KNOW WHAT I'VE COME TO REALIZE? I'VE COME TO REALIZE THAT THE AUDIENCE THAT I'M TRYING TO REACH ON THIS BLOG (THE AUDIENCE THAT I'M TRYING TO TARGET ON THIS BLOG, WHICH IS THE YOUNG, URBAN, HIP HOP, GENERATION ME DEMOGRAPHIC) IS TOO UNINTELLIGENT, TOO UNEDUCATED, TOO INEXPERIENCED, AND TOO UNSOPHISTICATED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING EXPRESSED IN THESE EXCERPTS, LET ALONE RELATE TO THEM AND APPLY THEM TO THEIR LIFE. THEY BARELY GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL, HAVE NO PATIENCE, AND CAN HARDLY READ. WHAT MAKES ME THINK THAT THEY'LL HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE, PATIENCE, AND READING ABILITY TO TAKE THE TIME OUT OF THEIR MEANINGLESS DAY TO UNDERSTAND THIS STUFF? THE SAME GOES FOR ETHNIC MINORITIES (BLACKS AND BROWNS) WHO GRADUATED FROM LESS PRESTIGIOUS 4-YEAR UNIVERSITIES. MOST OF THEM DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS STUFF, NOR DO THEY WANT TO. THEY HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OR BACKGROUND IN ANY OF THIS AND THEREFORE CAN'T FATHOM IT, NOR DO THEY WANT TO FATHOM IT. UNFATHOMABLE
THIS ISN'T ABOUT FINDING YOUR ROOTS OR APPRECIATING OTHER CULTURES. THIS IS ABOUT UNIVERSAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ADAPTATIONS THAT LEAD TO OUR THOUGHTS, BEHAVIOR, SOCIETAL FORMATION, ETC.
Pay Close Attention Around The 3:10-4:10 Mark, The 4:55-6:02 Mark, And The 6:55-9:45 With Special Attention Being Paid Around The 9:20-9:45 Mark."What Kind Of Evolutionary Training Did You Have In Graduate School?...Most Of Them Had Very Little Evolutionary Training In Their Own Higher Education...So Most Of These Folks Are Self Trained..."
"PUSSY TRAINED, NOT POTTY TRAINED, BUT PUSSY TRAINED!" - FORTY FONZARELLI!
"IT'S LIKE A NIGGA GETTIN' TRAINED!" - KURUPT YOUNG GOTTIE (M00LIE)!
What's It Like, My Nigga!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TRVe3BZ5-M 3:10 Prison...Prison Was A Big Part Of Our Lives...This Is Just Like A College...This Is The College Of The Ghetto As Ignorant As It Sounds!
*That's How I Looked At My Time In Jail. I Looked At It As A Way To Learn More About The Human Animal And Human Society! So I Never Dropped Out! No, I Graduated To The Pen Then Earned My Doctorate In Evolutionary Psychology From Corcoran! "Yeah, I Graduated, But I Didn't Learn Shit In School!" - G Puerto Rico
Start Listening At 0:30 Mark In This Video!
Listen To The First 3 And A Half Minutes Of This Video. Pay Special Attention Around The :30 Mark, The 1:15 Mark And The 2:10 Mark. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY (Especially Evolutionary Psychology) Is Changing The Game And Most Of You Undergraduate And Graduate Students KNOW NOTHING About Any Of This Because Your Universities Don't Teach You About Any Of This (These Fields Haven't Been Added To Your College's Curriculum).
https://twitter.com/ProfDavidBuss/status/1250419286499303424 Click On Francis's Reply To EPoe187 Then Begin Watching The Video From The 6:53 Mark To The 16:36 Mark (Pay Special Attention From The 11:27 Mark To The 12:33 Mark). Then Begin Listening Again From The 40:57 Mark To The 45:50 Mark.
We're eight years in to my ten year time frame, and so far the social sciences (1) have been corrupted beyond anything even I imagined, and (2) that form of social science apparently is winning in every elite university faculty.
Charles Murray, 2016: "We are facing over the next ten years a headlong crash between a deeply held dogma of the social sciences and the way the world works as revealed by the physical sciences.”
Will this crash come & will more people side with the social or physical sciences?
If your 'social science' research isn't consilient with all of the established biological and physical sciences, you're just science-LARPing.
FIELD OF DREAMS
The Ivory Archipelago. All Of These Fields Were Disconnected, In Disarray, And To An Extent Dissimilar From One Another. They Needed Evolutionary Theory To Come Along To Unite Them (Find Common Ground) And Create Some Continuity And Coherence Amongst Them.
"Every college student should be able to answer the following question:
What is the relation between science and the humanities, and how is it important for human welfare?"
It is the custom of scholars when addressing behavior and culture to speak variously of anthropological explanations, psychological explanations, biological explanations, and other explanations appropriate to the perspectives of individual disciplines. I have argued that there is intrinsically only one class of explanation. It traverses the scales of space, time, and complexity to unite the disparate facts of the disciplines by consilience, the perception of a seamless web of cause and effect.
For centuries consilience has been the mother's milk of the natural sciences. Now it is wholly accepted by the brain sciences and evolutionary biology, the disciplines best poised to serve in turn as bridges to the social sciences and humanities.There is abundant evidence to support and none absolutely to refute the proposition that consilient explanations are congenial to the entirety of the great branches of learning.
The central idea of the consilience world view is that all tangible phenomena, from the birth of stars to the workings of social institutions, are based on material processes that are ultimately reducible, however long and tortuous the sequences, to the laws of physics.In support of this idea is the conclusion of biologists that humanity is kin to all other life forms by common descent. We share essentially the same DNA genetic code, which is transcribed into RNA and translated into proteins with the same amino acids. Our anatomy places us among the Old World monkeys and apes. The fossil record shows our immediate ancestor to be either Homo ergaster or Homo erectus. It suggests that the point of our origin was Africa about two hundred thousand years ago. Our hereditary human nature, which evolved during hundreds of millennia before and afterward, still profoundly affects the evolution of culture.
...The main thrust of the consilience world view...is that culture and hence the unique qualities of the human species will make complete sense only when linked in causal explanation to the natural sciences. Biology in particular is the most proximate and hence relevant of the scientific disciplines. I know that such reductionism is not popular outside the natural sciences. To many scholars in the social sciences and humanities it is a vampire in the sacristy... ... No compelling reason has ever been offered why the same strategy should not work to unite the natural sciences with the social sciences and humanities. The difference between the two domains is in the magnitude of the problem, not the principles needed for its solution.The human condition is the most important frontier of the natural sciences. Conversely, the material world exposed by the natural sciences is the most important frontier of the social sciences and humanities. The consilience argument can be distilled as follows: The two frontiers are the same.
...
Placed in this broader context - of existence coherent enough to be understood in a single system of explanation, yet still largely unexplored - the ambitions of the natural sciences might be viewed in a more favorable light by nonscientists. Nowadays as polls have repeatedly shown, most people, at least in the United States, respect science but are baffled by it. They don't understand it, they prefer science fiction, they take fantasy and pseudoscience like stimulants to jolt their cerebral pleasure centers. We are still paleolithic thrill seekers, preferring Jurassic Park to the Jurassic Era, and UFOs to astrophysics.
The productions of science, other than medical breakthroughs and the sporadic thrills of space exploration, are thought marginal. What really matters to humanity, a primate species well adapted to Darwinian fundamentals in body and soul, are sex, family, work, security, personal expression, entertainment, and spiritual fulfillment - in no particular order. Most people believe, I am sure erroneously, that science has little to do with any of these preoccupations. They assume that the social sciences and humanities are independent of the natural sciences and more relevant endeavors. Who outside the technically possessed really needs to define a chromosome? Or understand chaos theory?
Science, however, is not marginal. Like art, it is a universal possession of humanity, and scientific knowledge has become a vital part of our species' repertory. It comprises what we know of the material world with reasonable certainty.
If the natural sciences can be successfully united with the social sciences and humanities, the liberal arts in higher education will be revitalized. Even the attempt to accomplish that much is a worthwhile goal. Profession-bent students should be helped to understand that in the twenty-first century the world will not be run by those who possess mere information alone. Thanks to science and technology, access to factual knowledge of all kinds is rising exponentially while dropping in unit cost. It is destined to become global and democratic. Soon it will be available everywhere on television and computer screens. What then? The answer is clear: synthesis. We are drowning in information while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will b run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely.
... The future of the liberal arts lies, therefore, in addressing the fundamental questions of human existence head on, without embarrassment or fear, taking them from the top down in easily understood language, and progressively rearranging them into domains of inquiry that unite the best of science and the humanities at each level of organization in turn. That of course is a very difficult task. But so are cardiac surgery and building space vehicles difficult tasks. Competent people get on with them, because they need to be done. Why should less be expected from the professionals responsible for education? The liberal arts will succeed to the extent that they are both solid in content and as coherent among themselves as the evidence allows. I find it hard to conceive of an adequate core curriculum in colleges and universities that avoids the cause-and-effect connections among the great branches of learning - not metaphor, not the usual second-order lubrications on why scholars of different disciplines think this or that, but material cause and effect. There lies the high adventure for later generations, often mourned as no longer available There lies great opportunity. (CONSILIENCE)
Most social scientists give lip service to evolution, but they're utterly unwilling to follow through on its implications for human nature and society.
Geoffrey Miller added,
Ben Winegard@BenWinegard
If 99.9% of social scientists agree that humans are the products of natural and sexual selection, why do so many accuse evolutionary psychology of being woo? Is there really any other way to understand human nature but take an evolutionary approach?
Most Academicians In The Social Sciences (e.g. The Sociologists, Anthropologists, Psychologists, Etc. That Teach At Your University) Are Behind The Times (Did I Get That Right, Michale Pollan?). That Is, Most Academicians Are Unfamiliar With And Unwelcoming Of The Scientific Advances Being Made In Human Genetics And Human Evolution And Thus Fail To Incorporate The New Insights Being Made In These Fields To Their Own Field. So They Continue To Expound Upon And Espouse Hypotheses And Theories That Are Antiquated, Outdated, Defunct, And Have Been Debunked And You, The Unwitting, Unlearned Student, Can Do Nothing But Accept What They Say And Internalize It As Fact When In Actuality It's Fiction! The Social Scientist Whose Paper Is Criticized Above Is A Prime Example. He Admits To Being Ignorant Of The Biology Behind Race But Writes About Race Nonetheless (Where's The Sense In That? No God Dam Cent!).
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"- Theodosius Dobzhansky
NOT A DAMN THING, THEODORE! "WHOEVER PRESCRIBES THE DIAMETER OF YOUR LEARNING CONTROLS THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF YOUR ACTIVITY. I'LL RUN THAT BY YOU AGAIN...WHOEVER PRESCRIBES AND CONTROLS THE DIAMETER OF YOUR LEARNING EXPERIENCE CONTROLS THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE SPHERE OF YOUR ACTIVITY. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY TEACH THEN THEY KNOW HOW FAR YOU'RE GOING TO GO. YOU CAN'T GO BUT SO FAR BECAUSE OF THE RANGE OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TAUGHT. YOU JUST LIKE A SILLY BLACK CAT THAT WENT OFF TO WHITE DOG SCHOOL. AT WHITE DOG SCHOOL THE SILLY LITTLE CAT DIDN'T LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT BEING A CAT." - THE HONORABLE KHALID MUHAMMAD NOT A GOD DAM THANG, MUHAMMAD! Why Did I Quote Dr. Muhammad? Because This Quote Applies To Most University Curricula And University Professors. In Other Words, Most Universities Don't Have Courses In Evolutionary Theory Or Professors With A Background In Evolutionary Theory To Teach These Courses, And, More Importantly, Most Universities Don't Mandate That All Of Their Students Take Courses In Evolutionary Theory If They Indeed Have Such Courses. So If You're Not Being Taught A Certain Thing (e.g. Evolutionary Theory) Your Range Of Knowledge Is Limited And Your Ability To Grow And Move Forward, Figuratively Speaking, Is Impeded Or Stunted. This Is Especially The Case When You're Not Being Taught Something So Fundamental And Essential To The Betterment And Better Understanding Of Life And Society As Evolutionary Theory. In This Respect, Most College Graduates With No Background In Human And Cultural Evolution Are The Silly Little Human That Didn't Learn Anything About Being A Human (Or Human Nature) At Human School.
From my very first job, which I guess is 30 years ago this past December, I was required to teach Introductory Evolution and when you do that and you do a lot of reading about it you don’t even really have to teach about evolution to become aware that there’s huge resistance to accepting the scientific conception of evolution by the American public. Only about 40% of Americans accept evolution and only about 12% accept it in the way that we scientists do as a sort of purposeless unguided materialistic universe.
You become aware of that pretty quickly. You find that some of your students are resistant to evolution because it contravenes from their notions about human specialness or about morality or about religion or whatever.
The Ivory Tower would be more aptly named the Ivory Archipelago. It consists of hundreds of isolated subjects, each divided into smaller subjects in an almost infinite progression...With respect to evolution, most scientists and intellectuals would say that they accept Darwin's theory, but many would deny its relevance to human affairs or would blandly acknowledge its relevance without using it themselves in their professional or daily lives. In effect, there is a wall within academia that restricts the study of evolution to biology and a few human related subjects...Outside this wall, it is possible for a person to get a Ph.D. without a single course in evolution...
#buildthewall
I discovered that most of them received their formal training in other areas (such as psychology, anthropology, or linguistics) with little or no exposure to evolution in college or graduate school...Instead, they encountered evolutionary theory on their own, often by happenstance, and gradually built up their expertise until it became a guiding force in their research... (It's Now A Guiding Force In My Life!)
LOOK AT WHAT JOSH* HAS WRITTEN. HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS AND HE HAS A DEGREE FROM STANFORD. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? I CAN. IN FACT, A LARGE PERCENT OF COLLEGE GRADUATES (EVEN THOSE WHO'VE GRADUATED FROM PRESTIGIOUS COLLEGES JUST AS HE) BELIEVE THE SAME THING. THIS IS JUST FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT A COLLEGE DEGREE ISN'T A RELIABLE INDICATION OF THE SCIENTIFICALLY BASED KNOWLEDGE AND ACCURATE OUTLOOK ON LIFE THAT ONE'S ASSUMED TO (SUPPOSED TO) ACQUIRE FROM A COLLEGE EDUCATION. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN GRADUATE FROM A COLLEGE THAT PERFORMS CUTTING EDGE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY WORLD RENOWN SCHOLARS, BUT STILL COME AWAY FROM THAT COLLEGE HOLDING PRIMITIVE BELIEFS FROM THE GHETTO. WHY? BECAUSE THE CURRICULUM THAT THAT COLLEGE OFFERS IS EITHER LACKING (UNDERGRADUATES AREN'T EXPOSED TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, BEHAVIORAL GENETICS, NEUROSCIENCE, ETC.) OR UNDERGRADUATES AT THAT COLLEGE ARE EXPOSED TO THESE DISCIPLINES, BUT FOR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE AND CLOSE-MINDEDNESS (LOW OPENNESS) THEY DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE OF THESE DISCIPLINES, ACCEPT IT AS TRUTH, INTERNALIZE IT, AND APPLY IT TO THEIR LIVES. THAT IS, LIKE MOST COLLEGE STUDENTS, THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH PASSING THEIR CLASSES THAN LEARNING THE MATERIAL (THE SCIENCE) IN THOSE CLASSES. THESE ARE THE ONLY WAYS THAT YOU CAN GET A DEGREE FROM AN ACCREDITED 4-YEAR UNIVERSITY AND STILL HOLD ARCHAIC, FICTIONAL, NONSENSICAL BELIEFS.
The Human Brain Is Innately Wired To Believe In Fiction! It's Also Wired To Discredit And Disbelieve Beliefs (i.e. Scientific Beliefs) That Debunk That Fiction! In Other Words, The Human Mind Was Designed By Evolution To Be Reality Proof And Impregnable To The Truth!
*Josh Childress graduated from an Academically Elite University, but because of the emotional and social pull of his family and friends he was unable to relinquish the arcane, primitive, irrational GHETTO beliefs that they and the rest of his lower to middle class black family and peer group hold for fear of being excluded and shunned by his family and friends (ostracized for holding non-traditional, unconventional, countercultural beliefs). I FELL SORRY FOR THAT NIGGER!
And This FSU Alumnus Agrees With The Dumb Nigger! And She Agrees With Him Because She Herself Is A Dumb Nigger And Wants To Fuck Him Because He's A Nigger With Status And A Little Wealth! Anyway, This Is Just Further Proof That A College Degree Isn't An Accurate Indicator Of One's IQ, Nor Is It An Indication OF THE SCIENTIFIC OUTLOOK ON LIFE THAT ONE'S ASSUMED TO (SUPPOSED TO) ACQUIRE FROM A COLLEGE EDUCATION. BECAUSE OFTEN TIMES COLLEGE GRADUATES DON'T ACQUIRE A SCIENTIFIC (EVOLUTIONARY) OUTLOOK!
As the biologist William Hamilton once remarked, evolutionary thinking about human behavior is not difficult in the way that doing physics is. It does not require highly sophisticated mathematics, elaborate instrumentation, or difficult chains of logic. Viewing human behavior through a Darwinian lens is difficult because it radically undermines cherished illusions about human nature. It leads us to violate mental taboos, to enter no-go areas, to open the book of forbidden knowledge. It is "socially unthinkable," exposing the raw nerves of our relationships with one another and revealing the complex manipulative strategies that oil the wheels of society. Thinking biologically about human nature means dismantling shared illusions.(Why We Lie)
On hearing, one June afternoon in 1860, the suggestion that mankind was descended from the apes, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester is said to have exclaimed, ‘My dear, descended from the apes! Let us hope it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known.’ As it turns out, she need not have been quite so worried: we are not descended from the apes, though we do share a common ancestor with them. Even though the distinction may have been too subtle to offer her much comfort, it is nevertheless important.
"Monkey Shit Is Not Alloooooowed! So Getcho Monkey Ass From Aroooooound Me!" - Ralo Da Piiiiiimp
So much depends on our theory of human nature. In our private lives we use it to win friends and influence people, to manage our relationships, to bring up our children, to control our own behavior. Its assumptions about learning guide our policies in education; its assumptions about motivation guide our policies in law and politics. And because the theory of human nature delineates what we can achieve easily, what we can achieve only with effort and sacrifice, and what we cannot achieve at all, it’s tied to our values: what we think we can reasonably strive for as individuals and as a society.
Because of this tie to values, it should come as no surprise that for millennia, the main theory of human nature in our intellectual tradition was tied to religion. Indeed, the Judeo- Christian religious tradition has a theory of human nature encompassing many of the phenomena that today we allocate to the subject matter of psychology and biology.
For example, the theory of the mind in the Judeo-Christian tradition is a modular theory, positing that the mind consists of a number of separate faculties, such as a capacity for love, a moral sense, and a capability for choice, or free will. Though our free will is not the effect of any prior cause, it has an innate tendency towards sin. There’s also a theory of perception and cognition in the Bible, namely, that our faculties keep us in touch with reality because God is no deceiver, and he designed them to give us an accurate picture of the world. There’s even a theory of mental health: that psychological well-being comes from accepting God’s purpose, loving God, loving our fellow humans for the sake of God.
The Judeo-Christian theory was based on an interpretation of particular events narrated in the Bible. For example, the doctrine of free will is grounded in the story in which Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, implying that they could have chosen otherwise; therefore, free will exists.
Today, no scientifically literate person can believe that the events narrated in the book of Genesis actually took place. That means that there has been a need for a new theory of human nature, one not tied to fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. In my book The Blank Slate, and in my talk today, I suggest that the standard secular theory of human nature that’s taken its place is based on three doctrines, each of which can be associated for mnemonic purposes with a dead white European male.
...people are not blank slates, eager to assimilate the latest experiments into their world view. Rather, we come equipped with all sorts of naïve intuitions about the world, many of which are untrue...This means that science education is not simply a matter of learning new theories. Rather, it also requires that students unlearn their instincts, shedding false beliefs the way a snake sheds its old skin.
The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list. (We Are Doomed, Chapter 7.)
The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b. who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list.
I'm Asking You People To Read And Understand The Evolutionary Based Science Propounded And Expounded Upon On These Blogs And APPLY IT TO YOUR LIFE. I Think That's Too Much To Ask For. Why Is This Too Much To Ask For? because This Is Graduate Level Evolutionary Based Science And Most Of You Didn't Even Graduate High School. More Importantly, Using Science To Interpret The World Is Evolutionarily Novel. The Human Species Has Been Around For 2 Million Years, But It's Only Been Practicing Science On A Societal Level (On A Grand Scale) For About 2 Hundred Years. That Means Most People's Brains Aren't Wired (Genetically Inclined) To Turn To Science For Answers Since Science Is A Relatively New Way Of Looking At The World, Hence Humans Haven't Had Enough Time To Evolve Genes That Incline Them To Look At The World This Way (That Was Circular Reasoning). How Do Their Genes Incline Them To Look At The World? Their Genes Incline Them To Look At The World Through Superstition And Intuition. So I'm Asking You People To Do Something That's Contrary To Your Nature(Genetic Makeup). (You Believe In God And Practice A Religion! That Means You're Uneducated. Don't Talk To ME If You're Uneducated!)
Science is a rare, refined and detached way of thinking, restricted to cognitive elites, based on evidence regardless of publication.
UNPUBLISHED, J!
MARIA QUIBAN Are You Ready To Reread My Post About Colleges Degrees Being Costly Signals That Do A Poor Job Of Demonstrating One's Intelligence And Personality Traits? Remember, It Was The Post Of Mine In Which I Stated An I.Q.Test And Personality Test Would More Accurately Indicate How Someone Would Perform At A Job And Fare In Life Than Would A College Degree. And That, More Than Anything Else, College Degrees Are Social Status Indicators. Remember? Anyway, That Post Is Coming Back Soon. (NONE) All Ideas Taken From Geoffrey Miller.
Maria's Aged Quickly After Giving Birth, By The Way. You Typically See That With First Time Mothers. (Maria, Look At Shaquille O'neal*. He's Bragging About Getting A Ph.D. What Do You Think His I.Q. Is And How Do You Think He Rates On Certain Personality Traits? Lastly, If It Weren't For Basketball, And More Importantly, The African Genes That Blessed Him With The Body And Athleticism That He Has, Do You Think He'd Be In The Position That He's In Now? Do You Think Without Basketball He'd Have Gone To College, Graduated, Gotten A Couple Of Graduate Degrees And Worked As A Sports Commentator/Analyst Considering How Inarticulate And Unintelligent He Is? I DON'T THINK SO.
"In the absence of a system of hereditary ranks and titles...Americans have had to depend for their mechanism of snobbery...on their college and university hierarchy...to acquire status by attaching themselves to universities, 'science,' and the like" https://amzn.to/38PrDXz
Reggie miller stop saying hack a shaq, shaq doesn't play anymore, the strategy doesn't work anyway especially in 2000, u tried u remember
Actually, It Does Work, Dumb Nigger! Just Because You Hit A Few Free Throws In A Couple Of Games During A Playoff Series Doesn't Mean That The Strategy Was A FAILURE Nor Does It Discount The Fact That You Were A Horrible Free Throw Shooter Throughout Your Career And That Fouling You To Make You Shoot Free Throws Was The Best Strategy A Team Could Employ If They Were Losing Because There Was A Greater Than Average Likelihood That You'd Miss At Least One Of Those Free Throws. (I Recently Noticed The Spurs Successfully Employing This Strategy With Deandre Jordan. So, Yes, It Does Work Dumb Nigger!)
The Only Book He Can Read Is A Book Full Of Pictures! A Picture Book! Book 'Im!
@JaValeMcGee34 don't be acting like u a g I'll smack the s**t out yo bum ass u da one that be looking stupid with your dumb ass #bumass
Shaq Supposedly Has A Ph.D. From Some Institution But I Wonder What Level He Reads At (What's His Reading Level?). Yes, I've Heard Him Read Children's Stories, Bedtime Stories, Fairy Tales, Nursery Rhymes, And Poems Aloud, But I've Yet To Hear Him Read From A Scientific Book (I Haven't Heard Him Read One Out Loud). So Until He Does That (Until He Reads A Graduate Level Book) I Can't And Won't Believe That He Has A Ph.D.* In Fact, I Won't Even Believe He'sSMART Until I Hear Him Read An Academic Book! Rather, I'll Just Continue Thinking That He's Dumb Nigger (Like I Always Have)!
My “Atheism for Children” book will be unflinching, not a storybook: children won’t beg parents to buy it for Xmas. Are there parents who’ll want to buy it for their children anyway? Do you anticipate a demand? Would you like to see a “children’s God Delusion” by me published?
Maybe Shaquille Will Be Able To Read And Understand That Book, Richard! After All, He Has The IQ Of A Child
"Indulgent And Ignant [Ignorant] Shit...Irrelevant" - CeeWee3 Trying To Sound SMART (But This Is What You'll Say After You TRY Reading The Above Book, Shaquille)
"To me, a great summer read captures your attention and transports you to a new world while teaching you life lessons about your own. It should have compassion, imagination, and vibrant storytelling."
Here are his summer reading picks:
LOOK AT KOBE'S LIST OF BOOKS. HE READS CHILDREN'S BOOKS. HE'S GOT THE READING COMPREHENSION OF A 12 YEAR OLD. I WAS READING BOOKS LIKE THIS IN 6th GRADE. THIS IS JUST FURTHER PROOF THAT THE NIGGER MIND IS LIKE A CHILD'S MIND! THE NIGGER HAS THE INTELLECT EQUIVALENT TO AN ADOLESCENT! NOW COMPARE HIS BOOK PREFERENCES TO THE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE LIST! THOSE PEOPLE READ BOOKS THAT TAKE SOME SOPHISTICATION AND EDUCATION TO READ. THAT IS, THEY READ BOOKS FOR THEIR AGE AND INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY! I MEAN, WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED THAT THE BLACK MIND IS CHILD INCLINED!
My parents were not scientists. They knew almost nothing about science. But in introducing me simultaneously to skepticism and to wonder, they taught me the two uneasily cohabiting modes of thought that are central to the scientific method. Carl Sagan.
Staring At The Starz! Know What I'd LOVE? I'd LOVE A Book Written About Scientists From A Broad Swath Of Scientific Fields (Astrophysics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Etc.) Regarding How They Became Scientists And I'd LOVE The Book To Explain How These Scientists Were Guided Into The Direction Of Science (At What Point In Their Life And By Who And How They Were Influenced To Become Scientists). That Would Be An Interesting Book That I'd LOVE! Wouldn't It Be?
Dedicate 1 hour a day to reading a book, trust me. Coach Luster@jaydeelusterApr 18 Self education is free! My goal is to read a book each month of the year!
MY NIGGAZ IZ EDUCATIN'THEMSELVES!CHECK THAT OUT Y'ALL!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist http://accountability20.blogspot.com/
This Educated Niggette Couldn't Even Understand What Satoshi Kanazawa Was Saying In His Article (And I Believe She's A Graduate Of SDSU And I Also Believe She's An Attorney Or In Law School). HOW SCARY IS THAT. It Reflects Poorly On SDSU And Adds Evidence To My Hypothesis That Intelligence And College Degrees Weakly Correlate.
The crux of envy is not resenting someone for having something we desire to have, but the vague insinuation that the other's possession is underserved.
*Some Of The Causes Of Jealousy And Envy That Gordon Clanton Has Hypothesized About Are Outdated And Have Been Disproved. For Example, Society Isn't From Where Emotions Emanate. Humans, From Conception Are Hardwired For ENVY, JEALOUSY, And All Other Emotions. The Expression Of These Emotions Are Then A Product Of Our Genetic Hardwiring's Interaction With Society (Some Things In Society Will Trigger The Genes For Our Evolved Adaptations For ENVY And JEALOUSY And Some Things In Society Will Trigger The Genes For Other Evolved Emotions). (Gordon Clanton Sees No Role For Evolution Or Genes In Shaping These Emotions.) http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/evolution%20of%20envy.pdf
**FILIPINOS AREN'T ASIAN.
"I'M EATON THAT'S WHY THIS STARVIN' NIGGAZ ENVY!" - KILLA TWAN FROM HUNNERD FIF TEENTH
It is widely believed that jealousy and envy are the same emotion. In fact, although jealousy and envy often are mixed together in real life, they are responses to quite different situations. Jealousy always involves an attempt to protect a valued relationship (especially marriage) from a perceived threat (especially adultery). Envy is resentment toward someone who has some desirable object or quality that one does not have and cannot get. Envy, in other words, is hostility toward superiors, a negative feeling toward someone who is better off. Envy is not the wish for the object or advantage that provoked the envy. Rather, envy is the much darker wish that the superior would lose the object or advantage. Envy is the pleasure, the malicious joy, that is felt when the superior fails or suffers. The envious person rarely resorts to violence against the superior and rarely seeks to seize or to win the desired object. The most common expression of envy is gossip. Recall, for example, the deprecating labels your high school peers used to describe the student with the best grades ("teacher's pet" and worse), the best football player ("dumb jock"), and the beauty queen ("stuck up"). Any quality or achievement that provokes admiration also is likely to provoke some envy. These include wealth, status, power, fame, success, talent, good grades, good looks, and popularity. Because envy is a completely negative emotion, it usually is repressed, denied, disguised, and relabeled. To admit straightforwardly to envy is to declare oneself to be inferior to another and hostile toward that person (or class of persons) because of that inferiority. Envy often is mislabeled as "jealousy," thus making it less likely that we shall understand it and deal with it constructively. Conversely, jealousy is almost never mislabeled as "envy." This suggests that envy is more negative, more shameful, and more deeply repressed than jealousy.
“Of all human emotions, none is trickier or more elusive than envy...as soon as we feel the initial pangs of envy, we disguise it to ourselves— it is not envy we feel but unfairness of the distribution of goods or attention, resentment at this unfairness, even anger.”
Jealousy is not envy, although the words are often used interchangeably. "Jealousy arises when a relationship is infringed on by a rival who threatens to take away something that is in a sense rightfully yours," explains Richard Smith, professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky. The rival may or may not have features that also incite envy. "But to feel jealous you need not have any sense of what that third party is like," notes Smith. Envy, on the other hand, derives from the basic fact that so much of the spoils of life come from how we compare to others. It arises when another person possesses some trait or object that you want, and includes a mix of discontent, a sense of inferiority, and a frustration that may be tinged with resentment.
Millennials consist, depending on whom you ask, of people born from 1980 to 2000. To put it more simply for them, since they grew up not having to do a lot of math in their heads, thanks to computers, the group is made up mostly of teens and 20-somethings. At 80 million strong, they are the biggest age grouping in American history. Each country's millennials are different, but because of globalization, social media, the exporting of Western culture and the speed of change, millennials worldwide are more similar to one another than to older generations within their nations. Even in China, where family history is more important than any individual, the Internet, urbanization and the one-child policy have created a generation as overconfident and self-involved as the Western one. And these aren't just rich-kid problems: poor millennials have even higher rates of narcissism, materialism and technology addiction in their ghetto-fabulous lives.
They are the most threatening and exciting generation since the baby boomers brought about social revolution, not because they're trying to take over the Establishment but because they're growing up without one. The Industrial Revolution made individuals far more powerful--they could move to a city, start a business, read and form organizations. The information revolution has further empowered individuals by handing them the technology to compete against huge organizations: hackers vs. corporations, bloggers vs. newspapers, terrorists vs. nation-states, YouTube directors vs. studios, app-makers vs. entire industries. Millennials don't need us. That's why we're scared of them.
In the U.S., millennials are the children of baby boomers, who are also known as the Me Generation, who then produced the Me Me Me Generation, whose selfishness technology has only exacerbated. Whereas in the 1950s families displayed a wedding photo, a school photo and maybe a military photo in their homes, the average middle-class American family today walks amid 85 pictures of themselves and their pets. Millennials have come of age in the era of the quantified self, recording their daily steps on FitBit, their whereabouts every hour of every day on PlaceMe and their genetic data on 23 and Me. They have less civic engagement and lower political participation than any previous group. This is a generation that would have made Walt Whitman wonder if maybe they should try singing a song of someone else.
They got this way partly because, in the 1970s, people wanted to improve kids' chances of success by instilling self-esteem. It turns out that self-esteem is great for getting a job or hooking up at a bar but not so great for keeping a job or a relationship. "It was an honest mistake," says Roy Baumeister, a psychology professor at Florida State University and the editor of Self-Esteem: The Puzzle of Low Self-Regard. "The early findings showed that, indeed, kids with high self-esteem did better in school and were less likely to be in various kinds of trouble. It's just that we've learned later that self-esteem is a result, not a cause." The problem is that when people try to boost self-esteem, they accidentally boost narcissism instead. "Just tell your kids you love them. It's a better message," says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University, who wrote Generation Me and The Narcissism Epidemic. "When they're little it seems cute to tell them they're special or a princess or a rock star or whatever their T-shirt says. When they're 14 it's no longer cute." All that self-esteem leads them to be disappointed when the world refuses to affirm how great they know they are. "This generation has the highest likelihood of having unmet expectations with respect to their careers and the lowest levels of satisfaction with their careers at the stage that they're at," says Sean Lyons, co-editor of Managing the New Workforce: International Perspectives on the Millennial Generation. "It is sort of a crisis of unmet expectations."
As the generation who inaugurated MySpace and Facebook matures into their 20s, their pages might become less about skin and popularity and more about causes and ideas. If twentysomethings change the standard of cool on social networking sites, friending and commenting on sites that are thought provoking or society enhancing, perhaps teens will follow their lead.
The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. Twenge, p. 300.
Narcissist: an extremely self-centered person who has an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
As a result of the rise of social media over the last decade, this accurately describes a large portion of the population. Follower count and the number of likes have become the defining measures of worth of our time.
That's why the latest news that Instagram is toying with people's dopamine is causing some people to panic. They're currently testing hiding the total number of likes and video views for some people in a handful of countries. Per Instagram, "We want your friends to focus on the photos and videos you share, not how many likes they get." So rather than focusing on the number of likes that picture of your ass gets, they want users to focus on the quality of the picture of your ass.
MOVE YOUR HEAD CLOSE TO YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN OR WHATEVER SCREEN YOU LOOK AT WHEN YOU'RE ON THE INTERNET AND READ ABOUT YOURSELVES IN THE ARTICLE BELOW. IT IS DEAD ON, YOU FUCKIN' SELF-CENTERED, SELF-ABSORBED, APATHETIC, TECHNOLOGY ADDICTED, NARCISSISTS.
So, the positive self-views more than likely are rooted in the cultural movement toward more individualism. So in cross-cultural psychology, people talk about countries like the U.S. being very high in individualism, more focused on the self and less on social roles in the society compared to a culture like Japan, which is less self-focused and has more rigid social rules and more focus on others, basically. So, what I’m trying to look at as the big picture is how has the culture of the U.S. changed over time. And the theme that really comes up over and over is that individualism has increased. And it’s not just this generation. It shows up in across people of all ages. It shows up in our language use. So, one of my favorite recent studies – we look at the Google Books database over time and found that the use of “I,” “me” and “mine” increased while the use of “we” and “us” went down.
...
I think it depends on the particular trait or attitude. It varies so I think for individualism there’s been a lot of other authors who have made this case, too, about individualism increasing and at least one says that individualism has probably been increasing in western nations since the Renaissance. But he argues that that really took off, really accelerated beginning in the 1970s and that’s certainly what the data seems to look at too. Like some of those Google Book studies, that’s when a lot of these changes really took place.
Professor Phil Reed, of the Department of Psychology at Swansea University, said: “There have been suggestions of links between narcissism and the use of visual postings on social media, such as Facebook, but, until this study, it was not known if narcissists use this form of social media more, or whether using such platforms is associated with the subsequent growth in narcissism.
“The results of this study suggest that both occur, but show that posting selfies can increase narcissism.
“Taking our sample as representative of the population, which there is no reason to doubt, this means that about 20 per cent of people may be at risk of developing such narcissistic traits associated with their excessive visual social media use.
“That the predominant usage of social media for the participants was visual, mainly through Facebook, suggests the growth of this personality problem could be seen increasingly more often, unless we recognise the dangers in this form of communication.”
I believe that someone who posts large quantities of pictures of themselves on their social media, especially Instagram and Facebook, are more likely to have narcissistic traits. Narcissism is a toxic personality trait that promotes self-superiority and has become far more prevalent over the last decade. … Unless you are part of a collective social media group, social media is dedicated to the well-being of the individual. Facebook and Instagram encourage sharing pictures in order to obtain “likes” or what some have coined “internet points,” which fuels a person’s desire for more gratification. ... I am not an extensive user of Facebook or Instagram, and to be honest I don’t feel comfortable with the idea of having many pictures of myself out there. If I were to ever post a selfie, I may feel bad because it might fuel my ego and I am not interested in proclaiming my physical self on the web where everyone can see it. Narcissists only care about their shameless self-promotion.
Millennials are particularly vulnerable to the potentially negative effects of social media. Young people aged 17-21 go through a necessary narcissistic stage as they seek to find their place in society and move away from their caregivers. Their experiences of this developmental phase can be unhealthily magnified by social media.
“This age group is heavily influenced by their peers. What is crucially important is how other people see you and a huge focus of your life is geared to creating a positive impression of yourself,” says Clyde. “Like taking huge care to get the perfect selfie as this stuff stays online forever. That’s a pretty unique pressure and it has to create a painfully pressured state of mind. This has the potential to amplify pre-existing narcissism. And to some extent we all have narcissistic traits.”
…
“If you have a boring profile, you will get no likes. But if you post something revealing about yourself, or something provocative, then you get more likes. People with 5,000 followers are constantly thinking about what they’re going to post next to get a reaction,” he says.
...
“The only purpose of Instagram is to promote the highlights of your life, and often people will focus on parties, holidays, times with friends. My own posts rarely reflect my feelings when I am sad, depressed or lonely and entirely reflect the positive side of my life,” says Roberts.
https://twitter.com/EtopUdoEma/status/1252715065356107776 All Of These Commitment Announcements Epitomize The GENERATION ME Culture That's Been Created In The U.S. Over The Past 50 Or So Years. This One Had A Mural Created Of Him So That His Following Could Further Sensationalize And Idolize Him. It Doesn't Get Much More Egocentric, Self-Aggrandizing, And Narcissistic Than That.
Who Are These People That Are Fans Of NOBODIES? They're Almost As Pathetic As The NOBODIES Themselves Who Think They're Somebodies And Deserving Of Fans. For Instance, Look At These Two NOBODIES: Miss Joie @miss_joie4h
The Former NOBODY Has A Fan Page And The Latter NOBODY Seems To Have A Fan Club. But Who Are They? NOBODIES. Outside Of Their Tiny, Little Modeling World (A Tiny, Little Modeling World That Consists Of Performing In Low Budget Rap Videos And Posing In Low End Magazines) THEY ARE UN-FUCKIN-KNOWN (No One Knows Them And No One Cares About Them). Rightly So, Though. They Have No Special Ability, No Special Achievements, No Special Background, And No Special Look (They're Average Looking And Not All That Attractive). So Why Do They Have Fan Pages And Fan Clubs? Because We're A Society Obsessed With Celebrity And Making People Feel Good About Themselves For No Valid Reason. And In The Process Of Making These NOBODIES Famous And Boosting Their Self-Esteem We're Creating A Nation Of Narcissists. As A Side Note, I Think The Fans Get A Sense Of Satisfaction In Knowing That They're Helping To Create A Name For These NOBODIES. Plus, They Might Get A Psychological Boost From Thinking That They're Closer To These NOBODIES Than They Really Are. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201306/is-celebrity-behavior-making-you-narcissist http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/200807/narcissism-and-celebrity-relationships
Don't know whether to embrace the advancement of technology or somehow question it's power.
The Dime-A-Dozen Nigger/Flipper Turned Dennis Rodman Is An Intellectual NOW! Fortunately She Doesn't Have The Intellect To Be One (Low IQ Nigger/Flipper).
I JUST CLICKED ON HER TWITTER LINK FOR THE 1ST TIME IN AGES (05/15/17) AND NOTICED THAT SHE'S NOW GOT A MASTERS DEGREE! THEY'RE JUST GIVING THESE THINGS AWAY THESE DAYS!
So this bitch @ClaudiaLNelson wanna block me on insta cause I was the first to tell her she's hideous w/o makeup.. oops truth hurts
Thank You Brotha! I'm Glad I'm Not The Only One That Sees And Thinks That And I'm Glad I'm Not The Only One To Say It. She's UGLY As Hell And Has A Huge Hoo Mah Boon Gah Forehead.
Begin Listening At The 0:00 Mark Then Stop Listening At The 8:02 Mark. Pay Special Attention Around The 4:30 Mark. Then Begin Listening Again At The 44:05 Mark To The 51:27 Mark.
If you gon be boring nigga I will be too, take a dose of yo own medicine nigga, that's why you always bored with yo boring ass
We Live In Such An Instant Gratification, Short Attention Span, "I Want Everyone To Be Like The Celebrities And Reality TV Stars That I See On TV" Day And Age Now That You Have To Have A High Energy, Outgoing, Talkative, Boisterous, Constantly On The Go, Constantly Doing Something Interesting, Hilariously Entertaining Personality For People Just To Notice You Let Alone Befriend You, Date You, Or Even Mate With You. But There Are Very Few People With This Type Of Personality, So All Of You Instant Gratification, Short Attention Span, "I Want Everyone To Be Like The Celebrities And Reality TV Stars That I See On TV" Generation ME'ers Are Going To Be Searching Your Entire Lives For People Like This To Keep You Entertained. So Here's Some Advice, Just Accept That Most People Aren't Highly Sociable, Great Conversationalists Who Always Say Witty And Insightful Things, Nor Are Most People Living The Hollywood Life. If You Come To Terms With This And Accept The Fact That Most People Live Average And Boring Lives You'll Be Much Happier.
http://highability.org/the-gifted-introvert/
We Live In An Extravert Oriented And Dominated Society, So The Less Communicative, Less Sociable, Less Self-Promoting, And More Reserved And Reticent Are At A Disadvantage. I Don't Like To Say Too Much Off Of The Internet Pimp. I Let My Pandering Do The Talking.
We can first see how shades of gray fit into the picture by harking back to narcissism - that vain self-fascination and inordinately high self-esteem that has received so little attention in hard science research. This trait forms a hallmark of those with borderline, antisocial, and - natch - narcissistic personality disorders. As mentioned previously, suspicions abound that it has a strong genetic component. Virtually every nasty dictator has shown the worst of narcissism's ugly features. Hitler, for example, deigned to share his feelings with an interviewer at Berchtesgaden: "Do you realize that you are in the presence of the greatest German of all time?" Romania's Ceausescu told his health minister in the early 1970s, "A man like me comes along only once every five hundred years." Turkmenistan's Saparmurat Niyazov, frequently criticized in the West as one of the world's most authoritarian and repressive dictators, had images of himself in virtually every public place and a gold-plated statue in the capital that rotates so it always faces the sun and shines light into the capital city. Niyazov modestly noted: "I'm personally against seeing my pictures and statues in the streets - but it's what the people want."
But what happens to talented people when narcissism is not present? Such individuals help form the backbone of society - the superb secretary whose adept business skills make her boss look good, or the guy who never even sees fit to mention to his family that he had won the Purple Heart for his cool heroism under fire. (JOE GETHERALL BRAGGED ABOUT HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN CONSTANTLY! MY FATHER WOULD TELL ME AFTER BASEBALL GAMES, "ALL HE [JOE] DOES IS TALK ABOUT HOW GREAT HIS SON AND DAUGHTERS ARE." NEVER ONCE DID MY DAD TALK ABOUT HIMSELF OR TELL JOE ABOUT HIS SONS ATHLETIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS.)
One such brilliantly talented, non-limelight-hogging person was Gregor Mendel, the man known as the "Father of Genetics." Mendel was an inordinately neurotic individual who spent his teenage years in bed with a mysterious illness that now appears to have been akin to acute anxiety. In keeping with his neuroticism, Mendel suffered so badly from test anxiety that he twice failed the examination to become a high school teacher. But Mendel, who loved both plants and mathematics, was a curious character. In his happy hideaways at the monastery, he spent eight years and raised thirty thousand pea plants figuring out why variations in heritable traits occur.
Mendel did attempt to communicate the results of his remarkable studies, but his pedantic lectures, paltry published study, and bashful attempts at correspondence with other scientists went ignored. Ultimately, although Mendel suspected his results were of supreme importance, his lack of confidence led him to give up and turn away from science altogether.
If Mendel had had the ego, self-esteem, or sheer, untrammeled narcissism to repeatedly trumpet his findings to the world, researchers would have been clued in to the central ideas underpinning genetics some thirty-five years earlier than they did.
Mendel makes an interesting contrast with Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverers of evolution and variation with natural selection, who superficially appeared to share Mendel's lack of self-esteem. Darwin was an inhibited man with a reputation for integrity and a pride so well veiled that Wallace admired him from afar for being "so free...[of] egotism." After a five-year, round-the-world voyage on the Beagle, Darwin returned to publish his findings related to zoology and geology. Secretly, however, he also embarked on a never-finished five-hundred-thousand-word masterwork (the equivalent of two thousand double-spaced manuscript pages) that was to summarize the theory of and evidence for evolution.
Much of the twenty years Darwin spent tucked away at his country estate preoccupied with puzzling out the secrets of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace spent puzzling at the same problem in his adventures studying and collecting the flora and fauna of both the Amazon River basin and Malay Archipelago. Like Darwin, he published his findings. Unlike Darwin, however, Wallace also began publishing articles related to the origins of species - poaching on evolutionary turf Darwin had thought was his alone. In a moment of feverish malarial brilliance, Wallace conceived a comprehensive theory of evolution and, in his enthusiasm, wrote it up and sent it to a man he knew would appreciate its importance - Charles Darwin.
Biographer-physician Ross Slotten notes: "Whatever the reason for [Darwin's delay in publication] - failure of nerve, a passion for perfection, periodic debilitating illness - it was not until the unexpected appearance of Wallace's essay that the issue of priority suddenly reared its ugly head." Darwin, wringing his hands at the thought of his research being relegated to a footnote, wrote to his friend Charles Lyell, "I rather hate the idea of writing for priority, yet I certainly should be vexed if anyone were to publish my doctrine before me" (italics added). With Darwin's tacit encouragement, his friends arranged a neat sleight-of-hand joint publication of the theory, with ever-so-slight seniority accorded to Darwin's efforts, and Wallace's more complete work used to bolster Darwin's claim.
If Wallace had sent his results directly to a journal, rather than to Darwin, he would have unquestionably have laid claim to the theory of evolution. But Wallace never worried over issues of priority. In truth, Wallace hadn't a drop of self-aggrandizement in his body - he was happy his work was recognized at all. (As science historian Michael Shermer notes, Wallace was "agreeable to a fault.")
Darwin, with his curiosity, brilliance, and well-concealed egotism, became canonized. Wallace, on the other hand, with the same curiosity and brilliance, coupled with an utter lack of egotism, became an impoverished footnote. Granted, neither of these men were flaming narcissists, but Darwin did have just enough ego to trump Wallace's hand.
Far more flagrantly egotistical than either Darwin or Wallace, however, was the sublimely arrogant James Watson, the misogynistic codiscoverer of the structure of DNA. Watson had no qualms about using data pilfered from scientist Rosalind Franklin to make his seminal discovery - and then writing a book describing "his" discoveries that mocked virtually everything about Franklin. Later, Watson would try to block the development of the computerized approach to gene sequencing. Instead of hailing Craig Venter's automated sequencing machines at a senate meeting about the Human Genome Project, Watson derisively cracked that the machines "'could be run by monkeys'. Venter, sitting next to him, turned pale. 'You could see the dagger go in,' a witness later recalled. 'It killed him.'" Later, of course, Venter's sequencing machines would help decode the human genome years ahead of the government's desultory schedule.
$11 Words!
Want ego? Science alone provides plenty of examples. Narcissistic Nobelist William Shockley, the inventor of the lucrative junction transistor, was goaded into his discovery by jealousy of his colleagues' invention of the point contact transistor (which, indeed, used the underlying theory that Shockley had developed). Despite his genius, Shockley's arrogance and heavy-handed style alienated those who worked with him - he butted into everyone's business, sadistically blocking the careers of those he disliked. (Nobel co-laureate John Bardeen would leave Shockley's group in high dudgeon and go on to win a second Nobel Prize for the superconductivity research that Shockley had tried to prevent him from completing.) When founding his own company, Shockley deliberately hired the brightest men around, but he could become unhinged, pounding the table in rage, during the rare occasions they accidentally outshone him. Willing to do anything to keep in the spotlight, he took up controversial theories of eugenics, which undoubtedly assuaged not only his need for publicity but also his obsession with his own superiority. Ultimately he was left with racist allies whom "no moral, thinking soul would ever be associated with." Even Shockley's own children became estranged - not surprising, considering that he publicly announced they had "regressed" from his own intelligence because of their mother's inferior standing.
All of this doesn't even begin to do justice to the myriad of other cutthroat battles for glory surrounding the sciences. There was the mean-spirited Alfred Sabin, with his continual public humiliation of Jonas Salk. (Salk had developed a far better polio vaccine that Sabin did everything in his power to block and discredit.) And the insanely bitter, nearly lifelong feud between Newton and Leibniz over the invention of calculus. And neuroscientist Solomon Snyder's blithe usurpation of credit from his doctoral student, Candace Pert, for the discovery of the opiate receptor. Snyder had, in fact, tried to stop Pert's research in this area because he thought it was a waste of time.) And brilliant Edwin Armstrong invention of FM radio, which was hijacked by the unsavory Lee de Forest. Armstrong would eventually leap to his death in despair over the legal imbroglio that left him destitute.
Why does it so often seem necessary for there to at least be a smidgen, if not a heaping helping, of narcissism to get one's just (or unjust) due in this world?
A big part of the problem seems to lie in the fact that so many people are so darned creative, not only in science but also in thousands of different areas. Simply by walking into a corner bookstore and thinking about the billions of hours of imaginative work encapsulated there can make you gasp with astonishment. And that's not even to mention the ongoing creativity swirling worldwide in software, music, cinema, science, art, sports, and contraptions of all sorts. No matter what creative enterprise one might undertake, there are frequently so many other people doing something similar that it's difficult to stand out. The Beatles, who'd floundered for three years with no recognition (there were over three hundred rock groups in Liverpool alone), used their manic-depressive "drama queen," Brian Epstein, to get them off the ground. There would have never been a Motown without Berry Gordy, who has been dubbed a Jekyll-and-Hyde "thief or dreams" as well as monstrous manipulator. Madonna with her ego and me first sense of ethics, purportedly found whoever she needed to boost her up and then cut them out. She, like many other superstars, understands that being nice when competing against those who use their elbows is likely to leave you in the shadows. (Darwin was lucky to have had a sweet-natured competitor, and he knew it, writing Wallace that "[m]ost persons would in your position have felt bitter envy and jealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing of mankind." The fundamentally decent Darwin worked hard to arrange a civil list pension for Wallace. Even so, Wallace was still forced to continue publishing in his frail, final years in the hopes that his royalties would sustain his children.)
In the arts, it is difficult enough for an individual or group to stand out, even with the assistance of world-class, in-your-face promoters. But many modern-day creative concepts in other spheres - such a sequencing the human genome, building an assembly line and creating the automobile, coding a "killer application" for a computer system, or designing a high-definition TV - require an even more complex interweaving of innovation, tenacity, flexibility, and resourcefulness in order to be successful. To make matters worse, virtually all new innovations contain hard-to-protect creative concepts, either in execution or marketing, that other researchers or business people love to emulate - or steal. This is where a spearhead person - a visionary who "gets it" yet also has a protective cloak of narcissism - is invaluable. And when the rewards of the enterprise are large, competition by those visionaries can become ruthless - a veritable clash of egomaniacal titans. As Roy Kroc, "the founder of McDonald's, once said of competition in the fast food industry: 'This is a rat eat rat, dog eat dog, I'll kill 'em, and I'm going to kill 'em before they kill me.'"
Narcissism can be a crucial asset not only in art, science, and business but also, understandably enough, in politics. Winston Churchill's sense of self-importance can be gleaned from an early letter to his mother from the battle lines: "I am so conceited I do not believe the Gods would create so potent a being as myself for so prosaic an ending." In the dark days of 1940 and '41, when the Nazis seized the bulk of Europe and the lonely little islands of Britain were the next target, it was Churchill's convincing, egotistically certain manner that rallied the troops and the populace around the idea of standing fast rather than continuing with fruitless appeasement - as Lord Halifax, Churchill's competitor for the prime ministership, was wont to do. (Churchill once said: "Hailfax's virtues have done more harm in the world than the vices of hundreds of other people.") Where would England have been without Churchill's hyperinflated ego - coupled with his cunning intelligence and rapier wit? We might do well to listen to Churchill's own admonition: "Megalomania is the only form of sanity."
Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend. Oakley, 287-293.
a grandiose sense of self-importance (patient exaggerates own abilities and accomplishments)
preoccupation with fantasies of beauty, brilliance, ideal love, power, or limitless success
belief that personal uniqueness renders the patient fit only for association with (or understanding by) people or institutions of rarefied status
The Above Traits That Characterize NARCISSISM Apply Directly To ME.
CELEBRITIES AND NON-CELEBRITIES, STOP MAKING DOCUMENTARIES ABOUT YOURSELVES AND WRITING BOOKS ABOUT YOUR LIFE STORY. YOU'RE NOT THAT IMPORTANT, YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING MEANINGFUL IN LIFE, AND NO ONE REALLY CARES ABOUT YOU YOU SELFISH, SELF-CENTERED, EGOTISTICAL, NARCISSISTS.
I'm Making A Fool Of Myself. I'm Embarrassing Myself, NBA.
http://instagram.com/p/xTBsYyP9q_/?modal=true This Broad Had A Photo Ringside At One Of Those UFC Events, But I Can't Find It Now. Anyway, What A Pathetic, Narcissist! Is That What People Do Nowadays? They Recap Their "Successful" Year On Twitter And Instagram By Creating A Collage Of Their Most Liked Pictures And Then Brag About How Many Views Or Likes Or Comments They Got? How Pathetic And Narcissistic Is That? Does Your Life And Psychological Well-Being Revolve Around Your Internet Notoriety (Fame). Do You Have No Life Or Nothing Good Going On In Your Life Outside Of The World You've Created On The Internet? You're Pathetic And Narcissistic Even If You Do (Even If You Do Have A Life Outside Of The Internet). http://samvak.tripod.com/omnipresence.html
Marshall middle school will frame one of my basketball jerseys! Nice! Ganesha High School should do the same..retire that #23 jersey!
HOW CLASSLESS, EGOTISTICAL, AND NARCISSISTIC OF THIS NOBODY. HE'S ASKING THAT HIS JERSEY BE RETIRED AT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL. HA. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A PERSON (A NOBODY) ASK FOR SUCH A THING! THE AUDACITY THAT NOBODY!
WHAT HE GONNA AX FOE NEXT? A STATUE OF HIMSELF BUILT ON THE CAMPUS OF GANESHA?
This Guy Is A NOBODY, But That Didn't Stop Him From Writing A Book About Himself. Does It Get Anymore Narcissistic Than That? Hey, NOBODY, Put The Bible Down And Pick Up These Two Books:http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/273520.Generation_Me
NOWADAYS, EVERYONE HAS A LIFE STORY THAT THEY WANT TO SHARE WITH THE WORLD THAT INVOLVES STRUGGLE AND STRIFE. LISTEN YOU FUCKIN' NOBODIES, YOUR LIFE HASN'T BEEN THAT DIFFICULT AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR AVERAGE, RUN-OF-THE-MILL LIFE. YOU'RE NOT IMPORTANT, YOU'RE LIFE IS NOT IMPORTANT, AND YOU'VE DONE NOTHING IMPORTANT IN YOUR LIFE. YOU'RE A NOBODY JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE THAT GOES THRU UPS AND DOWNS, TOUGH TIMES AND GOOD TIMES IN LIFE :) :(. DON'T THINK YOU'RE SPECIAL BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT! "THERE WILL BE UPS AND DOWNS, SMILES AND FROWNS" - NIGGA DOGGY DOGG
@akarlin88 has a rough look at the world of science production. TL;DR Jews, Germanics, other Europeans, East Asians, and Persians, in about that order.
Saddened to hear about the death of Dr Jim Sidanius, whose ground-breaking work on intergroup relations, especially race relations, continues to make a huge impact in psychology and society
Still trying to process the passing of my advisor, Prof. Jim Sidanius. I wrote a large part of his obituary for ISPP today (with others), but I thought I'd use this space to share ten Fun Sidanius Anecdotes. (1/n)
The anthropologist David Graeber has just died. He was a towering intellectual and activist, the author of “Debt: The First 5000 Years” and “The Utopia of Rules.”
He was 59.
I have learned a lot from his work. Albert Bandura, Leading Psychologist of Aggression, Dies at 95. He was most known for his Bobo doll experiment in which children mimicked adults in attacking an inflatable doll. It challenged basic tenets of psychology.
I'm still shocked, but it's true: Albert Bandura, one of the greatest psychologists who ever lived, is no longer in existence. You have to understand, there was a time in psychology when self-efficacy wasn't even considered a relevant construct! RIP, AB.
Sad to report that Richard Alexander, one of the greatest evolutionists of the 20th century, has died. This leaves a large hole in the world, and is a shock to those who knew him. Not just a brilliant intellect, Dick was also a marvelously deep person, courageous & down to earth.
It is with deep sadness that we share the news of the passing of Dr. Richard Leakey. He was a visionary whose great contributions to human origins and wildlife conservation will never be forgotten.
So sorry to read that Chris Boehm passed away - he was a great inspiration for the evolutionary leadership scholarly field - go and check his seminal books and papers!
This makes me sad. I worked with Bryan a bit at Oxford in the late 90s - as with the passing of Luca Cavalli-Sforza in 2018, truly the end of an era...R.I.P.
Very sad to hear that Lewis Wolpert passed away this morning. A very influential developmental biologist, he made important contributions to the field that have been truly inspirational to many. His legacy (ideas, books) is huge. A great loss for #DevelopmentalBiology community
1/5 My remembrance of Jim Flynn for his memorial service:
By America’s current standards of academic discourse, Jim Flynn and I should have been at each other’s throats. We were on opposite sides—or so it was portrayed—on one of
2/5 the most inflammatory of all academic topics, IQ and race. We did in fact have different perspectives, though more nuanced than most people thought. But those differences hadn’t the slightest effect on Jim’s collegiality toward me or any of the people with whom he disagreed.
3/5 He saw people like us as resources for testing out his ideas. How else are you going to learn, Jim thought, except by engaging with people who see things differently? My guess is that every scholar
with whom Jim ever interacted, of whatever ideological or intellectual
4/5 persuasion, is mourning his death as I am—partly because of the simple affection we felt for him, and more profoundly because Jim represented what a scholar is supposed to be—open, curious, passionate
5/5 about his beliefs but without either self-righteousness or rancor, determined above all else to get it right. We have lost an exemplar.
As a scholar, Jim Flynn had a quality in short supply these days: he always told you exactly what he thought. He did not argue, negotiate, mollify or self-aggrandize, but simply expressed his vision of the world plainly and accurately.
His charming and eccentric personality was the same. He didn’t try to make any kind of impression on anyone, he was just himself. Jim’s human presence, his exterior self transparent and true to his inner life, made him a joy to be around.
Jim Flynn, environmentalist (RIP) with assorted hereditarians. They disagree but they agree on the fundamentals of reason. That's what academia should be like and used to be like.
It is widely believed that jealousy and envy are the same emotion. In fact, although jealousy and envy often are mixed together in real life, they are responses to quite different situations. Jealousy always involves an attempt to protect a valued relationship (especially marriage) from a perceived threat (especially adultery). Envy is resentment toward someone who has some desirable object or quality that one does not have and cannot get. Envy, in other words, is hostility toward superiors, a negative feeling toward someone who is better off. Envy is not the wish for the object or advantage that provoked the envy. Rather, envy is the much darker wish that the superior would lose the object or advantage. Envy is the pleasure, the malicious joy, that is felt when the superior fails or suffers. The envious person rarely resorts to violence against the superior and rarely seeks to seize or to win the desired object. The most common expression of envy is gossip. Recall, for example, the deprecating labels your high school peers used to describe the student with the best grades ("teacher's pet" and worse), the best football player ("dumb jock"), and the beauty queen ("stuck up"). Any quality or achievement that provokes admiration also is likely to provoke some envy. These include wealth, status, power, fame, success, talent, good grades, good looks, and popularity. Because envy is a completely negative emotion, it usually is repressed, denied, disguised, and relabeled. To admit straightforwardly to envy is to declare oneself to be inferior to another and hostile toward that person (or class of persons) because of that inferiority. Envy often is mislabeled as "jealousy," thus making it less likely that we shall understand it and deal with it constructively. Conversely, jealousy is almost never mislabeled as "envy." This suggests that envy is more negative, more shameful, and more deeply repressed than jealousy.
Walter Mischel - the Marshmallow Man - died yesterday. If you don't already know about his extraordinary life and career, read this New Yorker piece by @mkonnikova
“Silent face, the marble index of a mind forever voyaging through strange seas of thought, alone.” Wordsworth was writing of Newton, but he might have been foreseeing the silent face of Newton’s great successor as Lucasian Professor.
In 2011 Stephen Hawking told The Guardian: “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.” ― Stephen Hawking
Nein. 
jonahlehrer 
James Thompson 
HBD Bibliography 
P. D. Mangan 
Claudia Nelson 
retire that #23 jersey!
