tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post2390129924371432664..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Earning vs. owning your way on the Forbes 400Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6089850400779297212011-11-24T23:56:10.572-08:002011-11-24T23:56:10.572-08:00David said...
Is Catperson Oprah? If so, she is ri...David said...<br />Is Catperson Oprah? If so, she is right about herself. ;)<br />------<br />Dang, I got beat to it! But in the case that catperson is not our dear TV-leader: <br />Catty darling, you can always watch reruns, rather than defending her against people who dislike her show. Now one is forcing you to be here, and it would probably feel better for you to pop in a rerun-DVD.<br /><br />Catperson said:<br />But a billionaire can hire 100,000 scientists, and thus has the power to choose the direction of scientific advancement.<br />------<br />In the developed world, you can expect that the cost of a scientist - wages, taxes, overhead, supplies, etc. - would be in the 100,000 dollars/year range. Hire 100,000 of them, and you are looking at a cost of 10 billion dollars/year. Your hypothetical billionare would cease to be a billionare pretty quick.Swordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50132792418954781002011-11-24T01:52:56.624-08:002011-11-24T01:52:56.624-08:00"Some of T's beliefs:
Positive discrimin..."Some of T's beliefs:<br /><br />Positive discrimination doesn't happen.<br />Negative discrimination against whites doesn't happen.<br />Negative discrimination against blacks does happen.<br />All success is based only on merit.<br />Black collective failure is caused by discrimination.<br />Whites and blacks are cognitively equal.<br /><br />Quite a maze you have to navigate there, T."<br /><br />That's funny, I don't remember EVER writing ANY ONE of these things, much less all of them.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65249468710098674632011-11-23T23:14:56.004-08:002011-11-23T23:14:56.004-08:00Is Catperson Oprah? If so, she is right about hers...Is Catperson Oprah? If so, she is right about herself. ;)<br /><br />Happy Thanksgiving, y'all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1003717017642961332011-11-23T11:56:26.303-08:002011-11-23T11:56:26.303-08:00Catperson, just as in the case of "the lynchi...<i>Catperson, just as in the case of "the lynching capital of the world", you display a lack of world-historical perspective here. There have been many women in the past who single-handedly ran enormous empires. Take Catherine the Great of Russia, for example. She had far more power than any US president, let alone TV talk show host, because she was legally and actually an autocrat. She waged wars, resettled whole peoples, founded cities, etc. on a whim. Or one could mention Elizabeth I of England, Isabella of Spain, etc. The human experience neither starts nor ends with 20th century America.</i><br /><br />Oprah served as the defacto queen of the most powerful country the world has ever seen at the peak of its power and she used her power to make a black man (0bama) the most powerful man in the world for the first time in history. And on top of that she's the world's most admired billionaire at a time when a billion dollars can buy the greatest technological advances the world has ever known. <br /><br /><i>What new things? It's all banal, boring, predictable stuff. It's like Glamor, Marie Claire and whatever else women read.</i><br /><br />Extemporaneously making banal boring topics so entertaining and interesting to millions and millions of suburban American women that they hang on your every word, five days a week for a QUARTER CENTURY in the most competitive and fragmented media age the world has ever seen, requires stratospheric talent.<br /><br /><i>OMG. The relationship between IQ and income is a statistical correlation, not an absolute dependency. There's always space for some flukes.</i><br /><br />For a mediocre IQ to rise out of poverty and adversity to achieve both TEN THOUSAND TIMES more income and a MILLION TIMES more power than the median American would be a pretty big fluke. If such flukes are common, IQ testing is a joke, and can arguably be dismissed as the measure of narrow book smarts, with little relevance to real world intelligent behavior.<br /><br /> <br /><i>She's closer to the bottom of the Forbes 400 than to the top.</i><br /><br />She's right in the middle of the Forbes 400 and she probably overcame greater poverty and adversity than anyone else on the list. She's also arguably the most influential billionaire in the world; the only one to virtually top Gallup's most admired people list for 22 consecutive years, the only one statistically proven to have elected a U.S. president (and the most historic president to boot), and as Steve sailer so brilliantly observed, the rare billionaire who achieved billions through her own personal productivity, and not just by owning the productivity of others.<br /><br /><br /> <i> I'm sure that the relationship between IQ and success in hard science is closer than the relationship between IQ and income or the relationship between IQ and TV ratings. Success in hard science is a lot more relevant to civilization than income distribution or TV ratings. As far as I know, she hasn't applied her awesome gifts to the problem of cold fusion.</i><br /><br />But a billionaire can hire 100,000 scientists, and thus has the power to choose the direction of scientific advancement. And since most people are far more interested in how to advance themselves then how to advance civilization, we should expect a lot of good problem solvers to become rich and powerful and a lot of the most rich and powerful to be brilliant, if IQ is measuring real world intelligence. <br /><br />.Catpersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56836836629498242952011-11-23T10:43:36.942-08:002011-11-23T10:43:36.942-08:00"As far as I know, she hasn't applied her..."As far as I know, she hasn't applied her awesome gifts to the problem of cold fusion."<br /><br />Nor has anyone else on the Forbes list, for that matter. But it's especially true of Oprah beacause you said so and the nice blonde lady who writes the Harry Potter books found Higgs' Boson. Gee Steve, your site has devolved from its GNXP-style heyday into an Amren clone for shouty rednecks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-49390621642208075632011-11-23T10:40:50.100-08:002011-11-23T10:40:50.100-08:00But I think the real 'genius' credit goes ...<i>But I think the real 'genius' credit goes to her handlers. But she was savvy enough to pick up the signals pretty quick. It's a shallow kind of 'genius' but effective.</i><br /><br />If her handlers are so smart, why aren't they billionaires?<br /><br />In terms of making the show a success, the credit goes to oprah. This is proven by the fact that AM Chicago was dead last in the ratings, but zoomed to number one the moment oprah took over as host. So all the behind the scenes people were not able to achieve any success at all until oprah joined the team, and then the greatest talk show success of all time was achieved IMMEDIATELY. Oprah was so successful so quickly, it was stunning even to her. She arrived in Chicago and no one even heard of her, but after the first show, people were mobbing her on the streets begging her to sign $100 bills, police men were offering her rides to work. Donahue was so shellshocked by hurricane oprah that he packed up his entire Chicago talk show and relocated to new York. But the storm was about to go national. <br /><br />Another act of genius oprah deserves all the credit for was having the foresight to abandon the trashy topics that were all the rage in the early 1990s. Oprah's ratings were four times her nearest competitors so her trusted executive producer debbie dimaio (who brought oprah to chicago in the first place) wanted her to stick with what was working, but oprah sensed there would be a backlash against trash tv and with so many trashy shows all trying to get a slice of oprah's pie and the market would oversaturate itself. But dimaio felt that if it's not broke, dont fix it, and that oprah was crazy to do shows about spirituality when her competitors were doing one night stand reunions. The two women decided to part ways, and industry experts predicted oprah had made a grave mistake in letting dimaio go and not following her advice. And initially ratings did slip when oprah abandoned trashy topics, but soon oprah was being praised by people like George w. Bush and Hillary Clinton for combatting all the trash on tv with a show so uplifting. While her competitors like Jerry springer were considered scum of the earth, oprah emerged as one of the most admired and prestigious people on the planet, and for years was the only daytime talk show A list celebs would be seen on, and they went on oprah even before going on nighttime shows. Soon she was dictating the NY times best seller list with her book club, dictating who won the 2008 democratic primary with her endorsement, and launching the careers of Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz.<br /><br /><i>This isn't to say Oprah's 'genius' is on Spielberg's level. Spielberg controlled everything he did and was the main author behind his projects.</i><br /><br />Oprah's genius is arguably far greater than spielberg's. Spielberg just directs a lot of his excellent movies, he doesn't write the stories or act in them, and he has years to perfect his art before releasing it. Oprah by contrast largely improvises the content of her show; acting as the defacto director, performer and extemporaneous script creator, and she does it for hundreds of hours a year. Oprah's had the number one talk show in America virtually every single weekday for a QUARTER CENTURY. Spielberg only produces a hit movie once every many years. A rare original thinker, oprah's influence on the culture is much broader and deeper than spielberg's. She breaks taboos, single handedly created a touchy feely confession culture, serves as the nation's leading spiritual leader, literary taste maker and presidential king maker. She's not only stratospherically wealthy, but stratospherically powerful and admired. And unlike spielberg, she overcame poverty, adversity and discrimination to get where she is. She really is in a class all her own. <br /><br /> Catpersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29638975618393426792011-11-23T09:56:24.955-08:002011-11-23T09:56:24.955-08:00One thing I like about this thread is how it, once...One thing I like about this thread is how it, once again, shows T as a meritocratic racist: all success is earned...but we mustn't draw any conclusions about groups from the fact; all success is earned, but blacks aren't represented the way they "should" be because of discrimination.<br /><br />Some of T's beliefs:<br /><br />Positive discrimination doesn't happen.<br />Negative discrimination against whites doesn't happen.<br />Negative discrimination against blacks does happen.<br />All success is based only on merit.<br />Black collective failure is caused by discrimination.<br />Whites and blacks are cognitively equal.<br /><br />Quite a maze you have to navigate there, T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60471136617226924852011-11-23T09:47:53.218-08:002011-11-23T09:47:53.218-08:00IQ-wise Jimmy Kimmel is probably second, Dave thir...<i>IQ-wise Jimmy Kimmel is probably second, Dave third, and Leno last. That's how they come off to me. Of course, career-wise, Leno has seriously humiliated Conan and Dave. They're both bitter because of it.</i><br /><br />Not possible. Leno's secretly a genius - you've all but proven it yourself. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81146216794673122952011-11-22T21:18:34.695-08:002011-11-22T21:18:34.695-08:00"The idea of someone overcoming poverty and a..."The idea of someone overcoming poverty and adversity to become the most successful woman in the history of the planet..."<br /><br />Catperson, just as in the case of "the lynching capital of the world", you display a lack of world-historical perspective here. There have been many women in the past who single-handedly ran enormous empires. Take Catherine the Great of Russia, for example. She had far more power than any US president, let alone TV talk show host, because she was legally and actually an autocrat. She waged wars, resettled whole peoples, founded cities, etc. on a whim. Or one could mention Elizabeth I of England, Isabella of Spain, etc. The human experience neither starts nor ends with 20th century America. <br /><br />"...but talk show hosts must spontaneously think up new things to say every day..."<br /><br />What new things? It's all banal, boring, predictable stuff. It's like Glamor, Marie Claire and whatever else women read. <br /><br />"If a level of success that superhuman can be obtained without a very high IQ, then us IQ aficionados need to pack it in, because IQ is obviously not measuring anything relevant..."<br /><br />OMG. The relationship between IQ and income is a statistical correlation, not an absolute dependency. There's always space for some flukes. She's closer to the bottom of the Forbes 400 than to the top. Can you please quit inflating her importance? I'm sure that the relationship between IQ and success in hard science is closer than the relationship between IQ and income or the relationship between IQ and TV ratings. Success in hard science is a lot more relevant to civilization than income distribution or TV ratings. As far as I know, she hasn't applied her awesome gifts to the problem of cold fusion.<br /><br />I'm not qualified to compare Oprah to Ricky Lake because I'm not borderline retarded, but I do have some observations about late night talk show hosts. As everyone knows, Conan O'Brien is very smart. Even if I didn't know that he went to Harvard, I think I'd still have figured out that he's the smartest one of the bunch. If you watch him for any period of time, you start getting the sense that beneath the buffoonery, he's typically the least childish person on his set by far. IQ-wise Jimmy Kimmel is probably second, Dave third, and Leno last. That's how they come off to me. Of course, career-wise, Leno has seriously humiliated Conan and Dave. They're both bitter because of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1656431434494089092011-11-22T19:57:39.213-08:002011-11-22T19:57:39.213-08:00"Women on the other hand are interested in sh..."Women on the other hand are interested in shows like oprah that discuss emotions, the meaning of life, therapy (complex abstract concepts). They like soap operas which have complex narratives and deep character development."<br /><br />lmfao...this has to be a troll come on confessUdolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63200478757689382682011-11-22T19:52:12.726-08:002011-11-22T19:52:12.726-08:00Sailer, are you drunk or stoned or something?
Dud...<i>Sailer, are you drunk or stoned or something?</i><br /><br />Dude, it's the holidays. Cut him some slack. You're lucky he's blogging at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8298447236623537622011-11-22T19:40:12.643-08:002011-11-22T19:40:12.643-08:00Also you are a dumbshit who does not understand ho...<i>Also you are a dumbshit who does not understand how winner-take-all systems work.</i><br /><br />Translation: Udolpho is still sniffing the corner on turn 3.Truthinessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72837407471971989642011-11-22T15:47:04.826-08:002011-11-22T15:47:04.826-08:00"How can one person dominate a hugely competi..."How can one person dominate a hugely competitive field for 20 years (or whatever it is)? She's just that much better than the rest of humanity, damnit! Super-Oprah!"<br /><br /><br />God, how old are you people? Super Dinah Shore would like to have a word with you.edgy gurlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-89480080111545523592011-11-22T15:10:00.859-08:002011-11-22T15:10:00.859-08:00How can one person dominate a hugely competitive f...<i>How can one person dominate a hugely competitive field for 20 years (or whatever it is)? She's just that much better than the rest of humanity, damnit! Super-Oprah!</i><br /><br />Oprah really does seem to be a one in a million talent when it comes to hosting talk shows. This video shows her in action:<br /><br />http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=CA#/watch?v=er-fi8mX1kc<br /><br /> Steve sailer blogged that early in oprah's career, he had the chance to witness oprah greeting her fans. Steve confirmed that oprah was the best he ever witnessed at this kind of meet and greet.<br /><br /><i> I bet salesmen are a decent analogue to talk show hosts. IQ ain't the forte of a salesman, I wouldn't think. You want to be in the optimum range, probably, but beyond that the correlations are probably negative.</i><br /><br />Talk show hosting is probably far more g loaded than sales, because a salesmen can repeat the same talking points to thousands of customers, but talk show hosts must spontaneously think up new things to say every day, under the critical eye of millions. But even for sales, you would not find some IQ threshold beyond which additional IQ becomes unhelpful. Jensen notes that the relationship between IQ and job performance appears to be linear throughout the full range if IQ and performance in all but the most unskilled jobs. He dismissed the assertion you are making as a common myth. Catpersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75437600800904339792011-11-22T15:05:39.296-08:002011-11-22T15:05:39.296-08:00True, but it doesn't change the fact that argu...<i>True, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing that you have to be smarter the more entertaining you are is dumb.</i><br /><br />I think it's safe to assume that entertaining people verbally is a g loaded mental ability. All mental abilities are g loaded, but verbal creative improvisation is probably more g loaded than most because it requires the ability to make unique connections. <br /><br /><i>The idea of Oprah as some evil genius hiding her huge intellect under a bushel for ratings seems a bit of a stretch to me.</i><br /><br />The idea of someone overcoming poverty and adversity to become the most successful woman in the history of the planet without having a huge intellect seems like a stretch to me. This is a woman who literally has a MILLION times more influence than the average American, a woman who literally makes more than a THOUSAND times more money than the president of the united states. If a level of success that superhuman can be obtained without a very high IQ, then us IQ aficionados need to pack it in, because IQ is obviously not measuring anything relevant; indeed it's not even measuring intelligence in any meaningful sense. <br /><br /><br /><i>I got no problem with Oprah. I just think it's absurd to attribute all of her success to her</i><br /><br />With most billionaires I would agree with but in oprah's case, it really is almost all her. The proof of this is AM Chicago was dead last in the ratings before oprah came to Chicago. The moment oprah took over as host it zoomed to number one. And she had no big staff behind her; her team consisted of only 2 girls and a gay guy. Oprah had to get on the phone and book guests herself, she had to drive to dunken doughnuts herself to get snacks for the audience. Not only was oprah responsible for her own success, but TV stations across America became completely dependent on oprah as the lead in for their 5 o'clock news casts and this is one reason they payed her so much money. Now it's true that as oprah got richer she could afford to hire a big staff, but this did not make the show better. Just the opposite, it began to feel too slick and produced, and lost a lot of the spontaneity and down to earth charm it had in the early years.<br /><br /><i> Hey, if she had an IQ of 130+, wouldn't someone have leaked some scores by now? Lots of gloating to be had for the usual suspects, if she did. Probably too tempting to forego if actually available.</i><br /><br />If any IQ score was available someone probably would have leaked it by now regardless of how high or low it is.<br /><br /><i>Women cannot be brand loyal. That would undermine Cat's silly "hugely competitive" thing.</i><br /><br />Brand loyalty has little impact in television because people are not going to spend an hour of their day to watch a show unless it entertains them more than anything else on at that time. The proof of this is the lackluster ratings of oprah's new cable network OWN. A huge number of people initially checked the network out because it was oprah's, but upon finding very little of oprah herself on the network, ratings quickly tumbled. This underscores Steve sailer's brilliant point that oprah's the rare billionaire whose empire depends uniquely on her. This is a bit of a problem for her because she might want to retire and let the network stand on it's own, but viewers want more than just the oprah brand, they want oprah herself. Catpersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-89783391644109874672011-11-22T13:52:05.888-08:002011-11-22T13:52:05.888-08:00Catperson, you are embarrassing yourself. Oprah is...Catperson, you are embarrassing yourself. Oprah is not a genius. Updolpho has the best post on Oprah so far but I have some nitpicks.<br /><br />"An extremely high IQ host would always be second-guessing her middlebrow audience."<br /><br />That makes bad TV and the producers would not allow it even if the TV host hated his middlebrow audience. A middlebrow audience does not like being talked down to or constantly challenged. Imagine if Noam Chomsky or Christopher Hitchens actually had good personalities instead of vile ones, but they still retained their contrarian positions. If they hosted a Donahue-style talk show, the only audience they would have would be their die-hard acolytes. They would definitely turn off most of the middle class. <br /><br />"(And that material was consistently middlebrow, not the kind of thing a very high IQ person would willingly read.)"<br /><br />The majority of it was but you aren't being entirely fair to Oprah. Most housewives could not relate to Faulkner and Oprah realized this. That is why when she put some Faulkner books on her Book Club, she uploaded some Faulkner lectures on her website and had a Faulkner themed episode to explain the content and context of the books. On rare occasions, she would challenge her audience but not by much. She would never recommend something like Blake's Jerusalem. You can't fully appreciate a work like that by reading a Wikipedia entry or watching an 18 minute TED presentation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-42754192798598475982011-11-22T12:19:02.993-08:002011-11-22T12:19:02.993-08:00"If Mel McMoviestein, producer extraordinaire..."If Mel McMoviestein, producer extraordinaire puts the chick he's banging into my next movie and it's a hit, he can tell everyone she "ran the maze to get the cheese," now? And she has to have a high IQ to have elbowed past all the other broads for the gig?"<br /><br />No, not the first time, but if he puts her into the movie the 7th, 8th, 9th time, one could easily assume that it is because he's MAKING MONEY. The McMoviesteins of the world did not get to the position of being able to put the chicks that they are banging by losing it. <br /><br />There are names for those "chicks they are banging" described above: Jody Foster, Kathleen Turner, Meryl Streep...Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36344003159453379862011-11-22T10:51:18.186-08:002011-11-22T10:51:18.186-08:00Shakespeare is Shakespeare, and Oprah is Oprah. W...Shakespeare is Shakespeare, and Oprah is Oprah. What does one really have to do with the other?<br /><br /><i>Arguing that you have to have an average IQ to entertain average people is a bit like arguing you have to be retarded to be a good special Ed teacher.</i><br /><br />True, but it doesn't change the fact that arguing that you have to be smarter the more entertaining you are is dumb. William Hung just <i>has</i> to have an above-average IQ because he's more entertaining than the average person? And again, smarts tend to have a sweet spot for any given profession. There's a minimum suggested IQ for truck driving of 110, for example. I'd also suggest a maximum suggested IQ, beyond which a prospect would become bored and disinterested. If your work doesn't challenge you, you tend to find work that does. The idea of Oprah as some evil genius hiding her huge intellect under a bushel for ratings seems a bit of a stretch to me.<br /><br /><i>Just the thought of her show bores me to tears, but the schoolyard insults so often lobbed at her do sound sometimes like sour grapes. Nobody is forcing you to watch her.<br />Thank god.</i><br /><br />I got no problem with Oprah. I just think it's absurd to attribute all of her success to her (she didn't create a network first, folks; this reminds me of Director-itis, where human nature dictates society worship ONE PERSON, but reality dictates that a team makes a movie), let alone insist on her IQ of 130+ based on her television show. I'd need to see something from her show that is obviously spontaneous (how the hell do we divine that?) and requiring 130+ IQ. Lots of somethings, actually. Hey, if she had an IQ of 130+, wouldn't someone have leaked some scores by now? Lots of gloating to be had for the usual suspects, if she did. Probably too tempting to forego if actually available.<br /><br />Oprah's career is the culmination of experiments running rats through mazes to get cheese? We're comparing the media to science, now? We're comparing tv producers to scientists, now? Seriously?<br /><br />Okay, where's the peer review? Where's the diagram of the maze? The list of rats run through it? Do we have any documentation at all?<br /><br />If Mel McMoviestein, producer extraordinaire puts the chick he's banging into my next movie and it's a hit, he can tell everyone she "ran the maze to get the cheese," now? And she has to have a high IQ to have elbowed past all the other broads for the gig?<br /><br /><i>Also a stupid audience is not going to be interested in show that deals with abstract ideas like emotions, self actualization, the meaning of life, transgender issues, addiction, etc.</i><br /><br />Holy shit...<br /><br /><i>A lot of high IQ women want to reject the bigotry and dogma of organized religion</i><br /><br />Holy shit part deux!<br /><br /><i>The truth is, women are easily amused but they love consensus and are brand loyal.</i><br /><br />Women cannot be brand loyal. That would undermine Cat's silly "hugely competitive" thing. <i>How</i> can one person dominate a hugely competitive field for 20 years (or whatever it is)? She's just that much better than the rest of humanity, damnit! Super-Oprah!<br /><br />If only we could find a quarterback that good! 20 years of perfect seasons and superbowls!<br /><br /><i>and there are even observable downsides to high IQ (an increase in neurotic behavior, for one).</i><br /><br />Right. I bet salesmen are a decent analogue to talk show hosts. IQ ain't the forte of a salesman, I wouldn't think. You want to be in the optimum range, probably, but beyond that the correlations are probably negative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81829486456098101922011-11-22T08:17:02.977-08:002011-11-22T08:17:02.977-08:00"but most people don't make it their goal..."but most people don't make it their goal in life to maximize their earnings at the expense of every other priority."<br /><br />You're right, MOST people, and the ones who do make magazine covers.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3969818417414661352011-11-22T08:00:40.786-08:002011-11-22T08:00:40.786-08:00Now the interesting question is, how would this en...<i>Now the interesting question is, how would this entertaining, entrepreneurial, versatile "moron" look at a man who spent mid five figures on college in order to make someone else rich, describe YOUR intellect. You should get him drunk and ask him.</i> <br /><br />Actually, this is one of the better points that T has ever made in these parts, and a point which many conservative commentators were making even before the "Occupy" movement - that while it might make sense to take on several hundred thousand dollars of student debt in pursuit of becoming a board-certified neurosurgeon - or even a dentist - it's the height of insanity to do so in pursuit of a degree in Afro- or Chicano- or GLBT-studies, or, for that matter, in almost any other major field of study being offered by the universities today.<br /><br />On a related note, the fiscal economics of this insanity were discussed <a href="http://minx.cc/?post=323966" rel="nofollow">just last night at AoSHQ</a>, and also a couple of weeks ago, in <a href="http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=197205" rel="nofollow">a blistering piece by Karl Denninger</a>.<br /><br />But getting back to T's point, it's why you've got plumbers netting [after expenses] six figures for getting themselves covered in other peoples' shit every day - and driving shiny new $50,000 pickup trucks as a result - but humanities/social science majors, from the confines of their parents' basements, fruitlessly [and increasingly hopelessly] sending out literally thousands of applications in search of any meager cubicle wage slave opening - and, meanwhile, driving [peddling?] second-hand mopeds to meet their friends at Starbucks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41340094232523212052011-11-22T07:07:43.350-08:002011-11-22T07:07:43.350-08:00"The biggest hint as to why Oprah is probably..."The biggest hint as to why Oprah is probably not a genius is the very fact that she's been on top for so long. An extremely high IQ host would always be second-guessing her middlebrow audience. Oprah, although obviously separated by a number of important distinctions, retains a bond with her audience because she is a lot like them."<br /><br /><br />You too are missing the point. It all depends on what one's goal is. If Oprah's goal in life was the Truth, then she was a big fool. But if her goal was fame and fortune, what she did was 'genius'. She was the PC Barnum of the Age. <br />But I think the real 'genius' credit goes to her handlers. But she was savvy enough to pick up the signals pretty quick. It's a shallow kind of 'genius' but effective. It required the blind side of white goyim. <br /><br />In this sense, both Kubrick and Spielberg were geniuses in their own way. Kubrick in the search for truth and art, Spielberg in the search for money and power. They both did exactly what they needed to do in attainment of the goal. <br />Kubrick was genius of principle. Spielberg was genius of strategy. <br /><br />This isn't to say Oprah's 'genius' is on Spielberg's level. Spielberg controlled everything he did and was the main author behind his projects. <br />Oprah, in contrast, was good at listening to top advisers. <br />But one thing both Spiel and Oprah have in common is the art of playing to the 'dummies'. <br />I still say some of Spielberg's mass entertainment movies are great stuff. But I've never seen anything of cultural worth in the Oprah show. <br /><br />Anyway, what's been interesting in the 20th century is the alliance of Jewish wit, genius, intelligence, and cunning WITH black soulfulness, charisma, athleticism, sexuality, rhythm, mainly at the expense or in opposition to white interests, pride, and power. You see it in sports--owned by Jews, played by blacks(not least in boxing to beat up whiteys)--, music--many songs composed by Jews(of Brill Building)and performed by blacks--, politics--Jewish money and mind behind Obama the messiah--, morality--MLK myth machine operated by Jews--, Hollywood--Jewish-owned and now with many top black stars--, porn--Jewish managers and black studs pounding white women--, etc. This subject requires a book. Maybe the Stuff-that-black-people-don't-like guy should do it.Puppy Saga pt 19noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-42522948793130182342011-11-22T06:50:55.272-08:002011-11-22T06:50:55.272-08:00The biggest hint as to why Oprah is probably not a...<i>The biggest hint as to why Oprah is probably not a genius is the very fact that she's been on top for so long.</i><br /><br />Actually that's the biggest hint for why she probably is a genius. Staying on top longterm requires the ability to understand your environment and constantly reinvent yourself in innovative ways. Humans are the smartest animal and we're on top of the food chain. <br /><br /><i>An extremely high IQ host would always be second-guessing her middlebrow audience. Oprah, although obviously separated by a number of important distinctions, retains a bond with her audience because she is a lot like them.</i><br /><br />But she's not like them. Her audience is middle class white soccer moms from the suburbs. She's an unmarried professional black business woman from the backwoods of Mississippi and the ghetto. She couldn't be more different from her audience demographically, yet she brilliantly found a way to connect. Her show is even popular with women in Saudi Arabia. She mastered the international language of womenkind and practically invented it. That takes intelligence.<br /> <br /><br /><i>The truth is, women are easily amused but they love consensus and are brand loyal.</i><br /><br />Misogynistic nonsense. It's actually men who are easily amused watching childish contests like wrestling, and obsessed with who can hit a ball with a bat the furthest distance. They are also so brand loyal that they walk around with hats and jerseys of their favorite sports team. Women on the other hand are interested in shows like oprah that discuss emotions, the meaning of life, therapy (complex abstract concepts). They like soap operas which have complex narratives and deep character development. <br /><br /><br /><i>That's why they did things like flock to Oprah's book club selections, when without her imprimatur these people would have likely never had an interest in the material Oprah boosted. (And that material was consistently middlebrow, not the kind of thing a very high IQ person would willingly read.)</i><br /><br />Tolstoy, Faulkner, cormac McCarthy, and Toni Morrison are anything but middle brow. And oprah was so obsessed with Toni morrison's most difficult book Beloved that she turned into a very underrated movie. Beloved is a book said to be so nonlinear and metaphorical that even English literature graduate students struggle to comprehend it.<br /><br /><i> Too often HBD nerds seem to think that IQ makes everything go round, when in reality it's only crucial to a small number of professions and there are even observable downsides to high IQ (an increase in neurotic behavior, for one).</i><br /><br />There might be downsides to ridiculously high IQ, but being above the mensa level is a huge competitive advantage in life. The terman study proved this. The truth is IQ is useful in every field, even unskilled manual labour. As Charles Murray said, no matter how mindless a job may appear to be, there's always a smarter way to do it. Viewers want a talk show host who can get to the point, ask the relevant questions, listen to the answers, add insightful commentary and be funny, witty and spontaneous. All of this selects for high IQ in the insanely competitive world of TV talk shows. If you look at all the best talk show hosts in TV history, they're all very quick. Catpersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65971589866404061262011-11-22T05:31:10.514-08:002011-11-22T05:31:10.514-08:00most people don't make it their goal in life t...<i>most people don't make it their goal in life to maximize their earnings at the expense of every other priority.</i><br /><br />Males do, but they rationalize that it wasn't their top priority if they end up failures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69897093078202454732011-11-21T23:19:27.747-08:002011-11-21T23:19:27.747-08:00As usual, Sailer's commenters are very confuse...As usual, Sailer's commenters are very confused.<br /><br />The biggest hint as to why Oprah is probably not a genius is the very fact that she's been on top for so long. An extremely high IQ host would always be second-guessing her middlebrow audience. Oprah, although obviously separated by a number of important distinctions, retains a bond with her audience because she is a lot like them.<br /><br />The truth is, women are easily amused but they love consensus and are brand loyal. That's why they did things like flock to Oprah's book club selections, when without her imprimatur these people would have likely never had an interest in the material Oprah boosted. (And that material was consistently middlebrow, not the kind of thing a very high IQ person would willingly read.)<br /><br />The crucial factors are taste and personality, not intelligence. Too often HBD nerds seem to think that IQ makes everything go round, when in reality it's only crucial to a small number of professions and there are even observable downsides to high IQ (an increase in neurotic behavior, for one).Udolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86956925978169211842011-11-21T23:10:28.271-08:002011-11-21T23:10:28.271-08:00Because intelligence in humans can be measured in ...<i>Because intelligence in humans can be measured in much the same way it can be measured in rats: You are placed at the opening of a maze on high school graduation day, and a piece of cheese is placed on the other end. The goal is to be the quickest to the cheese. These rats found the cheese, and subsequently constructed a cheese-making factory, you are still sniffing a corner on turn 3.</i><br /><br />You are normally too unbelievably dumb to bother with, but most people don't make it their goal in life to maximize their earnings at the expense of every other priority.<br /><br />Also you are a dumbshit who does not understand how winner-take-all systems work.Udolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.com