See also: The Democratic Party Has Tipped, To Minorities, Women, Gays—Expect More Kavanaugh-Type Hysteria in the Future.
“Young White Leftist Females Are Nuts.” I reported this finding in April, based on an analysis of Pew Research Center data which had found almost half of self-reported “White Liberals” (and the majority of White Liberal females) aged 18 to 29 had been diagnosed with a mental illness. Moderates were more mentally stable than Liberals but less so than Conservatives. This is only one analysis, and of course there is a replication crisis in social science. But a new study by Danish social scientist Emil Kirkegaard (right) has replicated the Pew Research findings with a vengeance, revealing that, in a huge dataset and on multiple different measures, being Left-wing predicts being mentally i ll while being Right-wing is associated with sound mental health [Mental Illness and the Left, by Emil Kirkegaard, Mankind Quarterly, 2020].
Kirkegaard begins by showing that many studies have found that self-identified liberals are more likely to have poor mental health than are self-identified conservatives and also that traditional religiousness, which strongly crosses-over with conservatism, correlates with mental health, while atheism is associated with the opposite.
Kirkegaard also discusses the Slate Star Codex Reader Survey—with a sample of 8000—which found a clear linear relationship between political viewpoint and mental health. Of those who were classified, based on their views, as the most “far Left,” 32% had been formally diagnosed with either depression, bipolar disorder is schizophrenia. Of those who were the most “far Right,” only 11.8% had been formally diagnosed with one of these conditions. (Strikingly, this result was in fact the lowest for all the ten political classifications).
However, Kirkegaard allows that this survey may not be representative, as it was taken by followers of a particular blog, who are likely to be highly educated and intelligent. Accordingly, Kirkegaard chose to use America’s General Social Survey (GSS), which has questioned representative samples of Americans between 1972 and 2018, and has surveyed over 64,000 Americans in total. Subsamples of between 1,053 and 11,338 were asked questions about mental health such that they could be correlated with political viewpoint.
Kirkegaard’s results—especially considering the current influence of far-Left groups such as Black Lives Matter—are sobering.
On every single measure of mental health, mental health seems to get worse the more Leftist you are. And among the far Left, mental health is perilous. For example, Kirkegaard finds that 45% of “extremely liberal” females have “ever had a mental health problem” (as opposed around 18% for “extremely liberal” males). Among “liberal” females, this falls to just 15% and among “extremely conservative” females, it is less than 10%.
As the emotionally incontinent BLM marches attest—with young white girls lying on the ground in submission to the New Multicultural Cult—extremely liberal females have serious mental health problems.
Whether the GSS asks about having had counselling in the last year, days in poor health, or having a “mental or emotional disability,” t he direction of the results is always the same: the more Left wing you are, the more mentally ill; the more Right wing—often including “far Right”—the more mentally healthy.
This contrasts with a recent article in Quillette [The Woke Left v. the Alt-Right: A New Study Shows They’re More Alike Than Either Side Realizes, By Zaid Jilani, Quillette, August 3, 2020] arguing that there are considerable psychological similarities between the far Left and the far Right. But Kirkegaard’s research shows that on one crucial issue there is a huge difference. The far Left are mentally ill. The far Right are, on many measures—such as “ever had a mental health problem,” or “days in poor health”—the mentally healthiest of all political gradations.
Kirkegaard found the same relationship when controlling for age and sex. The only change: mental health scores for “Conservatives” were, on some measures, fractionally better than for “Extreme Conservatives.” However, both were still dramatically healthier than Liberals, with Extreme Liberals being conspicuous outliers in terms of terrible mental health.
Kierkegaard even finds the same relationship in American voting patterns. In general, the most mentally ill people are those who strongly identify as Democrat and the least mentally ill are those who strongly identify as Republican. There is a roughly linear decline in mental ill health as you move from “Strongly Democrat” to “Strongly Republican.”
But Kierkegaard’s incredibly in-depth analysis then does something very novel. It reverses the question, exploring how “happy” people of different political viewpoints rate themselves, as mentally healthy people tend to be of a “happy” disposition. There are various anomalies which Kirkegaard puts down to sampling errors. But, overall, people appear to be happier the more conservative they are.
Kirkegaard is cautious about making sense of the causes of this relationship between Leftism and mental illness. He notes that academics tend to be very Left-wing and that there are reports of increasing levels of mental illness among PhD students:
This suggests that there is perhaps something about being in university that is causal for mental illness and probably also encourages people with poor mental health to self-select into it.
But Kirkegaard also observes that both mental illness and political viewpoint are strongly genetic. So, an explanation that would fit better: being “Conservative” is associated with ways of thinking that would have been adaptive under the harsh conditions to which human populations were subject until the Industrial Revolution. Mental health would also have been adaptive. Accordingly, both would have been selected for together–meaning we would expect the two to go together for genetic reasons.
Similarly, as selection pressures have hugely weakened, deviations from these evolutionarily-adaptive thought patterns would also go together.
And we would expect the “far Left”—with their notions of it being good not to have children or moral to allow one’s ethnic group to be wiped out—to be acutely mentally ill, just as Kirkegaard finds. It is these kinds of extremists, he notes, that tend to become politically active.
In other words, in the BLM Era, Kirkegaard’s study clearly shows that Western societies are actually being held to ransom, pressurized and generally intimidated by a mob of people who are, in fact, very seriously mentally ill. They should, in many cases, be in psychiatric hospitals rather than marching through the streets for “racial justice.”
Lance Welton [email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.
I don’t see a connection between good mental health and belief in superstitions and the supernatural.
High IQ people are more likely to suffer from mental illnesses, and women are more likely to seek help for, and therefore be diagnosed with, mental illness. High IQ people also go to college, where all the professors are liberal.
This a nothingburger.
Mental health itself is a subject too easily used by the left for political reasons as they dominate the social sciences.
In fact the entire realm of psychology needs to be questioned. A lot of psychotherapy techniques are closer to art than science.
A more interesting test would be to see how well leftists can separate empathy from logic.
Their empathy genes are exploited by left-wing propaganda which then overwhelms their sense of logic. This should be testable.
I am convinced that most left-wing professors know full well that they have to lie and believe their best hope to take advantage of White women and their innate sense of empathy. They overwhelm them will tales of Black woe and evil Whites holding them back while avoiding simple questions like: Why isn’t Haiti a utopia if White people are the cause of all Black problems?
The link to Emil Kirkegaard is broken. I get this error when I click it:
This site can’t be reached126.96.36.199 refused to connect.
You gotta be kidding, Rosie. You outdid yourself on this one. Sentence One is blatant horsepoo. Besides, the mental illness that goes with being a far leftist, low iq female is hand-in-hand driving them them into the very easiest ‘degree’ programs, the humanities (Women’s, Sex, Af-Am), they are NOT HIGH IQ, they’re low, they’re average or worse than society in general, many of whom are attending with IQ85 or less. If they were brighter, they’d go to other, loftier, more difficult pursuits. It is these lowIQ, feminist female mental patient-sorts that devised, push and attend those ‘studies’ programs on Daddy’s dime. It was a way to get dumb women into college on Daddy’s Dime, feed dumb-female radical lesbian professors with lots of Diploma Mill creds and easy jobs and also to radicalize said mentally ill students for idiotic purposes. Like in the picture.
As for Sentence Two, the High IQ see through the game, they aren’t changed, they come out the way they went in. The Prof has something they need, a grade and in any case, they aren’t in radicalizing course material such as women’s studies. The High IQ are of engineering/law/medicine, not Stupid-Chick Studies. It is the low-iq females in Humanities that are easily manipulated into things like, well, the picture. See Rosie, there’s that damned picture with the lo-IQ retards face down in filthy streets for a lie. And they don’t even know they’re dumb. Or mentally ill. They never do. There ain’t a 100 IQ in all those chicks, beached on their fat-bellies on that whole street, Rosie. And you know it.
The “mental illness” referenced seems to be fairly common, & controllable with appropriate medication & therapy — ie depression, schizophrenia etc. I’d be interested in the correlations between various political outlooks & serious mental pathologies: sociopathology & psychpathologies.
When mentally ill or disturbed, it makes more sense to self-identify as being a leftist. So – hegg and enn***** are hard to discern here.
Austian poet and wordsmith/ word-wizard Ernst Jandl famously put it this way
that reft und light
can not be confused
whart and erranion
lechts und rinks
kann man nicht velwechsern
werch ein illtum(Ernst Jandl)
some thinkthat reft und light can not be confusedwhart and erranion
I’d call myself a left-winger, trotting up to the left end of the spectrum though not passing Trotsky and only seeing Marx at a distance. Their theories need to be understood, I think. I haven’t got far with that.
Anyway, Lance, thanks for pointing out that I’m a loony by definition. Where can I go for psychiatric help?
OK, high IQ people go to college, but what kind of college education will the highest IQ people seek? Literary theory or Electrical Engineering?
I really don’t know the numbers, but I seriously doubt that “all the professors are liberal”. In the Humanities, surely most are. But what about the “hard sciences”? Do you think the Engineering departments of the Universities are crawling with communists? Hard to believe, unless we’re talking of Communist countries, which are mostly historical entities by now.
Furthermore, your mention of academic experience seems to imply that mental illness is acquired, but mental illness is believed to be congenital, and probably genetic in a significant, if not overwhelming, number of cases.
Anyway, this is far from being a nothingburger, in my opinion. Leftism has changed considerably since the times of Karl Marx. Does the author think that leftists were always lunatics, regardless of the changes that leftism has gone through in all those years? Then the leftist doctrine could not be the link to a particular health condition, since it has existed in so many forms throughout the years, and madness has a more recognizable nature that does not vary according to the whims of time.
As for religion, he says that religious people are saner. But are they saner because of religion, or are they religious because they are saner? Many people in this very website have equaled leftism with religious thinking. Why wouldn’t this particular kind of religion be a sign (or a cause) of mental health as all the others?
Much projection from Welton as usual.
He’s a scientific illiterate, insane conspiracy theorist who denies anthropogenic global warming and holds plenty of other crackpot views. Mentally ill? Look in the mirror Mr. Welton. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lance_Welton#Climate_change_denial
Good grief. As if high IQ people aren’t interested in studying history, literature, and philosophy. If anything, the most intelligent people would be expected to be particularly drawn to the impractical but intellectually stimulating humanities. Apart from that, even engineering majors have to complete very substantial liberal arts and social sciences requirements in order to graduate.
Welton is completely wrong of course. The ‘far-left’ aren’t anti-natalist but pro-natalist, just look at Marxists and hardcore socialists who deny overpopulation and reject Malthusianism. https://www.slideshare.net/Imani23/marxist-theory-on-population-growth
There is good reason that Antifa is commonly known as the Vegan ISIS.
Lots of these mentally disturbed young people, especially women where raised on by their liberal parents on very high carb plant based diets heavily promoted by the Obama administration.
Was this just gross stupidly, idiotic ideology, or part of a larger plan?
Today, doctors are seeing lots of young people with diet influenced emotional and behavior issues.
How to Cure Gut and Psychology Syndrome? Gut Health and Autism with Dr Natasha Campbell McBride
Obviously, American leftists are nuts. Anyone who would protest against the interests of their own people has to be off the wall crazy. The insane altruism we see in many upper middle class Whites, where they have no problem spending other people’s money or forcing other people’s kids to go to “integrated” schools is another sign of craziness. I’ve asked a few of these Pale skinned dolls, after they have handsome blonde haired, blue eyed children, if they were okay with their children being discriminated against via affirmative action when they grow up, and you can see their brains blanking out, steam occasionally exiting their ears as they insist that their kids will never, ever, ever suffer the results of their madness. I don’t understand how these certifiably insane lefties are able to tie their shoes in the morning. Amazes me.
Leftist troll. Like wikipedia is anything but leftist propaganda. And don’t make me laugh about AGW, any intelligent being understands that is complete bs. You are proof this article is over the target, lol.
No, it’s evidence to #RepealThe19th.
Nice try but objective scientific studies have demonstrated that there are biological differences between conservatives and liberals. For one summary see “Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults” at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/?report=printable
The Conservative personality is significantly associated with a “generalized susceptibility to experiencing threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty,” and “conservative attitudes serve a defensive function.” Conservative resistance to change and acceptance of inequality were ultimately rooted in psychological attempts to manage uncertainty and fear. Social change presents uncertainty, which creates anxiety in Conservatives. Conservatives react by resisting social change and defending the status quo. Social equality presents uncertainty with regard to status. To avoid status anxiety, Conservatives resist egalitarianism and defend inequality. Moreover, the status quo usually includes inequality, so defending the status quo usually includes defending inequality on that basis, as well. Changes to the status quo create uncertainty, uncertainty creates anxiety, and Conservatives react to this anxiety by reflexively defending the status quo ante.
Liberals also experience anxiety under conditions of uncertainty, but Liberals tend to respond by activating brain processes which mitigate their initial reactions. Presumably this is why studies have found that Liberals were strongly associated with openness to new experience and traits related to it: sensation-seeking, novelty-seeking, curiosity, creativity, and rebelliousness. It would also explain why Liberals advocate for social change and challenge inequality: through cognitive intervention, Liberals experience less uncertainty anxiety than Conservatives.
There appear to be natural reasons why social groups commonly see the formation of two conflicting political factions. Some members of the group, at least partly for genetic reasons, will be more sensitive to conditions of uncertainty. That will dispose them to band together to conserve the status quo. Other members of the group, at least partly due to their genetic code, will be less sensitive to conditions of uncertainty. That will dispose them to band together to effect desired changes from the status quo. The names of these opposing political factions will vary from time to time and place to place, but the pattern permeates throughout human history. We often say, in such circumstances, that the party opposing us is irrational, or failing to see their own interests. But it really comes down to the fact that the parties don’t have the same value priorities.
The ones who have a disease will depend on the state to live so it’s pretty sane for them to support the left, most though have had their minds permanently damaged by leftism, the brain can only take so much abuse.
I’m not a leftist, contrary Welton’s lies about me. I am though pro-science so criticise the right more than left because conservatives and far-right nationalists tend to be more anti-science (not to say liberals and Marxists don’t deny some scientific realities, in fact, I mentioned this above.)
It is conservatives, especially the religious-right though that promote creationism pseudoscience. There’s also studies showing man-made climate change denial is highest among conservatives.
I also think the right-wing attracts more ‘conspiratards’, there seem to be a lot more crazy right-wing conspiracy theories than left-wing conspiracy theories.
And Lance Welton is a right-wing conspiratard. Read his laughable articles on this site and he seems to promote all sorts of wacky conspiracy theories and fake news, most recently about COVID-19.
Vegans and vegetarians are much more likely to be depressed (‘mentally ill’) than meat-eaters because they are aware of the horrors of meat-factory farms and animal suffering:
Now imagine a vegan or vegetarian actively researching animal suffering on a daily basis and watching plenty of unpleasant videos of animals living in appalling conditions and being killed. Someone who does this is going to become depressed and anxious rather quick. Is this a bad thing? It just means as is quoted above: “vegetarians and vegans are more aware of the cruelties of the world and this is more depressing than living in a state of ignorant bliss.” If there was better animal welfare – there would be less depression.
As a matter of fact, they are, but allow me to point out that that is not what I said. Very high IQ people prefer to pursue degrees in areas of high financial return; they indulge in their interest in the Humanities in their private lives, or with no Academic affiliation, and usually without monetary gain in view.
I do not have statistics to back up my claim, but I do have enough personal eyewitness experience of that. Plain old common sense also helps (why would one need a degree to study History, etc?)
Good luck, Bro4-3. Academics are in the room, they’ll hang any lie in the air to ‘prove’ they believe in science (of course, only THEIR science, not actual, physical science), they try to convince us that they’re anything but idiots, that what they have has academic/economic/intellectual value, etc. Rosie acts like the only place you can learn history is college, where of course you can get the intellectually stimulating subjects like the humanities, too!
Leftist academics from the humanities side of the ledger is fraud, nothing more. But they know it’s a con.
While I agree with a majority of your comments on hbd and genetic issues, I stand by my assessment of your leftist view. Your lack of comments on Larry Romanoff’s recent attack on conservatives is the tell. You’re parroting of msm agw is another. A brief perusal of your comments leads me to believe you are fairly well educated & astute at repeating the accepted PC stance on many issues. But like many well educated people, critical thinking & reasoning is sorely lacking.
BTW, I’m not defending Welton, merely calling out your slant.
Priceless. Over the target, did you say?
I use this pic too much, perhaps, they used to be my mechanical pride and joy, the ejection seats, anyway. But the damned thing fits everything from “over the target” to anything related to “Wakanda”, given the Black Panther insignia.
Leftists could only dream of creating such machines, not to mention their feminist/Black clients and patrons.
Indeed. Humanities departments market their degrees based on the idea that their majors learn analytical and communication skills that provide transferable skills for all sorts of jobs, and we are talking about kids here, not savvy adults. (Yes, car insurance companies are correct. 18-20 year olds are neurologically and psychologically immature, and incompetent to contract debts as far as I’m concerned.)
Not every high IQ person wants to be an engineer. In fact, most don’t.
Mental illness is negatively related to intelligence. While there is a diagnostic bias confound problem as you mention, it is not really that strong. Look up some of the recent large studies on general psychopathology factor (P factor) and intelligence. E.g.:
Table 2, P correlations:
Stanford-Binet IQ (age 5), r = -17
WISC-R IQ (ages 7–11), r = -.15
WAIS-IV Full Scale IQ, r = -.19
“Liberals experience less uncertainty anxiety than conservatives”
Total bullshit, and I coud rip this absurd claim apart in a thousand different ways, however this being too much wasted energy.
I will say this much: myself a staunch conservative and Mensa qualified since 1973, plus being an airborne trained US army vet, I have been on the road as a Jazz performer for five decades and there is nothing more “uncertain” than being required to come up with new melody night after night for decades on end, and I have never experienced “uncertainy anxiety”, other than my very first parachute jump which scared the shit out of me.
You talking out of your behind and you are obviously unware of the fact that these Rube Goldberg “theories” are concocted for the most part by “liberals” and therefore of course skewed to show “conservatives” in the most negative possible light.
Liberals are the psychotics who are demanding “Safe spaces” in universities, not conservatives.
Does it explain why “liberals” believe that criminals shouldn’t be imprisoned, or should be released early? Are they looking for the “novel” experience of being raped, robbed and/or murdered? The reason liberals experience “less anxiety” (if we accept your premise), would be because they are unable to foresee the results of their actions. Their arrogance is so great, they are unable to conceive of a reason for keeping dangerous criminals locked up. Since some of these deranged “liberals” score high on IQ tests, I’m going to go with guy that says they’re nuts. My own experience has shown me this, anyway.
Other great “liberal” policies proven to be insane:
1. Giving money to welfare recipients based on number of children, which resulted in huge families in NYC housing projects.
2. Forced integration which resulted in White flight and permanent racial tension.
3. Raising taxes to the point where economic growth is inhibited.
4. Forcing the passage of laws that allow deeply disturbed individuals to get genital mutilation operations so they can pretend to be a different sex.
And I can go on and on. “Liberals” are off the wall crazy. They ought to come out with a pill that can cure that.
This is not necessarily mental illness. Many women crave submission. Just visit any sex chat and look at how many of them have fantasies of being raped, ravished or dominated (90% of them).
Also, women love joining cults, so this is just another one.
My theory: mentally ill people seek cult-like groups that provide certainty in their lives.
Let me ask a question, and since Mr. Welton doesn’t answer much (per my experience), perhaps Mr. Kirkegaard could, having done the analytical work this post is based on anyway:
How do we separate cause and effect here, or is there no conclusion on that in the paper? I.e., could it not be the case that the more left-wing people become in their politics, from parents/peer influence, 24/7 Infotainment, drugs, what-have-you, the more they have a hard time dealing with cognitive dissonance?
They are already pre-programmed to believe a lot of lefty clap-trap and WANT to believe it, but then see proof of how wrong this ideology is in practice. Reconciling it all, or keeping the ideology and the information from their own lying eyes together has got to be hard on the brain. Then the brain says “I’m done here for a while … checking out … “, as the holder of the brain ends up checking in … they used to be called “State Hospitals”.
So, yes, you are one of those manosphere types.
One thing I’ve noticed about the likes of you is that any statistical disparity between men and women justifies appalling generalizations like this, but only about women. It’s as though I were to conclude that “men are paychopaths” on the basis of the fact that men are more likely to be psychopaths than women. Even this Welton character doesn’t quite stop to that level.
So I have an excuse to call for their sterilization and enslavement? I don’t believe in legitimacy, but it’s always welcome!
Setting aside a hypothetical P factor, the question is whether Leftists are particularly likely to suffer from the mental disorders (such as anxiety) that are in fact correlated with higher intelligence.
All kinds of jobs in the unpaid internship category, you mean. In the best of times. DC and NYC are full of them. Couldn’t run a lobby in DC without unpaid interns with Humanities and Communications degrees. Good thing their Daddies are sending money for rent. BTW, those are the idiots tits-down on the street and they’re mostly women. Low iq, low-cred women.
Well, I agree and disagree, Mr. Smith, but not due to bipolarity. I agree that Mr. Welton writes a whole lot of conjecture obtained via rectal extractions, on maybe 1/2 his posts. His heart is in the right place, and he can interpret a paper, but he is no scientist of any sort. I almost quit reading his writing entirely a while back, but then he’s on VDare, and that site is usually all factual, with some of the best writers around, at least on their forte, immigration stupidity*, so I catch his titles and click sometimes.
However, the fact that Mr. Welton disagrees with the Global Climate Stupidity is a mark in his favor. I don’t plan to read his post per your link, but as an engineering sort, I’ll just say that there is NO WORKING MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF THE ENTIRE EARTH’S CLIMATE!. There are so many processes that are not known enough to be even IN a math model, much less known well enough to provide good numbers.
It’s been 25 years of this bullshit now, and I’ve yet to see a prediction with results seen LATER that match the model’s output. Just give me some temperatures/humidities/cloud cover/precip. numbers with pretty loose tolerances for general regions of the world, for 5 and 10 years later, and let’s see something even in the freaking ballpark, that’s all I ask!
There’s no conspiracy involved with the Global Climate Disruption(TM) business, just as there’s none for this Kung Flu Infotainment Panic-Fest (Seasons I and II). It just takes a lot of stupid people thinking the same stupid things. Please don’t join them, Oliver.
* Link goes to Peak Stupidity, a site that often covers the existential immigration issue in a more humorous fashion, though often bordering on a need for anger management therapy.
Comment#23 was my reply, not sure why it didn’t link.
Just a message of caution to the UR commentariat. There is considerable reason to believe that a certain troll commenter on this article is this fellow (not EK, but the dude profiled in the link.) I personally wouldn’t engage the guy directly. You aren’t going to convince him of anything and I wouldn’t want any of my posts appearing in his email. If you want to argue against his points, just post as a general comment, and not as a reply. Good advice I think for dealing with a lot of UR trolls in general.
Hardly any women are lying “tits down,” as you well know. That is a tiny handful of women that is not only an infinitesimal fraction of women as a whole, but an infinitesimal fraction of women college graduates.
I don’t dispute that higher education is corrupt, but your claim that humanities graduates are “low IQ” is just asinine.
They are not “left”, they are the useful idiots of globalists. The mighty Wurlitzer a.k.a. the globalist owned media labels them as “left” or better yet, progressive.
The real left died years ago, and it has been a world wide phenomenon started by the globalists seeding multiculturalism in what was the “left”.
Average IQs by college major:
Philosophy is up there with physics, math and astronomy at 129. Art and literature in the mid 120s, and history at 119. Even lowly social work majors are slightly above average at 103.
For the record, I didn’t mean 90% of “all women”, just 90% of those who use sex chats. On the other hand, a) maybe a lot (90%??) of them are not real women and b) it’s been 10 years or more since the last time I visited a sex chat, so maybe things changed now.
Well, many men are psychopaths. 😉 I can generalize about men too, if you want.
Ok fair enough.
I don’t consider myself left-wing but an independent (I dislike party politics), however, a conservative will likely label me a ‘lefty’ because I’m child-free and I support degrowth (rejecting capitalism and expansionist economics). As a teenager (now a decade ago) I flirted with right wing populism and the far-right (although I never joined any party or group) after getting sick of mainstream politicians afraid to talk about things like immigration, but it wasn’t for me and I gave up those views, although I understand the mindset and people’s frustrations very well, and still know a lot of people still with these (in my opinion misguided) views. My main criticism as I said of the right-wing is its general anti-science attitude, including global warming denial.
Only the loony believe that psychiatry, or even, god forbid, psychology / psychotherapy or worst of all, medication, “helps” cases of loony.
People are not genuinely mentally healthy until they realizes that the psych_____ from whom they seek help is nuttier than they are, but that their mental well-being is their own responsibility and they take their mental, social and spiritual well-being into their own hands.
That’s one of the biggest problems with Christianity: it makes you think “salvation” comes from outside oneself. That you need a messiah or guru or to debase yourself. Wrong. Each man sins his own sins and finds his own redemption.
about medication and “mental illness” — didn’t someone write a very long article about Sackler and how he conned almost the entire mental health profession into prescribing drugs?
I can’t find it — it was important. and told a lot of painful truths.
Are you sure that it is not that leftists and women feel less stigma in admitting mental health problems ? They may even boast about having to see a psychiatrist as it makes them more interesting and they enjoy talking about themselves.
The Right (‘alt-‘ or otherwise) is characterised by, among other things, a sensible skepticism about psychobabble and related charlatanry.
So a group of self-reported right-wingers would be expected to report less ‘mental health’-related shit (e.g., visits to a charlatan’s office), when compared to a group of left-wingers.
This would be true even if the two groups have the same level of actual mental dysfunction.
Most people who seek out psychocharlatanry to help with ‘mental illness’, do so of their own volition: that implies that they view the charlatan as potentially useful, and the charlatan’s discipline as something other than hogwash. So they’re gullible in that domain.
The US ‘right’ is just as gullible, but with respect to a different grift: primitive foundational myths from a Bronze-age Levantine tribe.
Both forms of gullibility generate decent revenue streams for grifters and bullshit-artists, but only one of those generates a hit for ‘mental illness’.
Think “Catholic confession vs ‘talk therapy’”. Same shit, different sandwich – a bullshitting grifter sells a solution that does not outperform a placebo, to a gullible dummy.
So as with most of this sort of ‘research’, it’s just a fuckwitted category error by Kirkegaard – another no-talent with name-recognition due entirely to a famous relative. (Polly Tonybee, Lucien
FraudFreud and others spring to mind).
They’re closer to bullshit than to either art or science. They’re the cognitive-science version of major newspapers: they spent most of the 20th century being able to declare their bullshit authoritatively without any great fear of being questioned.
Time’s up, motherfuckers: time to join phrenology, astrology and homeopathy in the file marked “Everybody knows this is all pretty much bullshit“.
There is no way that those ‘averages’ can be squared with the actual distribution of SAT scores (which is where ETS supposedly got its IQ estimates from).
I have looked high and low for the ETS ‘research’ that was used by the clickbaity hack whose URL you linked: in typical dilettante style he links only to ETS’s homepage, not to a specific piece of research (and certainly not to any actual published citation). The same numbers appear in a range of places renowned for giving publicity to pseudoscience (e.g., Quora, Reddit), invariably sourcing to the thing you linked.
Trying to square the table in the link to known-knowns (distributions of SAT, GPA, high school and undergraduate grades and so forth) is where the obvious falseness of the ETS table is made clear.
The only place where STEM-like undergraduates would have a distribution that averages 128 are places like MIT (where the 25th percentile of admissions used to be 1500 – the 98th percentile of SATs).
By contrast: the average high school GPA for 4-year college undergraduates is 3.1 – barely above a ‘B’ average – which is pretty appalling given that 47% of US high school students finish high school with an A average or better. (This is why a 4.0 is essential for any decent college).
The average high-school GPA is 3.0; ~70% of kiddies go to college – and 44% of them go to 4 year colleges. If GPA was symmetrically distributed, the bottom 20% of college students would have a GPA below 3.0.
Seriously: saying “My Kid is a Straight-A Student” in Yanklish now could translate to the less-impressive English phrase “My Kid is Middle-Decile – Just“.
This credentialism is only slightly moderated during undergraduate: the modal grade awarded at 4 year colleges is an ‘A’ (it’s 42% of all grades, FFS).
At the bottom of the purported ETS table (school-wardens, bureaucrats, grievance majors etc) the relativities make somewhat more sense – it implies, for example, that the average schoolteacher was a dumber-than-average undergraduate, and is cognitively indistinguishable from the average white adult. That rings true – and says abysmal things about what should be expected.
As PIAAC shows, the average adult is a low bar indeed: the median adult has abysmal levels of literacy and numeracy. My general impression is that ‘Level III’ on PIAAC (which the median US adult fails to achieve) equates to a median grade 9 student.
That’s intuitively plausible: the median grade 9 student is not capable of attempting further mathematics, for instance.
Pick 100 adults at a local shopping mall and get them to add fractions analytically and express the answer as a fraction – say, 3/7 + 1/3 … you’ll see what I mean.
Until the rest of the West imported US rampant credentialism and ‘every retard gets a testamur‘ drivel (in the educrat expansion of the late 1980s), only the top 10% of all high school graduates went to university in the civilised (i.e., non-US) Anglophone West.
I think the simplest explanation for the above is that people like her simply lack forward time preference and live too much “in the now.” People like that are oblivious to the logical consequences tomorrow if actions taken today. In lieu of logic, feelings predominate. And in order to defuse a tense situation and restore feelings of social peace, appeasement is the easiest option.
That strategy might net these simpletons more benefit in the near term, but will undermine long-term success, as they have helped sow the seeds of their own dispossession. But they are too blind to see and too deaf to hear. Unfortunately, they also have a vote.
Although she may get a bit of preferential treatment for her hand in bringing down the big bad white patriarchy, her children will pay the price. Where is her husband? He needs to check her.
Not when our brains are 1-dimensional.
So I may keep trotting towards Trotsky along the 1-dimensional spectrum? Okay, thanks.
High IQ types are more likely to value a useful degree, and read a book in the subject than actually pursue a degree in a liberal study. The IQ charts show a correlation between rigor and IQ. While certain outliers stand out, one can readily hypothesize that Meryl Streep was justified in the economic returns of a acting career, which getting a liberal arts major allowed her to do. Dolph Lungren, on the other hand, dropped out of a MIT graduate engineering program to pursue this more lucrative venture. Liberal Arts are a low stress way of keeping the GPA up, but a disciplined student can get more out of personal study than the crap undergraduate texts push. First thing one learns in grad school is there aren’t any texts per se. We are expected to chew our own food, so to speak. With that in mind, the high IQ student is wise enough to pursue a maximal return on investment, not a BA in English Lit, or heaven help us, Gender Studies. Those that do so will be the stupidest f**ks on campus
I’m not sure what your point is here. I agree with you that too many kids go to college, and grade and credential inflation is out of control. Last I heard, about half of American youth graduate from college. Absent evidence to the contrary, it’s very reasonable to suppose that college graduates represent the right half of the bell curve. Therefore, by definition, they are not “low IQ.”
Nor were the IQ estimates particularly implausible. (I note, BTW, that you have produced no evidence in rebuttal.) The claim is not that STEM students are ~130, but rather that physics and math majors are ~130. Chemistry majors are, as I recall, in the mid 120s, along with art and literature majors. Life science majors (including nurses, I assume) are in the mid 110s, slightly lower than history majors. There is nothing at all counterintuitive about this.
Again, it’s one thing to criticize the evidence that is available. I might like to see better evidence myself. Still, we work with what we have, and it is simply absurd to claim that humanities majors are “low IQ.” At the very least, some sort of evidence is required to justify that extraordinary claim.
It has long been an article of faith in the dissident right that anyone who doesn’t major in engineering is an idiot, and one of the drawbacks of living in an echo chamber is that absurdities like this go unchallenged, and their proponents get high on their own supply, actually believing their own bullshit.
People keep repeating this over and over again, but repetition doesn’t make the case.
I’m not even sure that you are correct that getting a degree in something “practical” is all that worthwhile. If I’m not mistaken, most STEM graduates don’t even get jobs in their field. The point of the degree is signalling. You’re probably not going to use what you learn, anyway, so you might as well study something you enjoy. Indeed, prelaw students are told exactly that. The best way to keep your GPA up is to study something you find interesting, so long as it is a rigorous academic discipline (read: traditional humanities, not social sciences).
Probably in the Home Depot parking lot cruising for cheap labor so he doesn’t have to pay a White man a decent wage.
(P.S. Voting doesn’t matter. White women elected Trump in 2016 and it made no difference whatsoever.)
Thanks for the link to the research paper. It’s interesting, and I think your summary and analysis is in the ball park, but I have some critiques.
While this is true and supported by the paper you cite, I’m not sure it contradicts the point of Welton’s article. The paper links differences in political self-identification to differences in brain structure and Welton’s article associates differences in political attitudes to differing propensities towards mental illness, which is strongly associated with brain structure and is known to be heritable.
I read the paper, so let me summarize the key findings: those who self-identify as conservative (on a 1D spectrum and among young affluent UK college students from 2011) correlate positively with more grey matter in the amygdala, a region of the brain associated with fear and the fight or flight mechanism, while those who ID as liberals are associated with more grey matter in the anterior cingalute cortex, associated with openness, tolerance, and the modification of habitual behavior. Conservatives are more likely to respond to threats or perceived threats with a fighting attitude, while liberals want to talk it out. This generally coincides with your summary, but I think it is a more accurate and less biased assessment of the paper. To be sure, I ctrl-F searched the paper for “general…” and for “defensive…” and neither of your quoted phrases appear in the paper you cite. Those are either yours or another’s assessments. This may like seem like nit-picking, but it is not clear to me that the paper’s findings are directly relevant to the “acceptance of inequality” or the “resistance to change” attitudes that you cite.
More to the point though, I tend to disagree with you that the findings of the paper help us explain the antagonism between the so-called Far-Left, as represented by Antifa, and the Alt-Right. In particular, I am not sure that the typical member of BLM/Antifa has a brain structure similar to the type the research paper links to Liberal attitudes. Moreover, I would not characterize Antifa as Liberal. Consider the following,
1) BLM/Antifa have engaged in levels of extreme violence towards those that they consider their enemies, including violent assault that could be characterized as attempted murder. These acts have been committed against those who attempt to talk to them and those who attempt to defend their small businesses. This has included swift kicks to the head of those already unconscious. This behavior seems to be consistent with the paper’s characterization of how “conservatives” would react to a “threat” or to something they find “disgusting.”
2) Cancel culture, i.e. the attacks on free expression and debate that characterize Antifa and their SJW prototypes are not representative of Liberalism, nor of people who are open to different ideas. This behavior would seem to be characteristic of people whose amygdalas are easily triggered by intellectual challenges; those the paper would call “conservatives.”
3) The SJW left supports a brand of feminism that has descended into a new Puritanism, that wants to control the sexuality of toxic males.
Now this might seem like semantics, but, having been somewhat active on the left-wing from the Dubya years (though not associated with Antifa Anarchism), I don’t think “Left” when I see Antifa. I have discussed this topic with others at UR in the past and one “conservative” responded to me with: “so the Left left you and you want it back.” What I am trying to say is that as a person who likely has a “liberal” brain structure (although I can’t be sure), I look at Antifa behavior and think, “WTF happened to the Left?” The left that I knew actually cared about issues relevant to the working class (in a color blind way) and was uncompromising in its opposition to US wars of choice. In contrast, Antifa are actively hostile to the working class, work actively with the FBI and large media conglomerates to dox and censor the opposition, and are at best indifferent to Washington’s wars. In short, it is Antifa that is fighting against change, not the Alt-Right.
In contrast, the Alt-Right, although containing different factions, is either supportive of or at least not hostile to populist economic themes and is largely opposed to a highly interventionist foreign policy. Much of the Alt-Right supports the themes we on the Left used to. Furthermore, while much of the Alt-Right cultural themes are accurately characterized as Rightist, the Alt-Right’s manner of engaging with taboo ideas, as opposed to parroting a social consensus, strikes me as what a “Left Liberal” mind is supposed to do.
In short, I think if you actually replicated the study on those who ID as Antifa and Alt-Right, you’d see many Antifa having “conservative” brain structures and many Alt-Right sympathizers with “liberal” brain structures.
Liberalism, in an altruistic sense, is largely a product of comfort and security. Conservatism, as it pertains to survival, is a reaction to discomfort and insecurity. It is not merely a fixed mindset. Every Utopian ideal succumbs to the basic human instincts to stand apart, to achieve recognition, to gain influence, to acquire a desirable sexual partner or partners, and to possess something that is uniquely theirs. This inevitably brings them into conflict with other humans. This becomes even more pronounced when commodities become scarce.
Take the Negroes who claim that if they steal a White Man’s T.V. or Car, it isn’t right for a White Man to shoot them for it. But, if anyone, White or Black, was to steal so much as a pair of Basketball Shoes from them, they’d feel more than justified to Bust a Cap in Their Ass. The same holds true for some Liberal who feels at liberty to assault people, vandalize property, or burn down buildings, but would suddenly feel victimized if they were beaten by a mob, had their vehicle smashed, and limped home to find smoldering ashes where their house had been. These kind of individuals are largely society’s parasites. They are Liberal with tax payer money, but they don’t pay taxes. They have nothing to donate or contribute, and, if they did, they wouldn’t. It is Conservatives who donate the bulk of the charity that is used to assist ungrateful Liberal recipients.
Adaptability? That is the stuff that best defines the rugged, self reliant, nature of Conservatism. The Left is characterized by demands for hand outs and special considerations. Sensation Seeking, New Experiences, Novelty Seeking, Creativity, Rebelliousness? To a traditional Conservative, these would mean Exploration, Voyages and Expeditions… Ship Building, Aircraft Manufacturing and Automobile Assembly Lines… Opposition to Tyranny. To a Liberal these things mean Drugs, Sexual Deviancy and Mysticism… Grotesque, Abstract Modern Art and Vulgar Ditties… Opposition to Normalcy. Curiosity killed the Cat.
Liberals are less anxious than Conservatives? They get their collective panties in a wad over the most insignificant matters imaginable! Negroes getting thrown out of Starbucks for loitering. A beloved old Duet with a Man attempting to woo his Lady into staying by gently reminding her “It’s Cold Outside.” And, if you refuse to call Bruce Jenner “Caitlyn” or refer to Him as a He instead of a She. That is beyond anxiety, that is certifiable lunacy.
Restore The Natural Order! Regain Respect for The Carnivores by Feeding Vegetarians to The Lions! Or, at least make them watch some of those unedited documentaries about wildlife. The ones that show the predator stalking and slaying its prey.
You may have to strap them to the chair and pry their eyes open like in “A Clockwork Orange,” but eventually, they may be able to shake the unrealistic and childish images conjured up by Walt Disney and the other cutesy, animated, animal characters that have been clouding their reasoning.
These animal rights activists are often the same folks that say they like animals better than people. When someone says that, you can be sure that they are socially maladjusted and have few, if any friends. It’s like the old woman who loves her cats and is certain that the felines reciprocate her affection. But, when she passes away unnoticed, the faithful pets pay their respects by eating her face.
Men in general tend to make better major decisions for the women in their lives than feral women make for themselves. We could probably test this empirically with the tools of modern social science. I bet the experiments would find that patriarchally-guided women show better metrics of flourishing than feral women, in terms of lower BMI’s, better health and fitness, stronger financial positions, less depression and anxiety, lower rates of substance abuse and so forth.
The Right’s hierarchical model of society recognizes objective standards for human flourishing, and it rewards people who invest the effort into meeting those standards. They don’t engage in fat shaming, say, out of the meanness of their hearts, but because they operate according to a vision of human excellence.
In a way, Kierkegaard’s findings blow up Steven Pinker’s thesis that the progressive ideology which came out of the Enlightenment promotes “human flourishing.” Instead it has the effect of promoting and enabling human brokenness.
OK, this is the American angle (I suppose you are talking about the U.S.), and I am not American. I find it bizarre, but perhaps you are right.
Actually I didn’t even need to use “sex chats” as an example, just take a look at romance novels written for or by women… It’s all the same… Or the success of “50 shades of grey”… I know, one thing is fantasy and another thing is reality, but don’t you thin that they connect sometimes? Don’t you believe that part of women’s interest for those protests comes from some kind of weird sexual dynamics, or is it just general social frustration? To be fair, I have no idea.
Your feud with certain people is frankly frivolous.
Yes lefties are often nuts and/or on drugs, always failig to see the obvious in front of them, always hypocrites.
Someone mentioned animal cruelty, I am totally against that and would start by banning ritual slaughter, a leftie says they are against animal cruelty but will never discuss ritual slaughter. Nuts.
The whole concept of “mental illness” is so subjective to the point of being meaningless.
Now a man who cuts his balls because he believes he is a woman is considered perfectly sane, while someone who sees things as they are is accused of being “paranoid”, “conspiracy theorist”, “insane”, etc.
I think that we can AGREE that Climate Change is Real! The climate is constantly changing. Usually, the temperatures are lower in the morning and higher in the afternoon, but not always. Sometimes it’s raining, and other times it doesn’t rain for extended periods. I’ve seen snow, even here in Texas! They say a good portion of the Southwest Desert was an Ocean Floor. I heard tale that once, way back whenever, the Earth was covered in Ice, and that there is even evidence of a flood of Biblical proportions. Before all of that, Dinosaurs roamed over the land, and at an even earlier epoch the entire planet was a fiery mass. It would seem that the World has undergone a massive amount of Climate Change over the immeasurable eons of time. The most violent and disruptive upheavals have occurred prior to the existence of Mankind. Could it simply be that Biosphere I is simply due for another set of cataclysmic convulsions? Or, did Methane Emissions kill the Dinosaurs? It’s a Damn Good Thing that we got rid of all of those Flatulent Buffalo! If Farting Cows are wreaking havoc, we should be slaughtering what’s left of the Elephants and Hippopotami, not to mention putting Michael Moore on a liquid, intravenous crash diet for rapid weight loss.
A (former) friend of mine’s wife is chronically depressed, or so she informed me the last time I visited them. She’d been on antidepressants for thirty years or so. Problem was, the drugs didn’t really do a good job of controlling her condition.
She could act “normally” for a stint but then the psychopathology broke through and she would snarl and lash out at everyone. Her face was a wreck, bearing the signs of all the strain she was under.
I concluded that her Liberalism was tearing her apart. On the one hand, she lived in the whitest community in America. On the other, she prattled on endlessly about racial and social justice. Her life was all too familiar to Unz readers and commenters.
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t just create tension on the cognitive plane. There’s a very real psychological price Liberals pay in order to keep their system of lies in place. The life-sapping tension they live with engenders anger at those whom they regard as its source. They blame Trump or evangelicals etc. when in reality, the cause of their suffering is their unwillingness to acknowledge that they are as selfish, greedy and self interested as everyone else around them. Keeping a halo shining and in place is hard work.
They find fault with their neighbors for their supposed backwards conservatism, but they chose to live there, to send their children to all white schools. And so on. We all know the routine.
The antidepressants only succeed in masking her inner turmoil somewhat successfully. Most of the time, she is at her wits end, which is why we hear these people claiming to be “so tired” all the time. But if she would drop the pretense then she could relax. She should just admit that she’s fundamentally conservative and not liberal at all, that she only keeps up the facade because she’s worried that her (equally conservative inwardly but outwardly) liberal friends would reject her if she spoke plainly, if her words matched her behavior.
LOL!. Yes, Michael Moore may be a one-man Global Climate Disrupter(TM), but that is the least of my problems with him.
To get serious for a second, do you notice that the causes of the ice ages have never been really determined (or we’d know accurately when the next one will begin), yet these models are supposed to predict the world’s climate without this information? I’ve repeatedly asked these climate hysterics: Tell me, are the MAJOR ice age effects inputs to your models or outputs from your models. How about el Nino and La Nina phenomena? (Hell, we don’t know that we’re in one until a few months later, I’ve been told, at least honestly…)
Thank you for the reply, Mr. Rebel, but more importantly, thank you for the great comments here on unz in general. I’ve never seen a one of yours that I didn’t completely agree with.
I’d sooner put my fate in the hands of astrology than allopathy.
The article about the Sackler family is called “The White Plague” by Giles Corey. It is an excellent article. You can find it on the left-hand sidebar.
I’m an engineer. I had to sit through some of that humanities BS.
The people that create the world the artsy types live in are the scientists and engineers. The artsy folks are ‘non essential’ in every aspect. They are a waste of space. The ‘social sciences’ and ‘humanities’ need to be defunded because they produce people who know nothing provable but demand to be heard because they have some bogus basket weaving degree.
The world needs people that can produce something tangible. The artsy folks provide the background music for the real producers.
That depends on the technique and the psychiatric disorder. Many mood disorders are treated with cognitive therapy. For example children with OCD give a name to the compulsion and are encouraged to “call it out” when they are sliding into the obsession stage. It’s infinitely better than the prescriptions that are routinely given at the drop of the hat.
IMO there are many diseases, including mental illnesses that are caused by the lack of micro-nutrients in the body. There is a lot of evidence for this, which is relevant in today’s Covid craziness. Zinc prevents viral replication. People with healthy immune systems have proper levels of zinc (and Vitamin D).
Modern medicine is big business, even in countries with universal coverage. As Graham Chapman (Monty Python) once proclaimed: “There’s nothing wrong with you that an expensive operation can’t prolong.” I’d double down on that for prescriptions for mental illness.
This represents a very degraded, ultramaterialistic view of humanity in which man lives by creature comforts alone.
You don’t need drugs or psychiatric help. All you need is good old-fashioned suffering, something the snowflakes have never encountered, at least not the type of suffering that forces them to look inward. Of course, when they’re barely out of diapers, there isn’t much “inward” to look at yet.
Those young girls are obeying, being “nice” and “good”. Five gold stars to them! One huge congealed mass of estrogen and feelings, and probably not an authentic person in the bunch. Authenticity takes time and thinking, and you best not step off the curb until you have it.
These girls have stepped off the curb way before their time.
For what it’s worth, I certainly acknowledge that there are very grave problems in American humanities departments. Indeed, their purpose is to subvert and devalue our cultural heritage by showing us how our heroes and great artists were all racist, sexist, evil, wicked, etc. My quarrel is only with the claim that humanities students are unintelligent. The situation would be be far less egregious if they were in fact unintelligent, but they are not. They are our elites who should be developing a sense of reverence for our history and our literary canon, musical repertory, and artistic heritage, so they can I turn pass that on to the next generation. It is a project of deracination and ultimately, destruction.
Well, without what you disparagingly call creature comforts, nothing else matters.
Without electricity, a structure to live in, transportation for food deliveries to cities, etc, your artsy stuff dies.
If people want to paint pictures or record music, that requires an inbuilt talent for those pursuits. You don’t ‘learn’ those skills in school, you exercise them.
If folks want to waste their timer on things that are just opinions, like economics, law, psychiatry, sociology, etc, they should be able to do that but only up to the bachelors level. To provide someone with any higher degree would be sanctifying that which can not be proven empirically.
The bulk of the humanities and social sciences are fraudulent. They produce bogus experts that confuse the stupid in the society and for some ridiculous reason the stupid are allowed to vote which makes the fraudulent professions dangerous to the furtherance of civilization.
True, but remember, I am responding to an attack here. It won’t do to throw a punch and then cry foul when you get paid back with your own coin.
That’s only true if you want to scribble with paint and call it “abstract art.” Real art requires extensive technical training. I would imagine, though I don’t know, that music is much the same.
I guess. I really don’t know, but it seems to me that the scientific method can be applied to human behavior as well as the inanimate universe. It remains to be seen whether the replication crisis is the beginning of the end or a catalyst for reform that will improve these disciplines.
In any event, there is certainly a higher education bubble, and a correction is long overdue.
Have you seen the art produced in ancient times? Have you seen the sculptures, the paintings, the metalwork done by folks that had never heard of ‘higher education’; folks that for the most part couldn’t even read?
I call total and utter bullshit on your remark. Artists are born, not made. Wannabe’s are made and they produce an inferior product. Can you compare Bach or Beethoven with that rap crap?
The society is chock full of this useless trash called art today where some fat ass Kardashian makes millions all due to the stupid in the society. We don’t need any more fashion designers, Kanye’s, influencers, bogus mental health frauds prescribing big pharma poison, etc.
We need engineers, programmers, real scientists, not frauds like the climate priests. We need people that can produce things of intrinsic value not the fluff that comes out of the BS humanities and social sciences.
I’m sorry but you are wrong about this.
Obviously, you need innate talent to be an artist, but it comes to nothing without technical training.
“That music is much the same”
Wrong again, the greatest innovators in the field of Jazz music were self taught, Charlie Parker, Dizzie Gillespie, Stan Getz, Chet Baker, Art Pepper, Bix, the list is endless.
That explains it.
“Artists are born, not made.”
Truer words were never spoken! Yes, look at Dickens. He had hardly any formal education, and yet look what he produced. I could go on and on.
It seems to me we waste so much time trying to hammer square pegs into round holes. Yes, you can become a good violinist or pianist with practice, but very few of them can compose the music. Music comes on its own to the artist. It can’t be taught or learned from books.
“If folks want to waste their time on things that are just opinions, like economics, law, psychiatry, sociology, etc, they should be able to do that but only up to the bachelors level.”
Yes, agreed. I’m all for people getting a higher education in order to be a more well-rounded person. It teaches you to think, reason, stretch, bend, develop good research skills, maybe piques your interest and takes you down a path you never envisioned for yourself. That’s all good, but only up to a point.
Einstein said it took him years to dislodge the “schooling” from his mind before he could think again. He used other people’s ideas to form his theory, but said it came to him intuitively. Some don’t believe this, but I do. And I believe it was Crick, the DNA guy (if I remember correctly) who said he didn’t want to know too much; just give him the problem and he’ll sort it out. A deductive problem-solver like that isn’t taught; they’re born that way.
My two cents.
What about the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Persians, etc? Like minded people seek each other out. They learn from each other. Who is the teacher and who is the student?
The mere fact that Michelangelo outshone his supposed teachers says your statement is a stretch while ignoring the rest of the ancient worlds contributions.
You also ignore the rest of my post because you have no cogent reply. The artsy types are tolerated in a society because they are quirks while producing near nothing the society actually needs. Their contribution is worth zero in times of existential threat where skills needed to sustain life are required and that’s what true engineers and scientists do daily.
The STEM fields support life on the planet while the artists spruce up the place. We could do without the artists, be we couldn’t do without the STEM types. There’s an order of magnitude in difference between some guitar player, sociologist, or economist and a civil engineer, chemist or software developer.
I don’t dispute that there are different ways to provide education than the modern university. My only point is that some sort of training is in fact required, and it is not free.
I personally like he university system, and I see no reason to replace it with anything else. The animus against the modern university is misplaced. The problem is the people running the university, not the nature of the institution itself.
I’m not ignoring it. I already told you that I think the modern university is a trainwreck. The problem is in your claim that university education itself is the problem.
Now this is true question of value. I don’t accept your view that engineers are more important than artists on account of the fact that without the artists, the human life sustained by the engineers would be meaningless. You may disagree. It is axiomatic question that cannot be resolved by rational argument.
Quite. Indeed, I would go further and say that a liberal arts education will add more to the quality of life of the student than a STEM degree that they don’t use.
What Roatan fails to consider is that we really don’t need that many engineers. Perhaps they have been so phenomenally successful that they have worked themselves out of a job. We don’t need any more gadgets. Education, on the other hand, is something that we can never get enough of. The future of higher education, for the vast majority, is enrichment, not job training. Of course, that is also it’s past. Higher education will return to its roots.
The question is, how much? For whom? How much should it cost? Who will pay? My own view is that a liberal arts education should be provided to as many youth as can benefit from it, at public expense, for the purpose of cultivating a loyal native elite.
I think the best of the best of the artsy types – and I’m talking the absolute best – you want to keep around at all times. These people are highly intelligent and they often see things that the more “nerdy” types miss; you might call it the “art of seeing”. They possess a fluidity about them, a curiosity, an ability to manipulate information, be creative, make connections. This cannot be taught.
That’s why these types are so rare.
You miss the main thrust of my argument.
The bogus degrees in the humanities and social sciences are detrimental to the society. Even some of the STEM areas are questionable. They produce people with the pretense of knowledge where none actually exists. These people, psychiatrists, economists, political scientists, sociologists, cosmologists, etc are frauds masquerading as learned individuals.
These frauds create a false world view full of stupidstitions and theories that have no basis in provable fact. They scam the society by insinuating themselves at key points to, in essence, force the society to support them as ‘experts’ in their bogus fields.
For example, economists are the whores for the political class and financiers. They will cobble together any rational their superiors want, all with the aura of respectability, totally undeserved. Not only can’t they produce a cogent argument for any future endeavor with any degree of accuracy, they can’t even do a postmortem on the spectacular failures their hair brained theories always seem to produce.
Take psychiatrists. Not a single one of their DSM maladies has an empirical test. Not one. They manufacture mental conditions and diagnose them by their bogus professional opinions. It’s a giant swindle that the law gives credence to. These are dangerous people, handing out mind altering pharmaceuticals to the actual and pretend fashionable loonies in the society. The crazies do exist, and we can all spot them with enough contact, but not one of us has a cure or even an inkling as to what has gone wrong with most of the violent, insane or sociopaths among us. They’ve even invented the words like sociopath that we’re forced to use because they claim the area of expertise when none is in evidence.
Look at climate scientists. So consistently wrong but demand we listen to them.
These are all obvious frauds that I have the bad manners to call out. Prove me wrong.
Care to supply a few examples of such artsy individuals that have actually made significant contributions?
People like Richard Feynman or Niels Bohr were visionaries, but within their field. These are geniuses unique among mankind. There are only a few in any generation that come close.
Stradivarius may have produced a fine instrument, but that contribution has been eclipsed with electronics by some nerd in a lab somewhere. Even the famous statues from antiquity can now be equaled and surpassed by CNC machines with accuracy no human can match.
The artsy types are being eclipsed by the STEM nerds at an ever increasing rate.
Quite right, but then philosophers can be whores, too. Plato called them “Sophists.” That philosophy can be corrupted is not, however, a reason to abandon philosophy. By the same token, that some new branch of knowledge is or may be corruptible is not a basis for repressing it. This seems to be the error behind your whole antiacademic point of view.
Remember that ancient scientists thought there were four elements. Were they frauds, too? That any new field of inquiry may stumble along before finding it’s way is hardly a surprise.
Here again, liberal education is the solution, not the problem. A properly educated populace with a free media will be able to peel away the layers of bullshit in this controversy.
Beyond that, it’s important to keep in mind that “experts” can only tell us what is (facts), not what ought to be (values). This recognition alone will go a long way towards staving off any tyranny of the experts.
Man, you’re giving me all the hard questions!
I guess that’s what I meant – geniuses – people able to span different disciplines, like Leonardo da Vinci. He didn’t make “significant contributions” in the field of science or anatomy, but he no doubt influenced others:
“Although he had no formal academic training, many historians and scholars regard Leonardo as the prime exemplar of the “Renaissance Man” or “Universal Genius”, an individual of “unquenchable curiosity” and “feverishly inventive imagination.”
And Tesla, who studied in the field of engineering, but never received a degree. He did credit his reading of Mark Twain with helping him recover from a serious illness, though. Thank goodness for that. Go, Mark Twain, you artsy man, you!
What I mean is people who are able to make connections. Intuitively, creatively. This is what the nerds don’t do, at least most of them.
That’s why I called these types of people rare.
I think any great work of art contains math within it, whether it’s a beautiful piece of music or an artist’s masterpiece. Even when I watch Messi play football, I see the math, the physics in the artwork produced by that little genius. Maybe when he retires, we can put him in the science lab.
Don’t know whether I’ve made sense. I’ll have to think more on it.
It’s usually not a question of something becoming corrupted. It’s a complete fraud right out of the gate.
When there’s not a single empirical test for psychiatric conditions, that’s just plain bullshit.
Economics is voodoo. Whatever truths they’ve identified they purloined from common sense and declared it their revelation. It’s fraud.
Archaeologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and that ilk are modern day story tellers that invent somewhat plausible scenarios to explain what they’ve found. They KNOW almost nothing for sure. Bullshit artists with PhD’s.
When Cosmologists / astrophysicists declare that they’ve spotted black holes, neutron stars, they lie. When they invent dark matter and dark energy to prop up the failing Big Bang Theory, they are being dishonest and none of their very expensive tests have so far found any. I’m not against them theorizing or even spending funds looking for things. What I’m against is their propagandizing the society by claiming it’s real when it’s not, at least not yet.
“… a theory built on questionable assumptions should never be the basis for new theories.”
(1) Psychology and psychiatry are pretty much the softest, most subjective of all the “sciences,” unless maybe you count astrology, palmistry, and phrenology.
(2) Exactly which mental illnesses and disorders were cherry-picked and which were lemon-dropped for the studies cited? Apparently depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia (an inexact complex of disorders thought to be heavily based in genetics and epigenetics), and (I’m guessing) anxiety were cherry-picked, and sociopathy and narcissism were lemon-dropped. Guess which side of the political spectrum sociopathy and narcissism more closely correlate to.
(3) In the US, everyone in the working class and a good portion of the (former) middle class, irrespective of political orientation, has had good reason to be increasingly depressed and anxious over the past few decades, and with COVID-19 it only promises to get worse.
(4) Life expectancy has fallen in the US in the past few years, attributed to “deaths of despair.” Is it leftist women who are drinking themselves to death, or getting hooked on opioids and ODing or capping themselves? Or is it socially — let’s say “traditional” — blue-collar white men faced with falling incomes and unemployment? Were you agree that those men were “mentally ill”? (Oops! I guess they weren’t around to be surveyed)
The author has played the “conservative” white-mens-rights side of the plutocratic oligarchy’s identity-politics divide-and-conquer strategy. I’m sure “social justice warriors” will respond in kind. And the plutocrats will look upon both sides with great satisfaction as they continue to reap an ever-increasing share of of the country’s income and wealth.
United States of Anxiety. What the hell are they doing? 48,000 suicides in 2018. Almost 70,000 drug overdoses. And yet they say they really can’t pinpoint what’s causing this. Hello!
But, as you say, while ordinary citizens are getting shredded, the elite are looting like there’s no tomorrow. Disgusting.
Oliver, fat bald man, you’re really pathetic.
You never attack anyone’s arguments, you just build straw men and attack over there.
Kirkegaard’s study is supported by much evidence, for example Bernaldi (2020) shows that:
“People vulnerable to depression are less likely to identify with mainstream right parties, less likely to vote for them, and less likely to place themselves on the right side of the ideological spectrum.”
Everything mentioned in Emil’s paper also goes hand in hand with Dutton’s thesis on spiteful mutants.
You don’t need peer-reviewed studies to prove this, that’s nerdy shit, just check the twitter profiles of leftubers followers or go to Andy Ngo’s twitter and see all the antifa weirdos.
We have other studies that show that conservatives are more physically attractive than liberals. (Peterson and Palmer, 2017)
“more attractive individuals are more likely to identify as conservative and Republican than less physically attractive citizens … results are consistent across datasets and persist when controlling for socioeconomic status and demographics”
Kerry and Murray (2018) show that formability is positively associated with conservatism.
“However, this evidence was inconsistent across different measures and across samples, with relatively small effects for some conservatism measures and no effects for others. There also emerged sex differences, such that self-reported formidability was a better predictor of conservatism in women and objective grip strength was a better predictor of conservatism in men. Unlike previous research, we did not find consistent evidence of a relationship between formidability and either financial egalitarianism or military approval. Attempted experimental manipulations of formidability in studies 2 and 3 yielded inconsistent results. ”
A liberal woman is ugly, bitch, and thinks she is the queen of the world, quite the opposite with true trads women.
Hamsun spoke of this in his book on American life, making a great comparison between the ladies of the
Pinker is an idiot, his glorification of neoliberalism and technocracy is proof of how disgusting that Jew is.
His graphs on the advance are a joke and he forgets in his shit book, all the evils of the industrial revolution, both in terms of the relaxation of natural selection and purifying selection and in dysgenesis through mutational load and deleterious de novo mutations.
I recommend reading Michael Woodley’s latest book for a different take on “progress.”
For guys like Pinker, progress is that the world is reaching a level of urbanization that was unimaginable until a few decades ago, that levels of pollution are affecting our health, the evils of endocrine disruptors and LIBERALISM.
Everything we see today as “wokeness” is a product of liberalism and the defeat of the axis in WW2.
Sean Last also refuted Pinker
Oliver, loser, you weren’t supposed to comment on Unz anymore, what happened?
Do you remember how I humiliated you on the RR blog?
Ok, I’m going to give you some lessons and please don’t link me to the Rationalwiki shit, which is only taken seriously by the mentally ill, spiteful mutants, and nerdy losers.
One of the causes of the high rates of depression among vegans can be deficient in vitamin B12, many studies show that people who do not eat meat show great symptoms of depression, of course, meat has b12 (0.6 µg) and is important for metabolism.
Vitamin B12 combines major biological functions, i.e., methylcobalamin acts as an important carrier of methyl groups and as such it is, as co-factor of the enzyme methionine synthase, involved in the transformation of homocysteine to the metabolite methionine in the cytosol.11 These processes and subsequent metabolic reactions are involved in the synthesis of neurotransmitters, phospholipids, DNA, and RNA. Adenosylcobalamin acts as a cofactor of methylmalonyl-coenzyme A (CoA) mutase, which converts methylmalonyl-CoA to succinyl-CoA in the mitochondria. This reaction is involved in the catabolism of cholesterol, fatty acids, and several amino acids.
Livers from ruminant animals contain the largest amounts of vitamin B12, and red meat is another excellent source. The national food composition databases of Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, and the United States present the following vitamin B12 concentrations for raw meat: 0.7–5.2 µg/100 g for beef, 1.2–5.0 µg/100 g for lamb/mutton, 1.0–2.9 µg/100 g for veal, 0.4–2.0 µg/100 g for pork, and 0.2–0.6 µg/100 g for chicken. Regarding the vitamin B12 content in the livers of different animals, concentrations vary from 59.0 to 110.0 µg/100 g for beef and 60.0 µg/100 g for veal. Values found in kidneys are as follows: 23.0–28.0 µg/100 g for veal and 27.0–31.0 µg/100 g for beef
As I said, many studies find such an association (e.g, Bar-Shai, 2011)
Turfan et al. 2012 deepens in this association
Dobersek et al. 2020 shows that:
“The majority of studies, and especially the higher quality studies, showed that those who avoided meat consumption had significantly higher rates or risk of depression, anxiety, and/or self-harm behaviors.”
It is also not surprising that all this increase in the number of vegans, comes hand in hand with the fact that most of them are leftists / atheists, basically these weirdos are over-socialized, they cannot be compared to a Hindu vegan or who follows asceticism It was due to a religious belief.
Hodson and Earle (2018) have an excellent discussion of the topic.
Finally, none of the articles that passes show a casual relationship, it can also be seen in another way, if you are crazy enough to get depressed by the death of an animal, clearly you must be much more prone to depression than a normal person .
Funny, how none of the sources for Oliver’s loser are peer-reviewed studies.
This is the new left lol
These losers have forgotten the working class, they no longer care about the unions or attacking the bourgeois exploiters.
You betrayed your ideals and went from being a Metapedia editor to being the main contributor to the infamous RationalWiki lol
You deserve, that London today is a well of browns, you can say all you want about “the great replacement” is a conspiracy theory, but the reality is that UK is the big brother incarnate and hundreds of comrades and good men They are in prison for their political views, while the brutalized people march for a black criminal but keep quiet in the face of the rape wave in the North of England.
Enjoy multiculturalism, clown.
London with more murders than NY lmfaooooo
It’s also untrue. All things are interconnected.
Also you need a minimum of design (“art”) even in “useful” things.
The problem in particular of Social Sciences and Humanities is that they have been thoroughly contaminated today. Going back to the classics would help.
I have a little anecdote that might offer some insight or perspective here…
About 25 years ago I befriended a man who was a paranoid schizophrenic. He was a hard core nutcase, who claimed to hear voices, and that Jesus would appear to him whilst he was lying in his bed, that the old ladies in the street below his flat were talking about him, that the police thought he was a murderer. Fortunately he seemed to take his medication on most days, but work or normal family life was out of the question. He just got by on benefits.
On one visit he explained that his brother had visited him the day before and had suggested that he accompany him to some Buddhist Transcendental Meditation event.
“No thanks”, my friend had apparently replied, “I only pay attention to what doctors and scientists say, I’m not interested in any of that kind of Mumbo Jumbo”. Which was true, he often spoke about the latest findings in science and astronomy that had been announced on the telly.
Now, at the time, I knew two other people, one a woman who owned a successful business and also worked full time as an employee for a large company. The other a man who as it happens I still know and was very wealthy – entirely through his own efforts – then, and is now a multimillionaire (pounds not dollars). When I met the woman she would go on and on about the Bible Code, how secret messages are hidden in the Bible. He was worse, (and still is), he would talk about lizard people, UFO’s, aliens living amongst us, and so on. Other people that are better acquainted with him than I am now have told me that he really seems to be a true believer.
Make of that what you will.
Your thinking is fuzzy. You confound the self-serving foundational myths of Jews and the dysfunctional Catholic feudalistic hierarchy with the real benefits derived from membership in an independent Protestant congregation. The latter, even given the guilt-inducing leftist slant of most denominations nowadays, can provide social support beneficial for successful family life. The African-Americans who are churchgoers use religion to keep their children out of the downward spiral which many of their ethnic group descend into. The American Revolution was carried forward in large part by Presbyterian congregations. The militia which threw the British out of the Carolina Backcountry were overwhelmingly religious and Presbyterian. That fierce religiously-based resistance in the Carolinas led directly to Yorktown. Religions don’t have truth, but they can, sometimes, have utility.
A surprising number of engineering and science professors are commies. Fewer engineers are particularly activist, though.
You have made an excellent point. They also seek validation and sense of purpose to their lives.
There’s no denying depression and anxiety disorders are higher frequency among people with left-wing views, however, as I explained this is simply because these left-wing people don’t live in ignorance and are more aware of cruelty and suffering in the world. I explained this in my other comment for vegetarians/vegans who are more likely to suffer from depression than meat-eaters.
Ps. Dutton looks like a raving lunatic:
I joined Metapedia in 2012 and quit in 2013, so I wasn’t there long. I had disagreements with them (hence I debated with Mikemikev) but for sure some of my views about things have changed or evolved over the past 7-8 years, as they did prior to that when I was a teenager. This is pretty normal. Perhaps in a decade you will have grown up and changed your views from the keyboard warrior /pol/Daily Stormer racist trollish nonsense you spout now to something more sensible and respectable.
‘And I believe it was Crick, the DNA guy (if I remember correctly) who said he didn’t want to know too much; just give him the problem and he’ll sort it out. A deductive problem-solver like that isn’t taught; they’re born that way.’
I heard Crick plug his book ‘The Astonishing Hypothesis” on a radio program many years ago. Perhaps overwhelmed or impressed by his reputation, I laid down the bucks and bought a copy to read. In it Crick claimed to have solved the problem of consciousness, apparently as I recollect, by discovering that there wasn’t any.
A masterpiece of deductive problem solving! If I had known this was the answer I could have saved my money!
The community and sense of purpose provided by membership in a religious community are good antidotes to the atomization and nihilism that can plague a persons life. So much of what troubles people is a lack of meaningful relationships and a lack of a sense of higher purpose.
LOL Excellent post, sir.
Total truth. Thank you.
Nothing reinforces an article about mental illness among Leftoid freaks, like an actual response from a one…lol
What are you gonna do when Trump wins again in November, you fat tub of shit?
Be sure to put it on JewTube so we can all have a good laugh.
It was a note to Rosie and she never wrote back to refute a word of what *I* wrote. Rosie knows where her bread is buttered. See: Bibi.
Engineering and physical science have become very politically correct at elite universities.
This one goes out to all the indoctrinated mentally ill Leftist cunts.
And they’re always old rejected biddies, fattt-chubbies or worse.
It’s not that they believe in supersitions and the supernatural.
It’s that they confuse both with reality itself that explains their lack of mental health.
I think there’s something in those studies worth considering.
But, I have to say, Lance Welton is classic example of those on the Right who grasp the situation while totally missing the point.
Which is, the Right and Left are two sides of the same mentally ill coin.
It’s high time we ditch both while there’s still time.
It can be done.
And it should be.
Sooner than later.
There’s an old saying in recovery programs that goes,
Q: What’s the difference between men and women in recovery?
A: The men get better.
That seems a lot more fitting than simple ideology.
The more Lance goes on about how the Left are crazy the worse it gets, for him.
I mean, do you want to announce to the world that your side got trounced in the culture war by a bunch of crazies?
Exactly what good did your “mental health” do you?
From this perspective mental health is simply something the Right claims it has.
It’s not something that actually helped them where it counted the most.
But I guess Lance will continue repeating this claim right up until the moment Big Tech gives VDARE the axe once and for all.
And I’m sure he’ll continue telling himself that even after.
But no one will know, or care.
emil, I am interested in analyzing a dataset using your S factor approach. Might there be a web interface that could help with this? Letting data flow to you would be a much more effective strategy.
I found what looks like a little better reference. This page
gives similar numbers and links to this page based based on the GRE.
Based on the respective numbers, it looks like they just converted the quantitative GRE score to IQ. The exact numbers don’t agree with the conversions I see at (for example):
but I think the relative relationships are consistent.
If I have this right, let’s enumerate some flaws in Rosie’s reference.
– Looking only at the quant score.
– Using GRE test takers as a proxy for all students in a particular major.
– Complete failure to describe the conversion method.
– Complete failure to provide a useful reference for their data source.
P.S. Rosie, please try to cite better sources.