Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "Lex Clips"
channel.
-
@annaclarafenyo8185 You: "IQ scores depend on personal training in puzzles, mathematics, and literacy. high IQ scores therefore cluster in clumps around highly literate people and people who love puzzles and mathematics."
And why do some people end up being "highly literate people and people who love puzzles and mathematics"? Just by chance? No, it's because they're good at those things. People like doing things they're good at. (They likewise shun activities they suck at.) And why are these people good at those things? It's because they're more clever than average.
In other words, you've got it backwards. Highly intelligent people, unsurprisingly, tend to be highly literate and like puzzles and mathematics.
Bear in mind that children's IQs can be and often are tested long before they have any chance to become "highly literate" or to immerse themselves in puzzles and mathematics. I was perhaps 8 when I and everyone in my school was tested, and I can assure you that none of us in my class was highly literate. I did not love mathematics or any other school subject, and enjoyment of puzzles came much later.
I take it that either you've never had occasion to teach things to children, or you have done, and are deliberately denying what was in front of you to learn.
22
-
22
-
14
-
11
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@oboogie2 It is idle to even hint at any possibility of NATO attacking Russia without Russia having first attacked some part of NATO.
(Concerning Libya, recall that the UN Security Council authorized the use of force there in order to protect civilians. Russia was at liberty to use its veto against the authorizing resolution, but abstained. Concerning Syria, recall that Syria shelled towns in Turkey and shot down one of its jets over international waters in the Mediterranean. As a NATO member Turkey exercised its right to ask for assistance. Concerning Serbia, naturally Russia would have vetoed any UN proposal to bomb Bosnian Serb targets in order to halt a genocide. That made NATO's move a necessary one, except from the Bosnian Serb-Russian standpoint that the genocide was fake. The answer to Putin's continued aggrieved objection to it is that Putin, with his nuclear arsenal, is free to commit all the genocide he likes on Russian citizens, and that should be good enough for him. I don't doubt he will, given enough time.)
In any case, NATO went nowhere near Russian military adventures for the past two decades. The closest it came was the US-flag bombing of a Syrian airstrip after an alleged poison gas attack on civilians, and that is not close at all. Now it has finally done something, yet without firing a single shot towards Russian soil or Russian forces. There's a limit to how much appeasement it owes a dangerous autocrat and maniac who thinks he has the right to wrap Russia in a thick blanket of neighbouring countries. (Spare a thought for them, will you?) And that limit has been reached. If he doesn't want trouble, he shouldn't court it with actual violence and land-grabbing.
Yes, there is a danger in standing up to Putin by daring to put Eastern Europe under NATO protection…from Russia. Of course there is. Though he can properly be called sane, he’s nonetheless a proven psychopath. The greater danger, in my view, obviously lies in not protecting Europe (and elsewhere, possibly) against him. To do so would be to knowingly set up the rest of the 21st century to outdo the 20th in rivers of blood. I for one would like to avoid that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I've got a bit of an issue with a guy named Steve-something who goes with "Destiny (-no last name)." Cher, Madonna, Beyoncé...Destiny?😂 Just the weirdness of that nearly stops my brain. But with that out of the way....
Brief excursus on What's up with people under ~40:
(Not all people under 40. I'm only talking about notable major currents.)
It seems significant to me how he explicitly attaches great importance to what's "appropriate." I bet appropriate/inappropriate were the #1 and #2 words his and many other parents of his generation used in bringing up their kids. And I assume that when they heard "inappropriate" it went along with the withholding of affection and the inflicting of punishment. When you hear them use inappropriate, everything in their tone tells you they think it's the most serious word they know of.
Now as adults they're so incredibly hung up on appropriate. It's their magic word. Their goal politically is to cleanse the society of everything inappropriate.
It made me sad for him when it made him so happy that Ben freely conceded Trump had used "inappropriate" means to stall or forestall the handover of power. It was a more important matter for him than criminality was.
Boomer parents went with pretty experimental forms of child-rearing (later picked up on by GenX parents) that really aren't working out. Their own libertine pasts boomeranged into an exaggerated polarity of, on the one hand, their famously over-the-top praising of their children and on the other hand a heavy censoriousness. ("You're the greatest!" and "Don't do that! Inappropriate!" ten times each per hour, every hour of every day.)
I think their kids are as a result guilt-plagued and full of boxed-in rage with really unhealthy outlets: mostly it's either banal, frenzied, consumerist hipsterism or creepy, reality-ignoring political activism/posturing. And absent any outlets at all, crap-tons of porn and serious drugs. (Also, there needs to be tons of study and discussion of what internet porn has done to 25 years of kids who saw a really huge amount of really intense stuff beginning in mid-childhood, starting say between 9 and 12. There's no way passwords kept it away from them. No way. I think it's a prime factor in how they've turned out, in their 'gender identity' confusion and disorders for instance, but a lot more too. A lot more.)
I can't, shouldn't and do not want to do an amateur psychological evaluation on a stranger based on next to nothing here, but dude here was so nervous, fidgety, upset and clearly angry. (Just keep your eyes on him.) He can't smile or laugh, unlike Ben Shapiro, who's cheery, humorous, relaxed and confident, all while maintaining admirable focus and seriousness. Ben shows zero of the other problems either.
Which brings me to religion, or the lack of it, another thing I think enters into the situation with younger adults in a major way. I am completely irreligious myself but I can confirm that it's not the easiest path. It's full of hazards and challenges and offers quite unattractive odds of a great outcome. Anyway, I want to wrap this up, so I'll just say that you can tell that most people under 40 have a religion-shaped hole in their hearts as easily as you can tell that religion is working for Ben.
Go ahead and throw darts at my analysis, which is no more than a little sketch. It's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1