone with 145 IQ ends up flipping burgers because he has authority issues? Too bad, he squandered his "gifts," it's his fault for not being.... smart enough with his gifts? Nah it was his environment or something. Someone with a paltry 90 IQ becomes an engineer, designing the fantastical buildings that all these pompous academics live out of and take for granted everyday? Wow, he sure made the most of his gifts with his average intelligence! Must have had a wonderful environment...


The best you ever get out of IQ is the identification of actual brain-dead retards. And those aren't hard to find, what with the drooling and the autistic screeching. Hell, some savants even test pretty high in IQ, so even that is hit or miss, but if someone gets 40 IQ on a test they're usually pretty stupid. Anything else is a fiction made up to squeeze money out of stupid parents.

Without going into it, any properly g-loaded spatial reasoning testing maps supremely well to a person's net capabilities for advanced reasoning. The real reason they've dropped IQ stuff is more that it was too insightful and, as a result, absolutely breaks nearly all Progressive talking points. The social sciences also spent the better part of the first half of the 1900s exploring it, and it led to a lot of policy changes. Then they suppressed it because the brutally obvious realities that went with doesn't help a Marxist Ideal.

Side point: you're not a damn number. The problem with IQ discussions is always people hate to be classified, even if you spend your entire youth being such and should understand the differences native intelligence brings.

As for the Arab Islamic world, it's called Inbreeding. The lower half of the population will become highly inbred over 2 centuries. Then the upper half starts to split from the lower half, which causes this Ivory Tower effect along with internal strife before someone goes all jihad and attacks the other part. Though the upper half also starts becoming inbred, but they tend to be more socially mobile and take mates from around the area so the effect is different. All of the English-based jokes about Alabama actually aren't true, but they certainly are in that part of the world.

Effect is different in non-Arab regions, to an extent, but that comes far more from surprising that polygamy instinct than much of anything else. There's a reason I referenced the Chinese 1 Child Policy. The effects are different, but the distortion of a healthy child population isn't much different. People make individual decisions to benefit themselves and, stacked together, those have consequences for everyone else.

There's a hilarious discussion about the Germanic Tribes general preference for out of local tribe marriages and the Scottish weather for being the reason the Modern World actually exists.

 

[God's Strongest Dragoon]

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. We can't measure intelligence accurately now, particularly for people from non-Western cultures, and ESPECIALLY for people from the past. Every attempt do so ends up leaning on IQ, which is a notoriously fucked up and flawed way to measure intelligence that is inherently based on standards set by a couple of old guys with no oversight in the early 1900s (just like every other fucked up and flawed idea in the "science" of psychology). Attempting to measure the average intelligence of people long dead from a civilization long dead off of nothing but a few academic tomes is a fool's errand. It's the usual attempt by modern academia to portray everything from the past as unenlightened retardation.

To go into a little bit more detail on why this is actual hogwash:

So IQ right? A system designed off of the idea of the standard deviation. Average intelligence is (supposedly) 100, one deviation is 15 points. That's the whole point of the system, a comparative system meant to tell you if you're more or less intelligent than your peers. The problem is, IQ tests are so fucked that you don't get the same score when you go to different proctors, and over a third of kids tested will have a 15+ point difference in IQ (so, a full deviation) after less than a year between tests from the same proctor. There are also like 4 different styles of IQ tests, all of which claim to be universal despite the fact that they're only proofed on English-speaking children rich enough to get selected for experimental IQ tests, and all of which give drastically different results for the same children. You also supposedly drop a full deviation in IQ by the time you've become an adult, which is bullshit because no one in their right mind thinks 8 year olds are actually "smarter" than 30 year olds.

The IQ powers that be keep constantly having to change the higher ranges for their bullshit ranking as well, because people with substandard tested IQ keep getting Nobel prizes and making the entire system look bad. It's why they gave up on using the "genius" terminology and started using "gifted" for the higher ranges instead. Someone with 145 IQ ends up flipping burgers because he has authority issues? Too bad, he squandered his "gifts," it's his fault for not being.... smart enough with his gifts? Nah it was his environment or something. Someone with a paltry 90 IQ becomes an engineer, designing the fantastical buildings that all these pompous academics live out of and take for granted everyday? Wow, he sure made the most of his gifts with his average intelligence! Must have had a wonderful environment...


The best you ever get out of IQ is the identification of actual brain-dead retards. And those aren't hard to find, what with the drooling and the autistic screeching. Hell, some savants even test pretty high in IQ, so even that is hit or miss, but if someone gets 40 IQ on a test they're usually pretty stupid. Anything else is a fiction made up to squeeze money out of stupid parents.

I'm not going to read all that, I'm just going to do the intelligent move of skipping over it and calling you a retard since you're sperging about IQ. Then again, you are a SEAfag, so it is a given.

 

[RestlessRain]

IQ is the best predictor of success both academically and in a career. Anyone trying to argue against this statement in any way is just huffing copium.

 

[Dispirited Helmet]

Without going into it, any properly g-loaded spatial reasoning testing maps supremely well to a person's net capabilities for advanced reasoning. The real reason they've dropped IQ stuff is more that it was too insightful and, as a result, absolutely breaks nearly all Progressive talking points. The social sciences also spent the better part of the first half of the 1900s exploring it, and it led to a lot of policy changes. Then they suppressed it because the brutally obvious realities that went with doesn't help a Marxist Ideal.

Side point: you're not a damn number. The problem with IQ discussions is always people hate to be classified, even if you spend your entire youth being such and should understand the differences native intelligence brings.

As for the Arab Islamic world, it's called Inbreeding. The lower half of the population will become highly inbred over 2 centuries. Then the upper half starts to split from the lower half, which causes this Ivory Tower effect along with internal strife before someone goes all jihad and attacks the other part. Though the upper half also starts becoming inbred, but they tend to be more socially mobile and take mates from around the area so the effect is different. All of the English-based jokes about Alabama actually aren't true, but they certainly are in that part of the world.

Effect is different in non-Arab regions, to an extent, but that comes far more from surprising that polygamy instinct than much of anything else. There's a reason I referenced the Chinese 1 Child Policy. The effects are different, but the distortion of a healthy child population isn't much different. People make individual decisions to benefit themselves and, stacked together, those have consequences for everyone else.

There's a hilarious discussion about the Germanic Tribes general preference for out of local tribe marriages and the Scottish weather for being the reason the Modern World actually exists.

None of which actually says fuck all about how we actually know any of this information about people who have been dead for hundreds of years.... because we don't. For information that old, there are a hundred sources at absolute best and 60 of them are letters from one guy or location.

Again, this is not just an IQ thing, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular topic. It's more that we somehow also get to apply that (incredibly flawed IMO) reasoning to people we know relatively little about. For that matter, while we know from preserved religious and legal documents that marrying close relatives was allowed, we don't know how common it was at the time. Just because the one community we have a primary source from said it was legal, that doesn't mean it was common enough to completely unravel society, or that every tribe allowed it, and so on. It's common in the Middle East now, sure, but that means absolutely nothing when we're talking about past societies.

I cannot overstate how FEW primary sources we have from the pre-modern era. There is no smoking gun here. We have scraps of scraps that probably got destroyed or stolen decades ago, and we're working off of badly translated copies. Most of what we do have for Arabic "primary" sources are what Europeans saw fit to steal and translate (not necessarily correctly, might I add) for their own reasons. Drawing conclusions about general intelligence as a predictor of anything off of that is simply not going to be accurate. Doesn't stop adjuncts desperate for clout from misinterpreting them to get published though.

IQ is the best predictor of success both academically and in a career. Anyone trying to argue against this statement in any way is just huffing copium.

Because people who are wealthy enough to send their kids in for professionally tracked IQ tests have better careers and academic success rates, whether or not the kid is actually tested. It's the ice cream/rape correlation all over again, there are pre-existing factors that were known to lead to success long before IQ ever became a thing.

I don't need any system to tell you that you're a retard like the rest of us.

The little number the guy at Mensa gave me says I'm not retarded, so obviously I am based and correct and mega not retard

 

[CalciumAnimal]

None of which actually says fuck all about how we actually know any of this information about people who have been dead for hundreds of years.... because we don't. For information that old, there are a hundred sources at absolute best and 60 of them are letters from one guy or location.

Again, this is not just an IQ thing, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular topic. It's more that we somehow also get to apply that (incredibly flawed IMO) reasoning to people we know relatively little about. For that matter, while we know from preserved religious and legal documents that marrying close relatives was allowed, we don't know how common it was at the time. Just because the one community we have a primary source from said it was legal, that doesn't mean it was common enough to completely unravel society, or that every tribe allowed it, and so on. It's common in the Middle East now, sure, but that means absolutely nothing when we're talking about past societies.

I cannot overstate how FEW primary sources we have from the pre-modern era. There is no smoking gun here. We have scraps of scraps that probably got destroyed or stolen decades ago, and we're working off of badly translated copies. Most of what we do have for Arabic "primary" sources are what Europeans saw fit to steal and translate (not necessarily correctly, might I add) for their own reasons. Drawing conclusions about general intelligence as a predictor of anything off of that is simply not going to be accurate. Doesn't stop adjuncts desperate for clout from misinterpreting them to get published though.



Because people who are wealthy enough to send their kids in for professionally tracked IQ tests have better careers and academic success rates, whether or not the kid is actually tested. It's the ice cream/rape correlation all over again, there are pre-existing factors that were known to lead to success long before IQ ever became a thing.


The little number the guy at Mensa gave me says I'm not retarded, so obviously I am based and correct and mega not retard

i supposedly scored over 200 when i was like 10 and all you fucks know i'm stupid as shit.

figured it was relevant.

 

[Sky Shouter]

i supposedly scored over 200 when i was like 10 and all you fucks know i'm stupid as shit.

figured it was relevant.

I read this and immediately thought you were talking about those autism tests we took a little while ago

In which case I can definitely believe you're over 200

 

[CalciumAnimal]

I read this and immediately thought you were talking about those autism tests we took a little while ago

In which case I can definitely believe you're over 200

No clue but ill assume it's over 200 for those too.

 

[Ballpark_Look]

IQ is the best predictor of success both academically and in a career. Anyone trying to argue against this statement in any way is just huffing copium.

Some would say family wealth and average income are better predictors.

 

[GOD'S STRONGEST BUILDERBEAR]

not just meme about Kirsche, but blatantly lie about her as a proxy to shit on Proctor. If you want to fuck with the Brit just do it directly. Don't need to trash Kirsche when we know tons of Indies and other places read this site.

 

[reinigen]

View attachment 79850

Literally

 

[Hotdogs Aplenty]

Literally

Use of wojaks calls for you to be unpersoned.

 

[httn]

Edit: sorry, it just kind of annoys me that people think it's fine to not just meme about Kirsche, but blatantly lie about her as a proxy to shit on Proctor. If you want to fuck with the Brit just do it directly. Don't need to trash Kirsche when we know tons of Indies and other places read this site. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont think we do this with anyone else.

She's a big girl, She can take it.