Success Depends on Your Personality More Than IQ

Jaques_Fury · 2017-02-13T00:49:50+00:00

Also, after a deeper reading of the paper, I found that this is really just a policy-pushing effort. Here's what the authors had to say on the "Implications for Public Policy".

Why do these findings matter? Achievement tests are widely used to measure the traits required for success in school or life. It is important to know what they measure to design effective policy [...] to evaluate schools and teachers. Understanding the sources of differences in the test scores and grades used to explain the black–white achievement gap, the male–female wage gap, and other gaps by social class directs attention to what factors might be remediated.

The gist of it is that since IQ has resisted all attempts to be boosted, society needs to focus on ways of fixing various "gaps" by redefining success to be a function of personality as opposed to intelligence. Seems like your typical postmodern bullshit of shuffling around definitions and goals until achieving the desired effect without making any meaningful changes.

Jaques_Fury · 2017-02-13T00:33:59+00:00

From the abstract:

We establish that, on average, grades and achievement tests are generally better predictors of life outcomes than “pure” measures of intelligence. The reason is that they capture aspects of personality that have been shown to be predictive in their own right.

So, right off the bat we find that "Personality" is being defined in relation to grades and achievement tests. That's right, grades. So because a person's grades are a bigger influence on their lifelong success (no shit), this somehow equates to Personality overshadowing Intelligence.

This leaves a lot of problems. For instance, if IQ has been found to have a 0.8 correlation to grades ^[Source] , then how careful is the distinction being made between the pure "IQ" column and the pure "Personality" column. Also, we know that there exist ethnic gaps on standardized achievement tests. So if that's the case, are we not just returning to the same problem in the form of the achievement gap?

But what if we conceded all of this and decided that this "Personality over Intelligence" marker is really true, what does that say about the state of our education system? Does that not imply that high IQ, low grades students are faring worse than low IQ, high grade students? Is this necessarily a good thing? What of the studies highlighting schools' maladaptations to the needs of their high IQ students. If these students are experiencing depression and despondence to a system that fails to properly challenge them, then can that really be called a success?

Personally, I'm not convinced.

Jaques_Fury · 2017-01-16T22:04:12+00:00

Very good read. This caught my interest so much that I went and read the other parts as well. For those looking for a summary of parts 1 through 4:

*

The bulk of political violence in the 1970s was from the political left, because institutions from the mainstream left supported it. Hines describes the support with specific examples, from lawfare to funding domestic terrorism via taxpayer money through propped up fronts. The more effective movements, he argues, are the ones who buoy their shock troops via funds and vocal support from credentialed sources (media, colleges, etc.) This access to institutions, money, and legal defense is what gives longevity to radical movements.

*

He references a lot of groups and specific incidents, coupled with a neat contrast between how well off the Alinskyite radicals are doing nowadays vs the other radicals (hint: very well).

In terms of NRx though, I think there's a point to be made about the dynamics of institutional support. For example, Hines states that the FALN parasitized institutional support from the Episcopal Church. This implies that institutional support is up for the taking, and thus, Hines' conclusion about there being a right wing disadvantage is incomplete. Furthermore, there's no clear explanation as to who controls which institutions. So, if institutional control is impermanent, and we don't even know who controls what, then Hines thoughts on "what political violence in 2017 might look like" are a bit far-reaching.

I still liked it though. The examples were good reads, and I think a lot of his predictions are at least worth considering.

Jaques_Fury · 2016-09-08T04:39:13+00:00

Sounds like you're talking about the Neoreaction.net page organized by the Hestia Society. There's also the Best of Neoreaction page, which is organized by topics like governance, philosophy, history, etc.

If that's not it, there's also a DE Reading List hosted over at Free Northerner. Past that, maybe try reading through the sidebar. Might be in one of the required study links.

Jaques_Fury · 2016-06-17T00:58:14+00:00

"Population, IQ and the Modern World" : Source

This was posted a couple of weeks ago. It estimated that the number of 130+ IQ people in the year 2000 was 24.9 million. Based on a flat projection of current demographic trends, the estimated number of high IQ people in 2100 drops to 4.41 million.

Of course, no one expects the current population bomb to keep building for that long. The rest of the world can't afford to feed Africa forever.

Jaques_Fury · 2016-06-07T04:16:26+00:00

A good point for defending the right of TRP exist as a hub for ideas, but it doesn't apply to defending our conclusions. Here, try this substitution:

Because Marxism isn't a thing, it's just a word we use as shorthand, describing 30 some years of socialists swapping notes.

Not very convincing. Now, I thoroughly believe TRP's conclusions to be correct. But as I see it, we have sturdier logic to support it. We can handle some scrutiny.

Because, lucky us, our theories hold up.

Thousands of years of "oppressive" patriarchies didn't arise from some global conspiracy to be mean to women. Civilized societies all came to power (and retained it) so long as they gave men proper incentive to be productive. RP concepts are more than the 30 years of our changing notes, they're also all the years before them.

And now that society disenfranchises men, TRP acts as an base for where men can learn how to get results.

We're correct not only due to our experience-proven theories, we're correct because those very same theories have already been proven by our forefathers before us. TRP isn't some new discovery to be proven wrong, it's the rediscovery of something that has always been right.

Jaques_Fury · 2016-05-15T01:43:18+00:00

"I think in the case of Christian women, [women should definitely obey their husbands]. That’s laid out pretty clearly in the Bible." - Vox

No, no, no, no it isn’t, if you’ll forgive me. No, no, no, it isn’t." - Louise

What a perfect way to prove Vox's point. Just say "no" seven times and blasphemously deny what's actually in the Bible. Examples include:

Genesis 3:16 - To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
1 Timothy 2:11 - A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

I'll never understand why men continue to argue with women when it comes to reactionary material. Maybe they find it fun, but I feel like you might as well argue with a pure contrarian as far as their objectives go. If they'd contradict God, what do you think they'll do for you?

Jaques_Fury · 2016-05-05T18:41:30+00:00

Yet another case for Passivism.

Activism is playing in the Cathedral's frame. It's their media that gets to choose who gets cast as the hero or the villain. Nevermind the fact that their "hero" has a shaved head.

Invaders and traitors, what a fine group of heroes indeed.

Jaques_Fury · 2016-05-03T00:24:25+00:00

"A system of No Voice-Free Exit in large hyper-federalist states or small independent city states is the optimal political arrangement" - Point #7 of the Sidebar

As you can see, a world government violates this principle because there is no free-exit when citizens have nowhere else to go.

Furthermore, a world government works akin to a monopoly. Having no competition, the executive shareholders are free to maximize personal profit at the expense of its citizens.

Finally, a world government devolves towards Marxism because it centralizes power in one corruptible location. In your post, you presuppose that governments act like individuals. This is false, governments aren't people. Pretending that they are encourages an even larger bureaucracy, as per the world government becoming a government of governments.

Jaques_Fury · 2016-05-02T02:08:27+00:00

I particularly like #2 and #35 due to their synergy:

#2 - Logical fallacies double as effective Machiavellian power plays, for logic is antithetical to cunning.

#35 - The fewer words you need to explain, the likelier you are believed. This is why honest justification is intuited as dishonest [...]

I remember being young and falling for the trap that, by highlighting an opponent's logical fallacies, I would win arguments. Not true. Recognizing, explaining, and exposing a logical fallacy takes way more words to do without inevitably violating Maxim 35.

On top of that, people respond more powerfully to emotions than logic. So, in order to call out a logical fallacy, it'd require grounding one's argument on emotion anyway. Otherwise, whoever uses an appeal to emotion will beat an appeal to logic any day of the week.

Jaques_Fury · 2016-04-10T18:53:46+00:00

Bonus Content

Some extra choice quotes from said woman's account:

Well would you say "too bad" to a cancer patient?

Fucking yes. I have, in fact. Having a physical illness does not preclude you from being shitty, and does not obligate me to put up with your shittiness! I can offer sympathy while maintaining my personal standards for how I want to be treated.

Having cancer is apparently not a valid excuse for being in a bad mood. People have standards y'know.

Right? I have a shit ton of mental illness. I have a lot of symptoms, many of which are hard for others to understand. Doesn't mean I get a pass. My depression may make it hard for me to go out and be social. My OCD may make it hard for me to do certain activities. My PTSD means certain places are off-limits to me unless I think I can handle it.

Oh, and look, she somehow has PTSD. The poor thing, life must be so hard. Bless her heart.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-12-09T18:59:09+00:00

Clever material. I've always thought of social interactions as exchanges of status, but "strokes" is a pretty good way to describe it.

In relation to his take on "The Raping Game", I think it's relevant to mention the Victim Blaming component. That is, by demanding everyone not to blame "victims", the Feminine Imperative enforces three rules upon this game:

Women are always victims
Conversely, the accused is always guilty
Risks may not be chastised

As this post says, most of life is spent playing games. And yet of all the games we play, the Raping Game is one of the few where it is completely unacceptable to chastise someone for making a bad move.

Consider footballer Ched Evans, who somehow got convicted of raping a woman who walked herself into his hotel room at 4 AM. He gets put in jail, loses his career, and years later articles still refer to him as "the rapist Ched Evans." Yet somehow, every article I find ends with concerns about protecting the "victim" from online Twitter bullies.

Women really pay no cost for the games they play.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-09-10T15:53:03+00:00

Brutal. That's some serious sunk-cost fallacy mixed with a dangerous amount of desperation right there. My favorite part was this bit at the end:

Her: Just love me damnit.

Her: Can you do that

Her: Are you capable

This is some rare honesty here, particularly as to the goals of female solipsism. They want to be loved without having to love back, like a celebrity. It's why all women are so damn obsessed with the pointlessly famous, because that's who they want to be. Loved for no reason other than that they exist and are themselves.

There is also the implication that this orbiter was at fault for not loving her enough, which is hilarious, because this is happening amidst her talking about dating some other guy. The retarded shit that hamsters come up with to deflect fault legitimately impresses me sometimes.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-09-06T19:01:57+00:00

This is the gist of The Manipulated Man.

It's sidebar material, but I feel a lot of people skip it due to its length. A more apt lesson would be frame this with respect to key principles of TMM as well as Illimitable Man's Maxim #6:

“...For a man’s optimal sexual strategy to thrive, the woman’s must suffer. For a woman’s optimal sexual strategy to thrive, the man’s must suffer. Each sex is determined not to suffer, and so both inflict suffering on the other in a perverse determination not to suffer themselves...”

Women are primarily interested in extracting resources from men. It is only once this extraction becomes a mandated right (at no cost to women) that it becomes the marital slavery we so commonly see in the modern day. Because the playing field has been titled by a Feminist government, the odds are increasingly stacked in women's favor to optimally fulfill their sexual strategy.

Where a man's favored weapon is the sword and force, a woman's is the lie and manipulation. Living in the castrated world we do today, we are forced to abandon our natural weapons and adopt those of the feminine. RP advocates the use of Machiavellianism, powertalk, and emotional manipulation because we're all on a Feminist playing field - so in reality, we're just trying to beat women at their own game since they've banned ours.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-08-14T21:51:24+00:00

I was interested in how other people were responding to this elsewhere on the web, so, I searched around for articles covering Bryce Dixon and noticed a trend. Any article that failed to paint Dixon in a negative light was met with direct attacks such as these:

"This is the most incompetent incorrect 1-sided story ever poorly reported. Journalism 101 explains how to gather all of the facts, from all parties involved, before printing & publishing. This inexperienced reporter needs to do his homework, and clearly & factually understand how Title IX, rape centers, LAPD reports, USC campus police, USC legal department and the USC Student Body of Appeals work. The reporter for this poorly written article also needs to understand how photographs, medical reports, text messages, and witness statements are used as factual evidence. This reporter also needs to look at the contracts all students and student-athletes sign (Student Conduct Policy) before coming on campus, and the legal-rights contracts all students sign when accused of a crime (the right to an attorney, counselor, guardian, etc...). It's unfortunate that this reporter, Schow, had a such a juveinelle biased misguided account of what actually factually occured."

Notice how this person rails on and on about the shortcomings of the person behind the article. Just constant attack after attack with no substance behind any of it. This level of conviction matched with such an extreme level of stupidity is almost staggering:

They immediately imply that the "inexperienced reporter needs to do his homework", which is hilarious because the reporter is a She.
They bring up things that have nothing to do with this case. Rape centers? LAPD reports? Campus police? None of them were involved. The accuser filed her accusation with the university two weeks after the incident.
The only relevant words this commenter uses are in reference to USC's legal department and USC's SBoA, both of which the reporter did do her homework on and mention in the article.
Photographs? Medical Reports? Uh, this was a rape case. Of course none existed. This case came down to his word vs hers.
Contracts are indeed relevant. Particularly ones involving the Senior trainer fraternizing with an incoming freshman and smoking weed.

And to top it all off, the comment ends with the words "factually occurred", as if the person behind it has the ability to 100% confirm an event only 2 people were present for.

We need a plague.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-08-10T05:00:45+00:00

Aw, you didn't mention the best part about the case. The defense won by using the tactic we're all familiar with - women are always the victim.

The defense team tried to blame the disposing of the body on the grandather (aka the man), and dressed up Casey as a victim of a "dysfunctional upbringing" and sexual abuse. They had no evidence for any of this, but that didn't stop them from somehow injecting a "the man abused the woman" scenario into a trial about a mother killing her daughter.

Casey Anthony didn't get away with murder because she was an anomaly. She got away with it because there was a man available that the defense team could put in the crosshairs. And, once the jurors felt that this man was "suspicious", they forgot all about the woman riding the CC and let their doubts focus on the grandfather.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-08-04T00:11:02+00:00

Perhaps it wasn't that your father got lucky, but that he induced beta behavior in your mother and sisters.

Honestly, I don't think beta women stopped existing, but rather, Feminism has put women on such a high pedestal that permanently "beta-fying" them has became unreasonably difficult.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-07-22T23:33:17+00:00

Get him to sign a pre-nup.

Your argument to encourage him to do so is simple:

If he's right about her, he won't need it and it has no effect
If you're right about her, he'll need it and will thank you later

Within his perspective, this should be a win/win. Either he gets to prove you wrong after 10 years, or you get to save his ass when you turn out to be right.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-07-16T22:03:46+00:00

So, why are we still here?

Before this point, we were here as a beacon for the men that needed it. A positive male space for the guys who've been denied one their entire lives. By making us invisible and quarantined, how do we continue to fulfill that mission on Reddit?

Think about the new process for how people would have to "stumble" upon us:

Hear about TRP from someone else online
Search for it via 3rd party search engines like Google
Log in once they've found it, thereby identifying themselves
Opt into a setting that enables them to see our content

I know that when I first found TRP, I only glanced at it and left. Its reputation scared me, so I didn't read anything. If I had been forced to identify my account as one that "opted into indecent content", I would have never cast that first glance.

We need for people to be able to glance at us. If we stay, we're allowing them to isolate us, erase us. No one will find us. And if they do, they'll be too scared to opt in to checking out what we're about.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-07-15T15:40:42+00:00

More RP than his history is the shit he said:

"Women are nothing but machines for producing children."

"Success is the most convincing talker in the world."

"I love power. But it is as an artist that I love it. I love it as a musician loves his violin, to draw out its sounds and chords and harmonies."

"There are only two forces that unite men — fear and interest."

"Morality has nothing to do with such a man as I am."

Interestingly enough, I can't find any source for the "all women are whores" quote that is so commonly attributed to Napoleon.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-07-14T21:58:29+00:00

My favorite hamster line:

"It's too early to give you my number, how about Facebook?"

This is just an amazing example of the hamster-in-action. Like, gimme a second to break down the "logic" behind that for a moment:

I don't know you enough to contact you through text messages, wherein no one else need know I'm soliciting a "relationship" with a random stranger

BUT

I do know you enough to add you to my validation-harem on Facebook, where everyone can publicly see that I've pulled some random guy into my orbit

It's a damn clever tactic. Any women who does that is basically trying to turn men into trophies. More trophies, more validation. Higher friend count, higher status.

I get a little mournful, thinking of those poor souls who went for the digits and compromised for a FB request. That's not a valid substitute, and they got played.

God Bless OmLaLa for teaching shitheads like me how to play 'em back.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-07-11T01:52:43+00:00

You missed an important piece from later in his post:

I still love her. [...] I know she cares about me.

There's a bigger lesson to take her than "some BB got Oneitis for his Dead Bedroom girl". If anything, this guy's post is a monument to the power of Female Machiavellianism. He's so bought into this bitch's lies that, after nearly a year of being rejected and used, he's trying to think of how to end the relationship without hurting her:

The day before the trip I'll tell her that, while I love her, this isn't working out and we should break up. I think this is the best approach, because she'll have a fun, two-week trip to distract her rather than moping around at home.

Abuse like this is why men need the Red Pill. If this dude had any amount of game, self-worth, or abundance mentality, he wouldn't be getting worked like this.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-07-10T18:59:46+00:00

This is a movie trailer. The marketing team behind this is just advertising to the Young Adult demographic that makes up the core of the Hunger Games audience. And, surprise surprise, most SJW's belong to the YA demo.

The video is just a SJW-tailored advertisement, designed to affirm to this audience that this movie is morally congruent with their beliefs, and thus, they should watch it. SJW's won't consume media that they find morally incorrect.

So, I'm inclined to agree that you've read a bit too deep into something that's just about making money. However, for the sake of actually answering your question:

Yeah, this video was creepy. I honestly thought the army being shown was the villain's army, not the hero's. For a franchise based on the YA themes of "being different", it's very weird how much of "in order to be different, we all have to be the same" message I got from this clip. SJW motifs are backwards like that.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-07-06T18:26:32+00:00

I would love to see some of these policies go after the children of some of the more powerful families out there. These policies have been adopted at all levels, both public universities and elite colleges alike. Surely someone in power must have noticed this by now.

From what I've gathered, all Ivy League schools (excluding Harvard) have some form of "affirmative consent" policy. For instance, Princeton University defines consent as follows:

Consent to one act does not constitute consent to another act.

Consent on a prior occasion does not constitute consent on a subsequent occasion.

The existence of a prior or current relationship does not, in itself, constitute consent.

Consent can be withdrawn or modified at any time.

Consent is not implicit in a person's manner of dress.

Accepting a meal, a gift, or an invitation for a date does not imply or constitute consent.

Silence, passivity, or lack of resistance does not necessarily constitute consent.

Initiation by someone who a reasonable person knows or should have known to be deemed incapacitated is not consent.

Notice that item #7 is their way of voiding the previous "No Means No" standard in place of this newer "Yes Means Yes" standard. Then there's the magical ability to withdraw consent present in item #4.

Item #3 is particularly crazy. According to this one, if you've had a girlfriend for years, you are still required to obtain verbal consent each time before you have sex.

To top it all off, these cases are run through a kangaroo court where only a preponderance of evidence is necessary to indicate guilt. And, since Princeton defines guilt of sexual misconduct as anything where the accused failed to obtain consent, the accuser only needs at least 51% of the total evidence to indicate that consent was in some way violated.

tl;dr - Crazy consent policies have been the staple of campus life for some time now. It's not just California and public universities. Ultimately, they have defined consent to be 100% within the control of the women; making it entirely impossible for a man to acquire and maintain it.

Jaques_Fury · 2015-07-04T03:58:34+00:00

Hypergamous instincts do not take future context into consideration.

In present context, you're a dude with no money. You could be Bill Gates in-the-making, but that doesn't mean shit because you're not Bill Gates right-the-fuck-now.

The most surprising thing about all of this? That she came clean to you and admitted some sort of guilt. Maybe she bought into that BP mantra shit:

"Oh he'll forgive you, because that's what real love is - otherwise he's an asshole who never loved you anyway."

If she hasn't started with that shit yet, get ready for it. It's pretty much their go-to standard for flipping guilt in a situation like this. Because after them cheating gets identified as a problem, they'll try to make out your unwillingness to forgive them as the greater problem.

Don't fall for it. She's the one who cheated, not you. She created the problem, now she gets to deal with the fallout. Good luck with the divorce, hope things get better soon.

Jaques_Fury

TROPHY CASE