Monthly Archives: July 2015

Taking the ‘Omega’ Pill

I’ve been somewhat of a critic of Red Pill philosophy…not the part about misandry and feminism, which I agree with, but the overemphasizes on ‘game’, masculinity, traditionalism, and self-improvement. If happiness is through self-fulfillment and recognition for your achievements, contributions, and accomplishments, I don’t think adhering to the Red Pill philosophy is necessarily the best path to getting there. Red Pill philosophy as a road-map to life would have worked great as recently as the 1980′s or so, but now not so much. Especially since 2008, the pendulum has swung in favor of the ‘betas/omegas’, or the intellectual creative class, in accordance to the Ravi Batra’s Social Cycle Theory.

Although others argue that Red Pill is about self-improvement and has nothing to do with actually being masculine or projecting physical prowess and that Red Pill is a state of mind, a personal ‘awakening’ of how women try to exploit men, for this write-up I’m going by Reddit’s Red Pill introduction, which seems to put emphasis on game, seduction, and self-improvement.

Self-improvement is important to some degree, but I don’t go around all day thinking of ways to improve myself. That seems exhausting. More or less, people are hard-wired by biology to act a certain way, limiting the effectiveness of self-improvement. Even if someone makes a concerted effort to improve, since it’s not natural, eventually most will revert to old habits. Self-improvement is easier for some than others.

But most importantly, what do people want? What do we as homo sapien sapiens desire? Studies have shown that social rejection is one of the worst forms of pain, so conversely acceptance and recognition should bring the most happiness, and I think to achieve those requires a more ‘omega’ mindset, especially with the recent rise of the ‘STEM celebrity‘; thus, intellectualism is not only a path to wealth and personal fulfillment, but recognition from broader society. I’m sure you can get there with ‘alpha’ pursuits, but I think the odds are worse.

From an article posted on the crappy blog platform Medium, Are Omega males the new Alpha males?

By traditional standards, beta males are higher up on the hierarchy ladder than omega males. Omega males, unlike beta males do not care about the approval of the other males, or females for that matter. Omega males in our current society do not care about being accepted by society and may choose to live outside the lines of social norms. Most Omega males lack social skills and derive pleasure from being distinct from others. Does this ring any bells? (I’m looking at you, hipster who’s reading this with a flannel on)

That seems to my description of the Beta/Omega Male Conservative – someone who values logic, individualism, and introspection over collective, politically correct social norms. In an our increasingly competitive winner-take-all economy where IQ and authenticity is valued more than ever, it seems like the best way to rise to the top is to be yourself, provided that you have the skills (or the IQ to acquire them) that post-2008 society and capitalism values, such as coding, engineering, physics or math (STEM). Those who try to fake it will find themselves falling short intellectually and their ruse exposed.

So why do I think that Omega males are the new Alpha males? Well, it’s very simple. Think of the most youngest, most rich guy that we all know. Let me save you some time, it’s Mark Zuckerburg. Sticking true to Omega fashion, the somewhat lovable social network owner lacks (lacked) social skills, chose not to live within social norms and derives pleasure from being different. It’s these qualities that we are starting to appreciate. While the economy shifts to non-traditional jobs such as start ups, social networks, e-commerce sites, etc etc, we are starting to idolize the omega males instead of the alpha males for the first time in human history.

I couldn’t agree more…it’s like we’re reading each other’s minds. From Zuck to Musk, to Thiel and Andreessen, it seems the biggest winners of the post-2008 economy in terms of social status, influence, and wealth are people who are better at creating things and thinking of ideas than relating to other people. Marc Andreessen even admitted that while he draws people in, he ‘doesn’t want them around’. Even if you read the Red Pill philosophy threads on Reddit you get the impression that these may not be the most gregarious people in the world, and that’s not surprising since most people, to put it bluntly, are idiots and you don’t want anything to do with them. Or to quote George Carlin, — ‘Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.’

As an example of the rise of the omega, look the huge outpouring of grief over the death of Dr. Nash. Dr. Nash was more omega than alpha, but lived such a fulfilling, accomplished life that many would envy, even if you include the mental illness aspect. Being a math genius may not get your laid when you’re in the club, but it sure seems to make a lot of people like you. On the contrary, what would happen if some random pro bodybuilder died? Outside of the bodybuilding community would anyone care that much? Probably not.

But Nash’s story is inspiring not only for his contributions to math and economics, but for overcoming an awful illness, Schizophrenia, presumably through willpower. But scientists don’t know why some people recover from severe mental illness and others don’t, so we can’t attribute it purely to willpower.

Or consider how a recent Reddit thread – about an economics paper that uses complicated mathematics to show how adding a ‘tiny tax’ to plastic bags can reduce usage – got up-voted over 300 times, an example of an intellectual endeavor that brought significant recognition and positive feedback to its creator. And you see this over and over again, with scientists and other STEM people being lavished with praise and recognition for their accomplishments.

Some in the Red Pill community get defensive when you bring this up, accusing you of misinterpreting their philosophy or being uninformed. I’m more MGTOW, so I don’t see the category ‘beta’ or ‘omega’ as having to be pejorative. A beta/omega male conservative (a term I invented), for example, is someone who agrees with the Red Pill philosophy about economics, the biological differences between men and women, and feminism, but is more introverted and isn’t really into ‘game’ or traditionalism, and I think these variations can coexist without acrimony, just as the traditionalists of neo-reaction should be able to coexist with the techno-libertarian/pragmatist faction.

While there is some disagreement with certain aspects of the Red Pill philosophy, I’ll end on an optimistic note. The Red Pill and other smaller movements such as MGTOW are having an effect on mainstream public discourse, and you see evidence of this not only on sites like Reddit and 4chan but in the comments sections of mainstream sites, where ordinary people are waking up to how the SWJs and their media enablers are ruining society and the lives of innocent people. For example, the backlash against the the ‘check your privilege’ videos on Youtube, which were inundated with thousands of down-votes and negative comments imploring that the SJWs check their stupidity first before foisting a collective burden of ‘guilt’ on white males who did nothing to deserve it. And then there was the successful anti-SJW backlash against Mozilla for firing Brendan Eich, #shirtgate, and, of course, the ongoing #gamergate. Vox Day has been leading a successful crusade against feminists and SJWs in the sci-fi/fantasy publishing realm. Roosh and others in the manosphere are torchbearers of reality, exposing the bullshit that is feminism and other forms of political correctness. Even centrists like Scott have criticized the SJW culture of false victimhood. Right now, we’re in a war between those who ‘get it’ (60-70% of the general population) and the liberal media who still to some degree control the narrative – but that is slowly slipping away like sand between fingers thanks to online independent media. For example, UVA rape hoax, which dealt in irreparable credibility blow to the SJW left, exposed thanks to the independent journalism of Steve Sailor and others on the right.

But most importantly, you don’t need to belong to any specific group (Red Pill, MGTOW, etc) to be anti-SJW, pro-capitalism, pro-men’s rights, pro-Gamergate, anti-feminism, etc. The labels are convenient as a way of grouping a set of beliefs under a single taxonomy, but they need not define a person, nor should a person’s beliefs be constrained by them.

The Gig Economy: Is Obamacare to Blame?

Hillary is attacking the sharing economy, despite Obamacare possibly contributing to it, in a speech:

Meanwhile, many Americans are making extra money renting out a small room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car. This on-demand, or so-called gig economy is creating exciting economies and unleashing innovation.

But it is also raising hard questions about work-place protections and what a good job will look like in the future.

In her defense, during the 2008 primaries Hillary was right about Obama’s inability to appeal to white voters, his weakness on terror, as well as his deference to Islam and America’s enemies, but her concerns about Uber and the gig economy are possibly misplaced. I agree that the sharing/gig economy creates innovation and economic growth, filling a market demand for cheap on-demand labor. But when the left whines about gig jobs, they shoulder some of the blame. Due to the Obamacare employer mandate, which after a series of delays finally takes effect in 2016, businesses are more reluctant to hire for fear having to pay employee insurance if they have over fifty employees.

From Forbes: How Obamacare’s Employer Mandate Harms Low-Wage Workers

The Affordable Care Act may explain why weekly hours worked for low-wage employees has fallen

Comparing the percent change of average weekly hours since the recession began in December 2007, Graham found that industries with an average pay up to about $14.50 stagnantly gained a minimum number of hours from 2010 to 2012 and then sharply lost hours from 2012 through 2013. There was a net decrease of about 2.5% in hours worked between December 2007 through 2013. In contrast, work hours in higher-wage industries grew since 2009, so that by 2013, they averaged more hours than the December 2007 benchmark.

This is evident by the chart below:

According to numerous surveys, businesses have shifted full-time employees to part-time in response to the ACA, in addition to reducing the number of employees or raising prices charged to consumers:

…2013 second-quarter report, the firms were asked what steps, if any, that they had already taken or would take in response to ACA requirements. Of the surveyed firms, 11.6% had shifted full-time workers to part-time and 16.3% planned to switch full-time workers to part-time in the near future. Likewise, from a report released by the Federal Reserve of New York that published the findings from two surveys, the Empire State Manufacturing Survey found that 19.3% of the surveyed firms had increased or would increase the proportion of part-time employees, 21.6% had reduced or would reduce the number of employees, and 36.4% had increased or would increase the prices charged to consumers; in the Business Leaders Survey, 20.2% of the surveyed firms had increased or would increase the proportion of part-time employees, 16.9% had reduced or would reduce the number of employees, and 25% had increased or would increase the prices charged to consumers.

Other factors for the rise of the gig economy include the inexorable trend towards more efficiency and productivity. These are forces beyond anyone’s control. Until recently, you had a job glut of too many people being overpaid, and the 2008 financial problem changed that, putting much more emphasis on productivity, profits and efficiency, which is great for stock prices but not so great, I suppose, for lower-skill workers. The 2008 financial problem gave employers a good excuse to reduce hiring long after the economy recovered, and then Obamacare further accelerated this trend.

More Correct Predictions (Greece, Facebook, Emerging Markets, Trump)

More Correct Predictions:

1. Most importantly, I was right about Greece being much ado about nothing. The major market indexes have since recovered all their Greece-related losses, as I predicted they would. Greece got thrown another lifeline, kicking the can down the road yet again.

2. Facebook stock keeps making new highs. The Social network is worth over $250 billion, on its way to overthrowing Apple as the most valuable company in the world. Facebook is everywhere, it’s an inescapable part of our lives and is transforming the landscape of information and human interaction, as well as creating the world’s biggest database, The Social Graph, from its over one billion users. This graph pretty much contains the interactions of every user with another user on the site, consisting of countless nodes and is so comprehensive that law enforcement agencies often make use of it. And then there are the billions of dollars of advertising revenue, which keeps growing year after year.

3. The emerging markets are lagging again in agreement with my prediction that they would despite a brief respite earlier in the year. With the exception of China, foreign markets an investment are still awful.

The divergence since May 2015 between the emerging markets (blue) and the S&P 500 (red) is quite obvious:

4. By attacking John McCain’s war record, is Trump trying to sabotage his campaign as a grand finale before dropping out, as I predicted he would? On the other hand, in 2004 the attacks on Kerry’s war record were justified because he embellished a lot of details, he disparaged the Swift Boat operations for political gain, and he disgraced his fellow servicemen with his post-Vietnam anti-war activity. Or maybe Trump is so delusional he thinks attacking McCain will help his campaign in some way. Anyway, this is probably the beginning of the downfall for Trump. While it’s expected of liberals to attack the military, a conservative (as Trump purports to be) should know better than to attack a fellow conservative serviceman, especially someone as beloved and revered as John McCain.

What Makes Taneshi Coates Special?

Taneshi Coates has done something few liberal commentators has done – he has transcended the usual left/right bulwark as dozens of conservative bloggers and writers, who normally tend to ignore, ridicule or immediately dismiss liberals, have lent him an ear.

Back in 2013 or so, I used to comment on Taneshi Coates’ Atlantic columns and have the battle scars (lots and lots Disqus downvotes) to prove it. I stopped because I don’t wish to follow him down the rabbit hole he dug and second, and most importantly, he holds the power to ban people from commenting on The Atlantic. His ideology is a far-left – imagine like Obama, but more liberal, arguing that white people still bear a collective guilt for the alleged ‘structural racism’ that exists in America. It’s similar to the likes of Cornell West and other exponents of Marxist ‎black liberation theology, but with more storytelling and anger than found in the typical academic exegesis. But why do so many conservatives pay him any heed, especially when there are hundreds of other prominent liberals who write similar stuff? What makes him special?

Taneshi Coates fuses the cerebral-ness of W. E. B. Du Bois with the introspection of Ralph Ellison and the urban edginess of, say, Ice Cube. When you read a Taneshi Coates column, even if you disagree with the premise, his storytelling is galvanizing. White conservative columnists perhaps respect Coates’ seriousness, rawness, and authenticity in a world of mealy-mouthed, whiny liberals like Paul Krugman. When conservatives disagree, actively engaging Coates in debate even when they fully don’t expect Coates to change his mind, the very act of trying creates a sort of fulfillment and happiness that comes from attempting a good deed. And reading Coates’ struggles, as exaggerated as they are, maybe helps conservatives deal with their own personal problems, soft of like a therapy session or catharsis, and that by entering Coates’ good graces a subconscious guilt burdened by the white person is lifted.

David Brooks is sparring over Coates’ latest book “Between the World and Me”, yet praising the book as a “…mind-altering account of the black male experience. Every conscientious American should read it.”

Not long ago Andrew Sullivan, through his many public exchanges, tried to show Mr. Coates the error of his views on race, to no avail, with a persistence long after most people would have given up.

The political landscape has changed, too. The events of 2008 brought the far-left and far-right together in a mutually shared disdain of Wall St. and bankers. If Taneshi Coates, who optimizes the far-left, and the right can agree on at least one thing, that at least opens the window to further correspondence.

The Truth? They Can’t Handle The Truth

As evidenced by the down-votes for this Quora answer to the question How Does One Become a Mathematical Genius, many people wish to live in a world where either IQ does not exist or, if it does, it doesn’t measure anything important and is of no predictive value for success at life. It’s easier, perhaps more comforting to create an alternate reality than confront our existing one. According to the biographies I have read, all mathematical geniuses displayed precocity – maybe not directly in mathematics – but all were very talented from a very young age. It’s not like you can be a dull 20-something with no outwardly obvious signs of intelligence and, then suddenly, through ‘deliberate practice’ transform into math genius, sorry. Although I’m open to the possibility of being wrong, I don’t don’t think its possible to be a math genius with less than a 120 IQ or so. Of course, the word ‘genius’ can be subjective, but if you need an IQ of around 100-115 to at least graduate from college, I imagine you would need a much higher IQ, still, to become a ‘mathematical genius’.

Is Capitalism Dead? It Depends, I Suppose

read at your peril Post-Capitalism and the End of Capitalism

Capitalism dead? I guess Silicon Valley didn’t get the memo. Hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth from web 2.0 and Bay Area real estate has been created since 2009. Coders strait out of college or even high school are making 6-figures, while others are making millions – even billions – with viral apps and other technologies, with such wealth amassed in a matter of only a couple years. Venture capitalism is thriving, with firms like A16 making billions for their clients, with successful technology investments. If the web 2.0 scene in Silicon Valley is not the epitome capitalism, what is?

The value of digital networks like Facebook and Snapchat is in the concentration of eyeballs (users) that can have ads put in front of them, much like TV or radio – old inventions that predate the internet by almost a century, and capitalism seems to have done fine in the intervening years. It has nothing to do with setting information free, which is irrelevant but is a focal point of the rambling, disjointed article.

However, opportunities for the left/middle the IQ distribution are becoming more scarce, as opportunities and wealth (wealth through stocks, high wages, web 2.0, real estate, for example) for the far-right of the Bell Curve have exploded, which agrees with the post-recession ‘hollowing out’ of the middle theme.

In what can be called ‘Social Darwinism 2.0′, as evidenced by recent economics trends, smarter people appear to be the the winners of this hyper-competitive winner-take-all economy, the most ‘fit’ for survival – or at least the most fit to achieve wealth and social fulfillment that comes from being a valuable person to society.

Capitalism may not be dead, but fewer and fewer people, especially those of only modest intellect, will be able to take advantage of it, being bystanders or spectators rather than creators. Yeah, it may seem unfair, but I don’t see this trend reversing anytime soon.

Ultimately, for the millions of Americans who are not cognitively exceptional, some possible ‘solutions’:

1. Learn to lower your expectations. We need to learn to come to terms with job loss and the inability to find work as being an inconvenient, but perhaps necessary or unavoidable part of the evolution of the economy.

2. Reform the education system to teach skills that will be in demand (service sector work, gig work), even if these jobs may not pay well. High-IQ kids should be encouraged to learn high-paying skills like STEM, as well as more funding for gifted education programs to help smart middle/lower income kids realize their full cognitive potential.

The fact that the far-left side of the Bell Curve (IQ < 70) gets far more public education funding than the far-right (IQ > 130 ), despite the later contributing far more to society, as well both extreme scores being equally represented in the general population, is evidence of ‘reverse Darwinism’ and is a sub-optimal use of a public good (tax payer dollars).

3. Embrace the gig/sharing economy. Gig workers should take pride in knowing they are creating more economic value than with an overpaid traditional job, even if the work is tedious and the pay inconsistent.

4. Grab the bull by the horns. If you are not smart enough to code the next web 2.0 sensation, you can at least invest in some of these companies. Facebook stock, which is up 200% in just the past two years alone, will keep rising, allowing ordinary people who invest an opportunity to make a lot of money with no effort. Investing in Facebook, Amazon, or Google is like investing in the companies that are laying the infrastructure for tomorrow’s Matrix, possibly like the one in the movie, with ‘information overlords’ at the top to oversee its construction. I imagine it would be a good investment having a piece of ownership of the companies that may ultimately decide everyone’s fate.

Related: The End of Jobs

Wealth Creation Orgy

Silicon Valley is in a wealth creation orgy, as the web 2.0 and Silicon Valley boom keeps defying all predictions of its decline.

These numbers are just staggering:

Air BNB worth $20 billion

Uber: $40+ Billion

Pinterest: $5 billion

Dropbox: $8 billion

Snapchat: $10 billion

Tesla: $40 billion

Most of these were in their infancy in 2009 or didn’t exist, and this is just a small fraction of the total number of private ‘unicorns’ (companies with valuations exceeding $1 billion).

To put this in perspective, during the first dotcom boom, I doubt there was a single dotcom startup worth over $1 billion (or it was very temporary). A company going public at $50-100 million was a big deal back then; now that’s just a rounding error in today’s tech boom. Seems like $100 million is just the appetizer, and companies that gain some momentum and traction get slapped with $1-2 billion dollar valuations almost effortlessly.

But the thing is, before you call ‘bubble’, a significant number of these web 2.0 companies seem to have defied the ‘crash and burn’ that characterized the first boom. Pets.com and Webvan were failures from inception, but sites like Pinterest and Airbnb keep getting more successful and more valuable.

And on Wall St., things are going crazy, too:

Google stock recently surged 11% in after hours on blowout earnings, or about $30 billion of market capitalization added in the span of little less than an hour.

The QQQ ‘tech index’ has posted a nearly 300% gain since 2009.

Facebook is worth over $260 billion, versus just $10 billion in 2009

Google is worth $350 billion; a gain of 250% since 2009

Apple’s market cap has increased about 9-fold since 2009, exceeding $600 billion.

From tech riches to stock riches to real estate riches, intellectualism and wealth has never been so intertwined as it is now. Having a high IQ is the ticket to wealth in today’s economy. For example, home prices in Palo Also, which is one of the smartest regions in the country, are up 100% since 2008, versus most regions which are still below the 2005-2007 highs. Prices in Palo Alto have gone up so much, the 2000′s ‘housing bubble’ looks like a speed bump:

Crazy…but rational. Today’s leading tech companies such as Apple and Google only have PE ratios of around 19-24, versus the triple digit PE ratios that were typical of the late 90′s.

Feels like 1999 again but with much better fundamentals and much further to go.

The End of Jobs

The End of Jobs: Money, Meaning and Freedom Without the 9-to-5 by Taylor Pearson

This is the era we’re headed into…where everything is outsourced, where income has gone down versus inflation for the past 40 years, and there are fewer and fewer choices for highly educated people with high student loan debts to get good jobs.

The reality is that in the 20th century we had a glut of too many overpaid jobs that weren’t creating enough economic value, and that all changed in 2008, with the recent emphasis on productivity and efficiency. The market rewards value, whether such value is through creating apps, STEM, physics, stock trading, real estate, ‘gigs‘, or payment processing. Value is not created by sitting on your butt for eight hours a day doing the minimum required to not get fired. People are getting an income with these overpaid jobs, but are not creating value – a notable example being government bureaucracies. That’s why Scott Walker is a hero for taking on the Wisconsin unions:

The 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, also known as the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill,[1] was legislation proposed by Republican Governor Scott Walker[2] and passed by the Wisconsin Legislature to address a projected $3.6 billion budget deficit.[3] The legislation primarily impacted the following areas: collective bargaining, compensation, retirement, health insurance, and sick leave of public sector employees. In response, unions and other groups organized protests inside and around the state capitol. The bill was passed into law and became effective as of June 29, 2011. Public employees exempted from the changes to the collective bargaining law include firefighters and most law enforcement workers.[1] The bill was ruled to be constitutional by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in July 2014, after three years of litigation.

It was a success. Public employee union membership dropped significantly after the law passed, with AFSCME reporting a drop from 62,818 in 2011 to 28,745 in February 2012. In many cases, the union members were removed by the union after they declined to have dues collected by the union.

In the private sector, office politics are becoming a thing of the past as ‘social skills’, which were once required to get ahead, are becoming less important. Especially since 2008 and 2013, competence is more important than ever, not how good you can ‘kiss ass’. That’s why STEM is taking over the world and is so respected, because the people who get ahead in STEM do so through IQ, skill, talent, and individuality, not office politics, nepotism and other environmental factors. Being the smartest person is the room is cool again. Those overpaid low-IQ jobs are going away, being replaced by software or outsourcing. But at the same time, the low-IQ service sector is thriving. Individuals who are too comfortable doing low-IQ work for high-pay, relying on office politics and connections to get ahead, are in for a rude awakening by the productivity reaper. Going from $150k a year, with golf on the weekends and all-expenses paid business travel, to $20k a year at Starbucks is not all that uncommon.

The knowledge economy has taken over the industrial economy, carving out an elite group called the ‘creative class’. But now even ‘knowledge’ can be outsourced, with software, design and translation as two examples. However, innovation cannot be outsourced. People are getting rich through complex creative work that is not so clearly defined and cannot be outsourced. Today’s tech royalty of millionaires and billionaires didn’t just learn a set of instructions well – they created entire industries. You can make a sold 6-figure salary being a competent coder, but the leap to profound wealth comes from either being at the right place at the right time (being hired as a coder at the next Uber or Facebook for example), or creating the entire company from scratch.

However, the problem is the schools are only teaching young people the skills that would have been ‘good enough’ a generation or so ago, but in our hyper-competitive post-2008 economy of ‘average is over‘, it’s not good enough. Being literate isn’t good enough. Knowing Algebra isn’t good enough. The only options are to specialize or to turn back the hands of time, the later which is impossible. This means teaching kids from an early age the skills that create economic value, whether it’s value through preparing coffee at Starbucks or working as a nurse in the healthcare sector. Higher-IQ kids should be encouraged to learn good-paying STEM skills like coding, advanced math, and apps.

Trump & Sanders

Any 2016 speculation before the primaries is pretty much a waste of energy. If Bernie loses to Hillary in Iowa and Hew Hampshire, he’s pretty much finished, baring some major scandal or gaffe for Hillary. The GOP field is more diverse, with many candidates neck-and-neck, making it harder to determine a front-runner from the first few primaries, but if Jeb wins the first two by a comfortable margin, it’s pretty safe to conclude he will be the nominee.

A misconception is that the GOP is trying to suppress certain candidates, but this is false.

People choose the nominee through the nominating process of primaries and caucuses, not through some secretive cabal that convenes by a pyre in a castle to anoint the ‘chosen one’. When Trump loses (which he most certainty will) it won’t be because the GOP ‘establishment’ was keeping him down, but because he wasn’t able to get enough delegates to win the convention. What happens is these ‘maverick’ candidates tend to screw up, as we saw in 2012 with Herman Cain and Rick Perry, or they simply don’t get enough votes in the primaries. Yea, these moderates may suck, but they keep winning where it counts (the primaries). The media creates this narrative that people are tired of ‘politics as usual’, yet when people go to the voting booth they vote for the usual. Donald Trump, for all his chest-thumping, will probably pullout before the deadline, as he has always done in the past, using his brief candidacy as just another PR stunt. In the unlikely event he files the necessary financial disclosure forms, for many possible reasons (inexperience, gaffes, scandal), Trump will simply fail to win any primaries despite all the hype he’s generating now, while candidates that are boring but reliable pull ahead, analogous to the Tortoise and the Hare fable. ‘Boring’ wins the nomination, going as far as H.W. Bush in 1988. Candidates that are too ‘extreme’ or candidates that are not career politicians tend to fare poorly in GOP presidential primaries. That’s just the way it is.

Some on the right say the millennials are hopelessly infatuated with Sanders, much in the same way they were with Obama, but on Reddit, especially on viral Imgur posts of Sanders quotes, there are a sizable number of dissenters, so it’s not like every millennial is in the tank for Sanders. Many millennials, especially some of the smarter ones, know that Sanders is promising policy that is not only economically destructive, but also unconstitutional (especially the part about wealth confiscation). Much like Obama, Sanders appeals to the ignorance of the masses for votes. Some liken Sanders to a liberal Ron Paul, in which case I agree: they both advocate wealth destroying policy.

Ron Paul = destroy your wealth by ending fed/raising rates and making stock market & real estate prices fall

Sanders = destroy your wealth through taxes and regulation

That’s why moderates tend to win and why I (and many others) don’t want to see our hard-earned wealth destroyed by impulsive populists who have nothing to lose if everything falls apart under their destructive leadership.

In the event Sanders becomes president, it will reflect a major failing of America’s system of government and a major argument for neo-reaction, or some sort of alternative to the system we have now (such as requiring a minimum personal ‘net worth’ and or a certain threshold of IQ to vote), as if Obama wasn’t reason enough for such an overhaul. Checks and balances only goes so far.

Related: Some Thoughts on the 2016 Campaign

Countering Flawed Arguments of the Anti-College Movement

There are good arguments against going to college, namely the leftist bias and the possibility of accumulating a lot of debt for a degree that has little earning power, but there are two dubious premises perpetuated by anti-college movement:

1. That a college degree is worthless

2. That going college holds back people from achieving their ‘full’ potential

This is countered by:

1. People with college degrees earn more money, especially for advanced degrees and STEM:

This is just empirical reality based on many studies. It doesn’t mean that students should choose a major indiscriminately or go into a lot of debt if such debt can be avoided, but the data doesn’t lie. The reason for this is because in many instances employers require the degree to signal for baseline competence; without the degree you simply won’t be considered for the job, let alone hired. A degree in STEM (including finance and economics) offers the best possibility of employment.

But what about the trades? Some people have success with that, but the trades may not be as great as they seem. There’s a of regulation, compliance, nepotism, competition, and potentially dangerous working conditions. It’s not just as simple as deciding you want to be an electrician – it takes years of training.

2. Number two is more important because this misunderstanding is so prevalent.

What percentage of college-dropouts with an IQs less than 95 become successful, versus drop-outs with IQs greater than 120? I imagine in the former it’s much smaller than the later, with the low-IQ drop-outs almost always stuck in dead-end, low-paying jobs or unemployment for the remainder of their lives, but with also the added burden of college debt.

Low IQs hold people back, not college. Ultimately, it’s IQ, not completion of college, that is the determinant of individual success or failure at life, which I discuss further here. That’s how some of the biggest drop-out successes, from Mark Zuckerberg to Bill Gates, became successful – not because they had a couple extra years ‘head start’ from not graduating (as is commonly believed), but because they are really smart (the correct but neglected explanation).

The ‘rich family’ explanation, which is popular among the left as a way to dismiss the role of biology, doesn’t account for high-IQ immigrants who have succeeded in technology; with the exception of Bill Gates, the majority of these technology success stories came from modest means.

All of the biggest advocates against going to college all have degrees, often in technical subjects from prestigious colleges, and are extremely smart – far smarter than your typical college drop-out. The aforementioned individuals succeeded because they are brilliant, with ‘Person A’ (to avoid name dropping), for example, taking the SAT at 13 and scoring well enough to go to a special program; ‘Person B’ went to UC Berkeley (a notoriously difficult school) and he says he’s smart enough to get into Mensa, which I don’t dispute; ‘Person C’ graduated from Stanford; ‘Person D’ went to a prestigious college-prep private school and later Princeton. These people tell you college is easy or ‘dumbed-down’, having breezed through college coursework and only failing because they stopped trying, not because they found the work too hard, which is to be expected when your IQ is many standard deviations above average. In reality, the drop-out rate is 50% for those allegedly easy college courses.

These college bashers will tell you that they didn’t use their degree in becoming rich and successful, but this is a red herring. Obtaining the computer science degree at the prestigious school is indicative of superior cognitive ability (memorization, critical thinking) which, through skills-transference, is applied with great success to intellectual endeavors not directly related to the degree, a notable example being Andy Weir’s huge success as a fiction author despite being a programmer by trade. The IQ of 140 that allows you to breeze through a degree in Chinese history also makes it easy to pickup on coding (assuming this hypothetical person wants to learn how to code), despite coding having nothing to do with Chinese history. Many people assume, mistakenly, that individuals are ‘born’ to do different things (math people, verbal people, or the multiple-intelligences), but all of this can be distilled to a single factor – g.

These misunderstandings arise because political correctness means we have to lie to ourselves and others to avoid the consequences of potentially offending people with the truth. Telling the truth, especially as it pertains to biology-based cognitive differences between individuals, often means losing your job. Teachers can no longer tell a parent his or her child his slow; now, it’s called ‘differently abled’, or whatever has become the latest iteration of the euphemism treadmill. A guidance counselor cannot flat-out tell a dull student he or she isn’t smart enough to benefit from higher education, so the student goes to college, takes on debt, drops-out, and the cycle continues…

Many of the anti-college pundits usually have ulterior motives – to sell books, to get ad dollars through click-bait ‘Don’t go to college!!!’ type articles, to sell ‘get rich quick/sign up here’ type courses, or to spread false hope like Malcom Gladwell does – or while their intentions are good, they are simply wrong. Even if you think going to college is a waste of time and money, it’s better to formulate an argument that is intellectually honest rather than resorting to wishful thinking, misleading data (in which an article from time.com does good job disabusing the anti-college mythology), and cherry-picked examples of high-IQ people who succeeded wildly without graduating college or in fields unrelated to their degree.

Having a high-IQ will greatly improve your odds of success if you choose to not go to college but, nonetheless, for the majority of people, who only have average or above-average intelligence and are smart enough to complete college, the data suggests having a degree is better than not having one. People with below-average IQs should not go to college, and that is the best reason, and often the most ignored reason, to not go to college.