Rich, powerful men often acquire High Maintenance Mistresses, who are always threatening to commit suicide unless their boyfriends divorce their wives immediately and marry them, only to eventually be placated for the time being with diamond tennis bracelets. That can really chew up a lot of time.
Others, such as Mark Zuckerberg, prefer a Low Maintenance Girlfriend or Wife who will afford them the concentration to put in 16 hour days at the office.
You have to give Arnold Schwarzenegger some credit for creativity in pioneering the concept of the Negative Maintenance Mistress. Sure, she might not be much in the looks department, but she not only didn't expect to become the second Mrs. S., but she kept the living room spotless. A no drama mama, ideal for a busy superstar.
Actually, I think Stalin beat Arnold to this concept. As far as historians can tell, after his second wife committed suicide, Stalin, a busy man with a Great Terror and a World War to run, simply slept with his housekeeper.
Posts
64 comments:
The man of iron settle for a woman who ironed his pants.
I think banging the housemaid is the oldest hobby. Remember all those stories set in the 19th century where some urban bourgeois family hires a simple-minded maid from the backcountry, and the father bangs her or the son falls in love with her, etc, etc.
There was such a maid in FANNY AND ALEXANDER. I think also in FORSYTE SAGA.
"As far as historians can tell, after his second wife committed suicide, Stalin, a busy man with a Great Terror and a World War to run, simply slept with his housekeeper."
I'd stick with the Roomba if I were you, Sailer. You seem like the kinda guy who would end up with the high maintenance housekeeper who didn't want to work anymore.
There's a movie called TOO BEAUTIFUL FOR YOU where Gerald Depardieu is married to the incredibly beautiful Caroline Bouquet but then sleeps around with a much less attractive woman. Why? I forgot as I saw it long ago(and didn't much care for it). But maybe there's something more human and earthy about a regular-looking person, and maybe Arnold needed some of that. Maria, the Kennedy princess, with the make-up, jewelry, fancy dress, elite friends, haute manners, and etc was more a trophy than a real person. He prolly loved her but didn't really feel close to her on the level of simple basic humanity. It's like we like fancy food and classical music, but sometimes we just want a burger and listen to some folk/pop/country tune.
Arnold just had a hankering for some enchiladas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAk8ZeThSkc
And in the French film THE APARTMENT, the guy chooses the other woman over Monica Belluci. Imagine that. But emotionally plausible.
Arnold's favorite body part is "the ass".
"Young Arnold Schwarzenegger in Brazil"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uerFZ2Z42nc
this case will certainly interest you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/sports/baseball/discrimination-case-may-pose-problem-for-bud-selig.html
The report cited an accusation that Crane told his managers not to hire blacks because “once you hire blacks, you can never fire them.” Witnesses said Crane did not permit Eagle to advertise job openings because he did not want to build up files of applications by qualified minority job-seekers.
So, 'Maid in America' replaced 'Made in America'. The IMF dude. Arnold. Who's next? Keep it up, guys.
What about Ahnold's IQ again? How stupid does a politician have to be to risk getting his mistress pregnant?
I wish you'd go more into the psychological implications of such stupidity/arrogance. You'd have to be a master manipulator to think you could keep another person and her family under control. I'd also expect that the relationship was ongoing which is why Shriver isn't forgiving it.
This allowed the Sperminator to get the kind of sex his wife wasn't into with the minimal chance of exposure. How premeditated was the relationship? Who hired the maid; who recommended her? Methinks Arnold chose a lesser evil once he realized he couldn't control his philandering ways.
It's one thing for a guy to cheat on you with a stranger but for him to carry on an affair right under your nose is unconscionable. Ugh! You have to wonder too how much of the thrill was the danger caused by the proximity of wife and mistress.
The more I think I about it, the less I like this guy. He's a political gold digger who married a member of the Kennedy family to give momentum to his career. He's a crass jerk who prefers big boobed bimbos for sex and found a way to have it both ways.
I'm also curious about how Maria found out about the relationship. Was Arnold ready to move on because he no longer needed the political clout? What a jerk! What a user!
I hope he finds out just what a has been he is when he tries to make movies again.
TMZ claims thios picture">this picture of Arnie and Baena is from ca. 17 years ago, 3 years prior to the birth of their "love child." She doesn't look that great even back then.
If you're married and discover you're spouse is cheating on you, would you rather it be with someone extremely attractive, or with someone who looks like Baena? To me the fact that Arnold slept with Baena indicates that he'd pretty much sleep with anyone. It tells you that your spouse has pretty low standards.
And if Arnold's groping all of those women without their consent, what is he willing to do with their consent?
The TMZ picture is here. Sorry.
better be careful with that Steve, you're going to piss off the JeZebel crowd.
Has anyone considered that Arnold wanted to have a half-Latino kid to groom him for a run for president after President George P. Bush's second term?
"What about Ahnold's IQ again?"
Arnold has a tested IQ of 135 on the Stanford-Binet scale(sd=16, 99%), obtained on the Eysenck Test.
And can you guys give it a rest with this IQ bullshit? As Stephen Hawkins said, bragging about IQ is one of the favorite sports of morons. Or as Grigori Perelman, winner of the Fields Medal in mathematics for the resolution of Poincaré's Conjecture defined IQ tests:
"Questions of rote memory, applied knowledge, simple verbal analogies, linear inference and deductive logic on a very primary level."
IQ tests measure your ability to retain data and to use it to solve academic-style problems and also knowledge. It does not measure intelligence. What about creativity, cunning, and the ability to use logic non-linerarly and to use reverse psychology? IQ tests just measure your ability to profit from being fed data. That's all. There are many high IQ people who are barely functional and are easily duped and manupulated. William James Sidis and Bobby Fischer had incredible IQ scores and were barely functional in Human Society. Out of Hollingworth's study of extremely gifted children with IQs above 180, not ONE grew up to have a single innovative idea or produce anything akin to genius. Feynman had IQ score of 123 and went on to win a Nobel Prize in physics. Cricket, who discovered the DNA helix, was even lower than this at 117! Marilyn Mach Vos Savant is IQ 180+ and yet she has difficulties grasping Einstein's theory of Relativity. She actually said that objects acquiring mass as they accelerate and time slowing down is "highly confusing and illogical" and that she finds this kind of abstraction highly difficult for her. IQ: a silly test for people who like to brag about being better than others with no ACTUAL intellectual achievement. It is a status symbol, like having a Lamborghini or Park Avenue apartment. Americans love this garbage and are obsessed with it. The result of a consumerist capitalist society with a strict pecking order based on material achievement. So sad.
Neil Young on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xchoR5upVwo
People are pretty familiar with the madonna/whore set of feelings many guys have. I've alway suspected that there's a related or similar set of feelings that's also common. Don't have a groovy name for it, but here's how it goes: the women you aspire to or admire vs. the women you feel comfy with. Women who are beautiful, or perfect, or who have a lot of social status ... It can be nerve-wracking to pursue and land them, and by the time you do you might well have no energy left. You might, in fact, seek relief, but not with them, because they're the ones who've caused the exhaustion. Women you can be comfy with are the answer. If you've got a nice vibe with a gal, and no plans for her, and she doesn't represent any particular kind of ideal that you're driven towards ... Well, you can let go of a lot of drama and be yourself. Which includes feeling comfy about enjoying sex in a non-stressful way.
She looks a little like a poor man's (Mexican pr0nstar) Kitten Natividad, especially in the photo from 17 years ago. If you know about Kitten, she had two notable assets that appealed to males like Russ Meyer. (Actually hard to find SFW photos to link to.)
The most notable item in the whole story to me is the fact that Maria (!) was the one who insisted on separate bank accounts. "No, don't throw me into that briar patch!"
"Ugh! You have to wonder too how much of the thrill was the danger caused by the proximity of wife and mistress."
Gordon Ramsay, Brit chef extraordinaire, has a very beautiful wife and a number of much loved and hard-to-breed children (fertility treatments were necessary) and then went on an affair with a well known predator...forgivable but what appalled me (because I'd thought GR was basically kind at heart) was that he enjoyed talking to his wife on the phone while the affair-woman was actively there. He really got off on betraying her mentally and emotionally. Wife seems a go-along type. The poor lady reluctantly went with Gordon to witness the slaughter of their pet sheep and pigs -- it was something Gordon thought they ought to do -- and looked traumatized, speechless and dead pale afterwards. I don't think I've seen a "reality" show where I felt more genuinely sorry for anyone. Gordon didn't look too happy either, but it was business, and he went on to create some tasty dishes out of his sheep and pigs, all of whom he had named and played with. I guess that should have told her something.
I think they are still together, but then the wife's dad was a serious business player with Ramsay.
As far as Maria and Arnold, I am surprised how gorgeous their kids are. Both of them have sort of "strong" jaws, yet the kids have pretty regular features. Genes are such a crap shoot.
Another possibility is that Schwarzenegger just grew up, as men do, and having played the field, realized that beauty's skin-deep but cooking's forever.
Sailerite new coinage "Negative Maintenance Mistress".
Is this a case where immigrant labor is actually doing the jobs American Mistresses won't do at any salary level?
A shorter word for "negative maintenance mistress" is "wife". In fact the mistress was doing what a wife should do, while Maria Shriver was basically a dynastic ambassador from Scheisenesser to the Royal Family. A time-honored arrangement among the Crowned Heads.
Sleeping with housemaid helps one get close to proletariat.
Rumors going way back to Arnold's early days as a bodybuilder trying to support himself and advance in that field were that he hustled well to do gays for money and favors. Yup, sold himself.
Those stories predate the politics and movies phase.
Also, he was able to succeed as a bodybuilder with the help of steroids, administered by a doctor, starting in his teens in his home country.
He's been something of a hustler and cheater going back to his youth but clearly had a drive to gain prestige and money.
This sheds a little more light on Arnold's 2006 comment about hot latins.
I mean Cuban, Puerto-Rican, they are all very hot. They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it.
I'm sure Maria is a complete ice princess among whites in general not to mention compared to latinas. Marrying Maria was a good political and genetic mating choice for the Sperminator, but probably not so much fun. No doubt, variety is also the spice of life for a guy like Arnold.
Some of the whackest whites I've met have been teutonics who toally reject their native button-up culture. Arnold seems like one of these as he goes native in Brazil
People were disappointed that Arnold's latin mistress was not a hottie. No doubt Maria, aware of Arnold's horn dog nature, staffed the house with women she thought even Arnold wouldn't stoop to diddling.
The maid was probably the most accessible and discreet access to the strange someone as high-profile like Arnold could tap. It's not surprising at all to anyone who knows human nature and this common historical narrative.
Apparently, recent DNA tests of dozens of Hitlers surviving relatives show a distinctly Jewish genetic marker. The story is der Fuhrer's paternal grandmother was a maid for a wealthy Jewish family, the Frankenburgers. She had an illegitimate son of unknown origins who became Hitler's despised father.
Hitler was purportedly blackmailed over this by a family member. Maybe that's why he had no interest in marriage or children despite the Nazi party line that strongly emphasized both.
To me the fact that Arnold slept with Baena indicates that he'd pretty much sleep with anyone. It tells you that your spouse has pretty low standards.
Not necessarily. If TMZ is to be believed, she cooked and cleaned his home and they had sex together in his bed, you know, liked a married couple. The real monstrosity is Maria Shriver, who was honored with the Shinnyo-en Foundation’s 2009 Pathfinders to Peace Award. Yuck! I don't blame Arnold (or Mark Sanford); White American women have become simply unbearable.
"I wish you'd go more into the psychological implications of such stupidity/arrogance. "
The explanation I keep hearing is that a man can't help it if he gets a hard-on. But you really don't have to be a female-who-feels-threatened to wonder why someone would take these risks with his career. Anyone? Is it really just lack of control?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8522763/Maria-Shriver-hires-leading-divorce-lawyer.html
is that piece of ass worth wrecking your career..oh i forgot this post baby boom generation america - it will enhance it.
The most important lesson to be learned from this(for those who don't already know): That no matter the circumstance, poor Mexican women almost never use birth control.
Poor Arnold had to find out the hard way.
"I mean, they are all very hot. … They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it," he says.. -Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
And he knows from personal experience.
Great googly moogly, that's one ugly mestiza troll.
How could you, Arnold?!
I find it a greater crime that he miscegenated with that hideous creature than the infidelity itself.
That's like holding up a bank and just getting five bucks. Epic fail.
I guess when a cyborg gets horny, every bipedal, carbon-based life form looks pretty much the same.
The maid's not much in the looks department, but she seems like she would be a lot more fun than Maria Shriver. If I were in bed with Shriver I'd sleep with one eye open. She looks like she might throw you into a pot and start chanting at any moment.
Dont wsaste any sympathy on Maria Shriver.
because he was so high profile, she was probably the only woman he could get away with having regular sex with. i'm guessing she was his escape hatch from his ice cold feminist wife and the daily paparazzi attention and cameras that followed him around always.
she was frumpy and fat, but she was also always around, they could be alone in the house together, she would do anything sexual thing he wanted that his frigid aging wife wouldn't, and like steve said, she would keep it quiet and she had no designs on becoming a part of the arnold empire.
the only thing that didn't make sense is that he would ever risk having unprotected sex with her, considering his assets are about half a billion. but mexican women are good at something - they're good at getting pregnant. this is something i always had to be extra careful about when i dated mexican gals.
i guess you could say "But if this was his plan for regular sex then why didn't he hire a better looking staff member?" but that would be suspicious right? we look at this troll he was banging and we're like "Arnold, WTF are you serious?" yet he legitimately kept it all secret for 13 years. that's a long time to keep such a thing secret for such a high profile person.
Stalinegger.
One of his sons, Patrick, has now changed his last name to Shriver.
What this kind of thing does to the kids can't be appreciated unless you're in their shoes. My husband has been going through a very similar thing this past year, but with his mom. You not only hurt for the wronged parent and yourself, but you know that people will wonder about you; you take a huge hit in status.
There are questions like, "Does the kid harbor those low-class proclivities?" and "Given the parent, what awfulness did he inherit?" It's unsaid, of course, but it is natural to wonder and to be expected.
Sleeping around is one thing, but didn't all these guys ever hear of CONDOMS?
"I find it a greater crime that he miscegenated with that hideous creature than the infidelity itself."
Take heart.
I get the impression that Arnold's more high EQ than high IQ so it's no great loss. What's funny to me is imagining what his inner thoughts were while carrying out this deception. "I luv Mahria but I luv big tits too. If I leave Mahria my pol-i-ti-cahl cahreer will go down the drain. But I luv big tits ahnd Mahria's fahmily name. What, oh, what should I do?"
Anyway, it's obvious ol' Arnold chose Maria as a trophy wife and that Maria should've gone for a man with substance and/or IQ rather than a movie star with a great body.
BTW, I think it's the Shriver DNA that's been diluted by the mating with Arnold, not that that family was known for producing Rhodes scholars.
"IQ tests measure your ability to retain data and to use it to solve academic-style problems and also knowledge. It does not measure intelligence"
All your accusations have been addressed by those who study IQ. But every time I hear this argument I just can't get past the fact that whatever IQ predicts, it is the SINGLE strongest predictor for most life outcomes, from education, to whether you stay off welfare, breed irresponsibly (well,not if you're the Terminator), behave in civic society, succeed in your career, or in just about anything that requires any degree of prefrontal brain activity. Or as Poirot would put it, the little gray cells.
Whatever IQ measures--and your anecdotes about Einsteins who can't tie their shoes are just that, comforting anecdotes--it does predict where the pieces (us all) end up when you shake them out of the box. And whatever criticisms may be leveled justifiably at the current state of affairs in this country, there has never been a more accommodating culture for achieving whatever your native ability is capable.
"One of his sons, Patrick, has now changed his last name to Shriver."
Can he do that yet legally? He's only 13. Really sad.
I saw Arnold with his sons and they looked very bonded, other, genuinely happy and proud of each other. I never thought I'd be yammering about the "old days" but at one time, you didn't want to look like an irresponsible...schmuck...in front of your kids. You had some sense of shame. I guess, though, he does seem sort of ashamed. Wonder how long that will last.
Why assume Maria didnt know about most or all that was going on, and just keep quiet like a good political wife as long as it made sense to?
"All your accusations have been addressed by those who study IQ. But every time I hear this argument I just can't get past the fact that whatever IQ predicts, it is the SINGLE strongest predictor for most life outcomes, from education, to whether you stay off welfare, breed irresponsibly (well,not if you're the Terminator), behave in civic society, succeed in your career, or in just about anything that requires any degree of prefrontal brain activity. Or as Poirot would put it, the little gray cells.
Whatever IQ measures--and your anecdotes about Einsteins who can't tie their shoes are just that, comforting anecdotes--it does predict where the pieces (us all) end up when you shake them out of the box. And whatever criticisms may be leveled justifiably at the current state of affairs in this country, there has never been a more accommodating culture for achieving whatever your native ability is capable."
That is due to academic bureaucracy, and the doors that it opens to those who are capable of getting good scores in academic tests and not due to IQ predicting intelligence. To earn money you need a degree from a good university to open doors to you, and you won't get into a good university if you don't get good SAT score, which is very similar to an IQ test. If you do well on IQ tests, you get all the opportunities that are denied to those with low IQ, hence you do well in life. If you fail them, you are denied the opportunities which means you fail. So IQ correlates with wealth because the system is wired to open the doors of wealth and success to those who do well on IQ tests, and not because IQ indicates ability. Andy Warhol had IQ score 85 and was one of the most insightful artistic geniuses of the 20th Century. Cricket had IQ score 117 and made a huge scientific discovery. Feyman had IQ score 123 and won a Nobel in physics whilst a lot of "geniuses" with IQ score 160 never discovered/invented/created anything of worth in their lives. Out of the hundreds of children with IQ score 180+ studied by Hollingworth, not ONE grew up to become a genius even though the system was rigged in their favor due to their high IQ scores. Riddle me that? IQ does not measure creativity, cunning, empathy and common sense. These are all attributes associated with intelligence. Hannibal Barca or Genghis Khan would probably flunk any IQ test and they were geniuses in their own right. Being a successful lawyer has a lot more to do with common sense than IQ, and being a good politician has a lot more to do with the ability to empathize and to express yourself than IQ. These are all attributes of intelligence. Painting the Mona Lisa or sculpting the David has a lot more to do with imagination and motor skills than what is measured by an IQ test. These are also attributes of intelligence. Even ability in mathematics, which they say correlates with IQ, is not as important as having a vivid imagination, which is not measured by IQ tests. Lots of mathematicians have schizoid tendencies which make them very creative, and this has a lot more to do with their achievements than IQ. IQ: the ability to memorize academic data and use it to solve academic-style problems.
"How smart is Arnold"...
Isn't the real test of intelligence life itself rather then an IQ test? Measured this way Arnold is very smart. He was born into a primitive environment in Austria right after WW2. He became a hugely successful bodybuilder, a major movie star, (if not a great actor) and has made hundreds of millions of dollars. He then became the governor of the most populous state. He is world famous, a one-word person. To his schoolmates he grew up with he must seem almost superhuman. On the other hand, I am amazed he would ruin his marriage, lose the respect of his family and millions of fans for THAT woman. At least you would expect him to use birth control. So who knows...
Anon:
No, IQ also correlates with better life outcomes even when you look only at people of the same race and educational level. The Bell Curve did a lot of its analysis looking at whites with exactly a high school degree, where it turns out knowing your IQ helps predict whether you'll end up in jail, divorced, unemployed, or on public assistance, among other things. Other literature shows a correlation between IQ and all kinds of job performance, even stuff you wouldn't think intelligence would matter much for.
That doesn't mean IQ captures all (or even most) of what we normally mean by "intelligence." And it also doesn't mean that intelligence is the only thing that matters for that stuff--most people who aren't very bright aren't criminals, for example. And lazy or unimaginative or crazy people probably won't make much use of whatever mental gifts they have.
A picture of Valentina Istomina, Stalin's housekeeper with benefits.
"Apparently, recent DNA tests of dozens of Hitlers surviving relatives show a distinctly Jewish genetic marker. The story is der Fuhrer's paternal grandmother was a maid for a wealthy Jewish family, the Frankenburgers. She had an illegitimate son of unknown origins who became Hitler's despised father.
Hitler was purportedly blackmailed over this by a family member. Maybe that's why he had no interest in marriage or children despite the Nazi party line that strongly emphasized both."
You are mixing up two differnt things. The DNA of the surviving Hitler/Hiedler distant cousins shows that they are related to Adolf, and they clearly weren't descended from Hitler's father, so that shoots down the Frankenberger story entirely. The Hitler DNA does show some ancient ties to North Africa and the Middle East, but that is true for lots of people in that part of Europe.
"BTW, I think it's the Shriver DNA that's been diluted by the mating with Arnold, not that that family was known for producing Rhodes scholars."
The Shrivers are actually a quite successful German Maryland (originally Schreiber) family from pre-Revolutionary days.
"How smart is Arnold"...
Given that most muscleheads never had much of a career, he is at least the smartest among the muscleheads. He also has a personality, something missing in most muscle guys.
Arnold in PUMPING IRON is almost like Mick Jagger on steroids. You can tell he's a natural star.
Good thing Mick Jagger didn't go into politics. Arnold should have stuck to his wild playboy image.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMjG2s6UOaw
That's funny.
Arnold succeeded in Hollywood cuz he had both Teutonic looks/power and an almost Jewishy sense of humor. He was bear and fox. It's too bad his later movies emphasized only the big tough guy image.
"Why assume Maria didnt know about most or all that was going on, and just keep quiet like a good political wife as long as it made sense to?"
1. because she's white
2. because she could've done way better in a mate
3. because having 4 (not just 1 or 2) children with a guy who isn't necessarily someone's 1st choice for sperm donor if they want designer children suggests love was the motive for the marriage
4. see #1, love doesn't include sharing your mate with another woman
happen in high schools, once known for their demanding tech courses, forced to accept more NAMS. Of course when you close one door, other open, so people find some way around this.
Relative to other cultures and previous times in history, we have unprecedented opportunities. It is possible for anyone to go to college if you have the ability. I went and I was poor and nobody gave a damn about me. But there were free libraries, free public education through HS, and you could work your way through school if necessary. Nowadays, it's even more accessible--so many courses are online from reputable universities; books can be got from Amazon for almost nothing. There are still libraries.
As far as IQ predicting for those of the same race and SES group, it predicts for modern, western society, but that is where the demands of most countries are leading anyway. Goat herders and subsistence farmers are becoming less common.
Persons studying IQ have noted that definitions of "intelligence" do not differ among cultures to any great extent. The "different ways of knowing" are liberal fantasies. yes, some cultures do place more emphsis on dreams and visions, but they still need to know the shortest point from A to B if they want to pass an engineering course.
Even the most primitive culture have some activity requiring planning, logic, numerical and analytical reasoning, within the parameters of their own needs and desires. Researchers found that Bushmen judge other Bushmen as having more or less intelligence for the same reasons a westerner among them would judge.
Of course race has an influence. It was reported in the MSM that black women, controlling for IQ, actually make more money than white women in the U.S.; The mystery here is that with Affirmative Action required, high IQ blacks (fairly rare) are in demand, and any employers needing to fill a quota will snap them up and high demand for rare entities rewards with higher salary. In a total meritocracy there would be little difference in racial achievement--controlling for IQ. Before AA, during the 1950s, 1% of Harvard students were black. That was already high (controlling for IQ) and even in the 50s there was some effort being put into recruiting blacks. Liberalism was scratching its collective head over "underrepresentation" of blacks in universities long before the 60s. It was, however, about right for the number of blacks applying there who would actually have IQs and qualifications comparable to the white Ivy League AVERAGE (spare me the legacy-anecdotes; if they had ever formed a significant percentage of the ILs, the ILs would never have gotten any sort of intellectual rep.)
Eventually we will be able to do brain scans much more comprehensive than those now done, and determine the intellectual capacity. We already know that persons with underdeveloped pre-frontal lobes are not able to plan or organize much for the future. And of course we all know that there are elements of personality that are integral. However, no matter how much a person tries, they are limited by their innate capacity. There is nothing wrong or evil about acknowledging this. Few of us are geniuses or want to be. I have concerns about how most people with low IQs overbreed and most with high IQs underbreed. Until recently this didn't matter because high child mortality ensured it would average out. Now, most kids survive long enough to breed more kids. How often do we read of some ghastly child abuser or criminal, or welfare recipient with 10 children. (This can be of any race.)
"because he was so high profile, she was probably the only woman he could get away with having regular sex with. i'm guessing she was his escape hatch from his ice cold feminist wife and the daily paparazzi attention and cameras that followed him around always."
Maria Shriver is not "cold." At least she wasn't--don't know her now. When young, she fairly quivered with vibrancy; bubbled over with fun and games. I only had a passing acquaintance with her, but a friend knew her family fairly well. What she was, was sort of spoiled and not too self-examining. As a young girl she would drop in on her dad (a very nice but not too bright lawyer) and seemed about ready to have a tantrum if she didn't get an immediate audience. Being the only girl in a family of 5 kids, she competed with guys--but that was what family did. Her mom had always been considered the most intelligent member of her family. Joseph P.'s famous comment about Eunice was "if she had balls she would have been president" or something to that effect. Well--what sort of comment would you expect from that man? Politics was sex to him, apparently.
Anyway, she was competitive but certainly not anti-male. All Kennedys were male oriented, or at least seemed to be because of their focus points of interest. A woman is not a "feminist" because she wants to make her mark in the world and ply her talents. OK, she didn't have a lot of talents, but neither do a lot of men, and they do what they do anyway.
Nevertheless, I got to like and admire her after she wrote that book for kids about death. Very sensitive and heartfelt.
She could be an annoying putz though.
Rebuttal To the Anon Anti-IQ Flat Earth Creationist.
Preface: It would be great if we could just let this noble lie be, but the fierce reality-denying attacks on HBD in the public sphere is creating havoc in our society and culture.
1. That is due to academic bureaucracy, and the doors that it opens to those who are capable of getting good scores in academic tests and not due to IQ predicting intelligence.
Why have high IQ countries and dirt poor individual immigrants to the US from these same countries done exceptionally well historically and especially in our modern tech info age? Conversely, why have low IQ countries and individual immigrants done so poorly?
Our current univerisity system did not create this disparity, but it magnify underlying IQ differences (much more so without affirmative action).
Our civilization is more through and effiecient is searching, identifying, promoting and rewarding the most talented in any competitive endeavor be it sports or academics. The more competitive, the greater the difference at the tails between two different populations.
So IQ correlates with wealth because the system is wired to open the doors of wealth and success to those who do well on IQ tests, and not because IQ indicates ability.
Disproven by centuries of the hugely disproportionate success of dirtpoor non-English high-IQ immigrants from Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Korea, China, Japan, India, etc. Conversely disproven by centuries of consistent underperformance of low-IQ groups.
Also disproven by centuries of trade throughout the world where the middle men/traders were generally higher IQ groups, Parsi, Jews, Chinese, etc. Even today in Africa and Latin America most of the successful at all levels are Euros, Indians and Arabs dominate (eg a Harvard degree is worthless as a local tea trader in Kinsasha or coffee grower in S.Amer).
Andy Warhol had IQ score 85 and was one of the most insightful artistic geniuses of the 20th Century.
Yes, great artists, musicians and athletes can be very dim. Their crafts are often not very IQ intensive.
Crick(et) had IQ score 117... Feyman had IQ score 123
Never reliabily documented. Could be the excepetion that proves the rule in the case of Crick, but extremely unlikely with Feyman. More likely explainations: (1) false modesty, (2) shrewed image manipulation, (3)blew off the test for fun - esp for Feyman.
(part 2)
a lot of "geniuses" with IQ score 160 never discovered/invented/created anything of worth in their lives. Out of the hundreds of children with IQ score 180+ studied by Hollingworth, not ONE grew up to become a genius
First off, Hollingworth only studied 12 children in her seminal Children Above 180 IQ research. Researchers lost track of 5 of the 12 kids after 7-11yr of age. 2 of the 12 kids died in their early 20s. It's odd you know of a little known study yet grossly misquoted the basic stats involved.
Of the 5 remaining kids, they generally did exceptionally well academically (graduating top universities many years early and with advanced degrees) and entered intellectual fields like research chemist, mathemetician, and doctor. No one seems to know what these kids went on to accomplish after about 30 years of age.
Several other issues with the study. The sample size of 5 surviving kids is very small. There was no long term follow-up of the kids beyond their 20s it seem. IQ tests are notoriously unreliable for young kids and 10yo was the oldest age at which IQ was tested for these kids. The kids were born 1908-1927 so their Flynn effect adjusted 180 IQ would be about (7.5 decades * -3 pts/dec = -22.5) or 158.5.
measure creativity, cunning, empathy and common sense. These are all attributes associated with intelligence
Cite? Not sure these traits are more or less correlated with general intelligence g than atheletic ability or height. Would be open to any research data.
Hannibal Barca or Genghis Khan would probably flunk any IQ test and they were geniuses in their own right
Yes, and Michael Vick is a genius in his domain too - it just has nothing to do with general intelligence g.
Being a successful lawyer has a lot more to do with common sense... Politicians
This is an invidious distinction. I'd rather hire a lawyer with common sense AND a high general intelligence. All things equal, I'd rather have a smart pol who shares my views and a dumb pol who doesn't share my views in office.
IQ: the ability to memorize academic data and use it to solve academic-style problems
You misuse the term "Memorize" here in that a high general intelligence allows one to solve new and novel problems in elegant and efficient ways most others can't. It's like saying athleticism is simly memorizing physical skills used to solve sport-type challenges.
"Yes, great artists, musicians and athletes can be very dim. Their crafts are often not very IQ intensive."
Artists and musicians are not dim. Can you imagine a "dim" Bach or Mozart? Or even a dim Rogers and Hammerstein? A dim Michaelangelo? What kind of artists are you talking about? Andy Warhol? Something wrong with that man, but claiming him for the low IQ crowd is not flattering them. Were all those soup can posters even his idea? Yeah--actually it does sound like something a retard would come up with.
dcite said...
Artists and musicians are not dim. Can you imagine a "dim" Bach or Mozart?
I was thinking of our current crop of decadant Western "artists" who think craping on a canvas or putting various objects up their anus is art.
I stand corrected on over-generalizing the dispiriting trend in the artworld.
"Preface: It would be great..."
Where have I denied that IQ tests measure something that is real? I haven't. All I am saying is that IQ is not intelligence, but a very specific type of rote learning ability and the ability to apply data to solving a very specific kind of problem that involves applying learned data.IQ tests measure a very specific array of mental abilities that are important in learning academic data and applying this data to solve rote problems for which memorizing the methods to solve them is more important than developing creative new methods to solve unusual problems.
"Why have high IQ countries and dirt poor individual
I have already answered this: because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that people who de well at IQ tests will do well in life. People who get good scores in tests like the SAT, which are very similar to IQ tests, get accepted into the best universities which opens them the doors to the best jobs. It doesen't mean that people who do well on IQ tests are more intelligent: it means that Society rewards with the best jobs the people who do well on test-taking. As for countries that have high IQ populations that have historically done well, you need to first define what you mean by "doing well". The south Indians do well on IQ tests whilst northern Indians do not, and yet historically the northerners were the bosses whilst the southerners were the minions, and the northerners had much higher social status and wealth.
"Our current univerisity system did not create this disparity"
I have never said that the university system creates the discrepancy in IQ between individuals, but that the university system separates people based on IQ and gives them all the oppurtunities in the World whilst those who don't do well are excluded.
"Our civilization is more through and effiecient"
Again, where have I denied that IQ tests measure something that is real?
"Disproven by centuries..."
And why? Because if you don't do well on IQ and academic tests, you will never get into a good univerity, whivh is conditione sine qua non for getting a job that pays well. Hence, people who due to their culture do not emphasize test-taking skills, like Latin Americans and blacks, do poorly compared to groups that historically have mastered test-taking skills, like East Asians and Jews. The Chinese have a tradition of fine-tunning their kids test-taking skills from a very early age since China historically segregated their society on test-taking ability, and the Jews have a long tradition of Yeshiva shools that emphasie test-taking. But does this mean that the Chinese are more intelligent than, say, the Mongols? Who ruled the other? Despite their "intelligence" the Chinese couldn't devise strategies or weapons to defeat the less "intelligent" Mongols in battle and were enslaved.
"Also disproven"
Again, define "successful"? The Asians have higher IQ scores than Europeans and less historical achievements in science and such. Who is smarter? The traders you speak of were never the elite until the burgeoise revolutions of the 17th and also 18th centuries. For thousands of years they were a middle class at best, and had less power and status than warriors with much lower IQ scores.
"Yes, great artists, musicians and athletes can be very dim."
Again, how do you define intelligence? With the exception of sports, which is entirely physical, being a great artist or musician does involve mental skills that can be defined as intelligence. Why is an IQ 160 "genius" not able to compose a piano concerto like Bach or Wagner?
"Never reliabily documented."
Actually, you are wrong. Feynman's IQ score was obtained straight from his high school record.
"First off, Hollingworth only studied 12 children in her seminal Children Above 180 IQ research."
Wrong. They were a total of 31 children. Which is a huge sample with these extremely high IQ scores.
"Of the 5 remaining kids, they generally did exceptionally well academically"
Which proves my point. They did well in fields that require you to do well in test-taking, which gets you accepted into university, and to memorize large amounts of data to solve specific type academia problems. They excelled at memorizing academic data and then applying them to solve problems for which the method of solving these probles is already established. That is what most people with degrees do, from doctors to chemists. I do not deny that IQ measure this ability. But were they really intelligent? Then why didn't any of those kids solve novel problems and pushed science forward? Why are so many high IQ people completely unable to have insights and make breakthroughs and why are they seldom leaders?? Why are so many barely functional and lack common sense and fail at everything not involved in their academic field? How can you claim that IQ measures "general" intelligence when they are incompetent at everything except their field? I know a high IQ mathematician who is a 44 year-old virgin, lost all his family wealth on bad investments because he is easily duped and has no friends, no influence?????
"There was no long term follow-up of the kids beyond their 20s it seem."
This argument is easily dismissed by the fact that, had they great intellectual achievements besides their IQ scores, everyone would know who they are.
"or 158.5.,"
You are kidding, right? First, no one knows if the Flynn effect is real. Secondly, even if true, an IQ score of 158 is supposed to be incredible. That is 99.9984%. How far are we suppsoed to go until IQ starts to translate into real-life achievements? And the Flynn Effect proves that IQ is just the result of training in test-taking, as people who take IQ tests repeatedly do better and better. So thanks for proving my point.
"Not sure these traits are more or less correlated with general intelligence g than athletic ability or height."
Again, how do you define intelligence? Bobby Fischer had IQ score 190 and his comments on many areas reveal an obvious lack of common sense. How is this not an attribute of intelligence?
"Yes, and Michael Vick is a genius in his domain too."
You are kidding, right? Vick is an athlete. Genghis Khan and Hannibal Barca were commanders who defeated their enemies by using their brains. Their cunning and ability to deceive enemies in battle and use their strengths and weaknesses against them are obviously signs of intelligence and are not measured by IQ tests.
I'd rather hire a lawyer with common sense AND a high general intelligence.
Common sense is part of general intelligence, even though it is not factored in when psychometricians devise IQ tests.
"You misuse the term "Memorize""
Not really. The long term ability to memorize that IQ tests measure does not reflect in the ability to solve new problemms. If so, then high IQ people would be solving new problems and having new creative insights to a greater degree than people with average IQ scores. Marilyn Savant has IQ score 185 and never created anything or had any new ideas. Feynman and Cricket and others are IQ around 120 and are geniuses. Shakira has IQ score 140 and is nothing special in terms on intelligennce.
"The long term ability to memorize that IQ tests measure does not reflect in the ability to solve new problemms."
What?
You people will say just about anything, won't you.
Where have I denied that IQ tests measure something that is real? All I am saying is that IQ is not intelligence, but a very specific type of rote learning ability
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. INTELLIGENCE quotiant is manifestly measuring general intelligence - nearly the opposite of route memorization.
You acknowledge g exists, but deny it it "real" intelligence unlike the emotional or creative intelligences you esteem and which dogs and infants respectively are without peer.
For most of history, diploma granting universities did not guarantee material success which is why I framed my last post in terms of centuries of human history. That high-IQ groups succeeded nonetheless in more cognitively demanding and rewarding roles of trade and finance disproves your false conception that high-IQ success is an artifice of universities filtereing for high-IQ students.
The tradesmen, merchants and others were so irresitably successful they eventually overthew/coopted the elites of the static feudal system.
You have the casuality backward. Universities traditionally seek out high-IQ individuals because they have historically proven to be the best bets for success. Demanding, competitive and high-stakes businesses recruit from elite universities not because of a piece of paper, but primarily because they act as a first pass filter for high-IQ and highly motivated individuals.
Conversely, you find virtually no low-IQ individuals in truely competitive, cognitively demanding and relative affirmative action-free fields no matter how elite their sheepskin (tech entrepreneurship, noble prize in hard science, non-figurehead finance, etc).
A specific example, Jews were actively discriminated against by your fancy Ivy League instuitions until the mid-1900s yet many went on to accomplish "route learning" tricks like winning noble prizes (a dozen from CUNY alone). Many more went on to rise from poor immigrant to success in every facet of American society from arts to business.
(cont.)
For another example, many high-IQ immigrants from Asia today do extremely well in America without those precious American dipolmas and without even English fluency. Many manage to get their high-IQ offspring into elite and very successful careers despite their initial material disadvantages. Few low-IQ immigrants manage to do extremely well in America even after many generations especially factoring out the artifical effects of affirmative action.
Your attempt to equate IQ as a shallow proxy for some secret handshake Ivy League Key that magically opens all doors makes no sense viewed from the large sweep of history. If anything, elite degrees artifically boost unqualified to mediocre NAMs and rich kids rather than purely high-IQ kids.
In fact, there is no better single metric of an individual than IQ that predicts virtually every beneficial life outcome beyond the obvious like education: earnings, controllable health outcomes, divorce, welfare, criminality, single parenthood, etc. Even for those of the same income levels or SES, low-IQ groups do worse than high-IQ groups in general.
Also, you mistake the potential of high general intelligence. It is merely a necessary, not sufficient, condition for success. Diligence, ambition, sanity, support from family/culture, luck, etc also all play important roles in who becomes "famous".
You may dubiously cite rare exceptions to the rule, but these are famous for the very reason they are so rare. Even here there are clear or likely explainations: Feynman had notorious contempt for empty authority probably extended to IQ tests and Bobby Fischer was clearly mentally ill.
Better to prove your point by citing a low-IQ (<85 merely 1SD below avg) individual who fundamentally advanced human existence through some great intellectual breakthrough.
Genghis and Hannible did not defeat their enemies using their brains, they did it primarily with their superior armies. Odds are that both had elevated IQs as well as other desirable traits in military leaders of their times.
"Actually, you are wrong. Feynman's IQ score was obtained straight from his high school record."
I had 119 iq in high school, and four years later tested 138 on a proctored Stanford Binet I took for mensa.
iq needs to be tested more than once during youth. My IQ in grade school was always the highest or second highest. They didn't call it IQ but that's what the test was. When she received the scores, the nun called our names and had us line up along the blackboard, highest first, and then on down. Catholic schools did things like that--they didn't worry too much about students' egos. They were made to be bruised. There were two tests. On one I was the highest, on the other I was the second highest. Funny thing--I was not that great academically except for reading, in which I was always 5-6 years above grade level, whereas the highest IQ, another girl, was academically excellent. However, later she deliberately got bad math grades in high school because "boys didn't like girls who were good in math." That comment so repelled me I must confess it made a feminist of me for a while, but my kind of feminist. I started school at 5 and was always the second youngest in the class. I don't know what the grade school scores were. My parents did not care much about grades as long as we did practical, sensible things, and made money when we got out of school. So IQ can go up and down. I prefer to think of myself as IQ 138.
While high IQ does not ensure "success" in cognitively demanding areas, it is absolutely necessary for success to occur.
"Why is an IQ 160 "genius" not able to compose a piano concerto like Bach or Wagner?"
Are you really this dim? IQ is essential to high levels of cognitive achievement but there are also elements of desire and motivation. There is only much room for great genius. We need Indians as well as Chiefs.
Like the perfect storm, it is a rare combination of elements, of which intelligence measured by IQ is the major foundation, but not the entire structure.
When I was a child it was usually manifestly plain to me, people's level of intelligence and awareness. Later developments proved me correct, invariably. I might have had no clue as to their academic prowess or achievements, but I knew. Sometimes it was the expression in the eyes, a knowing comment, general behavior. I am not to only one like this--most people have a general idea of who is on their own level, immediately. It is intuitive to some extent, which is why teachers must be in a vise. They do know innate brains and they know not everyone is equal, and yet they must pretend they are. We wouldn't want it any other way, if our kids were in their class.
Post a Comment