NullHypothesis
No bio...
User ID: 2718
The 70 IQ person in the US is more likely to be at the peak of their genetic potential due to the availability of resources. I think if you take the supposed average 70 IQ person from the Ivory Coast and give them a Western country-level education, their IQ could still rise 10-15 points. There is some evidence to support that for every additional year of education, IQ rises 1-5 points. Maybe not because children benefit much more from education than adults.
Also, I'm not sure if IQ measurements of the Sub-Saharan African countries do follow a true bell curve since IQ level is adjusted for a mostly Western country. I think the IQ distribution would likely skew right in these countries. We may see a drop-off point above 100 IQ because smart Africans typically migrate to better countries to make a better living. Fun fact, did you know Nigerian-Americans are one of the most educated groups of people in the United States?
IQ plays a more significant role in the lower bracket in terms of job success and ability than at the higher levels. Since the studies are based in the US I think it would be fair to assume most people reached their genetic potential. So IQ matters significantly sub 85, but around 100 and higher it no longer becomes as strong of a predictive tool of job success.
In terms of phenotypic vs genotypic IQ we don't know for sure but based on Gottfredson's description of IQ ability I'd say it applies mostly to genotypic IQ. According to Gottfredson
75 signals the ability level below which individuals are not likely to master the elementary school curriculum or function independently in adulthood in modern societies.
It seems extremely unlikely you take an Ivory Coast child and give them US-level nutrition and education that a majority of them would be unable to pass an elementary school education. Wikipedia indicates that while the Ivory Coast is behind educational availability for its population, the literacy rate rose from 48.7% in 2000 to 89.9% as of 2019. And by 2012 94.2% of children attended secondary school. To me, it doesn't make sense 70 IQ people are able to graduate primary school if Gottfredson indicates people below 75 IQ cannot master elementary school education unless that IQ description only applies to the US population where the study was done, or the IQ measurement in Ivory coast is inaccurate or outdated, or primary school education in the Ivory Coast is incredibly simple relative to that of the US.
this highly depends on society.
Good point, I didn't really consider the cultural aspect properly.
The more recent the event in question, the less likely we are to know if there was a lie or not.
Mearsheimer's work came out in 2011 and he sticks mostly to examples that took decades to find the truth of the matter because it's a bad look for a government to be caught lying in the technical definition of a lie. Iraq is his most recent prominent example in his book and that's because that was such a tremendous fuck up. Do you think the government is going to release information that sheds light on recent events anytime soon unless it helps them push an agenda or policy and is so far removed from the party in power to resolve them of any legitimate criticism that would follow?
And furthermore, governments are now more sophisticated in how they propagate information to the population. Proving someone told a lie is extremely difficult because the defendant in question can always claim they thought they were telling the truth and just had the wrong facts. You'd need to be a certain level of incompetence to have a documented recording of you admitting you know something was a lie.
You can accuse the government of spinning facts all you want, and you'd be 100% correct, but you didn't do that, likely because you knew it lacked the same punch as an accusation of "lying".
No, I didn't. After reading your comment I'll acknowledge I just had poor logic and was not using the word "lying" in a strict, legal-lawyer-like definition. In my head I went the opposite of truth is lies. The government is not telling the truth, therefore they are lying. I'll concede this is a technical got-ya that I'm not ready to defend because I'm mixing a lot of sentiments in that statement I made. In recent years I think the government lied about Covid, they're lying about the state of the economy to the people by saying it's better than it is with tactics such as redefining how inflation is measured, they perpetuate lies such as commemorating George Floyd and playing defense for the BLM movement, they lied about the Trump Russia collusion. You asked specifically for foreign policy examples and I don't consider myself particularly knowledgeable on matters of foreign policy.
Your examples given in the last two decades amount to very little.
That was me literally searching on Google and just copy-pasting the 1st example I got for each president. You asked for examples of lies in regard to policy, I did provide and then you dismiss some of them as just saying those are "mild". Are you looking specifically for a fully exhaustive list of other examples that was as disastrous as Iraq? The government is never going to fuck up on a level of Iraq ever again if they have half a brain. As much as people like to fling shit about our politicians as being incompetent idiots they're not actual literal idiots and most of them have higher IQ than the average population. They're also skilled with words and framing which is why many people find politicians to be slimy weasels.
Look, I appreciate you helping me better refine my position with more accurate words, but at this point we are just talking about technical definitions and I'm not really interested in having that conversation any further, especially since you reframed it specifically in the context of foreign policy and then dismiss some examples of actual lies as "mild". I'll edit my comment to say "deception" instead of lies. Happy? I don't think it substantially changes the core of my argument one way or the other. I'm still going to choose to believe the government is lying to the people and that we won't know the truth on many of these topics until decades later.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Aren't most large ancient cities located around or near rivers because agriculture enabled a bigger population size? I'm not sure if fishing alone and trade were sufficient to support large cities at the time. How devastating were coastal raiders? I imagine a coastal city should be able to field its own navies.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Yes, but the end goal is deception. Lies in regard to foreign policy seem to be held to a different level of standard than lies on domestic policy or lies in general.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
I'm going to use the definition from John Mearsheimer's 'Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics'
There are actual technical lies, where a person makes a statement they know is false while hoping others believe it to be true. But there are also situations where you disingenuously arrange facts to tell a fictitious story to imply something is true when you know the implied conclusion is not true. He also points out spinning, where "a person telling a story emphasizes certain facts and links them together in ways that play to his advantage, while, at the same time, downplaying or ignoring inconvenient facts" and concealment, "which involves withholding information that might undermine or weaken one’s position."
What's related about all three is that the goal is deception - essentially the goal is to prevent the other party from knowing the full truth. Spinning and concealment are far more common, but the end of goal of deception is the same.
Historically speaking, the US government has used lies in matters of foreign policy. Well-known historical examples:
- Iraq, as you point out
- WWII - Greer incident
- Vietnam - Gulf of Tonkin
- Iran-Contra
In more recent times, you can find no shortage of critics arguing the presidents have lied about matters of foreign policy:
- Under Biden: https://www.rightsanddissent.org/news/our-government-has-a-history-of-lying-us-into-war-its-the-medias-job-to-challenge-that/
- Under Trump: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/20/trump-the-anti-war-president-was-always-a-myth/
- Under Obama:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-took-lying-to-new-heights-with-the-iran-deal/2018/06/07/b75f72d2-6a7c-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html | https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/28/obamas-noble-lie/
- And a ton of controversy regarding Ukraine and Israel-Palestine and how the government is relaying information about this to the American people
The more recent the event in question, the less likely we are to know if there was a lie or not. Whether these specific examples are actually lies or fabrications from critics I'm not really going to dive into. But it's easy to find critics arguing there have been lies.
Mearsheimer also points out that he had difficulty finding examples of international lying between states compared to governments lying to their own people. He argues that governments are more likely to lie to their own citizens than to other states on matters of foreign policy. It is difficult for countries to lie to one another because there is not a lot of trust between them, especially when it is in regard to security. It's far easier to lie to your own citizens because there is more trust between governments and their citizens than between governments that are enemies of each other.
In his own words:
Furthermore, leaders appear to be more likely to lie to their own people about foreign policy issues than to other countries. That certainly seems to be true for democracies that pursue ambitious foreign policies and are inclined to initiate wars of choice, i.e., when there is not a clear and imminent danger to a country’s vital interests that can only be dealt with by force. Of course, that description fits the United States over the past seventy years, and, not surprisingly, American presidents have told their fellow citizens a number of important lies about foreign policy matters over those seven decades.
So when it comes to evaluating recent US actions on matters of foreign, we really have to ask ourselves and analyze what the intention was. Were they in the interest of the American people, or was it something else, like drumming up support for an election, or selfish monetary interests, or appeasing just a specific lobby group? I don't see governments ever giving up the option to lie to their citizens especially on matters of foreign policy, because of its strategic utility. It seems public reaction to these lies depends on the end result. If the outcome of telling the lie is good, the leader gets a free pass with little to no consequence. That's why Vietnam is heavily criticized while WWII is seen in a positive light. My current perception is that the outcome of recent foreign policy actions of the US government has largely been negative with little benefit for the American people, and those have largely been justified via lies and deception.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Yes, it seems America has dipped its toes in too many different things that had little benefit, how much of that was really due to the pursuit of expanding/maintaining the American Hegemon versus the selfish interests of actors with different goals?
America currently has enough domestic problems to deal with to be playing world police currently and could likely benefit from taking a step back from the world stage. But in terms of maintaining the Pax Americana, it leaves the question of how long and how likely a foreign bloc could form to dismantle it. I think at this point I made clear my stance is that large-scale conflict is more likely when there is no dominant force than when there is. Maybe some history buff could provide examples otherwise?
How is it relevant in the context?
Read my next paragraph and read it in context of it being a response to 2rafa's post. I argue 70 IQ in Ivory coast != 70 IQ in the US so whether or not 2rafa can employ people they met in the Ivory coast (and there are so many things to address here are such as are the people they met actually 70 IQ) was in my opinion not a good response to the economic value of a 70 IQ person.
How is it relevant in the context? The hypothetical is other society that is +2SD shifted to us.
I prefaced the comment by saying these are just my thoughts. I don't even think a society of 130 IQ can exist naturally. We already know what a society of 70 IQ and 100 IQ looks like. Sure is fun to think about though!
the higher IQ society will invent more paperwork and qualifications even for simpler jobs.
I'm not so sure, maybe 130 IQ society will do that, or maybe they can progress past the notion that everyone has to work because if such a society can create robots to make most jobs absolute then we would probably be at the point where AI and robots could do almost anything better than a human can. So even the 130 IQ person could be made obsolete in their own society. My point is that you cannot extrapolate past patterns to the future without adequate reasoning. For example, if you look at a child's growth, one could incorrectly assume human beings continue to grow taller and taller until they die. When we were talking about success in society, it usually refers to the ability to have a job, although there are other factors. My point is that a 130 IQ society may make the concept of jobs in relationship to humans obsolete, and just because we have previously seen the growth of new industries replace old ones does not mean the pattern will continue.
We have seen humanity move from agriculture > industry > services > IT/Data to put it simply. The type of skills needed transform from manual labor to mental labor and human relationships. If robots and AI make those obsolete, what next? You seem to think more mental labor, but I think if AI makes mental labor obsolete it can just as easily replace new mental labor that is required. Jobs exist to solve problems, in the era where robots and AI replace most existing jobs, will there be enough problems to require most of the human population to tackle? High IQ people tend to not have kids anyways, so I don't think overpopulation will be an issue.
I challenged you directly if you think you should excuse blatantly immoral and destructive conduct under the idea that US hegemony is good. It seems to me that you want to do that and are just trying to promote it based on arguing that US hegemony is good actually. But you also accept restraint and criticism. And it doesn't seem that you really do in a substantial manner.
I edited this in later so you may have missed it but I believe it addresses your point:
When we look at US-caused international conflicts, we have to consider, whether the primary purpose is to maintain and grow the American hegemony in service of maintaining global peace, or if that is being used as an excuse with some other primary motive in mind (fund the military-industrial complex, drum up support for an upcoming election, etc.). If the former, I think that would warrant a legitimate criticism about the pitfalls of relative peace achieved through this method and find ways to account for it. But if the latter, that's not really a criticism of the model. People will always use existing values and models to justify whatever they want to do, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong.
I don't believe I am excusing "blatantly immoral and destructive conduct under the idea that US hegemony is good". Are these international conflicts strictly the result of pursuing a US hegemony, or are there some other factors at play? I'm going to say that you can have US hegemony without needing to instigate wars left and right. Or are you saying hegemony is achieved solely through military might? If I gave off the impression that is my belief then I should've been more clear and that is my fault.
You hold the people who made those decisions accountable. The mechanics of how it's done is irrelevant for this conversation. I did not say we pardon our leaders for what they have done because it was in service of the US hegemony. Your challenge was not something that I really thought important to address when you initially posted it because my question was in regards to how global peace can be achieved and maintained and you didn't really provide any alternative solutions. You later expanded your post and provided more information, which I'm grateful for. I am now challenging you that these immoral and destructive conducts is not an inevitable outcome of a pursuit of a global hegemony and that the idea of the US hegemony is being used as an excuse for other purposes.
There are a few problems with this. Which is that destroying other countries and causing civil wars to cause more US hegemony will result in far more devastation.
US-based hegemony does not necessarily have to be achieved strictly through military might, although it has to be enforced by its existence. Most of Europe did not become allies of the US because USA subjugated it via force.
It feels like a big part of your argument is that the US-based support is no longer attractive due to the prevalence of the condition that it involves adopting leftist cultural marxist values. I will acknowledge I wasn't considering this and thinking more in terms of concepts such as capitalism and democracy. Yes, if US support comes at the cost of having to adopt DIE woke style culture then I am against it, because I am against those ideas within America as well. Propositioning US support would be better accomplished without that baggage tied to it. At the same time, it doesn't mean America just gives away money for free with no strings attached. Why should America provide charity to the world with no benefits? Otherwise just invest that money domestically.
Anyway, a USA that is against the immoral conduct of other countries, and restraints it self from instigating more trouble, will work better.
How does the USA enforce punishment regarding the immoral conduct of other countries without itself maintaining a dominant position relative to that other country? A dominant position maintained by superior military and economic might? Words alone mean nothing unless there is credible threat of action behind those words. What happens when negotiations and communication fails? Or if the other side refuses to de-escalate?
and restraints it self from instigating more trouble, will work better.
Do you think the only way to grow the US hegemony or bring more countries under the US sphere of influence is done by instigating "trouble"? Because I don't think that.
It honestly doesn't sound like you're against the idea of a US hegemony, just against how it is currently being accomplished, which I think we are both in agreement with? So what's the dispute here? Okay it looks like you provided more context with the additional text, which I address below.
Edit: Since you added much more to your post after what I responded to, I think my general points above still stand. I think your greatest argument against the current US Hegemony is that the US currently is suffering from being ideologically possessed by leftist cultural marxist ideas, and because of this the US hegemony itself is no longer good or has serious issues. That's why in my earlier post I suggested perhaps the US take some time to work on its issues domestically for a decade or so. Realistically it'll take longer than that, which is why I asked what are the consequences of doing that? I think the biggest cause of the difference of opinion is I'm thinking more of a direct Post-WWII American set of ideals on capitalism and democracy and you point out I did not factor in the cultural Marxist element of America today playing a part in having an alliance with the US. How much of American support is actually dependent on adopting cultural-Marxist woke ideology though? I'm just taking your word for it here.
Frankly speaking, I don't believe significantly different cultures can exist peacefully for long periods of time especially when those cultures play into system of government that run the nation. Most countries are democracies now but these democracies just so happen to mostly align in the US sphere of influence. Are most countries better off or worse off with a democratic government? How likely are the undemocratic countries to serve as a threat to democratic ones? As you add more and more different types of values into the mix, it becomes increasingly more difficult for all of these values to exist peacefully.
The reason I can say US hegemony has resulted in a era of relative peace is because we literally live in an era of peace relative to human history, with actual war occurring in much smaller scales (proportionally) than they used to. Perhaps we are seeing the cracks of such a system today with Ukraine and other conflicts.
I still believe that a long era of world peace can most likely be achieved under a global hegemony with 1 dominant culture. It doesn't have to be the US, but it is currently the US most poised to maintain that. The League of Nations post WW1 had a pathetic ability to accomplish anything and the United Nations today similarly has very little influence (although much more successful than the LoN ever was).
I think you saying I am just excusing its behavior is an extremely uncharitable take on my position. If you still believe I am doing that then I don't know what else to say and will have to end the conversation here. I still appreciate your perspective and for giving some good points for me to consider.
Sure, these are good points you bring up to criticize America, but what is the better alternative? When we consider long periods of peace, it's accomplished under a hegemony of powerful nations aligned in goals/culture or a singular empire.
I'm not defending US in all of its actions and agree there is plenty to criticize in what they have done on the global scale. But I don't think any of these things really addresses the core of my argument. The mutually assured destruction is an alternative to relative peace without needing global hegemony and even then plenty of conflict was done via proxies AKA the Cold War. It prevented full-scale war between the US and the Soviet Union. Personally, I think peace achieved via MAD is worse than peace achieved via a global hegemony. For all the wars that have existed from 1945 to today, in comparison to eras throughout human history, we exist in a relatively peaceful era.
Indeed, we should strive to be vigilant and not use this line of argument to just absolve the USA of what it has done, especially when it has negative outcomes. At the same time, it doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to preserve a powerful global presence. The best argument against focusing on that currently is that America has enough domestic problems to deal with. But it doesn't mean we should abandon our position either.
When we look at US-caused international conflicts, we have to consider, whether the primary purpose is to maintain and grow the American hegemony in service of maintaining global peace, or if that is being used as an excuse with some other primary motive in mind (fund the military-industrial complex, drum up support for an upcoming election, etc.). If the former, I think that would warrant a legitimate criticism about the pitfalls of relative peace achieved through this method and find ways to account for it. But if the latter, that's not really a criticism of the model. People will always use existing values and models to justify whatever they want to do, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong.
What do you think would be a better path to a more peaceful world, and what can be done to maintain it?
Edit: Not a response to you directly, more of my thoughts concerning people who say the US spends too much on the military and then act like we would have world peace if America just drastically cut its military budget. I think there is legitimate criticism to be had of the military-industrial complex to take into consideration, but I also feel like many people with that sentiment take this era of relative peace for granted. Do they not read history? Do they not consider human nature?
Yes, America has instigated wars with little to no benefit and should be rightly criticized. But this does not mean the military is useless or that having a military presence globally is a strictly negative thing. I acknowledge that if I wasn't an American and a foreigner, I would have reason to want to break the American-led global hegemony, especially if I was for example Chinese. But I'm an American, and I am more favorable to a world under American values than a world under Russian values or a world under Chinese values. I'm not so naive to believe that you can have hundreds of relatively equally powerful countries acting independently peacefully. What would stop one country from just using force to take the resources of another? Sanctions? Their "image"? Propaganda on the citizens to make them not want to fight? You only need a few people to maintain an army that can suppress people. These things have to be backed up by military force otherwise it's futile.
I am for maximizing human potential and development, and the countries that aligned with American values post-WWII saw tremendous economic growth and development. Now one could make arguments about how countries that didn't had their growth artificially restricted by American policies against its adversaries or how the growth of America and its allies came by extracting value unfairly from its adversaries, but for the person that is born under a richer country, does that really matter? Countries that aligned with the US and adopted positions favorable to the US are far, far better off than those that didn't. Just look at North Korea versus South Korea. If I were born in a foreign nation, I would be extremely grateful if my country chose to lick the boots of the American imperialist ambitions some 50-60 years ago and benefited greatly from it, than if they didn't and my country ended up in poverty instead.
What use is my country's culture and tradition if the average GDP per capita is $1,000 and I have to live as a farmer when it could've had a GDP per capita of $30,000 and my quality of life is vastly superior? Why do so many people leave their countries to try to come to the US if culture should matter more than economic growth and prosperity? I don't particularly care for preserving the culture of every other people in the world, especially when said culture is an active detriment to the growth and development of those people. This doesn't mean I think we should just make all of the world America, just that we shouldn't go out of our way to preserve existing cultures. And just for good measure, I'm going to repeat myself that this doesn't mean America is absolved of all its wrongdoings, or that we should be careful in adopting this perspective without criticism, but I don't see a better alternative that would realistically work without fundamentally changing human nature. I'm going to make this claim - that the world today for the average person is far better due to America taking a global position than it would have been if America chose to stay neutral during WWII and take a far more isolationist approach.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
I got curious so I found some better stats:
In the first quarter of 2024, fully-electric vehicles (BEVs) declined to 7.3% of new sales market share in the United States. Of the nearly 3.8 million light-duty vehicles sold in America in Q4, 268,909 were fully-electric Tesla’s share of the EV market held steady at 52%, but is down significantly from 60% in Q1 2023, and down from 79% market share in 2020.
So Tesla has maintained consistentl sales of units of cars in the past 8 quarters while the other players are growing. 52% is still a lot but it doesn't seem like Tesla is able to really grow it's customer acquisition rate. EV in general is also slow to catch on. But in comparison to another individual company Tesla is still far ahead.
In comparison to Apple in 2024:
In the US, iPhones hold a market share of 60.77%.
But this was a drop from when Apple basically had 100% of the market since they were basically the first popular smartphone. I think the fact that EV has a strong competitor in just regular cars (EVs are not that much better than regular gas cars, while smart phones were vastly superior to flip phones) coupled with many other players entering the market before Tesla could grow too big makes your summary correct.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
On the matter of public health there aren't any strong arguments I've seen in support that those lies that benefited the public on the matters of public health. Maybe someone could steelman their position because I can't think of any. I was thinking more in terms of geopolitical conflicts between nations.
Sachs' version of tell the truth isn't reveal all secrets, but to be honest about our past dealings and future intentions.
This better clarifies his position and I am in general agreement with that approach.
Honestly I barely read the rest of your post because it's the same arguments that got us here.
Honestly you don't have to mention this. I'm just asking questions to facilitate discussion and to better understand why governments behave the way they do, and if there is actually any value in doing so. You might not want to hear the reason, but I do, and I'm sure others do as well. Isn't that the point of this forum? To shed light and try to understand the opposition? Maybe there actually is some value in what they have to say. If not, then it better equips you (or anybody else reading) being able to point out the flaws in their reasoning.
I get your frustration, I really do. The government's fearmongering of and lies regarding Covid was an absolute disaster and I still feel the ramifications today. I feel like it robbed me of 4 years of my life, and that my life is worse today than it was at the start of 2020. But I still want to understand the line of reasoning and support of government lies (not necessarily of the response to Covid, but in general).
To fool your enemies, you must first fool your friends - this is a proverb for a reason. Now you may personally disagree with this as a matter of principle and refuse to engage with such an idea, but you cannot deny the utility it has. I think one could make a strong argument in support of such tactics in times of war. If one agrees with the argument, then it goes to reason there is some line where the cost to benefit justifies or denies it's usage. I don't think refusing to acknowledge its utility just because it can then lead to a discussion of where and when its justified is appropriate because most of the world is not black and white and most behavior of people isn't black and white.
Less lying. A whole lot less lying. From everyone, especially if you think it's for the common good, I don't believe you and don't want to hear it.
I'm trying to recall who said it but the general idea is that the most dangerous type of people who believe they are doing something for the good of humanity. I think there are people who would vote for or be in support of governments lying to the population if they believed it was for the common good. We see people defending the government's response to Covid to this day. Getting mad at these people won't get them to change their minds. The ones that do are just as susceptible to shifting their feelings back with an equally emotional response from the other side. I seek to hone my arguments so that I can at least convince those who are willing to listen.
But I'm not going to let the specter of the Orient let the lying fedgov off the hook for their lying ways.
Sure, let's hold the government accountable for their past actions. But we live in the reality we live in. What would be the best approach to China now? Personally, I think the US could benefit from not playing world police for a decade and just focusing on solving our internal problems. But what are the potential consequences of that?
My belief is that the world can only be mostly peaceful if there is a significantly powerful force that is so powerful that it makes it not worth it for a foreign nation to cause war. In that case, I'd rather that force be the US and not China. The reason we don't have wide-scale World War 1 and 2 style conflicts anymore is because of mutually assured destruction and the fact that most of the world is now aligned with US and US interests and values. But if human history teaches us anything, it's that if someone can bully someone else out of their resources, they will do that. On a micro-scale, the only reason we don't have large portions of the population stealing from each other is because society (with the use of physical force such as police) keeps us in check. As soon as we started defunding police crime went up. I believe the same applies to larger scales. Remove the US-aligned hegemony and we will start to see more international conflicts. This is a belief I haven't really honed, so I'm open to criticism and a better alternative theory regarding minimizing international conflicts.
I agree with Sachs general sentiment that the US government has deceived the people far too much with disastrous consequences.
I'm not sure I buy Sach's argument that if we "told the truth" about Ukraine or Israel there would be no war. Maybe less US intervention or involvement. Based on my limited knowledge and understanding maybe Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine to try to create proxy barrier, but Israel I doubt there could ever be a peaceful 2 state solution. Pretty sure Israel has tried multiple times throughout it's history to do exactly that and each time it was rejected by the Palestinians.
There is a question to be considered about if a government should actually tell the citizens 100% of the truth. It's easy to say we should always be truthful as a matter of principle, but there is a good reason lying exists. Most people lie, or at least only tell the partial truth, to people close to them all the time, and sometimes that lying is done with good intentions. But you know what they say about good intentions.
Government deception of recent times have done a tremendous net negative to the population, but is that because they didn't tell the truth or because they didn't tell the truth about the wrong things? Could there exist information where lying about it or not releasing it would be to the benefit of the people of the country? One example could be that a nation is engaging in conflict with another nation and lies to its own citizens to prevent crucial information from being passed on to its adversaries. Is lying to the population acceptable in times of war or conflict? And the follow-up question, is a nation as powerful as the US ever not in conflict with a nation like China which holds radically different political and cultural views? Should the US allow China to grow even stronger and bigger, or should it engage in economic and political battles to check its growth?
Edit: Edited to replace "lying" with "deception" when appropriate.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Ignoring the whole Cyber Truck Fiasco, can the other EV cars be considered competitive with a Tesla from a branding perspective?
The biggest competitors seem to be Chinese EV cars which sell to a mostly Chinese market. I haven't looked into it much but I have seen several videos about the poor quality of Chinese EV cars. I don't think they will catch on in the Western market.
Factor out China and Tesla is still well far ahead of the competition as of last year.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
So just a couple of thoughts I have.
There are many different methods of measuring IQ and intelligence, and IQ tests can break intelligence between crystallized and fluid. Are the people of the Ivory Coast averaging 70 IQ due to a lack of nutrition and education, or because they are genetically inferior and the 70 IQ is their genetically average potential? Or to put it another way, if we take a baby born to the average person in the Ivory Coast and raise them in a Western nation with Western nutrition and education, would they on average have 70 IQ?
Based on observations of the Flynn effect and the increase in average IQ over time for all populations, I'd say that they would likely have a much average IQ than 70 if they were raised in better conditions. In other words, I'm arguing that IQ scores between countries are not exactly the same and that a 70 IQ person from the Ivory Coast is not equivalent to a 70 IQ person in the USA. To Flynn's credit, I believe he does try to account for multi-country analysis by using the progressive Raven Matrixes version of the IQ test, which doesn't require reading, writing, or speaking, but it also means the range of intelligence being tested is limited. As highly correlated intelligence is across different types, it's not equivalent. Also, from what I recall from Flynn's work the data in Africa is quite limited and had to be extrapolated across various countries, Ivory Coast included. (Note that I am not arguing there aren't any genetical differences in average IQ, just that all the races have not had a chance to reach say their 90% potential in IQ distribution.).
IQ has much stronger predictive powers of income in the lower brackets than in the higher brackets. I find this to be strong evidence in support of my notion that IQ is a barrier to entry for being able to perform specific tasks. One Swedish study on intelligence and income finds that above 60,000 the predictive ability of intelligence drops and that the top 1% of earners score worse in cognitive ability than the bracket right below them. Once you reach an adequate amount of IQ, other factors about a person matter more.
I will concede that you could likely find a job for a 70-IQ person, but would they be able to keep that job, and would they be offered that job in lieu of a higher-IQ person? I argue most jobs have an "optimal" IQ where after a certain point having additional points of IQ would offer very little benefit. I will even go as far as to say that having a higher IQ could actually be a detriment since the job would be too simple for an extremely intelligent person and they would likely quit out of boredom and find a better job. I don't think there is a single job where 70 IQ is the optimal amount of intelligence for that job.
Hauser's Meritocracy, Cognitive Ability, and the Sources of Occupational Success" found that iq distribution of various jobs finds that only that "janitors and sextons", "construction laborers", "unpaid family workers", and "farmers and farm laborers" had at least someone with a less than 70iq in the 90th iq percentile distribution in people that work in those job categories between 1975-1977. The data from 1992-1994 shows there is not a single person in the 90th distribution of IQ that falls below 70 IQ. Most of this is explained by the Flynn effect, but as tools have become more complex it's more and more difficult for a low IQ person to be able to even do the lowest paying jobs. As I said, a 70 IQ person can not be trusted with something like a dishwasher because operating a dishwasher is actually quite a complex task compared to a task such as hammering an object in the same spot over and over. The economic output of workers in a modern nation must surpass the minimum wage, otherwise no business will hire such people except out of charity.
Gottfredson has a description of the ability of people at various IQ ranges in her paper Social Consequences of Group Differences in Cognitive Ability. There are descriptions for 2 cut off points of IQ I want to highlight - 75 IQ and 85 IQ:
IQ 75 signals the ability level below which individuals are not likely to master the elementary school curriculum or function independently in adulthood in modern societies. They are likely to be eligible for special educational services in school and for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) from the U.S. government, which is financial support provided to mentally and physically disabled adults. Of course, many do marry, hold a job, raise children, and otherwise function adequately as adults. However, their independence is precarious because they have difficulty getting and keeping jobs that pay a living wage. They are difficult to train except for the simplest tasks, so they are fortunate in industrialized nations to get any paying job at all. While only 1 out of 50 Asian-Americans faces such risk, Figure 3 shows that 1 out of 6 black-Americans does.
IQ 85 is a second important minimum threshold because the U.S. military sets its minimum enlistment standards at about this level. Although the military is often viewed as the employer of last resort, this minimum standard rules out almost half of blacks (44%) and a third of Hispanics (34%), but far fewer whites (13%) and Asians (8%). The U.S. military has twice experimented with recruiting men of IQ 80-85 (the first time on purpose and the second time by accident), but both times it found that such men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs. Individuals in this IQ range are not considered mentally retarded and they therefore receive no special educational or social services, but their poor learning and reasoning Social Consequences of Group Differences 29 abilities mean that they are not competitive for many jobs, if any, in the civilian economy. They live at the edge of unemployability in modern nations, and the jobs they do get are typically the least prestigious and lowest paying: for example, janitor, food service worker, hospital orderly, or parts assembler in a factory.
IQ 85 is also close to the upper boundary for Level 1 functional literacy, the lowest of five levels in the U.S. government’s 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). Adults at this literacy level are typically able to carry out only very simple tasks, such as locating the expiration date on a driver’s license or totaling a bank deposit slip, but they typically cannot perform more difficult tasks, such as locating two particular pieces of information in a sports article (Level 2), writing a brief letter explaining an error in a credit card bill (Level 3), determining correct change using information in a menu (Level 4), or determining shipping and total costs on an order form for items in a catalog (Level 5). Most routine communications with businesses and social service agencies, including job applications, are thus beyond the capabilities of persons with only Level 1 literacy. Their problem is not that they cannot read the words, but that they are not able to understand or use the ideas that the words convey.
The intellectual capability of the 70 IQ, or even 85 IQ population is made clear in these descriptions. These are significant ability barriers to entry to most jobs or functions and have a greater impact on a person than the additional gain in ability at the higher IQ tiers. To go back to my original point, a 100 iq racist arguing that an 85 iq population are 'animals' can construct a stronger argument than a 115 iq racist arguing that a 100 iq population are animals Both would be incorrect for reasons you already stated previously, but if they were trying to refine the definition of animal you get better arguments the lower the IQ goes.
We have seen IQ rise to match the jobs available, but I say that we are nearing our natural genetic potential in IQ for well-developed nations. Actually, we are seeing IQ points drop in developed nations due to the implementation of ludicrous and inane policies. Unless something like eugenics or gene editing becomes a reality I doubt the average level of intelligence will rise more than 5-10 IQ points for the developed nations.
We have no idea what a hypothetical society of a world where the average person's IQ is 130 will look like, but I still argue a 70 IQ person would struggle more in a society of 100 IQ individuals than a 100 IQ person in a world of people with 130 median IQ. There are almost no jobs for a 70 IQ person in a modern nation. Even if the hypothetical 130 iq society is able to automate away many existing job categories with robots and AI as @aardvark2 suggests, I doubt it would actually remove all all jobs where the barrier to be able to do the work requires a minimum level of IQ above 100. It's likely such a society could easily provide a luxurious peaceful life to the 100 IQ person and they wouldn't need to even work and could spend a life pursuing the arts or leisure.
Based on historical trends a lot of people would argue job availability will keep up but we actually don't know that! Historical trends don't always predict the future. @aardvark2 uses an example of a smartphone, and I'd like to point out Moore's law is no longer being met (the pace of development has slowed down). You can't assume past trends continue infinitely and there are good reasons to believe that there won't be enough new industries and jobs that are created where human labor is preferable to robot/AI labor, especially if robots and AI reach the point where it makes most current jobs obsolete.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
I gave examples of how 130 IQ people can benefit from 100 IQ people because 100 IQ people have utility. 70IQ people have almost no economic utility.
Why don't you give some examples of these supposed systems that would exist if that median IQ matched that to current day 130 IQ people, and how 100 IQ people would be a net negative in such a system?
@2rafa at least gave an example of a 100iq person navigating Princeton or Jane Street. But in this case, the 100 IQ person can serve many functions in those places. Cooking, cleaning, plumbing, maintenance, research assistance, etc are all tasks a 100 IQ person can easily do and excel in. Yes, the 100 IQ person would never be at the top of their class, but a 100 IQ person can still learn and specialize in tasks that don't require a genius-level IQ.
The fact is the gap in the ability and capability to do tasks is not equal in both directions. You could consider IQ as a barrier of entry to be able to accomplish certain tasks. A 130 IQ can easily find a use for a 100 IQ person. A 100 IQ person working with a 70iq person sees the 70 IQ person as a liability because the 70IQ person is incapable of following directions. You can't trust a 70 IQ person to do something like run a dishwasher.
You can't seriously be saying a 130 IQ person looking at a 100 IQ person will see them just as incapable as a 100 IQ person looking at a 70 IQ person will.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Upvotes don't mean anything and the parent comment he was referring to has just as many upvotes (and also significantly more downvotes) so the higher-effort post got more engagement just less agreement (or for whatever reason people downvote comments for). Does he even know that?
Also what's with all these deleted comments, I swear I see more and more deleted comments than I used to. I'm tempted to start quoting the entire comment just so the context of the conversation is retained.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
The world doesn't need everyone to have a job where everyone needs a 130 IQ to function. Well, maybe the rapid onset of technology will change that but we're still not there. There's basically no job for 70 IQ people today. A 100 IQ person can still communicate information and do less intellectually rigorous tasks like documenting information, running and maintaining processes, and being able to actually follow instructions and directions. 130 IQ people can benefit from the work of 100 IQ people. 100 IQ people will not benefit from the work of 70 IQ people. 70 IQ is the literal level of mental retardation.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
In any case, it has some amusing implications. If a 100 IQ population can call an 85 IQ population animals, why should a 115 IQ population consider a 100 IQ population anything but? The line being drawn just below the median for Europeans is no more or less arbitrary than the line being drawn below Asians or Jews.
I know this is meant to show how absurd the position of race supremacists is but I don't think this a good rebuttal because the ability gap to do most things in life between a 100 IQ person and 85 IQ person is much greater than between a 100 IQ person and 115 IQ person. If you were to extend the gap by 30 to 70 vs 100 vs 130 IQ it becomes even more clear. 70 IQ people essentially cannot follow directions, to the point the US military deems them a liability. A 130 IQ person might be much more brilliant than a 100 IQ person but both would be able to navigate in society just fine.
I do agree with your conclusion that the line being drawn is arbitrary for the reasons you state in the previous paragraph. It's common to take a word with meaning and implications associated with it already and then redefine it. It feels like the far-right version of changing the definition of words like racism.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
More empirically: Jefferson famously tried to free his slaves on his death, but he couldn't afford it. The cost was too high. If slavery was really "on its way out" it seems odd that the price of slaves was still so high.
According to John Boles, a professor of history at Rice University:
When Jefferson’s father-in-law died, his wife inherited, which means Jefferson inherited, her father’s land and slaves, plus a lot of debt. He wasn’t able to get out from under that debt his entire life. A law was passed in Virginia in 1792 that said if a person was in debt, any slaves he might free could be seized by his debtors. So Jefferson was always under the cloud that he couldn’t free his slaves because they could be seized by his debtors.
Also, in 1806, a law was passed in Virginia that said if a person freed slaves, those slaves had to leave the state within one year or they’d be seized by the state [as slaves]. So Jefferson realized that even if he avoided that 1792 law about debt and freed his slaves, they had to be expelled. He didn’t have the means to buy animals or land or tools to set them up [in another state]. He felt hamstrung by that. He also had a lot of kin — children and grandchildren — whom he was supporting. At any one time, Jefferson was supporting 15–20 family members at Monticello.
Saying the costs are too high is technically correct but Jefferson's situation in particular has some details to consider that may make one consider what exactly that statement means. The laws around debt and Jefferson wanting to give his slaves a chance at life if he did free them by basically gifting them huge financial gifts made it economically unviable for him.
Is slavery profitable? Yes. Is it more profitable than willing workers engaging in a free market? That is the question. Opportunity cost is a thing.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
I don't think I'd be here if brevity was something really important to me lol.
The way I see it, if it's good and the more there is to consume, the better.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Goes to show that being right doesn't make you likable and that delivery matters as much as the message.
Link to full transcript from JRE episode with Terrence: https://www.happyscribe.com/public/the-joe-rogan-experience/2152-terrence-howard
The relevant text is from [01:17:54] onwards
Timestamp to the relevant part where he talks about Saturn:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lWAyfr3gxMA&t=2007
Dave: So he's pretending to explain planetary formation without gravity, and without explaining anything about what he's doing. Click a button, the planet is there. Where did the matter come from, how did it arrange itself? Planetary formation is a process, this just materialized out of thin air. How? There are no vortices, nothing is opposing, there is no angle of incidence. There is no crystallization. He is just listing random buzzwords.
Terrence: Just the exact form of it, just with the calculation. So you change the angles of incidence that these lynch pins, because remember, each one of these has. These are opposing vortices. So there's twelve vortices to this that are opposing. So once the angles of incidence change, you change the motion and pressure conditions. You can now change the condition or the crystallization. So I was saying with the periodic table now, because we have the angles of incidence, material engineering can now separate the space between carbon and nitrogen, or carbon and boron, and have the same elements of titanium, vanadium, chromium, magnesium, iron or nickel, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, gallium, or germanium. In those higher octaves. We can do that between silicone and phosphorus, or silicone and aluminum. So the transparent aluminum now becomes possible because we can now control the pressure and change the pressure and motion conditions where we couldn't do that before, because they were going by cartesian space at 90 degrees and 45 degrees straight lines, the euclidean space that they've made up, this orthogonal or church like space that they've generated, because they wanted to promote that cross. That was the basis of all of that.
Dave: [Criticism about how Terrence pronounces words, just not gonna transcribe this. Kind of a cheap shot tbh.] He is doing nothing to actually explain whatsoever to actually explain anything about he just showed to Joe [...]
Joe: Before we do that, can you tell me how a planet is formed under this theory? So you have a sun. And how does the sun give birth to these planets?
Terrence: The same way we defecate and have gas. Jupiter, that red spot on Jupiter, that's spinning on it, that's going to become a moon. It may take a billion or 2 billion years. That will ultimately become a moon off of Jupiter. Where is it? Right at the equator. Where do we discharge it? Right at our equator. And then it will rotate its way around and slowly be pushed out by the solar wind of, well, by Jupiter.
Dave: 90 minutes in Joe finally asks him to actually explain something and Terry's response is astounding. Stars crap out planets the way we take a dump on the toilet. Case closed everyone! Planets are fecal matter. And the red spot on Jupiter will be a planet later. Of course, this is meaningless, since it's a storm. It's a cyclone. How does a bunch of wind form a planet exactly? And he's just so objectively wrong about every trivial detail. The red spot is not at the equator, it's 22 degrees below the equator. Humans don't have "equators" to defecate from, and the human anus is not located on the waist. This is such a stunning example of the difference between real science and insane ramblings. Ask this question of an astrophysicist, you'll get mountains of data, explanations, equations, predictions, and confirmations of those predictions through observation. Ask Terry and what do you get? The sun takes a crap. The end. Who falls for this stuff?
Now the content of the video is available for us to reference without needing to watch the video.
I watched the first twenty minutes, and the utter contempt is expected, but this part bothered me. He mocks an interview where Howard says he can rebuild Saturn without gravity, and claims that any simulation would need gravity, yet that's not true at all!
You don't have to model for gravity but then your model must adhere to the observed qualities of gravity, otherwise it's a junk model. This isn't really addressed though and not the main point here. Maybe I missed it in the video and Dave may believe that a planet based simulation needs gravity but he doesn't seem to actually make the claim you say he is claiming.
He says "So he's pretending to explain planetary formation without gravity, and without explaining anything about what he's doing." which you could argue implies that Dave believes the model should have gravity but to me, I see it as just summarizing what Terrence is claiming to have accomplished.
You can build a model to any specifications you want, including not having any gravity. He explains this in the podcast that Dave clearly didn't care to watch, that it's based on electrostatic forces and vortexes that meet at deliberate angle of incidence.
If you can create a model of the universe without including gravity, and can run that model a recreate known and observable phenomena, then congratulations, you can in fact rebuild Saturn without gravity.
We don't actually know if they built a model that rebuilds an adequate representation of Saturn, he just claims it does and shows a video of the supposed simulation. Until they publish the actual software, methodology, and information for others to be able to examine and replicate the formation of the planet as well as other celestial objects, this is as true as me claiming I have the cure for cancer and showing some 3d animation I made that I cured cancer. If you're going to be skeptical of the 'established' science you should very well be just as skeptical of these alternative scientific theories as a matter of principle and adequate proof has to be provided.
Also, they didn't rebuild Saturn. The set criteria of what defines Saturn matters here. Models are only as useful as the utility they provide. I could build a mold that has the rings of Saturn and the hexagon shape on top, fill it up, and then claim I have a model that creates Saturn if I define Saturn to be an object that looks like Saturn and has the hexagonal shape on top. Obviously, this is not a very useful model except for making model Saturn replicas.
Let's try to glean what we can about their supposed model and simulation tool. The claim about this simulation they use is that they have these set parameters such as angles of incidence, lynch pins, motion, pressure, crystallization, and vortices. If you look at the sidebar on the video you can also throw in harmonics, energy field, supernova, uhh torus, sphere, circle, cube? We'll just ignore those last 4 for a bit and come back to them later.
Suppose this is true, and that if you set all these little parameters to just the right amount you can get a bunch of objects that resembled Jupiter. How is this useful? How exactly do you determine all the values for the parameters? What determines the values of the specific parameters that lead to the output of the planet? It seems like they worked backward and just tweaked a bunch of the parameters until they got the object they wanted.
Also, the video of them creating Jupiter is literally done with Blender: Here's a video tutorial of Blender so you can see what it looks like: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yrif5lXX7WY&t=208
Take a look at the area on the right. Now compare that to the video they are showing as proof of their simulation: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FWXlLNqkJls&t=251
See the sidebars on the right? Those are objects in a scene in Blender, which is a 3d computer graphics software tool. Now, maybe there is a plugin for Blender that is a separate simulation software that is supposed the same used as Princeton as claimed in the interview that actually can simulate some shit. Maybe they calculated the mathematics necessary outside of the blender and then ported that information onto objects inside of the blender to show the process. But honestly speaking, this makes me extremely skeptical about the robustness of their supposed simulation software. They essentially have to rebuild a physics engine from the ground up since their so-called model of the world is fundamentally different from how everyone else is modeling the world.
Furthermore, the video doesn't actually show a believable formation of Jupiter. Remember the odd objects I mentioned before? They literally have a "torus" object and 2 spheres defined in the blender software. That's the inner core, the outer core, and the ring. It honestly looks like the objects are predefined. There is nothing in the video that leads me to believe that they can actually demonstrate the life cycle of a planet or even how its formed. Maybe it simulates some aspects of Jupiter but that's not what the claim Terrence made in the interview is.
Terrence later claims they've modeled the Milky Way better than NASA and we just have to take his word for it? What is he talking about here? What model of NASA? What's the benchmark they are comparing against to prove their model is better? I really wish Joe asked for more information here.
Now does this mean their model is wrong? No, it doesn't prove it, but it doesn't give much reason to be confident in it. They need to release the full details of their model, their simulation software, the blender files, and everything. There hasn't been much information provided in this segment of the interview here to give confidence to any of the claims made about this. When in doubt the choice shouldn't be to believe the thing as true.
I still don't believe 1x1 = 2, but when you choose not to understand I'm not going to give you much credence. He just completely repeats that everything is meaningless and counters with the established science as an appeal to authority.
Most of what Terrence says when he tries to explain his ideas is meaningless because he fails to properly even define the terms he are using and he misuses words. Now, perhaps if you read the source material that he's getting some of his ideas from it might make sense, but it's not the job of the listener of the JRE to have to do the research to figure out what the hell he's saying. Joe should've pressed Terrence to explain more but he didn't.
If you can't prove this shit from first principles, or explain how it was first proven from first principles, then you don't know anything. This video in forty five minutes long, it can't be an issue with time length.
Terrence fails to do this very thing since nowhere in this interview does he adequately explain the concepts he throws around (a large part due to Joe just not asking Terrence to explain). It's basically you just have to take his word for it, but he doesn't do a good job, and frankly speaking, when you introduce new ideas, you better do a damn good job of explaining those ideas and setting the foundational knowledge to be able to communicate about it because otherwise you just end up with easy criticisms like those sprinkled in Dave's video.
Dave doesn't HAVE to prove anything. All he has to do is counter what Terrence is saying, It's Terrence's job to provide ample evidence to support his position. This is a logical fallacy and doesn't properly dismiss criticism. Now you could argue Dave didn't properly counter Terrence's points but honestly, Terrence doesn't make many points.
Yes, Dave does come off as quite condescending to Terrence with insults and does make a strawman of some of his points, and skips over parts in the video but his core points stand. Terrence uses nonexistent jargon, doesn't explain his points, and makes outlandish claims.
By the way, here is a Terrence paper if you want to see the quality of his academic output.
https://x.com/terrencehoward/status/925754491881877507?lang=en
This is something where he had the chance to fully refine his arguments, and not a live interview where he has limited time to explain his ideas. Honestly, I was giving Terrence some the benefit of the doubt that he's just not explaining the ideas properly but he genuinely has no idea what he's talking about. Maybe the source behind the ideas he's pushing out has some value to it but Terrence is not the guy you want to be the ambassador of these ideas.
Just to give 1 example of what is wrong with his "paper", on the first page in the 2nd half where he adds 1 to both sides of 1x1 = 2 he uses 1x1 = 2 as proof that 1x1 =2.
Here is a video Terrence put out to try to explain his concept, a video should be more accessible to people than a paper:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zloGu1tBThY
He essentially says the equation X^3 = 2x has 1 answer (it has actually 3 real numbers as an answer), and other numbers doesn't fit into the equation, therefore there is something wrong with math!
This guy just doesn't understand mathematics and doesn't provide the rigor to properly redefine the axioms that would make his equation true. I legitimately feel dumber for having tried to understand his line of thinking and I might dare to go as far to say that it is is an cognitohazard and nobody should watch his video or read his paper for the sake of their sanity.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
We live in an era of information bombardment so it's crucial to be able to figure out what deserves your attention and what doesn't. By the way, I defer to the experts for a lot of my knowledge too, it's unavoidable. I couldn't get anything useful outside of Terrence Howard's ideas except amusement so I didn't listen to the whole thing. Maybe you see something of value in there I don't.
I think I would enjoy his ideas if it was presented as a system in a science fiction novel but it's being presented as reality and I can't decouple that to take his ideas seriously.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Other than entertainment, what value does one's confidence in something like the laws of physics or string theory have to the average layperson?
It honestly doesn't matter if it's correct or not unless you're working on something where that knowledge has a direct impact on something you're engaged with. For most people, your ability to function in the world is no better or worse whether you choose to believe in or not believe in string theory.
Usually, the "value" in this kind of sophistry in trying to recontextualize the lens to view the world is to open up people's mind to the possibility that maybe our fundamental assumptions about the world are incorrect and in doing so you might be able to unlock a new way of viewing the world or thinking that can yield positive results.
Okay, I can agree with this that, so why not use an actual useful example that can show that instead of arguing that if you change the axioms of mathematics 1x1=2. This feels just like that 2+2=5 controversy that just happened a few years ago. All the conversation gets lost in the absurdity of the example because frankly speaking, nobody goes around changing the axioms of mathematics in their day-to-day lives. It's only useful to mathematicians and philosophers.
Since you're deferring to the experts for subjects you don't understand, why are you listening to Terrence Howard, who is an actor and not a mathematician or logician or philosopher or scientist?
If you want to listen to a counterpoint of Howard's ideas, here's a video by YouTuber Professor Dave Explains: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lWAyfr3gxMA
This is a guy who typically makes videos debunking pseudoscience ideas like flat earth theory. He's probably just as qualified as Terrence Howard to talk about the subject.
I'm not sure the definition of Business Record is very specific or useful since it seems to qualify nearly any piece of data in any equipment or file held by the business.
Based on this definition even messages on Slack or Teams between employees joking about how their manager looks could be argued to qualify as a business record.
More options
Context Copy link