I sometimes feel like ... let alone ... with my mind and by my mind. Now, granted, on the one side the days are getting
longer in the sense that I don't get enough writing time to keep up with my thinking - but that doesn't change how my
mind operates. In this instance, I have a very severy case of "stack brain". So, I sit down thinking to write about the
one topic that's like ... what snipped of thought I remembered was something I wanted to write about. Then I remember
"IQ was a topic too" - and that now being the last thing 'on the stack' is what's on the forefront of my mind.
And still I'm ... wondering what else I might remember to write about. I had quite a lot actually.
But, to be honest, I don't really care about any of it right now. I am kind of more curious about the new Street Fighter
6 costumes that dropped today.
And yea. I mean, if it were up to me I'd like have a thought recorder running and perhaps some AI to sort it out into
a comprehensive text; Which ... is somewhat odd to me right now, thinking that ... that's in a way my baseline
ambition here. Overall. With these writings. And it makes me feel weird. About myself or so ... what the projected
motivation of mine were. But then again my thoughts DO occur, mostly, in form of something I'd write about ... like
in the moment. And then getting back home is like ... do I really wanna?
And yea, would I care to grow to higher degrees of sophistication, I'd have to ask myself why I'd want to write about
'this' or 'that'; And allow that to further guide my correspondence.
So, as for IQ - there are those that do care about it, and those that don't think it means anything. And sorry, but the
latter are just wrong. It's a case of ... I'm sure there is a word for it. I'll just say 'motion blur' for now. There is
a true essence to it - which then becomes like ... hearsay that's over time slowly getting distilled into Bullshit that
a lot of people yet tend to repeat.
To start with, we may say that there are different kinds of intelligence. To not delve too much into the philsophical and
hypothetical and stuff, the thing is this: There is a number of 'categories' that are being tested. If I remember correctly,
there are three. How well one performs in these tests is a relatively objective measurements of an individual's abilities.
And - to be fair ... there's that meme. A guy with an incredibly "tense" look usually accompanied with a sentence on how
hard it is for someone to not say something. Like ... "Elon Musk trying not to be racist". And for me that would right now
be to not talk about some of my experiences ... let's just call it 'at work'. I mean, it is ... an environment for special
cases. I have the opportunity to acquire the full benefits of an apprenticeship - though the ordinary way were to work at
some company for the duration of the apprenticeship, with some form of school as to meet the german law and order on that
matter. Official school. By form I mean ... some have school like once a week - but certain professions require folks to
travel quite a distance to the nearest school - and in those cases schools' like ... two weeks - then like 4 weeks back at
work - then 2 weeks school again. And for the time at school they'll travel to the place and stay there in some dormitory.
What qualifies as a "special need" in this case is determined by an agency in cooperation or under advisory of whatever
range of stuff might apply. It's called a BBW for short (Berufsbildungswerk - err ... "Profession-Education-Factory/Facility")
And I'm certainly an outlier. As much I'm being told - concerning more than just one category; While in a sense everyone there
is an outlier in some form. But sure - to say that there are a lot of "Low IQ people" sounds harsher than saying "people with
learning difficulties". Though learning difficulty may here also just be a 'nice' way of saying [...].
And that's the ... bigger ... "secret".
And just to be sure: My position on stupidity is that everyone has it!
No, so ... three categories. How that plays out may first be shown rather easily in regards to language. I mean, to properly
function in a society, one needs to be affluent in the way it speaks. And I'd say that especially in germany that matters -
as - I'd say we tend to wrap a lot of technicalities into the way speak. But that's nuance that's mostly unique to german,
and hence it's difficult for strangers to easily adapt to it. So to accommodate that, we'd simplify our speech. As I think
over time it has become rude, in a way, to keep correcting someone on their grammatical errors. A case should possibly be
made on the language of the media one consumes - but anyway, the point is: Bad in language = simplified speech = "lower IQ".
And yea, that already shows that IQ isn't really a measurements of someone's RAW intelligence. But being unable to communicate
properly will also always be a bit of a ... debuff ... . Speaking of which ... that's another thing I wanted to write about.
Then, as for the other two, well - what is it? Logic and Math? Well, let's say in total there should be five. Whatever the
other two might be. At that point we can then say that ... yea ... if we have a fully diverse and roundabout set of categories,
one single number might be a bit ... vague in expressing someone's abilities. But maybe for the one who's good at all of them.
But for the average - there would be 5 general things that could be implied/infered.
And ontop of it all - we might for instance speak of "the ability to navigate modern society" - and possibly the list of things
to be proficient at or have expertise in. That would be a kind of IQ score that would rely on totally different parameters. Someone
good in logic and math might by happenstance get a higher score than someone that isn't - but both would eat the dust of those
that have the required knowledge to be considered competent.
And sure that's then the "Bullshit IQ" in the sense that it involves 'learned' things. Which sure also applies to 'language' -
but I think we can agree that language is in fact essential.
If we further wanted to test something like 'emotional intelligence' - we'd have the problem of figuring out how to objectively
test for that. But ... that's that for now.
So, a workable concept of intelligence here is ... mental dexterity. The speed and accuracy with which information can be
processed. Though size and strength might also matter. I mean ... to be fair: I've seen people that would at first glance
appear to be as dense as trees. So, here I'd speak of size - relative to 'grasp'. TO say or imply, impose, suppose ... that
concepts have a certain size. Now, a giant so might juggle two basketballs in the palm of their hand - as a visualization of
'grasp'. But if that giant then moved on to throw you two basketballs to do the same ... all your speed and accuracy means
fairly little. And then there's weight or strength. Here ... to add a little spin ... I'd also imply the ability to imply
learned knowledge. I mean, I'm sure I cannot make a lot of accurate assessments on the matter, yet I'm rather certain that
neutron star matter is somewhere on top of the 'heaviest materials' list - if we could call it that. Though perhaps the
gravity of a neutron star plays a factor - so, who knows - but plain mathematically speaking would a 'teaspoon' of 'neutron
star ... soup' be the example I'd go for here to further support the given claim.
And I think it also comes up, by occasion, in movies or when talking of movies. Or plots, stories, what have you. When like
a situation is complex enough for a lot of the nuance to be lost to a simple viewing. So a narrator - like some YouTube
essayist - summing things up, "to move things into perspective" as it's called.
But so, the ways in which size and strength are to be further understood ... isn't tied to the physical counterparts. I mean,
thinking of size, the issue were that it comes with experience, rather than time and nourishment. Although, sure, experience
implies time and nourishment. But that strength eventually comes around a lot quicker - or somewhat unnaturally compared to
the physical counterpart.
As for what value some intelligence score might hold ... well. Inherently nothing. Similar to how some people just don't care
about their weight; And there's nothing wrong with that. It is yet something we can measure - and something that some people
do care a great deal about. For better or worse. And ... at the end of the day ... it is ... related to beauty or attractiveness.
I mean, we might try to settle on some optimal weight - as a beauty standard; Though that's just derived from the fact that
generally speaking, people that are attractive - on average - exist within a certain range of "body mass:body size" - which
technically is density ... ? And I'm not sure how fat plays into that. But supposing that we humans have a similar density -
higher mass then usually comes with higher body size.
Now, as for things that are inherently worth nothing but yet may carry a tremendous amount of value ... we have ourselves a
neat segue into the other topic. And I care about it because one thing that bothers me about "my ideology" is that all the
talk of socialism leaves me with an odd feeling - as though I'm forgetting about something rather important.
But sure enough ... "it is the way".
And yea ... speaking of people as dense as trees ... that's not an IQ thing at all. I think it's first of all a matter of
experience, as it were. Or so, a strong disability to grasp certain things. I mean, in order to be capable of "juggling"
certain concepts logically, ones ability to grasp them is key. Else they might still try, but try to somehow simplify the
matter. And what happens once you cut a basketball into a smaller piece is ... that you can't play Basketball with it
But, well, how to 'grasp' a thing as complex as "the economy"? Well - I don't know! The thing is ... it's not ... the
problem. At least to a socialist who wants to live in their utopic fantasy? Well ... not that simple, but ... sure. Let's
say. I mean, that's literally the thing I'm getting stuck on. This ... potential bit of ignorance.
That however doesn't change the fact that there are certain truisms that exist. On either side, or any side, of the whole.
And my argument regarding the economy effectively boils down to that. That all we can sensibly deal with are truisms -
and that our objective should be to use them ... properly.
I mean, an often recounted (pseudo-) truism is that socialism doesn't work. And yet there are plenty of countries (the majority)
that thrive on some form of socialism. Like ... universal health care, charities, unemployment benefits, sick leave, holidays
- all that hippie dippie lib-shit.
So, that's like ... for simplicites sakes, and in utter ignorance of the nuance and technicalities of it, an example of clashing
truisms. "Facts and Logic" versus "Feelings" - or the other way around. I mean, facts don't mean a lot if you can't place them
in the right context - and in as far as that's a challenge to the intellect, it's also way too easy to get away with nonsense;
Simply by virtue of what truisms people are fixated on.
In that regard, I won't deny that I deal with a lot of truisms when it comes to constructing my ideology. But I'd think that
I'm not insistent on it. What I'm insisting on are ... well, with enough distance one might yet regard them truisms - but those
do be anchored to a kind of moral code, we might say. I guess the scholarly rigor is still out on that.
And ultimately we might say that "it is" built on the foundational belief that we are free to shape the world we live in. To
an extent. Thereby I've abandoned the idea of getting rid of money a long time ago, but I do still play with the idea; As it
is like ... the however distant dream. To that end I've come to think about what I'd now introduce as "the Atlantis Project".
Or "Project Atlantis". Inspired by Atlantis from Stargate (Stargate Atlantis) - although ... maybe not so in a meaningful way.
The idea would be to build a city - "like" Atlantis - so, a City that is at first not conceptualized as a City, but a Hub.
Or so ... a Starship. At first we also wouldn't care much about commerce and industry - only ... that it's supposed to be one
big living space. I mean ... the implied idea is ... to think of it as the capital of anarchy. So, we'd build living spaces,
bedrooms and all that. Whatever. At the end of the day, what which room or space is being used for, would be entirely up to
whoever lived there. Like that, what's it called ... CHAZ thingy that popped up during the BLM riots for a bit. We then might
have to allocate some acres of land to it - with the two sides of the coin being: 1) To make it self-sustaining, or 2) To let
it run on charity. So the first piece of infrastructure would be one major supply lane - to move stuff in, as into distribution
centers, and let the rest play out from there. And maybe more will come out than just waste.
My idea would be that what we could expect coming out is relative to what we're willing to put in. If we say ... made it as
high tech as possible - also in regards to media - it might be a hub for artistry or experimentation in regards to lifestyles,
living solutions and concepts - and all that. So, a different kind of good that would only emerge with a certain internet-like
infrastructure in place. Effectively the city would need a core crew of sorts, certain departments like technicians to keep
the place running - and if it runs well enough we'd have some kind of comprehensive "expedition leadership". At which point
this were some real life Dwarf Fortress.
But sure, eventually all that is yet just a pipe dream. One that would only really start to make sense after a few successful,
smaller expeditions. And what matters is that all of that would happen while we're pretty much still ... stuck ... in our
old ways. Unless we'd be forced into it. I mean, that's a thing looming on the horizon.
Anyhow ... I don't want to argue for or against it. I mean, I do want to argue for it - but ... not ... right now.
Or so ...
It's a marker. A painting. An inspiration. An idea ... background ... decoration ... whatever.
More to the point, the argument to be made here is at first about how "capitalism", or the usage of money, isn't at odds with
socialism. Or socialist values. The question is for us to figure out, how to progress as a species or a world-civilization,
into a less doomery future. And yes, that sure requires faith next to other virtues. And if you can't find the appeal I don't
see how you could call yourself a Christian. Which reminds me ... that I also wanted to write about how we might live in a
I mean ... yea ... "duh". But paranoia is so rampant, it is like ... everywhere. And ... well ... I'd say that the less paranoid
a society is, the more free, developed, positive, civilized, healthy, happy and such ... it is. I mean, the US-American paranoia
against "Free Hand Outs" is a prime example for this. Now, I don't want to ... for now ... paint the USA as some kind of big bad
guy. I'm sure they're doing a lot - or at least there are a lot of good people that also want to do good and at occasion manage
to do so in excess of the routine - but systemically it's a mess nonetheless.
But so ... the matter with 'Free Hand Outs' eventually also goes beyond being a mere truism. I mean, the more we can sustain ourselves
on less and less labor, the more we implicitly produce supposed-to-be-free handouts. It's an existential truism - or more to the point:
A frozen reality; To the point that it should pretty much be the goal of industry. And here's a question: How come that being anxious
of 'scams' (or getting 'ripped off') is like ... embedded into our cultures? I mean - bait and switches, predetermined breaking points,
bullshit jobs ... like what ... in the unholy fuck are we doing? I mean, if I want to buy something out of the ordinary yet necessary
or quality-of-life-improving, what are the odds that I'll buy a sub-par product? A.k.a.: Getting ripped off, paying too much for
something that shouldn't be worth as much if anything. I mean, there's the saying that it's expensive to be poor. That because you can
ever only afford so much you're stuck with cheap products that don't last as long as the more expensive stuff and thus you end up
paying more in the long term. What ... why?
Well - a sensible answer: Cheap is cheap for a reason - and sometimes something is better than nothing. But what I'm getting at goes
beyond that. It's that ... all these businesses that are involved in the manifacturing and distribution have to ... sustain themselves
somehow. And thus, as a function of capitalism, they are incentivized to cut corners. Or sell product. That's how salesperson is a
very common profession. A problem there is with products that one doesn't have to buy constantly. So, a Kitchen for instance - that's
something not every person will buy even once in their lifetime - and so the business isn't really there; Outside of the basic need
for it. And respectively ... kitchens will be expensive. Which is however just a convoluted way of bringing product from an appliances
manifacturer to some end user.
Sigh ... uhm, I digress ...
I mean - an electric induction stove with oven ... versus a bit of wood to make up the kitchen's body ... what's more expensive?
The latter by at least 100%.
And so, this is a first step towards understanding 'the price of money'. Although ... it's a certain kind of money. Or rather - its
ways. I mean, money as a free market currency in the frame of late-stage capitalism, is - for here at least - a different kind of
money as the one in a regulated market currency in the frame of civil evolution or how to call it.
The thing is that if you say ... "let money be free" ... you're not merely asking people to gamble with it - you're paying them to
rob you blind.
So ... one saying goes as "money is made up" - and more to the point is the value of the things we use it for made up. That value is
made up by greed, or so the leverage that the involved parties hold to make demands. Then sure there's stuff like desire. Desire
fuels demand - but that further feeds into what leverage which party holds. I mean, say you live in a country that is economically
strong but coffee doesn't grow in it, but yet 60+% are addicted to it. That desire then becomes what we might call a 'business
opportunity' - encouraging 'capitalists' to sell it with as big a profit margin as possible. So, if on the other hand people have
a basic yet somewhat unmet need for say ... water (and I suppose that's something that can be manifactured) ... and in their
locality coffee grows rather well ... you might demand them to give you an ungodly amount of coffee for ... just enough to make it
worth their time, but not enough to grow past that need.
And sure - in a capitalistic frame - that's perfectly reasonable. Because ... if you were to allow them to grow beyond it, the cost
of labor would rise, the coffee would get more expensive and if we may assume that this inevitably leads to bullshit products; We'd
get coffee that's not worth being brewed.
I mean, I suppose, that capitalism suffers the intrinsic flaw of detrimental bloat. Like so ... there are systems that people got
to rely on for decades - that ultimately depend on growth to function. So, to allow those systems to be considered legit or viable -
we imply infinite growth everywhere to be ... a reasonable expectation. But that's not how finality works.
Totally unrelated I had a thought once. For this, we imagine a distant future in which we'd build our first fleet of interstellar
vessels. Unless you want to think that we have them already. Then suspect that we don't. Or ... whatever. So, earth contains a set
amount of resources. Some of which are somewhat regenerative, others are finite. So, to build a Starship, we'd also need a set
amount of resources. And in something that is as complex as that it requires more than one ingredient, there's always going to be
a bottleneck resource. The one that's least available. And while we don't know what we'd need for a Starship - it doesn't matter
how much we have of all the things ... if one critical ingredient is scarce. Even if not much is needed. And ... so ... at any
rate does the Planet earth contain a finite amount of Starships. And the more of it that we waste on turning into waste ... the less
nifty Starships we'll have as part of that fleet. Now, we can't foresee what we'll need to build a Starship or how many Starships
we'll realistically need - but ... yea. I mean ... crude oil ... what's ... the status?
Cobalt? Lithium? The idea is that the more sensibly we invest our resources, the more we'll have in times of need. That's in the
Bible. And should be on every conservative's mind.
What insidious insanity may come ontop of that is, that resources we're effectively wasting can be sold to us as necessities. And
sure ... we might include fuel on that list, but so ... it's not a simple black and white issue. But, having a Smart Phone and
total Wireless Internet coverage is effectively an essential good these days ... . I don't want to imply that it's bad - but once
Smartphones last ... only so long while requiring finite resources to be produced ... while they could last a whole lot longer ...
we need not be surprised of Gaia's wrath!
And sure ... also: Wealth is a neat buffer for all sorts of perils. Which is the whole ... 'getting robbed blind' part. It's like ...
we pay them to feel secure while ripping us off. At the very least.
Instead we could like ... try to negotiate the value of everything. I mean, requiring more people that also need more money each ...
to yield the same amount of ... coffee let's say ... seems stupid and maybe even impossible. Something something inflation also.
But maybe ... we're just not dumb enough to see things clearly. By which I mean, maybe we're overcomplicating the calculations.
I mean ... who even might present an accurate calculation in the first place?
What if we simply had two items per item? Supply and Demand. How much Bullshit do we have, versus a reasonable Demand for it? I mean,
if we wouldn't produce Bullshit, the overall demand for certain things might go up - but if we were forced to thereby think more
economically, the overall quality would go up as well - while also reducing the amount of waste produced. I mean, when it comes to
necessities ... like food, water, health care, clothing, shelter ... the only real question is whether or not there is enough for
everyone. If so, ... we could hand it out for free. Else we'd have to ration if it's a resource problem - which comes with complications
for sure - or allocate labor if possible - if it's a production problem.