zurew

Some parts of wikipedia are indeed corrupt and you don't necessarily have to be a highly influencial people to achieve it. People can pay money to people to edit some parts of the wikipedia for their benefit or for their bias. How would you know if the people who are participating in the voting process are not heavily influenced by any party at all? Capitalist organization are generally for profit and give less fuck about ideology. But again, if you really want to protect people from an injustice like that you could make some laws or rules that would prevent them from doing firing on unnecessarily reasons. Now, what do you think would be easier? To make a law that restricts a boss from doing this or to make a law that restricts a large group of people from doing this? It seems that you only focus on the negative effects and ignore all the positive effects. Bias and profit orientation doesn't exclude the fact that it can have a positive impact on the world. Perfect working condition part has no effect on the point I made. You can have perfect working conditions people would still aim to earn as much profit as possible even if that would make other peoples life worse. Most people don't give a fuck about other people. Socialism doesn't mitigate this part. People working at a company and making its service or goods more addicting would have no direct effect on their salary, so why would they care? Your reasoning was that if the government owns all the companies, then thats necessarily indicates, that there will be less artifical demand, but you haven't provided a reason why that would be the case. So you are telling me, that the government would sell everything at the price of production cost? If thats the case, then that system will have many problems. For example, what would the government do with the increase of population, or with the increase in demand if it doesn't have any profit at all? It wouldn't be able to create more business(es), it wouldn't be able to provide more jobs, It wouldn't be able to maintain any business or service(because if things crash or if things break down that requires unexpected costs), It wouldn't have any power to change things even if people vote to change things etc, It wouldn't be able to deal with any catashropes or any crisis at all, it would have no power over things and that government would necessarily fail. And how many people would have the right to vote on it? All the people in the whole country, or just local people or something else?

You don't need a perfectly controlled study, we don't want you to provide a perfect study, but at least provide any study on this topic, because I can't do anything with your observation. Generally speaking controlled studies are much more reliable than your personal observations, so if you want to say, that you personal observation and assumptions about this subject will be more reliable ,then I have to disagree. When we are talking about studies we can see what methodology was used, what was the experiment, how many people were involved etcetc. We can see all the data and then other researchers can try to replicate the data. If replication ends in similar results by many repeated studies, then the conclusion can get stronger and stronger. Personal observation in this context means nothing. You have no idea how high a normal Jews IQ is based on your personal observations, you have to measure it. You don't know what are the relevant variables that affects one's IQ or intelligence based on your personal observations, you have to measure those as well, once you have a hypothesis you don't just conclude that it is true, because it sounds true to you, you have to test it and let other people to test it and see if they get similar results to you. You don't know how many variables can affect one's success in school , you don't know how many factors can affect one's IQ or intelligence. Again here you just begging the question and your assumption is your conclusion. This part is not relevant to your argument, so even if what you say about controlled environment would be true, that still wouldn't make your argument true about Jewish people. Noone is denying that part, but you haven't established or shown any study or evidence that would conclude and show that an average level Jewish person indeed will have a higher IQ than other average people. Yes , but again you can't ignore the environmental parts if you want to be very precise about this. If you really want to make sure that you are right ,then why not do these experiments and studies rigorously? No. None of those things proved your conclusion and you still haven't provided any study that would prove or strengthen your argument.

I haven't seen any rigorous studies that would conclude this or studies that would take into account many variables at the same time and do very isolated and controlled experiments and conclude that "yes, the reason or the main reason why certain group of people outperform other groups of people intellectually, is because of their genetics". Maybe, but 15 point difference would be a big difference. First you would have to establish and show that there is actually that much of a difference in iq between Jewish people and not Jewish people. First you have to establish and show that Jewish people have higher IQ, If you can prove that, then we should look at a study, that take into account all the effects that are outside of one's genetic, that can have an effect on a person's IQ. If you could show a study like that, and show that Jewish people still have higher IQ, then you might start to strengthen your hypothesis, but even then we wouldn't be done. Basically you would have to do and show many studies, and exclude many other explanations and do studies for all those.

One thing that we know statistically, that people who learn in private schools are consistently outperforming students who learn in mainstream schools. I think given a normal level of IQ, and very effective methods of teaching most people could get through college. Yeah IQ definitely matters, however, I don't think we did enough experiments with effective teaching methods to conclude confidently , that the main drive is always about genetics. These experiments are very hard to do, because you need to control many variables at the same time. Many things can have an effect on a kid's education and learning ability What classes are you reffering to? Even if you want to go with IQ there are things that can affect your IQ at the very least negatively. if you don't get certain things or if you suffer certain things that might cause that your IQ won't be as high as it would have been otherwise. So if we would want to do a proper analysis of this issue, we would have to look at many many things.

Based on what would you filter people?

Its not just about regular education, but finding effective ways to teach. One thing with Jews, is not just that they get education, but probably how they get their education. Having private teachers from an early age could make a massive difference. Regular people who go to school don't get nowhere near as much attention from teachers, because they generally have many classmates and the teacher don't have time to focus too much on one kid.

So if we go back to the home made porn example, then this doesn't apply.

Depends on how you evaluate it. If we evaluate it by how realistic it is, and how authentic it is, then its much better than other forms of porn, because these people are most of the time genuinely attracted to each other, and have sex in the same way, when the camera is turned off. Depends on the women, and why would porn create the expectation that women horny all the time? Many people who are virgin and watch porn knows, that not all people horny all the time.

Higher standards in this case means including stuff that normal people wouldn't necessarily associate with the word of 'intelligent', so at the end of the day, you are using it differently.

Yeah, I understand that, but I think its still worth to explore our disagreement(s) about certain parts of socialism. Basically, because it is decentralized and its hard to find the corrupt center. I will give a concrete example and the reason afterwards. So the example would be an instance, where a wealthy person would pay money to the workers in order to make the voting system in his favour. Lets say 'in his favour' in this case would mean firing certain people from the company. So he offers some money to some people, that he assumes, he can trust, and then they make the voting system corrupt, and fire those people. In that case, it would be hard to detect corruption, because those people weren't fired randomly by one person or a small number of people, but they were fired because the majority of the workers agreed to it. Even if some people would recognize that there is some corruption going on, they wouldn't know where to search for it, because at least 51% of the people who are working at that company voted to fire those people, so you need to do a really big investigation to find out who paid who. Opposite to that, generally speaking, under a system where there is no voting involved, almost every corruption investigation would start from the top of the hierarchy, because everyone knows where the power is centered at, but in a decentralized system, its much harder to try to find the corrupt piece. Other example for corruption would be ideologically driven votes. Of course, under a capitalist system this is also possible, however generally, because the boss is success and profit driven that boss will most likely overlook the ideological differences. Also, under a capitalist system with laws its easier to reduce bigoted thinking and biased ideological decision in the context of a company, because only the boss has to be targeted, but opposite to this, under a system ,where there is a democratized workplace, in that case people could collectively fire people just because they don't agree with their ideology, and the key part here, is that it would be almost impossible to write laws to prevent that. That being said, I will concede, that in a decentralized system, its harder to make it corrupt for one person (because you have to make 51% of the people to play your game), however, once you manage to make it corrupt, it requires much more time and a big investigation to trace back the crime. Thats sad, but your friend could choose to use his skills more wisely at a different company, where they would work towards a more conscious goal. I don't think this is necessarily true. I could bring up medicine in general, like big pharma (although I know it has many problems, but its still hugely beneficial), I could also bring up vaccines.I don't think that research that is done for profit will be generally bad. I would say, that positive ROI says almost nothing about the quality of the research , but says more about what the current market values. The government owning the companies doesn't necessarily indicates less orientation towards profit. The reason why is because those companies under your system would be run by workers, and workers generally want to earn as much money as possible. So how can they earn more money under a socialist system? I assume it would either be determined by the success of the company (so they can distribute more money between the workers, if the company generates more profit) or it would be determined by the government. If its solely determined by the government, in that case, I still wouldn't necessarily agree that the government wouldn't have an incentive to generate as much profit as possible, because all the power would be in the government's hand, so why would they suddenly not care about earning more money? The government would have almost all the leverage and they could do whatever they want , because they would own all the companies, so people wouldn't even have a chance to break from that system. Or if the workers money only determined by the market, in that case, they would still have the incentive to create artifical demand. Also, I would be very curious how new businesses would be created under the system you are talking about, like how the process would go down exactly, because that can be a key part to the demand discussion.

So, would you say, there is no possible way to create healthy porn? Like scenes that are much more realistic like amateur home-made porn.

This has nothing to do with good sex. When it comes to word usage, of course I will assume, that person is using certain words the same way as most people would use them, unless its very clear, that they mean something different. Why would I assume otherwise? Also, this is all a definition game now. I say it again we probably agree, you just use the word "intelligent" in a different way than most people, and thats where my disagreement came from.

If its easy to see and measure a good and effective leader, then human input is not releavant there. The other problem is that you need some level of intelligence to vote for the right person. That level of intelligence is not a given and giving this choice in this isn't smart, if the effective financial guy could be determined without human input. If a thing is very clear cut and we know that we want that thing, then human input is not just not relevant, but can be harmful. I would also add, that corruption under socialism would be different but not in a good way. People there could still use their money for the purpose of corruption but the difference is that under a capitalist system when the shady shit comes to light, you can almost automatically see who should be hold accountable (and you know what patterns to search for), but on the other hand, how the fuck can you hold a group of people properly accountable and how could you properly trace back who did the corrupt funding? The other corruption problem that would be not appliable to capitalism is that people who are in charge of the government, they have all the power in their hands. They are basically ruling almost the whole market, and they can decide how much money people can earn, and how much profit they want to take, they can close any business any they want. If you say that nonono its not government owned its owned collectively, then my question would be, how would people get paid. Earlier you gave this answer "The rewards would be the same as they are now." but it wouldn't be, because earlier there was a market that determined the price of labour, but right now that part of the market is gone (because that part of the competition is gone), so when a collectively owned company earns x amount of money, based on what factors would it give a salary? Some can get away with stuff but others can't. For example, there are laws that are protecting employees: you can't pay people under minimum wage, there are ethic laws about what you can and can't do to your employees etc. The solution is not socalism (where the main corruption factors are still present), but probably more well thought out restriction(s) or a different system (which is neither socialism, nor capitalism) This is true, those are good examples, however, giving our current state of society and the fact that the current society is stage orange at best, it would undermine innovation greatly, but yeah thats true, that innovation is not exclusive to profit incentive. But, It would also slow down research, unless you compensate the research group properly, but you its not sustainable in the longrun to have a negative ROI. I didn't agree with that, and I don't think you have properly established that point. I gave reasons why I think there wouldn't be less incentive for corruption, you can attack those points if you want to. Your points would be true, if people would have the same desires and goals, and those goals and desires wouldn't be opposite to each other. We always need to see what incentive people have in a certain system ,and then we can make relatively correct predictions about how it would go down or at the very least how it would not go down. Lets say you choose a socialist system where everyone can vote on every decision, now the problem is that , that system is super inefficient and I don't see how for example a hypothetical Joe should have a direct say in every companies decision making. Can you imagine how insane that would be? Every people would need to vote on a thousand different things every day. Above a certain number, the more decisions you give to people the poorer decision they will make, because to properly make decisions you need to have some factors in check (like knowing all or if not all , most information about the subject you want to make a decision about | being properly educated about that subject to have the necessary structre to put the relevant information in/through and that way you have a way to properly evaluate that information). We disagree about the effectiveness of socalism and we are still in hypothetical land. We still haven't talked about many things like how would a socialist country would react to crisis or how it would coodinate itself with foreign countries, whether or not this socialist country would want to participate in the global market, how it would deal with outside pressure, how it would deal with other countries outsourcing it, whether or not investment would be possible or not, whether or not foreign investment would be allowed or not, how would an actual investment would even go down if a socialist country would want to invest some of its money in a foreign country The most important would be if you could show me a real world example of your hypothetical socialist system or an example that is very similar to it (because in that case you have much less explaning to do, because then I would have a tangible thing to evaluate and to grapple with).

Check the Stargate project out. If you are interested here is two video extensively talking about focusing on remote viewing. You can find sources sited in the video description

Yeah this is crazy. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/12/13/jewish-educational-attainment/ Here is an explanation from a Jewish person: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Nobel-prize-winners-are-Jewish

In that case, I might agree with you, because in that case, your definition of intelligence probably entails creativity and the ability to connect with others and the ability to sense what feels good to others. The reason why i didn't agree with you first, is because people don't use the word intelligence the same way you do. A generally considered unintelligent woman, could have all the positive aspects that I listed above, therefore have the ability to have good sex.

Probably the government will need to incentivise people by making social security payments much higher and that might 'solve' the problem for the moment, but in the longrun it won't be affordable, but it will buy some time.

Depends on how you define cognitive intelligence, but I think its useful to make a distinction between a person who is an intellectual and between a person who can use his body well, can feel into things and have the ability to sense what feels good to others. If you define cognitive intelligence how I defined above, then according to your theory, most intellectual people should automatically be good in bed, but thats not the case, most geeks and nerds are bad at sex, because they lack experience and social intelligence and kinesthetic intelligence. I don't see a difference in ability when it comes to sex, between a person who has a high level of kinesthetic intelligence and a person who is an intellectual and have kinesthetic intelligence.

But people would only have a say and could only vote in the context of a company where they work at, and they wouldn't have a say in every company, and thats why the same rivalrous dynamic is there just in a different context. People would want to create more profit where they work because if collectively they can make more money then they can distribute more money between them and they wouldn't give a fuck about people that are working at a different company. They have an incentive to be the best in market and to rule the whole market as a big business, so they still have an incentive to fuck other companies over and to be better than them. They still have the incentive to create addictive products. - So the same dynamics would go down. That would have its own problems. There would be no drive to innovate or to work hard and it would produce poor quality goods and services I knew this question was coming, and I can make a distinction between this and political democracy. The distinction here is that its much easier to see and to measure who would be a good and effective person who can make really good decisions for a company and to do his work very effectively compared to trying to make a test for who would be a conscious leader of a country. Its also much easier to train someone to be a better financial guy compared to train someone to be a conscious leader. For the first, you just have to be a good business man who can generate quality goods and or service and profit and not fuck up the company financially in the longrun vs in the second you have to have so many good qualities and have to have a developed cognition and it would be impossible to measure for those things the other disinction is that , the dictator wouldn't be hold accountable by anything but this business person could still be hold accountable by political restrictions so if the businessman start to do shady shit, he/she can be caught and be hold accountable and thats an important distinction. I appreciate Janitors, but their contribution to the company is not the same as people who are educated and who are able to see how to maintain the company and how to make it more succesful. From a market lense, that janitor is easily replaceable and it would be easy to find a different person to his/her place, the same couldn't be said about a highly education person who has a lot of experience making hard financial decisions. I think I could agree with this. I think the biggest problem is not necessarily inequality, but inequality where not all people having their basic needs met. I know 'basic needs' is a vague notion, but its a collection of things that you need to live a happy life in the current times. I think the current times part is important, because as time passes by things can change, and what would be considered 'basic needs' is also changing. I don't think that would be the worst case scenario. Given our culture and our collective level of consciousness it would be a granted dynamic that would eventually go down. My argument against socalism is not that it would have elements of capitalism, my argument is that it would have all the negative elements of capitalism + being ineffective + it would block innovation. The collectively owned part isn't relevant when your money isn't determined by the whole country, but by the people who are working at the same workplace as you do , and by the success of the company where you work at.

In the context of sex, why would cognitive intelligence matter at all?

Comapanies want to make profit, if they have a hard time to do that because of higher tax, then they will eventually adapt. We can use empirical data to see what products and services are prone to produce addiction, and then we could attack those. Im not sure about that one, why would it be significantly less? The motive that creates atificial demand is the want for profit. That part would still exist in your system and I don't see how that would be mitigated just because people wouldn't own companies. You can be a worker at a company and you and the other guys that work there would still collectively want to dominate the market with whatever means possible, because its their incentive to do so. If your system involves markets and if your socialist country have more than one company, then you will end up seeing the same dynamics you see now. The ability to vote in a workplace doesn't solve this problem, country owning all companies doesn't solve this problem either, so how would there be significantly less artificial demand? Having a choice is not always good. This model can only function well, if most people there are knowledgeable and educated, but if they are not, they will make poor choices overall for the company, which would be bad for everyone working there. Lets say there is a big company where there is 100 people. There are janitors and all the other workers have higher education and other qualifications. Why would the janitors have the same amount of say, when they have little to no contribution to the success of that company? How would you reward people? Would you reward them based on how much they contribute to that particular company's success or other way? Also I don't see how would your system solve inequality, when there is still a market. The same dynamic would go down just as in a capitalist society, which is that some people are exceptionally good at managing their finance and money, they know exactly where to invest and how much and when, and eventually they would dominate the workplace as well , because they could use their money to corrupt the workplace. The difference would be that you can't own companies so people couldn't dominate the market that way, but my guess would be, that in that case, people would migrate to countries where they can actually create a private business , or if we assume that every country is socialist, then these people would still end up dominating the certain parts of the market just with a different strategy like owning houses and other properties. There are ways to measure this, but it wouldn't be easy at all. We know mostly what we want (like more love, more healthy society where people are happy and more functioning etc) but the problem is that its impossible to do it in an isolated way, where we can confidently draw a causality line and we can exclude every outside effects. But this is a problem, that isn't relevant to this discussion however its a good topic to explore, because collectively we should figure out how should we do it. Because of competition. Competition drives profit and quality. People don't want the same from everything, and since in your system there is a market, demand would eventually end up forcing the government to create more companies to satisfy the needs of the customers. People don't just want to buy adidas shoes, some people like nike others like vans etc and there is no way that a company can specialize in being good at producing all the quality services and items.

I didn't say there would be the same amount, i just wanted to point out, that the problem wouldn't be solved - just mitigated. The reason why I wanted to point that out, to show you , that that particular problem is not exclusive to capitalism, because earlier you made it sound like, these problems are only related to a capitalist structure and not to the content within that structure. I think its very important to distinguish between structural and not structural problems. Lets say there is a small company where there is 100 people. These people will collectively decide on stuff. Lets say there is a person who know 55 people there and this person has a good relationship with those people. They can do whatever the fuck they want there, because they can vote whatever they want. Different example: This person wouldn't even need to know 50% of the people, he just need to offer some money and basically buy votes and power. Based on what plan would you distribute the money? Lets say there is a business and the profit is 100 million dollars, and lets say there is 10 thousand workers working in that business. I would switch the word capitalism with unregulated markets and competition. Generally speaking I agree with this, but I think there still a lot of room to grow but I agree that it need to be slowed the fuck down and prioritized under human wellbeing and under environmental damage. Also I want to add this here: GDP would still be a good variable to measure improvement with, if it would only measure consciously created goods and services. Looking at it from the big picture, it might, but if we zoom in and get into specific parts, then this wouldn't be true. To be more specific: Lets say there is 2 shoemaking business in a socialist country. 100 people working in business 1 and 100 people working in business 2. People who are working at business 1, I assume they would only have a say and vote that is related to business 1. These people have an interest to collectively be better compared to business 2. So In the big picture, most business 1 people wouldn't give a fuck about business 2 people. They would want to find a way, to outsource and to outsmart business 2 people, to dominate the market which would eventually result in business 2 people earning less money, and getting fucked over and being forced to switch jobs.

It is possible, but not every tier2 is attracted to that.

Probably with higher taxes, but would have to think about it more. It seems that you say, that there is still a market under the socialist system ,that you are talking about, so if there is a market, there will be artificial demand, so it doesn't solve that problem and it seems that problem is not exclusive to capitalism, but that problem is exclusive to having a market. You say there is central planning and then you say there is still a market. I assume that when you say central planning you mean something like people voting collectively on who should get and how much profit and voting on what to do with the collectively owned business in general. Not necessarily, you can still get fucked if we are talking about people who has big networks. People with big networks at a workplace could make it more central and fuck up other people who works there, so how would you make sure that doesn't happen? If there is still a market then there is still demand and competition. Workplaces that have more skilled and smarter people with big networks , those would naturally dominate the whole market, Also how and when would a new business get created? like how would it go down in the real world? Almost every, but again not just the capitalist systems aiming for growth, so to only relate capitalism to gpd growth is misleading, imo. GPD growth would have been a must under any economic system. Imagine if the whole world would have been stuck in the early 20st century. We wouldn't enjoy the comfort and the benefits of anything right now. Every science, The whole medical field (We wouldn't have nowhere near the same capability to deal with diseases and illnesses), no internet etc. Under a system where there is 0% GDP growth, how do you adapt to a growing population? How do you provide a business and jobs for those people? How do you make sure that everyone will have a good enough livelihood? Under a socialist system where there is a market, there would still be a want and aim for GPD growth, because if you want to participate in a market, you have competition and of course you don't want to lose in a competition, especially if your livelihood depend on it. So again, this problem is not exclusive to capitalism either, this is probably exclusive to systems that has a market and an underdeveloped culture. GPD growth is not necessarily bad, because although that metric is not perfect to measure collective wellbeing , but it does create the possibility to make people's lifes better (if we assume a developed culture). So it seems to me, that if I didn't misinterpreted most of your stuff, then that system wouldn't solve the core problems of capitalism, at the very best it would probably mitigate it, but that doesn't necessarily true either. We would probably need empirical data to prove these theories.

The answer is yes, it does lead to artifically created demand, but it can be regulated but I don't think its exclusive to capitalism. Demand of anything could be manipulated by the government as well. How is artifically created demand fades away under your system? I don't think there is any economic system today, where there is a goal to have 0% gpd growth. In a system where there is no market, I think it could be argued that artificialness is much more there, because everything is artificially moderated but by who?