Similarly, there are people who find the very idea of general intelligence controversial. They are a minority because this is a clearly perceptible aspect of human being which reflects itself immediately in language, the common vehicle of human interaction. As a functional property of the nervous system of an animal, it can be expected to have patterns of variation and underlying causes both genetic and epigenetic which are consistent with the overall pattern observed in animal subsystems generally. It's applied mathematical statistics consequent upon the central limit theorem and Law of large numbers are personally observed by me. I consider the existing measures valid only in their statistical moments and to have exponentially decreasing significance with higher positive moments and only in a multi-factorial way. So for example, my father, myself and Marilyn Vos Savant all have/had fuzzy G factor parameters measured at about 4 σ. Marilyn claims 6 or higher but see my entries on the talk of her article. With it's chi-squared distribution, 98% of the population is below 2 sigma which is the criterion for Mensa membership. The difference between 4 and 2 is same as the difference between 2 and 0 and this is what I observed also of Mensans, including my visit to an IRC channel supposedly peopled by that group last night. Lycurgus 11:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Very high IQ is not as rare as you might think nor as small a class as some other small classes such as billionaires or supercentenarians. In North America the statistical expectation based on observation is between 50-70,000 person at roughly 4 σ or above. I don't think North America could have more than 20% of the worlds total so that would be around a quarter million such individuals. On the other hand there are currently only about 1K billionaires and half that many (75 known) supercentenarians both of these worldwide.

In other words, if you accept that the proper hedge at her value of the parameter is 6 +/- 2, then there are as many as a quarter million Marilyns in the world right now. Similarly given the simple minded model above and using a flat 5 σ the number is still roughly 1500. Even at crisp 6 σ , an appropriate last significant moment, the number is way more than 1 (We will calculate it later).

Interestingly, again using the above reasoning, the 'mensan' class, those with 2 σ g or better is a class of around 60 million and the "0s&1s" about three billion living persons, respectively.

The remaining approx. half are behind the current curve of human being as (mis?)measured by extrapolated American g.

c. 4700 公元

With respect to the work of Lynn and Vanhannen, they do acknowledge that the factor would of course be self-reinforcing in effect or in other words more properly viewed as in effect an indicator of the health of different countries. Personally I am not troubled by the discovery (should it come) of a genetic/epigenetic basis for the difference of the wealth and power of nations such as they believe they have shown. Genetic/epigenetic factors which are to be the subject of engineering corrections apply to everyone. For example when we are considering functional classes such as the centenarians (since everyone suffers from the genetic 'disease' of aging).

c. 4705 公元

For my money Jeanne Calment kicks 7 kinds of ass vs. Marilyn. I especially love the part about the guy who tried a viaticating reverse mortgage on her flat and his widow ended up continuing the payments. Also they say you're OK if you survive 5 years after quitting smoking: she quit at 117.

Lycurgus 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MBTI

I guess my position is that with a basis in Jungian types MBTI can't be a thoroughly scientific tool for personality assessment. OTOH, compared to astrology or the like and given it's basis it is relatively objective and I have found it personally repeatable. YMMV. If it correlates at all well with other assessments this is probably the best that can be gotten at the current stage of development and so is the best tool available for this important facet of human being. Lycurgus 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I, at least partially, retract the statement about Jungian types, since as I understand it attempts to empirically go beyond them have resulted in analyses which then recovered the same basic four types. Lycurgus 09:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DSM 301.81 Self-Assessment and DSM Generally

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
   1. Check, aggravated I suppose since I actually think I am displaying avoidance wrt what would appear to be a grandiose actual importance .
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
   1. Check, and furthermore love of self, except not fantasies, achievable goals that action could bring.
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
   1. Check on first part, not second.
4. requires excessive admiration
   1. No.
5. strong sense of entitlement
   1. No.
6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
   1. Definitely no.
7. lacks empathy
   1. No.
8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
   1. No.
9. arrogant behavior
   1. Well ...

the judgment of arrogance, where one is not imposing one's will on others is essentially a matter of the creation, maintenance and imposition of power relations and I think I've made myself pretty clear on that.

A similiar value judgement is applicable I think to other elements of DSM Cluster B generally unlike A and C (except avoidant). Moreover, the very notion of having a perfect mental health profile where one never met sufficient of the criteria of any DSM disorder for diagnosis would appear to itself be an instance of No. 2 above. But I do, based upon current evaluation, endorse that notion. WRT to the B cluster, I will refer to the famous quote of Jiddu Krishnamurti:

There is no better substantiation for the above than the current ¶ 2 of Psychopathy. Lycurgus 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, it's my belief that these are NOT antithetical opposites but rather different aspects, presently poorly understood, of the same correct social order. Socialism I define as the position that the correct social order is one in which private ownership of that which belongs to the commons is retracted and scientific management of said resources is established based on democratically determined goals. Capitalism I define as an economic discipline based on free markets in which individuals participate freely not as slaves of those who have managed to amass wealth in prior cycles of production but as fully enfranchised peers of the commonwealth and each other. The combined order has been called social capitalism.

Obviously no state has risen to the level of socialism so defined as all have quickly degenerated into a rule of party elites without any apparent program other than the retention of power. Objectively this can be attributed to the relative newness of the socialist approach as well the fact that technology that could make direct democracy a reality has only recently become available. But it is no less clear that Capitalism as so defined has yet to appear. The "capitalism" that dominates the current state of the world system has more in common with production regimes ancien and in particular the typical corporate private tyranny has more in common with them than it does with the presumptive ideal. Besides the lie that wage laborers are free in finance/oligarchial capitalism a major fallacy is that conflating profit with productivity. It is massively unproductive at the largest scale and the subordination of all social values to the extraction of profit has finally become evident as the disastrous contradiction that it is.

A world revolution to establish Socialism could at the same time establish, finally, Capitalism as only by such an action can the vast majority of working people put themselves on a par ready for free enterprise, i.e. by overturning the current regime where entrenched power elites monopolize social control or the lack thereof on a global basis. This they can do simply, and with no other immediate change in the current relations of production, by refounding money on their labor, the true source of value.