Everything costs too much and everybody is wrong about it and who the hell knows how to fix it?

[Mountaineer]

- College education you could pay for with a minimum wage job

+1

A personal reference point... I started college in 1979. Went to an excellent private university. I in fact *had* a minimum wage job the summer before my freshman year (worked in my 7000-person hometown's public works department). Minimum wage at the time was roughly $3/hour. With a 10-week 40 hr/week job, I could cover 16% of an on-campus student's tuition+fees.

Today, a 10-week 40 hr/week job would cover 4% of an on-campus student's tuition+fees at the same university.

Here are my personal reference points FWIW. WVU (in state student) tuition and fees $90 per semester when I started in 1963 rising to $120 per semester when I graduated. My first job while attending college was at $1.25 per hour. My last summer job while in college was at $625/month if I remember correctly. My rent for a one bedroom/combo living room appartment began at $45 per month and increased to $60 per month when a real full bedroom was built and added on to the appartment. My entire five years cost about $5000 for tuition, books, room, board and car expenses - Chemical Engineering. I graduated with zero debt - my jobs plus my scholarships covered the whole $5000. My daughter also attended WVU and had total expenses of about $5000 per year for four years - she started in 1987 and graduated with a BS in Nursing. My son attended Va Tech (out-of-state student) starting in 1991; his total expenses were about $15,000 per year for four years - BS in Hospitality Management. Annual costs do not include the purchase cost of two vehicles. Both my daughter and son worked a lot during their university time plus summers but could not cover all their expenses by a rather large margin - they did graduate debt free. Quality of life analysis: my wife worked for pay for only two or three years during my entire career. I retired relatively early. Both my son (two children) and daughter (three children) work as do their spouses for what I would say is an equivalent life style to that of my wife and I. I seriously doubt they will be able to retire as early as I did. Progress? I don't think so.

[LC475]

LC475,
I assume you don't mean to come off as arrogant and abrasive, but you might want to think about how you word things.

Mr. PugChief,

I assume that you will not be explaining and correcting my invalid points (of which there very well may be some!). Nor will you be making any actual, specific claims. Rather, you will simply regurgitate authority (one step below appealing to authority).

Is that about right?

Please translate the above into Soft, Fuzzy, Politically-Correct, and ever-so non-abrasive terminology for me, will you? I haven't the time. Nor the fluency.


So, since you choose to feign offense and say nothing of substance whatsoever, to reply instead to your (Rather Lame and Completely Unknown Nobody) Authority:

I am perfectly aware of how the prices of goods have changed and how, for example the percentage of income devoted to food has fallen in America. But does spending 10% on food instead of 50% on food mean that you're eating better food? Does that, in itself, mean that your Quality of Life has improved? No. No, actually it does not! Does it at least mean your Quality of Life in the area of food has improved? No! It doesn't even mean that!

What would improve the quality of that dimension of your life would be, well, better food! Improved quality is what improves quality. Does that make sense?

Better food
Better shelter
Better transportation
Better communication
Better entertainment
Better family life -- THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT

These are the things that would constitute a better quality of life. We've got one out of the six, I'll give you that, although even that only in a technological sense and not necessarily in an "improving the achievement of the actual goals of communication" sense, so never mind, I won't even give you that.

Basically: I win; you lose. Sorry! It's not of a victory for me, though; it would be better if things were getting, well, better! Instead we're in a Civilizational Collapse.

[Xan]

I once triggered LC475's jerk mode over something trivial. It wasn't pleasant. It's a shame because his post earlier in this thread was so insightful and thought-provoking.

[Pointedstick]

I once triggered LC475's jerk mode over something trivial. It wasn't pleasant. It's a shame because his post earlier in this thread was so insightful and thought-provoking.

+1

[LC475]

I was wrong. You did mean to sound like a jerk. No point to engage you further.

Oh yeah, never any reason to engage with people who hurt your feelz. You must shun those kind -- they're just worthless.

[Pointedstick]

...And this is how threads die. Some elites we turned out to be.

[LC475]

I once triggered LC475's jerk mode over something trivial. It wasn't pleasant. It's a shame because his post earlier in this thread was so insightful and thought-provoking.

Oh yeah, because the one calmly staying on-topic and systematically logical must be the one who's "triggered."

We live in a messed-up world where victimhood is glorified and worshipped and whoever is the biggest victim wins. Mr. Pug Chief just was fishing for sympathy, putting it out there that "look how insensitive you just were towards me." This behavior is supposed to procure 1) an apology, and 2) additional victim cred, and thus future immunity for the rest of the debate.

Thing is, I do not hold to this new ethos, and so whining like a little girl is more likely to make me think less of you and just shake my head in disinterested disgust, like any man would have 100 years ago, rather than, like any decent modern-temperamented person, have my heart go out to you and to elevate you in my eyes.

The nice thing is, you (Pug Chief) can come rejoin us in Logic Land whenever you choose, and I won't miss a beat. You'll be welcome. It really is just all about the substance. I don't have time for meaningless emotional nonsense, and neither should anyone. I addressed extremely nicely and beautifully succinctly everything your Authority said. You want to say something of substance: Say It.

[LC475]

By the way, I thought it too obvious to even talk about, but in case it's interesting to anyone:

We were talking about America. The United States. Pugchief conflated that with the Whole World and posted a nobody talking about that. The nobody is obviously completely right about many of the impoverished nations having rapidly-improving economic situations. Here's a slightly-less unknown and far-more-interesting Authority, Hans Rosling, to show you about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w (famous talk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo (shorter: 4 min)

Of course, you've probably all already seen the talk.

Anyway, Pugchief and I were probably just talking past each other. In my previous post, I had written one sentence about 'China and India, sure, but not America' and I wish I hadn't deleted it as too obvious, because maybe then he would have understood. He was referring to the "bottom 10%" of Planet Earth. Orders, probably a slight stretch, but about one order of magnitude improvement, probably right on, very plausible and supportable. I and the rest of the thread were talking about America. The bottom 10% in America? Not significantly better off today than in 1971. You could make a case for maybe up to double the quality of life due to technology increasing quality in subjective ways -- the case wouldn't succeed, but you could at least make it -- but not for ten times, in my opinion.

I, on the other hand, would make the case that things are the other direction, maybe twice as bad as 1971. In the practical things of life, about the same: food, shelter, transportation, etc. That's stagnated. As one would expect: real income has stagnated. But what has disastrously fallen off a cliff is what Mountaineer referred to as the spiritual things of life. So-called "spiritual" things have practical results, though, believe me. The 1960s were the real disastrous decade, that's when we really fell off the cliff (this was not the fault of closing the gold window, in other words), but the effects have taken decades to promulgate. And promulgate they have. Unless something changes, the majority of infants in America are going to be born out of wedlock. The majority! 100% of the bottom 10% are. The family is dead. The family is totally dead for that "bottom 10%" we love to furrow our brows about. Gone. Bye bye. Nothing left. It's rapidly evaporating for everyone else, too. This is a stunning, earth-shattering cultural change.

You think that might have an effect? You think that just might have some profound long-term consequences?

You'd better believe it.

[LC475]

I think a lot of the problems you refer to above are the result of laziness, entitlement and poor attitude.

Exactly and of course! That's what we're telling you!

But why that laziness, entitlement and poor attitude? From whence does it come? And, the real question: how can we stop it? How can we turn the ship around?

Pheromone Therapy, come!

[LC475]

Except I will do so in the style of Mr. LC 475.

Surely, Mr. LC 475 will appreciate the use of this rhetorical style....

Even the bottom 10% enjoy a standard of living orders of magnitude greater than they did in 1971.

...it is erroneous for Mr. LC to now claim that MangoMan's interest in "the bottom 10%" was new-found. It was, as we all can plainly see, the key element in his initial post on the matter.

Thank you, TennPaGa!

See definition "Even."

[dualstow]

Finally, having completed this entire post, I realize that I have assumed a gender on the part of Mr. LC 475 (see? I did it again -- though it was done ironically here -- hopefully you all are smart enough to get that). If I have offended Mr. LC (or perhaps Mrs. LC, or anyone else), I apologize.

Tenn, you may have been composing your post when this was written.
My bold.

Thing is, I do not hold to this new ethos, and so whining like a little girl is more likely to make me think less of you and just shake my head in disinterested disgust, like any man would have 100 years ago, rather than, like any decent modern-temperamented person, have my heart go out to you and to elevate you in my eyes.

[LC475]

To invoke another nobody source, you could take a look at Enjoy the Decline: Accepting and living with the death of the United States. I'll give you the cliff notes: You ask above, "How can we stop it?". The answer, according to the author, is that you can't.

Yeah, kind of got that from the title.

And it's not just the US, but also Europe and the rest of the "West".

Definitely. US is actually healthier, not as far down the road to collapse as Europe.

The attitude is too ingrained by ever increasing Socialist policies. So move to SE Asia where the next boom is happening and people still have a work ethic. Jim Rogers [you have heard of him, I assume] has been saying this for years and I think he is now living in Singapore or China.

Jim is in Singapore, of course. Problem is: they've already gone through their "brilliant" civilization in China. It rose, it collapsed, it's over. And you only get one. Once you go through a collapse, there's actual permanent genetic changes that take place which make the subsequent civilization that arises stable, but never again brilliant. Each race has taken its turn at civilization, and right now the Northern European Barbarians are taking their turn. If this civilization collapses, though, there's no more promising high-IQ barbarians waiting in the wings. It could be a long, long time before mankind is pushing forward again.

So this answer "you can't" is unacceptable to me. Western Civilization is worth saving. Western Civilization is extremely beautiful and heartwrenchingly valuable. It needs to be saved. And so it's my job to save it.

[Libertarian666]

Oh yeah, never any reason to engage with people who hurt your feelz. You must shun those kind -- they're just worthless.

You should stop being such an -ist. Don't you know there are people starving in China?

[LC475]

Jim is in Singapore, of course. Problem is: they've already gone through their "brilliant" civilization in China. It rose, it collapsed, it's over. And you only get one. Once you go through a collapse, there's actual permanent genetic changes that take place which make the subsequent civilization that arises stable, but never again brilliant. Each race has taken its turn at civilization, and right now the Northern European Barbarians are taking their turn. If this civilization collapses, though, there's no more promising high-IQ barbarians waiting in the wings. It could be a long, long time before mankind is pushing forward again.

So this answer "you can't" is unacceptable to me. Western Civilization is worth saving. Western Civilization is extremely beautiful and heartwrenchingly valuable. It needs to be saved. And so it's my job to save it.

each civilization has taken its turn at brilliance in a (more or less) east to west northern hemisphere pattern, now that it is slipping off the NorthAmericas i wonder where it will go? back round to china?> or take a lap around the southern hemisphere starting with africa? neither of those seem to be likely if i had to give odds i would bet on the US pulling its head out of its hindquarters and having a second burst as being more likely... or it could be a long slump for the planet as LC suggested...

BTW where do you get the "permanent genetic changes" ideas from? is that a real thing? or just an observation about formerly great cultures..

Permanent genetic change idea and evidence is from Jim Penman, author of Biohistory. Penman calls the variable S, for Stability.

Basically everyone has gone through a civilization collapse (a really brutal, horrible experience) by this point and so they have their genetic inoculation, their Stability factor. It cuts the top and bottom off the civilization cycle, so never again do you have such a catastrophic collapse, but in exchange you also give up the dizzying heights of innovation. Everyone, that is, except for Africa. So Africa would be the next. If they could ever pull it off. Problem with Africans: they just aren't very intelligent. So it could take a thousand years for them to increase average IQ enough to sustain a halfway decent civilization, and it's not inevitable that they *ever* would.

i down loaded the audio book but i am not sure when i will have time to listen, there is a (long) reddit comment on this guys book https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/com ... d_learned/ which bashes the concepts penman is writing about pretty harshly. i haven't looked into it any deeper than that but i would take the skeptical approach even without reading the reddit, it sounds a lot like junk science to me...

apparently penman is primarily a well known franchise CEO in Australia, big in the lawn mowing and lawn care field (not that that is necessarily relevant)

[dualstow]

You should get together with the I Drink Blood guy.
He seems to have vanished, though.

[LC475]

You should get together with the I Drink Blood guy.
He seems to have vanished, though.

Why? Who is that? I seem to have missed him.

[LC475]

Oh, and since by your signature you seem to have spent some time thinking about civilization: How would you define "Civilization"?

[dualstow]

Why? Who is that?

Oh, just a fellow White culture is beautiful / Africans aren't very intelligent kind of person. Also, similarly couldn't be bothered with niceties, which could be good on a good day and bad on a bad day. A smart person. Probably a young person. Didn't stick around very long, and deleted some of his posts as he went, not to be confused with Clive who is also very smart and who deleted most or all of his own posts.

How would you define "Civilization"?

That's a good question, and not easy to answer, kind of like How do you define an American.

I guess civilization is when a population hits a certain critical mass and becomes organized in a way that elevates it above what individuals or small tribes can accomplish.

[LC475]

Oh, just a fellow... Africans aren't very intelligent kind of person.

Kind of person? I didn't realize that statement would be controversial here. It takes a certain "kind of person" to say that Africans aren't that intelligent, relatively?

It's just kind of an obvious, observable fact, isn't it?

Nothing at all against them, nor against anyone else. It just is what it is. Like simonjester, I don't put strong odds on a Great Renaissance of Civilization arising from Uganda any time soon. That's all.

Prove me wrong, Uganda!

Also, similarly couldn't be bothered with niceties, which could be good on a good day and bad on a bad day.

Look, OK, did I over-react to MangoMan's braggadocio at having Completed The Calculus (and implied tsk tsk at me for having so rudely defined something which I obviously should have known he was too brilliant to need to have defined (although I was defining it for everyone, not just him))? Yes, I did. And did it spiral downward from there? Yes. But have I generally been a good citizen here? I don't know; you tell me; who cares? I try to be helpful to new posters starting with the PP (not that there are any of those any more), paying back for the helpfulness to me. That's my main thing.

I guess civilization is when a population hits a certain critical mass and becomes organized in a way that elevates it above what individuals or small tribes can accomplish.

One could imagine a couple terraformers alone on a new planet living quite a civilized life.

[dualstow]

@LC475

terraformers: yes, that's a great example of why it's a difficult question. But who created that terraformer?

Africans: I recognize that Africa is lagging the world in science. They're not putting a rocket into space anytime soon. But while I'm not a complete bleeding heart, I would argue that you could drop an African child into a good prep school over here and he or she could potentially be the valedictorian.

It's not just Africa and Arabia that are caught up in tribal conflicts. Italians and Russians are doing less than they could,as a nation, perhaps because they are too clever on an individual level. A kleptocracy is not necessarily a nation of unintelligent people.

[Xan]

Speaking of Uganda, I recently saw the 2016 film "Queen of Katwe" about a chess team (and a particular prodigy) from the slums of the capital city. It could have been nasty and preachy, but it wasn't; it told the story on its own merits. Really enjoyed it.

[LC475]

i down loaded the audio book but i am not sure when i will have time to listen.

It's hidden away in another thread, so probably you missed it. A good introduction, requiring only an hour (during the commute) would be here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9dcXOGD3fo

Now it is pretty... I wouldn't even say politically incorrect, but it's different, thought-provoking, off the beaten path, so if you want a chance at actually being open/persuadable to it, or even just to understand it, you would probably want to read some pre-requisites to get you in the right frame of mind. I would recommend something like:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-D ... 0307455777

to allow your mind to put the idea of linking biology with beliefs and behavior into the "acceptable and plausible" camp.

and maybe also something on the historical side, like Gibbons (you don't have time for an audiobook? Allow me to recommend six volumes of antique chronicle and commentary!)

sounds like junk science to me

It's just science. Reading it is just like reading any book relating to science. There's some parts that are stronger than others, and overall it presents ideas which may or may not be correct. Reading Stephen Hawkings, one will find things with which one agrees, things with which one disagrees, and things one questions. That is my experience anyway. It's the same here, with Biohistory. Same for Malcolm Gladwell, or Stephen Jay Gould, or anyone writing on scientific questions. Questions -- not pronouncements, not dogma. Eh?

Some of the hypotheses are well-supported. Others are not. But the whole paradigm he puts forward is interesting, and that's qualification enough to be worthwhile in my estimation. Not just interesting, but highly interesting! That's high praise, in my book. High praise.

Apparently Penman is primarily a well-known franchise CEO in Australia

Yes, he is a successful man, an intelligent man, and a millionaire. Jim Penman is someone who has had significant success. He has figured out at least a few things in life. That's the kind of man I tend to find worth listening to. YMMV.

[LC475]

Regarding intelligence of Africans, I have two questions:
1. What is the standard deviation of intelligence of both populations (African and non-African)?

Non-African as in the rest of the world? Are you sure this is your question?

Maybe you mean the deviation or difference between those populations. If so: it is significant and measurable. In terms of the standard "Intelligence Quotient," I think around 20 or in certain countries 30 points (100 for the world, vs. 80, or 70) -- there's a lot of variance within Africa, country to country. A lot of variance throughout the rest of the world, too, for that matter.

Does that answer your question?

2. Which group developed the IQ test?

Scientists. Researchers. Also some educators. People interested in intelligence. These people continue today to develop it, change it, experiment, and try new ways to test and quantify intelligence, by the way.

[LC475]

just to be clear i doubt the African continent is going to leap civilization forward for a number of reasons, lower IQ isn't one,
given equal opportunity, challenges, drive and balanced testing i suspect the IQ spread among Africans would be comparable to any other group.

Any other group? Which other group? This statement implies (and maybe you think I was saying?) that all (other) groups are comparable to each other.

That is obviously not the case.

But I am fine with you believing that to be the case. What you believe about the intelligence of other people has essentially no impact on your life whatsoever. It really doesn't matter; it has no bearing on your life. That is why people are able to believe such disparate things about it. You can believe that every group of humans is equally intelligent and at the same time you can earn a living and successfully reproduce. There are no negative repercussions. (Well, in today's America, there may be negative repercussions for the opposite view...)

[LC475]

OK so now it seems like you are saying group and not race (African) and for groups there is variation because of the things i listed as needing to be equalized.. i see that i also mixed and matched race and group so a lack of clarity is on me here as well... i don't think you can say Africa (the continent or collection of groups) has lower IQ due to race, they do have a deficit of drive opportunity, challenges (the basic challenges solved / free to move on to better and bigger ones) and drive.. those things and variations in them, certainly can result in different IQ results..

I was responding, very precisely, to what you said. To the words you actually wrote.

There is a word which you talk about repeatedly above, but which I did not utter once. Can you guess what it is?