Why Does Fight or Fuck Exist?

I once saw a retarded psychology professor giving a video lecture about emotions to undergraduates. He asked his class what the opposite of love was. Most said it was hatred, which is very inaccurate since
contempt would be better, but this moron berated them as if they'd done a great wrong. Then he proceeded to tell them as if imparting a great insight that love and hatred are both "arousal" and the opposite of "arousal" was calm or neutrality or indifference.

(This moron didn't even grasp that indifference is negative, not neutral, ah but such is life in the field called psychology.)

Setting aside the fact that it can be PROVED contempt is opposite of love, due to the fact if you feel both of them towards the same person
simultaneously they will cancel out leaving you feeling absolutely nothing towards that person. Or the further fact that hatred comes reasonably close to being another opposite.

Yes, setting aside the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, let's examine this retarded moron's (and all psychologists are retards, whether they're clinicians or researchers or professors since they do not acknowledge their own minds' limitations, the fact they are idiots at best, despite working with minds) idiotic claims that negative emotions and positive emotions are similar because magnitude is more important than quality.

Arousal ... there's another type of arousal than this retard talked about, it is sexual arousal. Now, in comedies it's often the case that two people who are angry and hate each other get sexually aroused and suddenly start lusting after each other and tearing each other's clothes off. But this cliché humour is not cliché because it is true of real life. It is true because it is absurd. It is funny because it is nonsense.

But, and some people will object, why does one sometimes become sexually aroused during a fight with a loved one? Doesn't this prove that love and anger are closely related and that "arousal" is "arousal"? No, because if it were true then a fight with a complete stranger would lead to people fucking in the streets. However, that doesn't fucking happen, does it?! In fact, the notion is fucking retarded. ABSURD. NONSENSE.

So ... here we have a phenomenon which has 3 important characteristics:

1. it's very mysterious and no one can quite explain it.
2. ordinary people reject as absurd the simple-minded explanation.
3. psychologists believe themselves deep thinkers for embracing the retarded explanation that is total nonsense contradicted by the evidence. And in fact, psychologists believe themselves better than ordinary people because they bite the bullet of logically self-contradictory "explanations". Idiots.

What is the explanation? It's really beautiful and elegant once you know it, and obviously very deceptive since people don't talk about it. The explanation is that when you feel anger or hatred at a loved one and your love for them is almost completely canceled you will still desire to feel close to them ... and sex is the only positive intimate act left to you. Anger or hatred (and especially the partial anger left over during the makeup phase of a fight with a loved one) forces your love and desire / need for intimacy into unconventional channels. Much the same way dropping a big boulder into a reservoir will cause the dam to overflow.

Ahh, but such wisdom is not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology. Facts and evidence are not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology. Sick disgusting fucks.

Other wisdom I've found about relationships that turned out to be literally and absolutely true

• relationships are built on trust and trustworthiness <- formally="" li="" provable="">
• love is an emotion - the emotion that is the merger of affection and fondness intensified to the next level
• so-called moments of connection (ie, attunement) really do bond people together
• lovesickness literally is when someone else's happiness is essential to your own

Because love is an emotion it feels like something. Love is ALSO not at all an emotion. It has in total three different meanings. It is annoying that way. Also, sex-as-love isn't a separate meaning at all but dovetails right in the primary meaning of love.

Also, so-called "romantic gestures" are sickeningly close to narcissists' notions of love and empathy. Hint: narcissists can only love themselves and have no empathy. These two categories are not identical but they are close enough for romantic gestures to be repulsive to most mentally healthy people.

Prototype Theory of Language Is Wrong

There is a retarded theory in linguistics which says that human brains function on the basis of prototypical objects. You have a prototypical concept of a house cat then you have variations on the concept of house cat. You have a prototypical concept of a dog then you have variations on the concept of a dog. Well, what about K-9 the robotic dog? It doesn't look much like a fucking dog now, does it?

No, the prototypical theory of language, which seems to be considered advanced or edgy, is simply wrong. The alternative is the class-based theory of language. I will here show why it must be so. I could prove it formally but I won't, I will merely illustrate. Let's start by looking at some ... oddities of human languages. Words with disparate meanings that don't seem to hang together.

A whore is a prostitute. A whore is also someone who will do anything for attention. What do those things have to do with each other? Apparently nothing!

To arrest is to detain someone. Unless an object does it, in which case it means it's striking. Oh wait, to strike someone is to hit them. To strike is to hit a company. Striking means visually arresting. Same with stunning.

Order is strict arrangement. To order is to command.

To be observant means to see things. And to obey religious strictures.

To appropriate is to acquire against others' will. Oh wait, there's a word for that, isn't there? Stealing and thieving? Nope!

Have you ever wondered why there are distinct words for "acquiring against others' will" when Right-Wing Authoritarians do it and when Psychopaths do it?

And yet, THE VERY SAME WORD is used to refer to "sanctionable actions" performed by ... Right-Wing Authoritarians. Hell, sanction itself!

To sanction means to forbid AND to permit if you believe the retarded morons who write dictionaries. Obviously, sanction means NEITHER to forbid NOR to permit, it means something deeper and beyond the pea-sized brains of RWA compilers.

Even 'order' is beyond the retarded pea-brains of dictionary compilers. Its formal meaning is 'RWA pair-bond pos-polar: rule'. It is a CLASS. It is a SLOT in a GRID.

When you understand what is going on, it is terribly simple. All those words with their "disparate" meanings are slots in a grid and their disparate meanings are no more disparate than pirate vs raider. A raider is a land pirate, a pirate is a sea raider. Or how about forger and hacker. A hacker forges identities, a forger hacks documents. All of them are Psychopaths by the way.

The prototype theory of language, the product of thousands of academics, is a dead end. It has nothing meaningful or interesting to say about human language or the human mind. Meanwhile, I have much to say about the subject and I'm only one person. Which just goes to show that academia is the place where intelligence and originality go to die. It is The Ossifier of human knowledge.

Academia is the graveyard of comprehension and understanding. The oozing pustule on the arse of humanity. I want to see it eradicated as an institution. Its largely Evil, Narcissistic and RWA practitioners, are already losing their grip on authority. I want to see them die, their papers burnt to ashes and their names erased from history.

Ever wonder how come Right-Wing Authoritarians condemn and hate Academia but never, ever move to weaken it? Why they never ACT like it's their enemy for all their loud braying voices? Ever wonder why they HATE any alternatives to academia? It's because Academia is composed of RWAs and organized along RWA principles, except better and smarter than any retarded non-academic RWA.

RWAs hate academia because they're jealous, because they couldn't hack it, and are distressed at their own failings. Which doesn't mean that academia should be spared. Far from it. This is exactly why academia throughout the world should be incinerated and burned to the ground.

Physicists Don't Want You To Understand Physics

This is quantum theory. This is quantum mechanics. This too.

But the guy in the videos is wrong when he says that it's not understood by physicists. It is, they just keep it as a super-advanced topic which only the cosmologists and superstring theorists are taught. The lower 99% of physicists are fed crap because that's what they want to eat. And they vomit that crap back to any non-physicist who wants to listen to them.

And then every so often you'll get a civilian who's more curious than 99% of physicists .... :| Or is more concerned with Truth or Understanding, rather than pontificating and looking good and saying what everyone else says or holding onto their erroneous false inherited beliefs.

When teaching you physics, the hardest thing to teach you will be what's obsolete, so that you can avoid being contaminated by it. These words are obsolete yet omnipresent:

• particle
• big bang
• uncertainty (eg, heisenberg uncertainty)
• collapse of wavefunction
• probability

So all of these obsolete concepts are taught from first year uni to PhD level, and then you go to work in physics and if you're a retard you never learn beyond them, which accounts for 90-99% of them. But then you've got people who go into cosmology or whatnot, who really CARE about the nature of the universe. And instead of talking about 'particles' they talk about 'excitations' and instead of talking about 'probabilities' they talk about 'amplitudes'. And you know what's the kick in the crotch?

If you take a probability course in the math department, they won't tell you what a probability IS. But if you go digging through old math books from decades past, you'll find it. And you know what the boring basic obvious concept taught to all 1st year math students was? It was just 'amplitude'. A probability is an amplitude ... it has nothing to do with "chance" or "luck" just *thickness*. A probability is a map from X to Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4...YN and depending on how thick the Ys are, that's their amplitude. So if there's two lines going from X to Y1 and one to Y2 then Y1's twice as 'probable' as Y2.

And you know, this is a super-super-secret-super-advanced concept in physics found in the first few pages of a banned math book ... Banned knowledge, that's what it is :| so yeah, it really is like a crypto priesthood with fucks who care more about their careers or jobs than anything else. And the whole reason they do this, refuse to teach basic concepts the way I taught you in categories of complex systems ... is because if they did, they would have to consign some big name physicists in the past to the dustbin of history. Some nobel prize winners would have to be trashed, completely forgotten and never talked about and that's the most horrifying fate imaginable to them.

The most horrifying fate imaginable to physicists ISN'T that you don't understand physics, or that NOBODY understands physics. The most horrifying fate to them is that THEY ARE FORGOTTEN. And that explains why an Evil Narcissistic fuck like Richard Feynman could get along swimmingly amongst them.

On Specialization: Why Academic "Specialists" Are Fuckups.

There's a place for anger and frustration and every other emotion. Well, not stress, not in my life anyways. And there IS a place for fantasy.

The thing is, there is NO space for confusing planning and fantasy. You want to plan? Plan. You want to fantasize? Fantasize. But never do them simultaneously, and never mix them up, and never confuse them.

When you're planning, fantasizing is not allowed. And equally, when you're fantasizing, planning is not allowed! Mixing them up makes for pathetic fantasies and pathetic plans!

Calling on the cattle to rise up and change some law or other ... that makes for pathetic plans AND pathetic fantasies. If you're going to fantasize, start by drawing up a list of the top 10,000 people you would order to have killed. And go on from there. :)

You can't learn about the world without trying to redesign it. (Just like you can't learn to speak properly without hearing yourself). So to learn about the world you need to both plan AND fantasize. But at all times you should be aware and conscious of what you're doing.

Separation of concerns isn't just critical in planning. It's critical in all areas of life. And it's why you need to know at all times whether you're planning or fantasizing, so you can do that thing well!

The same goes for hopping from one issue to the next. You want to fix the world before finishing grieving? Fine. IF AND ONLY IF you know whether you're hopping or dodging. If you're dodging then freaking do THAT well. If you're hopping then do THAT well. And if you're overloaded emotionally or by work... then don't expect to accomplish anything at all except BEING overloaded.

If you want to do a thing, do it well. Make sure you know what you're doing and make sure you meet the preconditions for doing it well. Otherwise you're just deluded and playacting. And if you WANT to playact then sign up for theater school. And if you want to be deluded then don't hang around me because with my core value Truth I will fucking shatter your illusions.

And lastly, the exact same reasoning applies to academic specialists. And is the reason why I despise them. Because they don't specialize around learning or understanding their respective academic field. They specialize around the role of being an academic specialist. Someone who publishes within only their field, is respected by their peers and gets grants.

So they spend their entire lives never knowing what it is they're doing. Because if they did, they would be ashamed of what they do rather than being proud. You don't learn to understand chemistry by specializing on the role of a chemist, it just doesn't work. And you don't learn to make discoveries in the sciences, or inventions, or even discoveries or inventions in chemistry, by specializing on the role of a chemist. That works even less!

Academics are universally fuckups who don't understand specialization. That's why I despise their fake concept of "specialization" and their despicable "specialties" and every last academic and the whole institution of academia itself which was built on an artificial tie-in of teaching and research and sucking up to the government.

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I am however telling you something you forgot, perhaps because you never learned to appreciate it properly in the first place.

21st Century Research "Ambitions"

I saw this article about Future and Emerging Technologies on next big future and I wondered at the 4 out of 6 projects that Brian Wang, that racist mindless cheerleader, was NOT hyping.

• FuturICT - The FuturICT Knowledge Accelerator and Crisis-Relief System: Unleashing the Power of Information for a Sustainable Future

Anti-human crap. Simulation and hand-holding for elitists with a view towards getting them to better understand technology & demographics blah blah blah so they can better oppress people. And of course the ever present exploitation of "climate change" as an excuse to impoverish people. This is NOT collective intelligence.

• Graphene - Graphene Science and technology for ICT and beyond
• Guardian Angels - Guardian Angels for a Smarter Planet

Anti-human crap. Oppressing people by infantilizing them with respect to the natural environment. Totally useless if optional since people won't stand for infantilization.

"emotional applications" what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

• HBP - The Human Brain Project
• ITFoM - IT Future of Medicine: a revolution in healthcare

Supposedly machine diagnosis yet sold in such a fishy kitchen sink & head in the clouds way that it sounds unrealistic at best. It actually sounds like a big sink for lots of money, to make biotech researchers feel useful, like ITER does for physicists. It doesn't sound like it will ever be useful. The danger for humanity here is that it makes real progress on machine diagnosis seem unrealistic, just like Star Trek made communism sound unfeasibly far away. "Well, we squandered millions of euros in R&D money and we achieved squat. What hope do YOU have?"

• RoboCom - Robot Companions for Citizens

I have no words. These retards are actually trying to create Cylon slaves. And yes, I mean conscious beings as a slave labour force.

Conclusion

You know that things have gotten dire when the US military under DARPA has a much better track record of funding pro-human technologies than civilian researchers. I want to ask if researchers have always been so crushingly idiotic or if it's a recent phenomenon.

Poverty of imagination and poverty of ambition doesn't quite cut it, these worms are pathetic and evil. Yet more confirmation for my hatred of academia. The best of these projects (the ones Brian Wang hypes) are probably worse than the worst of my projects. But I know what's at fault. It's the bureaucratization of academia.

At least DARPA is still capable, every now and again, of saying "fuck it" because they kill people and they're proud of it, because they're in it for themselves. DARPA doesn't answer to anti-human political paymasters because it serves the needs of the military, and the military is simply assumed to be entirely anti-human.

Gangster Rap is 3000 years old

The Ancient Greek bards were rappers. The Iliad and the Odyssey were rap songs ... about rape and slaughter. The epic poems like the Anglo-Saxon Beowulf and the Norse poetic Eddas were equally barbaric reinventions of the Ancient tradition.

Rap is all about beat rather than melody. The ancient Greek epics were chanted. Non-existent melody, so-so rhymes, but very strong beat and rhythm. Also, it may be difficult to believe but as non-melodic and violent as rap is, ancient epics were worse.

This is the first time I've noticed it. I'm used to thinking of the ancient epics as really shitty murderous stories. Because that's the known-wrong belief in the literature departments which all consider the Iliad to be something written for purposes of territorial appropriation.

Well, they weren't. They were really shitty trance-inducing murderous rap songs. It kinda strips all the allure off of the Iliad, assuming it has any, when you put it in proper context. Not something alien and primitive, but very familiar and primitive. Or just primitive.

Academic types have a real blind spot to this because they can't be seen, or even THINK, that they're wasting their time studying something low class. Even when they compare the Iliad TO rap, they minimize the resemblance, saying it's "freestyle like jazz and rap". Jazz? WTF?!

It's why performers say stupid shit like "rap Iliad" instead of "original Iliad". If anything, their performances are weak and not nearly hardcore enough because the Iliad was more rap than rap. It was more violent and less melodic than all but the most extreme gangster rap.

Oh and the Iliad is not a poem except in the loosest sense. And Homer was never a poet anymore than he was a writer or a singer (he was a scribe). We don't call rap songs 'poems', we call them rap. And the Iliad? The Iliad is not "like" rap. The Iliad IS rap!

How Science Really Works

Behold the so-called Scientific Method. Scientific Academia anyways.

As opposed to the idealized anything goes of Paul Feyerabend which merely describes how science should work.

Of course, Against Method also describes how science does work at the margins of academia where all the best work is done. Where the sacred cows are gutted before the shocked eyes of bystanders.

Naturally, Popperism is a ridiculous and unworkable pile of crap not worth the effort of reading about it in an online encyclopedia of philosophy.

On Privilege - Modern Homocentrism

Humans believe their experiences as human beings are privileged. This is a delusion which even professional intellectuals cling to. There are many such illusions which have turned into delusions. Most of them have ended up as great "mysteries" for philosophers who conspicuously scratch their heads over them.

One such illusion is of time "running". Another is the so-called "arrow" of time which is a straightforward artifact of the nature of computation. But then again it would require understanding computation, entropy and time, and that's something beyond most physicists.

Just about everyone clings to bits being dimensionless - they're not. Bits are similar to functions and not at all like numbers. The bit 1 is close to the function f:1->1 and not the number 1 at all. Most people, even many physicists, cling to elementary particles being dimensionless points instead of extended objects.

Mathematicians cling to the delusion of there being One True Mathematics with a death-grip even though every single mathematician will freely tell you it's a delusion. They know it's false yet cling to it. They also cling to the notion of T having meaning (one true truth, hah!).

Physicists cling to the absurd notion of One True Timeline (copenhagenites, nondeterminism, clinging to a classicist vision of micro- and macro-reality instead of quantum, rejecting time travel out of hand). They also cling to One True Physical Reality (big bang creationists). Physicists have also clung up to the late 20th century to the notion of Aphysical Free Action (vitalism).

Most normal people cling to One True Present (time travelers "overwriting" the past). Magical thinkers cling to One True Self (copies of me aren't me, they are "copies").

Are you catching the pattern? It's not just the loathsome T word, which is a lie and a deception, it's the whole emotion behind it.

The emotion that says I AM PRIVILEGED ABOVE ALL OTHER THINGS. Ultimately "true" has no meaning other than "privileged". And people for some stupid moronic reason, think they are privileged.

People think their minds are privileged. They think 'now' is privileged. They think their subjective experiences (of singular linear classical time as opposed to branching multiple merging quantum time) are privileged.

People think their actions are privileged (not subject to determinism). They think their senses (of real probabilities instead of complex probabilities) are privileged. They think their subjective universe (the mathematics they subjectively experience) is privileged.

As a good modernist I know to scorn such privilege. It is a loathsome abomination to all intellectuals.

For fuck's sake, even the supposedly anti-privilege "aliens are real" is an expression of that imaginary privileged status. These morons think they are privileged to live in a friendly universe where aliens wouldn't bulldoze them like we would a pond of slime. They think they matter.

They think humanoid bodies are privileged. They think *corporeal* bodies are privileged. They think their feudal anti-rational societies are privileged. They think their concerns for ethnicity, their stupid ideologies (esp, gaia-worship, aka "environmentalism") and obsolete resources are privileged!

I would bulldoze them into food paste if I could, just to show them how very, very wrong they are.

Academia Is Obsolete

And good riddance to it. It's all very simple. Academia has exactly three missions:

1. educate students by
   • making books available, and
   • having teachers put on performances
2. certify people's educations
3. perform research

The first mission, as everyone knows, is obsolete. Youtube provides many excellent lectures which are 99.9% as good as live performances for 0.1% the price. The writing's on the wall.

For the same reasons, the time of physical paper libraries is fast approaching an end. And good riddance since textbook publishers have long been using yearly textbook revisions in order to extort money from their customers. All to great waste and expense.

That's not even counting the fact that online textbooks can contain copious internal and external electronic links as well as video and interactive simulations. Not to mention how small and easy to carry electronic books (and lectures) are compared to their physical counterparts.

The second mission is also obsolete. Harry Collins has noted the steady draining of all authority from academia. The only department invented in modern times, computer science, produces certificates that don't matter a damn in the real world.

It also produces journals that are designed to be as obsolete as possible on the grounds that nothing new in computer science could ever hope to be properly scientific. The paper describing the publishing industry is itself hopelessly obsolete. Everything it describes in such tedious language boils down to laws #6, #19, #20, and #32 of System-antics.

• Le Chatelier's Principle: Complex systems tend to oppose their own proper function. As systems grow in complexity, they tend to oppose their stated function.
• Systems develop goals of their own the instant they come into being.
• Intra-system goals come first.
• As systems grow in size, they tend to lose basic functions.

With blatantly obvious specifics such as that the purpose of academic publishing is to enhance careers, make hiring decisions easier, and to be picked up by library administrators. The paper specifically fails to mention any attempts, any publisher or publication system, trying to go beyond the university feudal system whose support is the real purpose of academic publishing. Arxiv and c2 wiki both veritably leap to mind.

Harry Collins believes or hopes that there is some way to recover the authority of academia. Preferably for academics no doubt. After all, he is one. Well there isn't. I know it's only obvious to me for reasons I'm not going to get into, but ... basically, the forces (for universality and democratization of authority) which Harry Collins has identified as so efficiently breaking down the academic system of authority. Forces which are greatly amplified and magnified by peer to peer horizontal communication and self-directed learning. These forces which are breaking down academia's authority will continue to do so until academia is ground to NOTHING because there is NO WAY to resolve them until some entirely different system replaces academia and crushes it.

What we are seeing here is the introduction of a genuinely new force in modernity that is causing one of the most basic functions of academia, its authority, to disappear. This dynamic embodies laws #6, #18, and #32 of systemantics.

• The mode of failure of a complex system cannot ordinarily be predicted from its structure.
• The Newtonian Law of Systems Inertia: A system that performs a certain way will continue to operate in that way regardless of the need or of changed conditions.
• A complex system cannot be "made" to work. It either works or it doesn't.

Academic authority simply doesn't work. And the forces that are weakening academic authority will not stop doing so until they are resolved. And they will never be resolved from within academia or from anything that can ever be absorbed BY academia for the simple reason that these forces are already far bigger than academia. Not more powerful, just bigger, consisting of a larger fraction of all human life. So academic authority will continue to shrivel up until something entirely different from, and in its critical dimension far larger than, academia steps up to put a bullet through its head and make soap out of its body fat. Academic Authority will die a miserable and inglorious death leaving Academia weaker than a long-term concentration camp survivor.

I will be cheering.

The third mission is the only one that's left and the North American universities have undermined it badly with their recent love for the patent system. I say recent but it's really a couple of decades old. There have been ample studies that universities obtaining patents barely recoup the costs of filing for the patents, if at all.

(Quite aside the fact the only thing the patent system does is stifle innovation. And it's not even good at this outside of biochem (eg, pharmaceuticals) so all it really does is add unnecessary costs.)

Anyways, the point is that NA universities' love of corporate attitudes (probably from having corporate scum in charge) does nothing to bring money to universities and does everything to erode the reputation of universities as a public service. A reputation which took a lot longer to build up (or rebuild) than it will take to be destroyed.

So NA universities have turned basic research from a public mission funded by public monies into a private for-profit endeavour. How long can they expect to hold onto public monies?

Now you might say this isn't a problem for all universities everywhere, but once universities disappear off the north american continent, how long will it take for people elsewhere to start asking some hard questions?

If all you need is a public basic research lab, then the format of a university isn't a very good one, is it? Hell, professors don't even like teaching. Or publishing in peer-reviewed journals (which suck). Or seeking grants. Or subordinating their research goals to more senior researchers that control everything nowadays.

It's past time to nuke this system and start from scratch!

Academic Mind Bleach

I'm reading a very politically incorrect article about race in the USA. Specifically all the status games that are played by the upper class in order to try to deny that race exists. Because it's "politically incorrect" and demonstrates low class origins to say that niggers (American-born inner city blacks) are stupid violent idiots (anti-education, high-crime, low IQ).

Of course, academia comes into it since it's very stubborn about pretending that race doesn't exist. Unless of course it's the blacks getting discriminated against by the whites. Whatever. I wouldn't care at all since this kind of willful blindness is so much less common outside crazyland. Wait no, that's a lie. I'd still care enough to roll my eyes and shake my head about how crazy crazyland is.

But it feeds into a larger pattern. Race isn't the only basic concept which seemingly everyone except academics consider blindingly fucking obvious. Another key concept is morality - the internal rules of a group aimed to promote its well-being. Very few academics have any morality whatsoever. In fact, it's very common among philosophers to deny that morality and ethics even exist as distinct concepts, despite the fact they are NEVER used in the same linguistic context!

Another blatantly obvious concepts that academics systematically try to dismantle are absolute justice. Academics are great fans of postmodernist shit relativism. And the last key concept they war against that comes to mind is rationality. Economists specifically since they systematically try to redefine 'rationality' to mean what the rest of humanity would understand by 'evil'. Economists are great fans of evil you see.

Now, you might naively think that academics are all about dismantling "naive" concepts to free up mind-space for more sophisticated replacements. If it were true I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, academics don't actually have any more sophisticated concepts to replace morality, justice or rationality with. Only equally basic concepts like ethics, psychosis and evil, respectively. And just reducing the number of words in language doesn't make any fucking sense. Unless of course you're just recreating Orwell's 1984.

But it's actually worse than that. You see, academics don't just set out to destroy perfectly good concepts (that happen to interfere with their social stations and the political designs of the rich aristocrats) they go out of their way to preserve ridiculous concepts which have been proven false again and again. The concept of creationism, which Einstein was vehemently opposed to, has resurfaced in physics. Vitalism was given a rebirth by the loathsome Niels Bohr in the so-called Copenhagen "interpretation" of QM. And the capper of all travesties is no doubt the magical self-contradictory notion of "non-determinism" which is so incoherent it can't even be defined!

So no, academics aren't destroying naive concepts in the mistaken hope of replacing them with something better which they don't have on hand. The truth is that even when superior concepts ARE on hand, academics preserve nonsensical concepts. Because the priesthood isn't about spreading knowledge, truth and enlightenment. That's just what it SAYS it does. And as the 8th law of systemantics says: 'The Operational Fallacy: The system itself does not actually do what it says it is doing'. So the mere fact academia SAYS it spreads knowledge, truth and enlightenment is proof that it does no such thing. What it actually does, determined empirically by objective observers, is bleach brains for some nefarious purpose.

The purpose of the hierarchical media is obviously to isolate people, destroy trust in humanity and promote psychopathy. As judged by the existence of shows like 24 and Dexter. In other words, to reshape the most fundamental emotions. The purpose of the hierarchical academia is obviously to reshape the most fundamental ideas. And both of these authoritarian, totalitarian institutions do this for their masters, the ones who pay their salaries and provide them with social status, the rich aristocrats.

Most Great Science Is Fraudulent, And Nearly All Scientists Are Frauds

Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram's Authority Experiment

A lot of hay is made over the Stanford Prison and Milgram Authority Experiments especially when someone wants to conclude that people are naturally submissive and sadistic. The truth is they're fraudulent and junk science. The truth is that Asch's Conformity Experiments perfectly explains the results of those other experiments as junk science.

How? Easy. The most basic requirement of any psychological experiment is that the subjects of the experiment are willing to take part in a psychology experiment. They are all, without exception, willing to obey the experimenter. Now that doesn't sound like a proper randomized sample of a population, does it?

At least, it doesn't if you know there exist iconoclasts in the general population, breakers of sacred idols, murderers of sacred cows, people who will dissent for the sake of dissent, people who will instinctively refuse to obey just because you made it an order. There are such people and I know it very well, being one of them. But the douchebags who call themselves "scientists" and "academics" and "psychologists" and "experts in the human mind" seem oblivious to this.

(For the record, I consider taking part in a psychology experiment [playing the part of a monkey for the edification of an ignorant jackass] about as distastefully intimate as prostitution. And since I have a high-class mind I would want to be paid in a manner similar to a high class escort. I think about 1000$ an hour would ensure my willingness to go along voluntarily. Since this much money would corrupt the results, the only way an experimenter could get an honest response out of me would be without my knowledge.)

But why should a few loners, dissenters, disgruntled radicals and revolutionaries mean anything about the Stanford Prison experiment? Doesn't the majority hold sway? Doesn't what happened in those experiments prove there is a natural sadistic desire in "human nature"? NO! Because the Asch conformity experiment proves that it takes only one, ONLY ONE person to utterly shatter a consensus. Once you have that one person, that one iconoclast in the group, the haze of conformity lifts as everyone suddenly finds they are permitted to think for themselves.

All the Stanford Prison Experiment tells us is that when iconoclasts are weeded out of a population, what's left is going to do what the experimenter expects them to do, what he tells them to do. Even though the experimenter will claim he was "surprised" by their viciousness and he "never expected" the situation to devolve so quickly. And all Milgram's experiment tells us is that after 20 years of brainwashing in obedience training, people are going to have a difficult time disobeying.

Six Degrees Of Separation

Another famous experiment is the so-called "six degrees of separation" where an experimenter sent out a bunch of letters, most of which never made it to their destinations, and then "concluded" based on his few positive results that everyone is connected in a graph of degree 6. Of course this is fraudulent since the data never supported the conclusion.

And very shortly after it was discovered that people are separated by class barriers so that it's all but impossible to find links from lower to upper class. Or in the USA, between the white and the nigger class. Blacks aren't a class, but niggers are, even though you aren't allowed to say it because of so-called "political correctness" (more lying and fraud).

Physics too

A lot of pretentious assholes are going to claim that things are entirely different in physics. But that's false. The problem with all these experiments is that they assume their own conclusions. Which is of course what Thomas Kuhn calls "normal science" as opposed to revolutionary science.

You see, physicists do it too! You can see this mindless unthinking unquestioning lying crap happening with the so-called Copenhagen consensus wrought by force of authority of Niels Bohr (may he rot in hell). You can also see it in Bell's theorem which "proved" its own vitalistic assumption by concluding that if you start by preparing a number of "identical" systems you will then get very strange results.

Vitalism is alive and well in modern quantum physics where it relies on the notion that experimenters are outside of the physical universe, outside of the phenomena they're studying.

Millikan

And then there's always the good old Millikan's oil drop experiment which was blatant and simple fraud of the most obvious kind. You see, the experiment couldn't be replicated using modern equipment. You just can't calculate the charge of the electron with any accuracy using the kind of setup Millikan used. What you can do however is assume your data fits the predicted result and eliminate any "outliers". It gets pretty fucking embarrassing though if the predicted result turns out to have been wrong, if you "saw" something that could never exist.

Of course, Millikan was such a famous scientist, had so much authority, that he must obviously have been correct, rather than a simple but highly embarrassing fraud. So over the course of a few decades, the "experimental results" of the charge of the electron steadily crept towards their modern (real) values as experiments got steadily more "accurate". So it wasn't only Millikan that was a fraud, it was also every physicist after him. Frauds, every single last fucking one of them.

Sociology

And fraud is still alive and well in science today what with the sociology experiment published in First Monday where the metric used implicitly included ostracism. Of course, the dumbfuck experimenters (all half dozen of them!) none of them want to admit that their experiment was worthless shit that measured the (patently obvious!) ostracism of generalists by specialists in the sciences. Of course not, since it was their thesis that generalists are less "productive", since you see, they don't like generalists. How stupider does it get than a bunch of prejudiced assholes measuring exactly how much an obviously prejudiced against group is actually prejudiced against? And that's stupid even without the prejudiced assholes then concluding the prejudiced against group is really inferior.

Psychology vs Anthropology

And let's not go into Lloyd deMause whose theory of the history of childrearing casually assumes that all anthropologists everywhere are frauds of the most vicious lying kind. Every single last fucking one of them, excepting only those anthropologists who have had psychological training and thus are really amateur psychologists. The most damning part of deMause's theory is that I believe him. There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that the whole field of anthropology is ruled by quacks and charlatans who blithely and eagerly fake their data so as to maximize sympathy for the murderous infanticidal "noble" savages they think are precious.

After all, to anthropologists, primitiveness, ignorance, stupidity and rampant disease aren't to be eradicated. They are to be "studied" which is really a codeword for honest admiration. Anthropologists are anti-human eco-freaks, exactly as twisted up inside as the zealots that want to destroy all electric power plants so that humans freeze to death. All to save their precious fucking forests. Wishful thinking that since if power plants shut down, humans would NOT freeze to death, they would burn down every last fucking forest for wood fuel instead.

The fact these morons can't even realize that their "plans" are antithetical to their own goals, that even coal power plants are better than so-called "biomass", that SCALABILITY is more important than "sustainability" in a world with 6 to 9 billion humans who WILL survive no matter what, that is damning. Eco-zealots are fucking retarded moronic fuckers who think it's perfectly alright if an asteroid causes a mass extinction that happens to end the human species for lack of advanced space technology. After all, mass extinctions are "natural" and enhance "biodiversity" and are the "revenge of Gaia, the Mother-Earth".

And anthropologists take after them. They sound like them, they talk like them, they think like them. And that's damning to all anthropology.

What It All Means

The fact that an abomination like anthropology exists and is honoured by scientists and academics alike rather than derided and scorned as the useless fraudulent lit crit shit it really is .... that's damning to all science.

After all, the Sokal hoax proved to everyone that scientists are perfectly capable of scorning and deriding people who undermine the authority of the exact sciences. When lit crit assholes undermined exact scientists' authority, the latter counter-attacked.

What does it say then that those same exact scientists can't be moved, can't be bothered, when a field like anthropology "merely" spits on the truth? It says scientists only care about their authority, and will piss on the truth themselves if that's what it takes to remain in power.

It says Scientists. Are. Frauds.

Every last fucking one of them.

Because if scientists weren't frauds then anthropology wouldn't be permitted to exist.

Because if scientists weren't frauds then they would take an interest in psychology and bully and egg the proto-science until it developed formal, rigorous theories of the mind, until it became a REAL science.

Because if scientists weren't frauds then they wouldn't hush up their embarrassments and their failures, they would encourage the questioning of mainstream theories for its own sake and hold high every slightest misstep and stumble done by an eminent scientist as proof that you can't follow authority figures blindly.

But they don't do any of those things. Because they're only interested in their own power. And nothing else matters.

Wikiality, Academic Peer-Review and Socially Determined Truth

In a comment to my previous blog post, Stephen Diamond points to an article with a similar view.

That article is a mix of the superficially true and the deeply fatuous. Consider,

> But Wikipedia is no encyclopedia

as if being an encyclopedia were a good thing! An encyclopedia is by definition a collection of bourgeois liberal prejudices. Hardly an unvarnished Good Thing.

The Encyclopedia Britannica in particular is noted for allowing censorship of critiques of Christianity, its theology and its mythos by "anonymous" editors. This was simultaneous to its refusal to get into the 20th century by discussing feminism and the women's movement.

The same thing with academic "peer-review". As if academia held any kinds of answers. It's not like being less stupid than totally stupid were some kind of recommendation. And peer review! For fuck's sake, who the fuck believes in that shit anymore?

It's an artificial system designed to stall and hold up and blunt progress so as to preserve academics' reputations by putting them in positions of power over any potential usurpers. Incidentally, that paper is the ultimate production of the system it scorns - completely fucking useless because impenetrable, verbose, obsolete and mired in the past. 

Let me be explicit: any system that does not concern itself with directly determining and measuring truth but relies on symbols and artifacts will FAIL to determine truth. It is that fucking simple.

Wikipedia as a system aims to measure popularity. Peer-review aims to measure inoffensiveness (remember that results which undermine the validity of thousands of previously published results are frequently unpublishable). And BOTH of them measure groupthink. Absolutely none of these things have jack fuck all to do with the truth.

I am reminded of these retards on First Monday who set out to determine whether specialist researchers were more productive than generalist researchers, despite knowing that multidisciplinary teams are vastly more insightful than unidisciplinary teams. They measured something alright, they confirmed their bias towards specialists, they even "proved" it. There was just the niggling assumption in their data collection that all researchers had to provide "quality" papers.

So I was told by one of the authors of that paper that if a generalist were ostracized by the crowd of specialists then fuck im. Even though the generalist would be vastly more insightful and useful. Because he didn't provide the "quolity" of being accepted by his much more numerous inferiors, he couldn't possibly matter. Fucking retards. Yet THEY got published in a journal while my half-page (not even derogatory) incisive criticism gets dismissed entirely.

Because what I wrote was "unpublishable". Because I didn't "measure" anything and just provided a shotgun blast right through their interpretation of their data and inverted all of their conclusions. Thus proving that their data meant nothing since it was incapable of discriminating between diametrically opposed theories. Yeah, apparently it's just not the done thing for a non-academic to totally ruin an academic's work. I'm supposed to be inferior after all!

Peer review is just a mechanism for academics to secure their jobs and promotions. It has fuck-all to do with the truth, or with science, or with knowledge, or with progress. And never, ever forget that academics are never interested in the truth. They are interested only in their jobs. If you seriously doubt this for a single moment, you have only to reflect on the ridiculous field that is "climate science". A "field" full of garbage, anti-science, overt data manipulation, blatant money-grubbing and political activism (an activity that is intrinsically anti-science).

An intellectual is someone interested in ideas. Absolutely nothing in that description implies they are interested in true ideas. A good example is medieval Scholasticism. A more esoteric example is classical Sophism - gurus advising aspiring lawyers on how to win trials by sounding good.

So now what?

To my knowledge there exists not a single social system on the face of the planet, or even all of human history, designed to detect and advance truth. Advancing jobs? Yes. Detecting [and promoting] false authority? Oh yes. An awful lot of effort is wasted on establishing and furthering power hierarchies. The so-called "scientific method" doesn't exist anymore than the so-called "Moore's Law" - a fatuous mirage designed to lull the stupid and credulous. Even so-called "science" either doesn't serve truth (Kuhn) or doesn't have a process (Feyerabend) according to the more realistic, less masturbatory researchers.

I'm going to pull a Fermat and say that I know how to design such a social system but I'm too fucking lazy to write it out. Anyone who's read this blog will be able to guess it relies on systematically detecting and segregating people of fundamentally different cognitive abilities, and making sure the analytic-synthesists are on top while the magical thinkers are permitted membership only on sufferance. Okay, I guess this isn't a Fermat since it's not empty boasting - it's fairly trivial to design the requirements for software technology to support the self-segregation of such a community if you understand the concepts that determine the segregation.

Actually, I'm also going to give away that it depends on lotteries and juries (not judges or lawyers or fascists). You know, it's not like this is even remotely fucking new. Human beings have been building complex societies for thousands of years, for hundreds of fucking generations. So why the fuck, why the FUCK, does fascism and hierarchy always get fucking reinvented?! Why the fuck do magical thinking moronic assholes always reach for fascism as the first, last and only possible political solution?! For grief's sake but do a lot of people simply not deserve to live.

Fields of Academe Devoid of Logic

An expansion on Academia Is Shit Actually, the title should be 'fields of academe devoid of a single person even capable of logic' but that's too long. So obviously anthropology, history, psychology, so on and so forth. Let's examine the evidence:

Anthropology is an anti-science that objects to truth (!!) and holds that contradictory belief systems are equally valuable (!!). Its cherished nugget is that psychotics' belief systems "make sense from the point of view of the" psychotic. I do not exaggerate.

History has given up on being a science. The last great theory of history in history was Marxism. Afterwards, the only theory of history has been psychohistory which is outside history proper. It got especially bad when all the theories of agriculture were shot down. Now there aren't any explanatory theories of anything.

Psychology hasn't got any theory of mind nor any understanding of what the mind is. If you've ever met psychologists, you know they are deeply irrational. Their subject matter is deeply irrational and they can't see the patterns behind it. The DSM-III was written by clinicians, who are limited by direct contact with empirical reality, but the DSM-IV was written by teachers and researchers and it is telling!

According to the DSM-IV, there's no such thing as psychopathy but there is an "anti-social personality disorder" that includes anybody weird that doesn't want to play nice with society, like political dissidents. Also according to the DSM-IV pedophilia does NOT include people who are merely sexually aroused by pre-pubescents. They're only pedophiles if they feel guilty about it or if they get busted on charges of pedophilia. So to cure a pedophile you have to make them feel okay about it and keep them out of the hands of the law. ALSO according to the DSM-IV, multiple personality disorder does not exist. The problem you see is that people with multiple personalities believe they have multiple personalities, not that they have them.

Biology - molecular. Do I really need to go into that? There is absolutely no rhyme or reason behind molecular biology. Hell, there's no rhyme or reason behind chemistry, so molecular biology? No, it's all ad hoc crap. I'm talking about the subject matter (the physical reality) being ad hoc crap. Why? Because what kind of person do you think that subject matter would attract?! It attracts people incapable of logic. People who don't have a problem with A => C AND B => C AND A + B => NOT C or whatever.

Molecular biology is like C++ except 10,000 times worse. Not only can it never be understood but it can never be comprehended. The only way you can ever model any part of a cell is on a computer, because an accurate model can never fit into your mind. So molecular biologists are people who feel perfectly comfortable with the fact they 1) need to memorize reams of arbitrary ad hoc facts, 2) will never comprehend the subject.

And as the nail in the coffin, I point you to the fact that the Central Dogma of Biology was overturned but biologists refuse to accept that fact. See, they've accepted that the Central Dogma is false, but they've got this story now about how they never believed it in the first place. What took physicists 100 years and 5 generations, the biologists did in 20 years and 1 generation. Meaning, the same people who believed the dogma are the ones who don't believe it now.

Biology - ecology. Do I really need to go on? This is the field where people, in all seriousness, make up Just So stories. Absolutely every artifact in every species has a pat answer and that answer is always that it benefited the species to have it. Gorillas give birth to females in times of stress? That's because it benefits the species to be conservative. Some big cat gives birth to males in times of stress? That's also because it benefits the species to be conservative. Logical contradictions and counter-examples are blatantly ignored.

Other biology - it's not that there aren't meaningful questions to ask. For instance, why do cells exist at all? It's that those questions were abandoned. Apparently it was too difficult to come up with reasonable theories for those questions so biologists prefer to leave them unasked. The only work in the area seems to be on slime moulds.

The incidence of 'capacity for logic' in the general population is somewhere south of 1/2. But it's not all that rare so let's say 1/3rd. And yet in fields like biology, it plummets to a few percentage points. And then in anthropology it's beneath the threshold of detectability.

Philosophy has an astonishingly low incidence of capacity for logic. This is the field that originated logic. It's a fucking embarrassment that the incidence rate is south of 90%. But from the material produced by its practitioners, it's obvious that logic isn't a major force. Definitely below 30%. Below 10% even. The best thing to do for the field would be to burn it all and restart it from scratch with different people.

I haven't even gone into the humanities. You think that lit crit came out of nowhere?

Academia is shit

In a moderately insightful article Mark Tarven wrote:

> What saves university is generally the beauty of the subject as built by great minds. But if you just look at the professors and don't see past their narrow obsession with their pointless and largely unread (and unreadable) publications to the great invisible university of the mind, you will probably conclude its as phony as anything else. Which it is.

How unbelievably CONCEITED! "the beauty of the subject as built by great minds"?! Give me a fucking break!

Quantum physics:

1. haven't assimilated advances made in 20th century
2. still believe in 17th century Vitalism, that the human brain doesn't follow the laws of physics
3. believe in magic like wave collapse
4. believe in gibberish like non-determinism
5. deny the formal conception of probability
6. don't teach fundamental concepts because practitioners don't know them
7. deny fundamental concepts are necessary, scorn them
8. have no deep understanding of fundamental concepts or how they interrelate
9. have no understanding of what is physics, dismiss it as philosophy of physics, dismiss their own subject matter as unimportant and irrelevant

Mathematics:

1. hasn't assimilated 20th century advances in meta-mathematics
2. assumes ancient Platonist ideal of uniqueness of mathematics
3. despite being viciously disproved in 20th century
4. most practitioners have no understanding of meta-mathematics and teach students lies

Anthropology:

1. culturally relativist claptrap
2. denies developmental psychology exists
3. denies psychology exists period
4. denies own subject matter
5. denies the possibility of scientific explanations in field
6. is ANTI-scientific

Psychology:

1. immature proto-science with no fundamental theory of mind
2. too many to go into

Sociology:

1. assumes psychology doesn't exist

Biology:

1. no theory of cellularity
2. gave up on theory of cellularity
3. denies Central Dogma was overturned, have retconned reality claiming they "never believed" the Central Dogma was absolute

Ecology:

1. only a threadbare theory of what exists (common descent)
2. strictly ad hoc and non-empirical (non-scientific) explanations of how species evolve
3. no fundamental theory of ecosystems

Urbanity:

1. doesn't exist as a field of study, should exist

Economics:

1. market fundamentalists exist
2. market economics not yet destroyed by development economics
3. obsession with trade over and above consumption and production is an obscenity and an abomination
4. no fundamental theory of economies
5. no clue about fundamental concepts of such a theory

Complex Systems:

1. doesn't exist
2. even though it's required to formulate proper basis for economics, ecology, biology and urbanity.

Computer Science:

1. not a science but a trade
2. teaches 20 year obsolete material
3. no understanding of the role of design or skillset of designers

And that's not even going into the fact that ALL of these fields freely mix the practice of their field, the conceptual basis of their field and the history of their field. Roundly fucking up the study of ALL of them. Because all three streams have radically different audiences, different cognitive needs and different uses (at different times to boot).

Finally, despite the great variety of kinds of tasks involved in the complex enterprise of science, there are only two recognized roles: experimentalists and theoreticians. There is no distinction made between generalists and specialists since everyone is assumed to be a specialist. There is no room made for networkers keeping everyone up to date. Nor is there any room for knowledge mappers maintaining and cross-checking an open conceptual basis for each scientific field.

Academia is shit.