What book had the most influence on the way you see the world?

What book had the most influence on the way you see the world?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

the bible
>if i be a good person i'll die and go to this magic place called heaven
sounded based

Just out of curiosity how did this change the way you see the world, user? What I took from this was that although intelligence is at least partly heritable, it still doesn't make sense to treat anyone in a given manner, inductively based on their skin color, or economic class, because there is as much variation within these subsets as there is between them

The aesthetic brain. It makes me put effort into looking decent.

Origin of species

.

good one

Probably Zhuangzi for me

whoa. good point.

Acting based on stereotypes makes sense when you don't have time to get all the information about someone before you have to act, aka the majority of interactions that most people undertake with each other on a day-to-day basis.

Obviously taking a completely rigid stance on believing every stereotype about every group of persons is retarded, but it's equally retarded to assume that the group of young black men running up on you in the middle of the night on the street want to sell you girl scout cookies

Hesiod - Theogony

>Lewontin's fallacy

wew lad i thought this had been debunked enough already

Critique of pure reason, I use it to stabilize a chair that wobbles

...

It made me more empathetic to blacks. The average African American is right around the minimum required intelligence for reading and following instructions. It makes sense that their culture is toxic and glorifies ignorance.

For me its pic related. It put me well on my way to becoming a committed post-marxist

lol
very practical for Veeky Forums

I don't see how I'm applying Lewontin's fallacy. I'm not saying that race is scientifically untenable. What am I missing here

InShaAllah

...

As-salāmu ʿalaykum, comrade.

The Little Price.

Also unironically this. Obviously it's very flawed and the focus on labor is backwards but compared to all the capitalist propaganda I was exposed to before, it was quite eye opening.

>it still doesn't make sense to treat anyone in a given manner, inductively based on their skin color, or economic class
that was one of the books points actually

this is not true. the book specifically said what the user you replied to wrote.

...

...

First Phaedo, later Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

...

How disconnected from reality are you? Do you honestly believe that niggers are as intelligent as whites? What does it take to wake you up? The collapse of western societies and a full blown race war?

...

The sequel "Brown Noise'' was a lot better

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

;)

Have you read the book? What I said isn't exactly at odds with what you said (even though I find it repugnant). The Bell Curve did convince me that intelligence (or G) is heritable, and clearly race is a group in which heritability can occur. The difference is that I can recognize that while the G distributions may be different between races, it doesn't make sense to treat any person from a given set as the average of their set.

One Flew Over the cuckoo's nest

I guess my mother was a bit overbearing.

>it doesn't make sense to treat any person from a given set as the average of their set.
I outlined the exact situation upthread where it makes sense to do just that

>but it's equally retarded to assume that the group of young black men running up on you in the middle of the night on the street want to sell you girl scout cookies
Because a group of young white men doing the same would? Your own example showed how silly racial stereotypes are.

Except the situation you described is one where you have plenty of information to determine how to act without stereotyping.

I actually wasn't all that impressed by the manifesto, but Capital had this effect on me.

depending on the clothing they were wearing and the neighborhood I was in I would stay cool or gtfo.

Pretty much the same as black kids, but i was robbed by niggers in baltimore and have generally experienced more crime at the hands of blacks than any other racial group so there ya go.
not really

>depending on the clothing they were wearing and the neighborhood I was in I would stay cool or gtfo.
See, these are a much better criteria. Although a group of young men running towards you is often questionable, even worse if you're a female.

Obviously negative personal experiences help to enforce stereotypes but the sample is usually too small to take the shit too seriously.

Clothing and neighborhood stereotyping is still stereotyping and makes just as much sense as racial stereotyping.
>sample too small
>13% of population
>50% of murders

There are stereotypes with some basis in reality. Your black doctor isn't going to rob you (beyond the Murican health care costs).

I had a black dentist who tried to remove my wisdom teeth after all my other dentists said they didn't have to come out.

>the majority of interactions that most people undertake with each other on a day-to-day basis.
I don't know about you, but the majority of day-to-day interactions are with my family, my coworkers, and my bartender. None of which involve stereotyping of any sort. Are you really wandering through life lonely and afraid of all the people around you?

All boards will become like /pol/ in the future. The people who actually like what the board is supposed to be about will leave and eventually it'll be only nazis trolling nazis.

I bet there are no people with a white dentist who had the same problem.

You're too new to remember what Veeky Forums was like before Reddit drove out the original inhabitance, old Veeky Forums was more like /pol/ than current Veeky Forums.

...

>old Veeky Forums was more like /pol/ than current Veeky Forums.
I'm not even sure how people come up with this bullshit. Old Veeky Forums was an extremely slow board where people mostly talked about popular classic authors/philosophers because they were too poorly read to name anybody else.

Old Veeky Forums was literally just Catholics arguing about translations of the Bible and Russian novels m8

Now Veeky Forums is about """race realism""" and zog

this. everything else is noise here.

>old Veeky Forums was more like /pol/ than current Veeky Forums.

this is a myth.

...

but user, that book is raysiss!

there are 6 /pol/tier threads on the first two pages. Half of the remaining threads have degenerated into /pol/.
This never used to happen.

posting rand used to get you banned for gods sake. we used to have decent mods

It was never like that either. Veeky Forums went through several phases (Rand posting, Stirner posting, Antinatalism/natalism debates (largely spawned by thomas ligotti's work), christ posting, a brief period of Stalin posting, DFW posting, marx posting, the formation of "Start with the Greeks" as a meme, etc).

but the bell curve isn't rand tier, nor pol tier.

The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy changed how I viewed the world.

Atheist Delusions changed how I viewed history and the Enlightenment.

>help, my traditional culture has been displaced by dumb and unfriendly immigrants!
How's it feel, cuck?

It's simply a big topic of our time and many people are interested in discussing it. The debates about it on Veeky Forums usually aren't even so bad except for the people who complain that the discussions are happening in the first place.

I don't enjoy thinly veiled bait threads where OP just alludes to some /pol/ figure and then runs for the hills, but the majority of those are just false flags or pure trolls anyway, they'd be shitting up your board one way or the other.

And last, don't forget that Veeky Forums was and still is the homeboard for Marxists and they're welcomed here despite it having nothing to do with the board culture either, except for the overlap in being gay, resentful, and lost in academia.

why don't you make more effort to integrate into the native culture instead of trying to enforce your morally skewed world view upon us.

I've noticed a lot of the people complaining don't like actual good conversions between right-wing individuals on Veeky Forums because it doesn't fit the narrative that conservatives are dumb.

Like that thread they made to bully Rand and a single poster basically destroyed all the misconceptions people had about her until OP deleted the thread.

But Rand is garbage. Please do not associate conservative with Rand ever again.

What does objectivism intrinsically have to do with conservatism? Genuinely asking

dat right-wing confirmation bias

Blame all the conservatives who flock around her bullshit and fund Randian think tanks.

I'm sorry, I don't know, that's just the first recent example that popped into my head.

This now, thought it was unironically Onani Master Kurosawa in my youth

Some of us have jobs

Nope.

Why doesn't left wing politics stop injecting itself into every major cultural media.
Blame gamergate etc

Its 80% inheritable by age 21.

Saying you shouldn't treat groups based on their average IQ (or testosterone) is like saying we should teach down syndrome kids like intellectually gifted kids

With down syndrome kids we know where we stand. The black guy in front of you could be some sub 100IQ idiot or clearly above you. Knowing that there are more black guys who are the former doesn't help you accessing the individual in any way.

What does it say about your bias that without any body of data whatsoever you're completely certain to rule something out based on nothing but the word "right-wing" triggering your need to respond?

Maybe, at least I've never met a leftist on here who was actually interested in a debate instead of a circle-jerk.

I won't go into detail but just think about how well Rand's philosophy mixes with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". She was not exactly a fan of forced social ownership.

>Even if someone has said 99 stupid things in a row, you should give him a chance because the 100th might be smart
Or longer, because that analogy isn't perfect:
You're already treating everyone according to what you assume about them - for example, you treat everyone around you as probably falling into the 60-150 IQ range. You don't treat everyone according to their maximum potential. If you come across someone with an IQ of 180 or a highfunctioning autist with no regard for social norms, you are surprised. You didn't plan for it.

So it's all about HOW LIKELY it really is to meet an intelligent black man. And I won't pass judgment there and agree with him or you, it's just about the logic behind it.

The average weight of Americans is 194.7 lb. Does it make sense to think every American will have that weight?

It's probably a good fact to keep in mind if you're writing policy around a sugar tax, if you understand.

>HOW LIKELY it really is to meet an intelligent black man
Very, very unlikely but meeting an intelligent person of any color is very unlikely if we focus on their IQ as qualifier for intelligent. Walking around and treating people as potential idiots isn't going to help you much. Also the environment where you meet the person is a much better indicator and still pretty flawed.

As for the analogy, it's very, very flawed. A more fitting one would be "some person who identifies as alt-right/SJW and you already discarding everything they might say simply because they are part of a retarded group instead of focusing on what they say."

Like I said, I don't really have a horse in this race but I'll repeat: Everyone acts based on assumptions and if your brain gets new info "people from group x are on average not too intelligent", this will naturally go into your decision making. Now his position is "so I treat all of them as stupid" which is a dishonest exaggeration and your position is "I am able to complete disregard this new evidence and will treat everyone as if they are the exception", which is just as dishonest. Your brain has already factored in that information.

Of course you're giving everyone a chance and that's the right thing to do, but you have lowered your average expectation.

But the distance between the means isn't as stark as your example of the general population and those afflicted with Downs Syndrome.

Imagine two normal distributions, where the mean has been shifted by 5 points (i.e. Black mean intelligence - 95, White mean intelligence - 100, this was roughly the results presented in TBCurve). Though there is a disparity it isn't statistically significant enough to do anything more than adumbrate (/reinforce) the fact that IQ (G) is heritable. You can't use The Bell Curve as a means to justify racism. As I said earlier there is more variation within each distribution that there is between them.

can you explain why? I read it and while I liked it I didn't feel anything profound

would schopenhauer enjoy onani master?

I'm not him but a) you're justifying racism towards black people from certain African countries where the average IQ is allegedly as low as 65, and b) if racism means believing one race superior to another, then it would seem a lower average IQ could indeed justify that belief, which is why I assume the book triggered such an outcry.

I don't agree with the other poster and I think culture is far more important than IQ but you guys criticizing him are running into quite some follow-up trouble.

>IQ
When are we going to learn what IQ is and it's limitations/near uselessness, Veeky Forums?

>card tricks to impress your friends
>stickers inside

>near uselessness
Only the single best predictor for major scenarios spanning life expectancy, marriage health, career success, hiring decisions and so on and so on.

I don't even value IQ too much but you're still an idiot.

Why are you acting like IQ is a static tool that hasn't changed since its introduction?

I actually uploaded the wrong picture but its a good book so I didn't care. I meant to upload this. 'The depressed person' made me feel less sorry for myself and made me a less selfish person.

fuck i did it again

Apology, Plato

My father left me pic related. The book is leather bound, with gold leaf edges and marbled paper inside the cover. I never scribbled crayon into it, or drew in the margins. I knew it was special. When I was about eight years old I got most of the way through Apology.

I didn't totally understand it, but I felt the tone of the work and knew Socrates did not deserve to die. It was the first time I recognized that, whatever vague concept of government I had at the time, we (the people and state) existed in a system that was incapable of stopping injustice.

I grew up very sad. Mostly because I didn't have a dad, but also because the cold reality of unchanging human nature was revealed early.

Probably this given I read it as a freshman in high school and it started my journey into reading religion, philosophy, politics, etc. I probably wouldn't be Christian if it wasn't for this book, though it was not the book that changed my mind.

I want to read the bible due to the influence it has had on the world in general but the damn thing is so long and incoherent I don't know if I could manage to

Lyn himself said not to treat people according to stereotypes and focus on the value of the individuals. He is a big fan of Obama.

youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q

>many dogs will bite you but some won't, therefore it still doesn't make sense not to pet a random cute doggo

I recommend reading some kind of annotated version. Many parts of it go from straight irritating and nonsensical to deeply enlightening. Of course it's still long, people like to list their ancestors and it's incoherent because it contains the writings and myths of millions of people, but yeah.

He has to say that because he wants to maintain what's left of his academic career. Secretly he's an NRxer who argues about IQ shredders on Nick Land's blog and has written several MPC treatises on why he refuses on principle to date Asian women even though it's extremely difficult for him to make it with whites

Have you read the book? Most of the book is talking about the importance social/economic class with regards to IQ (G), and the causal link

Is this the white genocide I've been hearing so much about

Except this is what you're saying

>dogs bite 100 people a year
>cats bite 97 people a year
>on average dogs are more dangerous than cats
>you should NEVER pet a cat

You don't have to read most of the New Testament If you aren't into synoptic theology, skip Mark and Luke, read Matthew, John and Revelation and Enoch.

not really
what I'm saying is a a low iq individual is more likely to cause you harm. you should be aware of this is all I'm saying, but i think that makes me the next hitler