/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16566419]

Alright lit, I'm a libtard. Gimme the most redpillling books on human nature you think there is, imma read them all then come back to yous and tell you what I think.

My current list:
> The Bell Curve
> The Sacred and the Profane (Eliade)
> The Better Angels of our Nature (Pinker)
> The Blank Slate (Pinker)
> Culture of Critique

Anything else less obvious?...

[Anonymous No.16566425]

>>16566419
Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines by René Guénon.

[Anonymous No.16566435]

>>16566419
Start with the Greeks reetard

[Anonymous No.16566451]

>>16566425
>>16566435
Preferably one about human nature and how we're supposedly inherently right-wing. Like I'm personally a Rousseauian, and I think that Woman is naturally egalitarian, cooperative and feminine. I think we're peaceful creatures! I basically have a positive view of human nature, try and post books which will differ with this (pro-tip: I don't think can!)

[Anonymous No.16566479]

>>16566419
Most of human nature you just can't properly absorb from a book, you have to spend years observing how other people act, having relationships with people, and uncovering the layers of delusions in your own mind.

Anyway while I think psychoanalysis is largely bullshit and Freud was basically a cult leader, you should read his work on narcissism, with a critical eye. People's delusional self-images are maybe the most salient feature of their psychologies. The second most important feature imo is people's inability to process information which if they were discovered to believe would have serious social consequences for them, ie. they can't even really comprehend let alone believe taboo ideas.

It's my opinion that when you rid yourself(as much as you can, it never really works all the way) of these two problems, the 'redpilling' pretty much just follows of its own accord. Half the time the issue is extremely obvious and their inability to see it is due to delusion, and half the time the issue is so ambiguous that people's certainty is delusion. But you have to really, really not mind having painful views of who you are and not mind being ostracized before you can start accurately observing.

[Anonymous No.16566493]

>>16566451
>Preferably one about human nature and how we're supposedly inherently right-wing.
This is reetarded and this is coming from le ebin "right winger". You should abandon calling things "left" or "right" wing.
>Like I'm personally a Rousseauian
Please read Freedom and it's Betrayal by Isaiah Berlin
>Woman is naturally egalitarian, cooperative and feminine
What?
> I think we're peaceful creatures!
Why? We are masters at genociding life.
>I basically have a positive view of human nature, try and post books which will differ with this (pro-tip: I don't think can!)
What is positive view of human nature? I think we are very violent for example, but I don't view this as a negative.

Seriously, start with the Greeks.

[OP No.16566514]

>>16566479
Freud is an interesting figure, tho the Frankfurt School had a better synthesis / critique of his thought. Freudo-Marxism is interesting, like I agree with Marcuse in Eros and Civilization who says we have to liberate the primordial sexual desires of all people to release them from authoritarianism.
>>16566493
We're not masters at genociding life; that's only been the last 10,000 years of civilization that makes you think that! For 90% of human history we were peaceful and bovine! Read Rutger Bregman bro. All the evidence shows that old human skeletons were rarely if ever the victims of violence, and there's no evidence of war in prehistoric man!

[Anonymous No.16566529]

>>16566419
Conflict of Visions
Kowledge and Decisions
Both by Thomas Sowell

[Anonymous No.16566587]

>>16566514
>Frankfurt School had a better synthesis / critique of his thought. Freudo-Marxism is interesting, like I agree with Marcuse in Eros and Civilization
That stuff is obviously not going to give you an understanding of what we are calling redpill, which is what you asked for. If you want to understand it then let go of your ethical and political preconceptions. As an exercise try to imagine an evolutionary purpose for every ethical impulse people have, ie. it serves their genes reproductive success. If you don't understand evolution read a textbook on that first.

Then try to imagine what sort of purpose an 'oppressive' cultural institution like patriarchy would serve in terms of long-term prosperity, growth, and power of a society. Do it as a devil's advocate or whatever.

[Anonymous No.16566675]

>>16566419
Just read this
https://www.amren.com/news/2016/08/a-white-teacher-speaks-out/

[Anonymous No.16566728]

>>16566675
That sure doesn't sound like a liberal white teacher who just went and taught at a black school in the inner city. Guy is saying things like 'rap is degenerate' and describing hoodrats as though they're animals on a safari, the entire thing is incredibly offensively written.

Anyone who actually was some liberal and went to a school like that and came out racist would just be clinical about certain discrepancies, not sound like someone who's been on Stormfront for 10 years and is trying to pretend he's a teacher.

[Anonymous No.16566740]

>>16566419
all garbage. this is a bait thread.

[Oh Pee No.16567768]

>>16566587
Yeah I think we've been tricked into believing that humans are naturally patriarchal and violent - when really that's only been the last 10% of our species! The 90% of humanity has been peaceful and feminine!
>>16566740
Aight suit yourself, I'm an anti-natalist to clarify (re: Rust from True Detective's worldview)

[Anonymous No.16567775]

>>16566493
You are being extremely disingenuous in your dismissiveness

[Anonymous No.16567790]

These are some of the more politically formative books for me.

The Unnecessary War by Pat Buchanan
The Vanishing Tradition by Paul Gottfried
Anarcho-Fascism by Jonas Nilsson
Essential Writings on Race by Sam Francis
Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deenan
Against Democracy by Jason Brennen
When Harry Became Sally by Ryan Anderson
For my Legionaries by Codreanu
The West and the Rest by Roger Scruton
Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell
The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan

[Anonymous No.16567988]

Mein Kampf. I'm dead fucking serious. Ford translation. I actually recommend the audiobook since Hitler had his speech transcribed to paper for the book.

[Anonymous No.16567996]

> Mein Kampf. I'm dead fucking serious. Ford translation. I actually recommend the audiobook since Hitler had his speech transcribed to paper for the book.

[Anonymous No.16568017]

>>16567996
Seek help tranny

[Anonymous No.16568030]

>>16567996
Imagine saving that picture and thinking its funny, that you're going to totally own some poltards with it.

[Anonymous No.16568033]

>>16566419
Thomas Sowell The Vision of the Anointed
Jonathan Haidt The Righteous Mind
Douglas Murray The Strange Death of Europe

[Anonymous No.16568039]

>>16568030
>that you're going to totally own some poltards with it.
I just did LMAO

[Anonymous No.16568091]

>>16567768
>when really that's only been the last 10% of our species! The 90% of humanity has been peaceful and feminine!

[Anonymous No.16568107]

>>16566419
All of this garbage has been debunked. You have an obligation, if you read these books, to read the refutations; otherwise you'll be parroting nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16568169]

>>16568107
The refutations I've seen of the Culture of Critique amount to "I haven't read it but I don't need to because it's all bullshit". I can't imagine I'll be very impressed by the responses to the others.

[Anonymous No.16568182]

>>16566419
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

[Anonymous No.16568189]

>>16568169
Read actual refutations.

[Anonymous No.16568205]

>>16568189
There is no academic response to the book. The only thing I've seen is from Steven Pinker who misrepresented the book while admitting to not reading the trilogy.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Pinker.htm

[Anonymous No.16568249]

>>16566419
>Pinker
cringe
>>16567996
kek

[Anonymous No.16568250]

>>16566479
This. Spending time and engaging with people from different cultures and classes is much more revealing than any book (other than some works of fiction) I've read.To see the tendency for people to live as bullshit factories rather than as Hobbesian hunch-backs is where the insight is begins.

[Anonymous No.16568269]

>>16567996
You guys are fast of the keyboard. Do you even read?

[Anonymous No.16568504]

>>16568269
>>16568017
>>16568030
> t.

[Anonymous No.16568544]

The Culture of Narcissism

[Anonymous No.16568571]

>>16566419
Read the newest Murray book instead of TBC. And also pic related.

[Anonymous No.16568580]

The Aquatic Ape is good but really just an interesting theory. Sapiens: a brief history of human kind discusses how modern day inhabitants of the Middle East have about 4% Neanderthal DNA in them. Try bringing that one up to ur liberal buddies and prepare to be screeched at lol

[Anonymous No.16568584]

>>16568580
Dont liberals love sapiens though

[Anonymous No.16568589]

>>16568504
>Chudjak (1843)

[Anonymous No.16568597]

>>16568580
I thought liberals loved the idea that eurasians are part neanderthal as that makes africans 'pure humans'. Obviously this logic has holes.

[Anonymous No.16568602]

>>16568584
Well we are all Homo sapiens so we don’t have a choice

[Anonymous No.16568610]

>>16568584
Oh sorry do u mean do liberals love that book? I have no idea I can’t normally communicate with them as they are far too emotional for me.

[Anonymous No.16568614]

>>16566419
How come Evola isn't on your list?
Read 'Revolt against the modern world' first then report back OP.

[Anonymous No.16568617]

>>16568584
Whether a specific group likes or dislikes the book has nothing to do with whether its contents are true

[Anonymous No.16568640]

>>16568589
Just one from my ...heh... collection

[Anonymous No.16568689]

>>16568107
Daily reminder there has never been a quantitative research debunking The Bell Curve. All the critique amounts to is ad hoc explanations, speculations and muhh opreshun.

[Anonymous No.16568701]

>>16568689
Nah bro its been refuted just trust me

[Anonymous No.16568710]

>>16566419
Race and IQ is literally one paragraph of one chapter in TBC. Murray is a real scientist

[Anonymous No.16568714]

>>16568504

[Anonymous No.16568776]

>>16566419
Why is Pinker even on your list? Read this list in this order:
>Coming apart
>The bell curve
>Collapse of complex societies
>Transformation of war
>Decline of the west
>Beyond good and evil
>Question concerning technology
>Technological society


If you read it in reverse order you will be put off by the language as you cannot see the problems these are authors are wrestling with. The problems identified by Murray are due to historical forces already identified by earlier authors. Continue on with Junger, Schmitt, or whatever you want as you will have finally seen behind the curtain. Disregard Evola and Kaczynski, they are memes.

[Anonymous No.16568801]

>>16566451
https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-evidence-on-violent-deaths

[Anonymous No.16568818]

>>16568030
you seem rustled

[Anonymous No.16568893]

>>16566419
Human nature, non political? Among others I like:
>Men Among the Ruins by Julius Evola
>The Triumph of Death by Gabriele d'Annunzio
>The Cantos by Ezra Pound, especially the Paisan Cantos
>Being and Time by Martin Heidegger
>The Stranger by Albert Camus
As for explicitly political works I like:
>The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler
>Imperium by Francis Parker Yockey (read only after finishing Decline)
>Demons by Fyodor Dostoevsky
>The Last Will of a Russian Fascist by Konstantin Rodzaevsky
> The Glass Bees by Ernst Jünger
>For My Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu
>Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel
Lastly, some esoteric/occult works, these are optional, but you may like them if you're an /x/fag:
>The Doctrine of Awakening by Julius Evola
>Lucifer's Court by Otto Rahn
>The Lightning and the Sun by Savitri Devi
>The Book of Enoch
>The Kabbalah
>The Bhagavad Gita

[Anonymous No.16568937]

>>16568776
objectively wrong, Evola is the biggest pleb filter

[Anonymous No.16569024]

>>16568818
Yeah totally

[Anonymous No.16569128]

>>16567768
>Yeah I think we've been tricked into believing that humans are naturally patriarchal and violent - when really that's only been the last 10% of our species! The 90% of humanity has been peaceful and feminine!
Well you're asking for the 'redpill' view so imagine a world in which the opposite is true

[Anonymous No.16569139]

>>16567996
>it's totally a really good argument to just repeat in baby talk what your opponent says
da jooz posters are literally the reason I first thought there might be something to the JQ, you guys are so bad at your job you convince people to see what your opposition is saying simply by being such retards

[Anonymous No.16569156]

>>16566419
Just go to a black hood. That's all the redpilling you need.

[Anonymous No.16569179]

>>16566419
>the bell curve

[Anonymous No.16569247]

>>16566419
Start w the greeks

[Anonymous No.16569330]

>>16569179
Oh did you have a meta-analysis that shows the IQ gap between races disappearing? Or a meta-analysis that shows that IQ doesn't actually predict for outcomes?

[Anonymous No.16569352]

>>16569156
dont let me catch an opp in my hood or this nigga bouta catch anotha body nah mean

[Anonymous No.16569393]

>>16566419
the book with the okcupid blog posts about dating data that have since been wiped from the net

[Anonymous No.16569420]

>>16566419
The history of central banking and the slavement of mankind

[Anonymous No.16569510]

>>16569330
There is absolutely no point in trying to have any sort of argument with anyone disagreeing with your point. A vast majority of the population believes in borderline Lysenkoism.

[Anonymous No.16569523]

>>16569420
>Gavrilo Princip and John Wilkes Boothes were Jewish
>literally no evidence of this anywhere else
Neo nazi historiography ladies and gentlemen

[Anonymous No.16569545]

>>16569510
You won't convince them but it's fairly amusing watching them flail about trying to defend their obviously retarded viewpoints.

[Anonymous No.16569559]

>>16566728
Cope, i’ve lived around blacks and this is entirely accurate. Offensive language doesn’t discredit the story

[Anonymous No.16569566]

>>16569523
If I recall correctly the book never expresses that these two were jews.

[Anonymous No.16569577]

>>16569393
Going to check out this book. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.16569600]

>>16569577
Get ur faggot pol ass out of here

[Anonymous No.16569602]

>>16568937
Ride the Tiger is the worst written book with any modicum of popularity
>hurrdurr Nietzsches symbolism shows that you should dildo your ass until Kali Yuga ends
He died as he lived, a degenerate loser

[Anonymous No.16569606]

>>16569420
Stfu w ur poor pitiful me the jews are controlling my mind shit. It's pathetic and weak.

[Anonymous No.16569618]

>>16569330
>a meta analysis
I love how you faggots run to science when you have no argument and run from it when it says you're wrong. What has ur bitch iq done for you?

[Anonymous No.16569627]

>>16569545
>>16569510
You are wrong and you can't defend your position

[Anonymous No.16569646]

>>16569618
Science is valid when it can consistently predict things. IQ consistently predicts outcomes. The races consistently have different average IQs no matter how you account for environmental variables. Almost all other evidence we have- history, crime statistics, brain sizes, etc. backs up the same general conclusion that IQ does.

>what does your IQ do for you
See you can't even think coherently about the question, you are already trying to divert to irrelevant personal issues

[Anonymous No.16569656]

>>16566514
Every time you use an exclamation point, I believe you less. Ebin trole, fren XD

[Anonymous No.16569669]

>>16569646
It's not science. Science (in positive empiricism) is concerned w material causation. There's no causation materially in that. The reason is because it's concerned w socially reported attributes and it finangles a system from that and the best it can do is correlation. So we have no idea what it actually measures, what it does measure certainly can't be called intelligence as it excludes many things (for instance, even if you consider it learned, most whites aren't dancers, into sports or rappers, despite being a large population). It doesn't account for growth, late bloomers, how a late bloomer comes to exist, how an early bloomer fails. It's not science as we mean the term.

[Anonymous No.16569684]

>>16569669
it's science because it predicts for outcomes, it draws a correlation between the score and people's abilities at various tasks. A population with a low IQ reliably exhibits different behavior and levels of achievement than one with a high IQ.

You actually know this somewhere deep beneath your crimestop, you know they're fucking retards and eg. the Japanese and Jews are very smart. You are entirely aware of this, you're just a coward

[Anonymous No.16569706]

>>16566419
The Great Leveler

[Anonymous No.16569718]

>>16569684
That's not science that's probabilities in sociology. There's no science which asks you to poll people on a topic then turn those reports into an overarching system.

Ig this is bait but I've seen your "whites" fail at some pretty embarrassing levels. Clearly at least in that you can see the failure of the "iq" structure.

[Anonymous No.16569727]

>>16569706
Childish recc

[Anonymous No.16569731]

>>16569727
Why?

[Anonymous No.16569739]

>>16569718
That is science, all science does is draw correlations between states.
>I've seen your whites fail
Do you honestly not understand what averages are, or that intelligence isn't the only thing that matters?

[Anonymous No.16569749]

>>16566419
Those are pretty libtarded books. Read Lee Kuan Yew, for one. IQ tests are meaningless. If you want to read something that tells you "niggers are retarded" then you can just read that online and believe it. You don't have to reach around your elbow to jack yourself off.
>>16569646
>outcomes
The weather radar consistently predicts weather. What kind? Outcomes in a civilization where all your basic survival needs are provided through money are different than in a civilization where you have to secure those things yourself, from raw materials.
>>16569684
Being "smart" does not equal having a good life. The Japanese society is in spiritual shambles, their humanity has been completely destroyed by technology and industry. The same is true to different extents of all developed nations. If having a "low IQ" means I get to have my native racial culture and family back, I want to be retarded. All IQ worshippers hate humanity

[Anonymous No.16569766]

>>16569749
>IQ tests are meaningless.
Tests which measure your ability to recognize patterns in a timely manner in relation to others are meaningless? How come?

[Anonymous No.16569772]

>>16569749
>Outcomes in a civilization where all your basic survival needs are provided through money are different than in a civilization where you have to secure those things yourself, from raw materials.
IQ and time preference contribute to success in both scenarios
>Being smart does not equal a good life
Completely irrelevant

[Anonymous No.16569817]

>>16569731
>violence causes equality
If you see fights on ufc you'd know one punching another doesn't make their bank accounts similar. It's not causated it's a crackpot theory

>>16569739
You're not verifying through your senses of what's happening. It's based on social reports. They gather the reports and try to make a system.
What does an average look like? Can you feel it? It's not science.

[Anonymous No.16569826]

>>16569766
And yet you have pretty dumb ppl w high iq. Looking for averages as some bandaid for your shit structure just speaks to its weakness. Formal topics like logic and math aren't justified by averages.

[Anonymous No.16569836]

>>16569817
Not violence, but destruction creates equality. Read the book before trying to refute it.

[Anonymous No.16569847]

>>16569766
I don't know, my IQ is too low to explain it.
>>16569772
>irrelevant
We were implicitly arguing racial superiority, bro! Quality of life is relevant!! Don't pussy out now!! You may have to admit that all this "achievement" has been in the service of something other than the perpetuation of fulfilled human lives!

[Anonymous No.16569848]

>>16569718
>>16569669
Not going to get into the IQ argument, but saying that probability and statistics aren't science is pretty retarded desu, they're a branch of math.

[Anonymous No.16569873]

>>16569836
How does destruction create equality? I've broken a plate, still didn't make the world more equal. It's at best a variable in causation given certain circumstances. It's nonsense and that crap is easy to refute in two seconds because it would be destroyed in any formal field.

>>16569848
Science has nothing to do w math. Current philosophy of science, as developed by the bacons, aristotle etc, is empirical. Math isn't empirical. It uses those subjects as an axiom to help solve it. Science is particularly interested in empiricism. Positive empiricism literally states it uses math to talk about the material world understood through empiricism.

[Anonymous No.16569884]

>>16569873
A variable in correlation* which would imply a variable in causation but I'm sure it doesn't even attempt to broach that so I'm using its structure.

[Anonymous No.16569910]

>>16569772
So kill every other race. You will not automatically have a better society. Even kill everyone below 150 iq. Still won't. A variable you could have to contend w is psychopathy, and to want to kill all other races is psychopathic. If everyone in your culture was psychopathic then it won't matter how smart they are because they can't hold a society together. That's actually proven. They stop raising their young and then die. It's not measured fully yet but that's an empirical observation, you know, science.

[Anonymous No.16569913]

>>16569873
Okay, not him, but destroying a civilization, which inherently has some kind of hierarchy, reduces all the members of that hierarchy to the same base level of resources. A master oil painter without paint supplies is equally as talentless as the next guy.

[Anonymous No.16569916]

>>16569873
>How does destruction create equality?
Read the book and find out, imbecile. The fuck you think I recommended it for?

[Anonymous No.16569927]

>>16569913
Does it? If you overthrow a set hierarchy does another not form? Perhaps the ppl who overthrew the hierarchy? The ones who can assumedly kill you?

[Anonymous No.16569939]

>>16569916
To be a citation storm moron to drum up other idiots who terribly defend their book recc's as well. Nothing you brought up made sense. It's just political garbage.

[Anonymous No.16569951]

>>16569927
>If you overthrow a set hierarchy does another not form?
Missing the point. In the previously existing hierarchy, all ranks have been dissolved upon destruction of it, and in terms of that hierarchy, equality has been achieved. Another hierarchy will form only because not everything in the world has been destroyed yet.

[Anonymous No.16569957]

>>16568701
>>16568689
>>16568169
>>16568205
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve_Debate
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/262014
https://bolesblogs.com/1998/03/23/a-review-of-the-bell-curve-bad-science-makes-for-bad-conclusions/
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691028989/inequality-by-design
https://prospect.org/civil-rights/cracking-open-iq-box/
https://chomsky.info/199505__/#TXT2.23
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/26/opinion/in-america-throwing-a-curve.html
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/skewed-logic-bell-shaped-curve/
https://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967209

Just to name a few

[Anonymous No.16569960]

>>16569939
>It's just political garbage.
You're a fucking retard. That book is a historical and scientific investigation on the matter, not a political one.

[Anonymous No.16569966]

>>16569957
We're talking about Culture of Critique you illiterate cock mongler.

[Anonymous No.16569981]

>>16569951
Even if you destroy earth, this doesn't affect aliens. It's a particular solution not a universal one which limits it necessarily as a theory of causation.

>>16569960
Yeah that's the same shit with history. It's not science. There's not a single God damned instance of a equalitron particle being created by "destroying" something (whatever tf that means).

[Anonymous No.16569992]

>>16569960
What degree of something being destroyed is equality created? Is it correlated and probabilistic too? There's a 50% chance a equalitrometer of equality is created?

[Anonymous No.16570002]

>>16567996
based

[Anonymous No.16570027]

>>16569981
>Even if you destroy earth, this doesn't affect aliens.
Literal retard tier argument that misses the point entirely. The point of the book is to demonstrate that equality only comes about through destruction and by no other means has it ever come about historically. Nothing you've said counters this point.

>>16569992
>What degree of something being destroyed is equality created?
Absolute destruction results in absolute equality. At the moment of the Big Bang we were all as equal as we possibly could be in this universe and at the moment of the Big Crunch we will all return to that degree of nearly absolute equality, because in the process everything in the universe will be destroyed and reduced to the simplest particles.

[Anonymous No.16570052]

>>16570027
Name one "equality" that has happened this way and btw "you're missing the point" isn't a response. You have an unbound variable w a hole in it. You can only accept that your statement isn't defined properly.

Absolute destruction implies there's nothing that exists. In logic they'd say that's vacuously true but I deny negations. Equality, in the best defined way, is a subset of existence. Destruction is the opposite of that so unless you have a dualism calculus in where destroying things causes the creation of things (and any gd example desu) then it's just nonsense created by some butthurt faggot in politics.

[Anonymous No.16570084]

>>16570052
>Name one "equality" that has happened this way
The book has countless examples on this. It's funny, you called the book political garbage but your refusal to read it or permit its recommendation in the thread without you spewing your bullshit on it is obviously completely politically motivated.

>Absolute destruction implies there's nothing that exists.
Exactly, because absolute equality can only come about in nothingness. Nothing is absolutely equal. Sorry you don't like this conclusion, but that's what redpilling means, hence the recommendation.

[Anonymous No.16570109]

>>16569957
>literal who blogs
>opinion articles

[Anonymous No.16570130]

>>16569966
He replied to this >>16568689 as well as those others

[Anonymous No.16570165]

>>16570084
It's metaphysically motivated and none of them prove that. What he terms as destruction is just randomly chosen. Actual destruction, in science, doesn't exist. Idk why you keep saying it's scientific.

Well that's a dead-end. I hope you don't think you're saying the truth because then you'd be contributing to your self-made problem.

[Anonymous No.16570225]

>>16570165
>Actual destruction, in science, doesn't exist.
Neither do any systems of equality we could possibly discuss, n.b. The work is scientific in that it is rigorous; it is a work of "historical realism," and it is "true" as in it remains unrefuted.

[Anonymous No.16570250]

>>16570225
Yes equality does show up in logic in terms of substitutibility.
Being rigorous doesn't make it science. Logic is rigorous it is not science. It is not empirically derived so it's not science at all.

[Anonymous No.16570273]

>>16566419
If you've read the bell curve you really should read 'Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class'.
The only reason one would believe in tabula rasa after that book is because of wilful ignorance.

[Anonymous No.16570274]

>>16570250
Science hasn't observed a state of true equilibrium yet.

>Being rigorous doesn't make it science.
Well that's what I meant by "scientific." Now you know.

[Anonymous No.16570289]

>>16570274
Logic isn't science. It's concerned with material causation. By definition it cannot find equality because it refers to a particular material object.

If you mean science as in it's rigorous then you lose your claim of it meaning anything based sociological conjectures.

[Anonymous No.16570305]

>>16566493
We're peaceful in comparison to other animals on earth since that's all we have, most of us don't kill for fun like some animal races do.

[Anonymous No.16570328]

>>16570289
Okay, fine, history cannot be scientific, it can only be logical (i.e. rigorous) or illogical. The book is a more rigorous historical investigation than any other on the topic and the underlying metaphysical interpretation remains unrefuted as a result of this.

[Anonymous No.16570339]

>>16569718
All of science is statistics, in fact without statistics there would be no predictions.
Why do you think CERN always talks about 5 sigma signals when they claim a discovery?

[Anonymous No.16570446]

>>16570328
I disagree with it being unrefuted but I do agree whatever it's concerned w is more logical. I do think it should have some material representation and it perhaps needs to have the terms changed to something more accurate so it can be show things to be true.

>>16570339
You can predict without statistics. You set up a framework and fill in the holes and say where a hole exists like how the chemical chart was invented. Using statistics is when you're sol and have no idea what framework you're working in.

[Anonymous No.16570459]

>>16570446
>it perhaps needs to have the terms changed to something more accurate so it can be show things to be true.
What terms, and what would you replace them with?

[Anonymous No.16570460]

>>16566419
>redpills
>book written by Pinker

yeah, youre a retard

[Anonymous No.16570483]

>>16570459
I honestly have no idea. I could guess but I don't know what he's trying to do w it so I'd be changing it in letter not spirit.
For example I'd change destruction to just a different hierarchy or existence but I'm not sure if that would contradict his other points.

[Anonymous No.16570492]

>>16569957
the very first article link is what proves taleb to be a fortunate midwit who knows his niche but nothing else, he fundamentally misunderstands statistic

[Anonymous No.16570497]

>>16570446
>like how the chemical chart was invented.
Ok, wow. You really don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.16570560]

>>16570497
No statistics anon. Just a metaphysical framework or material framework.
https://imgur.com/a/sMAcaOB

[Anonymous No.16570567]

The Bell Curve and Culture of Critique are all you need to understand how American society works

[Anonymous No.16570696]

>>16568893
>>The Last Will of a Russian Fascist by Konstantin Rodzaevsky
quick rundown?

[Anonymous No.16570702]

>>16570560
Do you think the telluric helix is used today?
Anyway if the formulated idea did not have predictions that could be verified statistically then it would be worthless and unscientific no matter how beautiful.
Theory does not need to be statistical but applied science needs to be.

[Anonymous No.16570709]

>>16570339
The Higgs was predicted way before CERN was even able to confirm its existence to 5 sigma. In fact the mechanism by which the Higgs worked was essentially ported from the theory of superconductivity.

[Anonymous No.16570727]

>>16570702
I mean it wasn't made statistically but applied science is just done in theoretical frameworks. It's kinda monkeyish to assume they're just bots.

[Anonymous No.16570728]

>>16570483
>I don't know what he's trying to do w it
So why do you want to change it?

[Anonymous No.16570799]

>>16570709
>>16570727
Yes, and there is an infinite set of hypothesis and theories supported by subsets of evidence, without sorting them out statistically there is no predictive power.

[Anonymous No.16570995]

>>16570799
Experimenters mostly knew what they were looking for before they even started the Higgs experimental search. The statistics essentially just proved the existence of the particle (and that it uses essentially the simplest version of the Higgs mechanism) within a given mass range.

[Anonymous No.16571017]

>>16566529
Based Sowellpilled.

[Anonymous No.16571046]

>>16570995
Yes, what is your point?