People with brains

[Maxi]

80% of the people have an IQ of less than 100
Of the remaining 20% again 80% assume that they are intelligent.
Leaves really only 3 others - apart from yourself - with brains
Albert Einstein

[Maxi]

KWChang requested be to comment the thought provoking statement of Nobel Price Winner Albert Einstein.

it is considered a classical intellectual statement and 60 read it till now - but nobody commented it. Guess they followed Changs advice to ignore what u cant deal with.

Are we identifying ourselves with IQ above 100 or are we amongst the last 3 buddies.
Unfortunately in a democracy we only need a simple majority and hence we don’t need to be surprised if the world is in such a poor state.

Democracy is a killer of society – it promises the individual the best and destroys at the same time the family and group. The family – which survived 1000s of years all kind of rulers, is diminishing and eventually vanishing because of democracy.
In a democracy comes the individual first.

The democracy was created by the ‘Elite’ to obtain more power.
Any war today – any power struggle is about introducing democracy. Take my other link about wars and tell which recent war in the last 2 centuries was not about democracy? Once democracy installed – they can move in with their bank and administrational system to make the individual into a nobody – while their media is keeping up the dream of individual freedom.

[mackzulkifli]

I have a rated IQ of 147 based on Ravens Standard Matrices and yet failed in one marriage, am stupid enough to be caught driving at 260 km/h two years back and have a problem with differentiating left and right if I am not wearing my watch (on the left).

And your point is?

Chang sorry, I just had to display my inability to understand some of the more intellectual posts.



Cheers :rolleyes:

[mackzulkifli]

KWChang requested be to comment the thought provoking statement of Nobel Price Winner Albert Einstein.

it is considered a classical intellectual statement and 60 read it till now - but nobody commented it. Guess they followed Changs advice to ignore what u cant deal with.

Are we identifying ourselves with IQ above 100 or are we amongst the last 3 buddies.
Unfortunately in a democracy we only need a simple majority and hence we don’t need to be surprised if the world is in such a poor state.

Democracy is a killer of society – it promises the individual the best and destroys at the same time the family and group. The family – which survived 1000s of years all kind of rulers, is diminishing and eventually vanishing because of democracy.
In a democracy comes the individual first.

The democracy was created by the ‘Elite’ to obtain more power.
Any war today – any power struggle is about introducing democracy. Take my other link about wars and tell which recent war in the last 2 centuries was not about democracy? Once democracy installed – they can move in with their bank and administrational system to make the individual into a nobody – while their media is keeping up the dream of individual freedom.


What are you smoking and can I have some?

[Maxi]

Some do it with luck;)
I did not get your point.
Einsteins point was that if everybody has a equal vote in a democracy, that this is not a guarantee that the best leader/system wins.
People get what they deserve.
Only the dumbest sheep select their own butchers… Erich Kastner, German Author

[mackzulkifli]

I believe that Einstein deserve his accolades for his contribution on both the humanitarian side and the development of an instrument of mass destruction so deadly that it still remains a grave concern if one should fall into the hands of extremist intent on killing for a cause. He was also intrumental in the creation of a Zionist state that employed Spartan politics, perhaps out of self protection but no doubt taking more lives than I care to count. So, I am inclined NOT to accept everything a man with high IQ says, my words included.

Secondly, perhaps some of us have more important things to deal with rather than go on some unsubstantiated rhetorics that obviously we cannot deal with and have not the depth of wisdom to effectively tackle.

Here's an idea! Why don't you do it. I am inclined to the Keynesian school of thought when it is applied to third world and emerging contries, but prefer the Reaganomics application when a high GDP per capita is reached. That makes me unstable, fickle minded and too myopic to qualify for unbiased academic status. Perhaps your 'Subangian' theory could act as a convergence between the two disconnected theories of application.

While you are at it, I am still curious if they can ever come out with a universal theory to the current differences in quantum mechanics and gravity, Einstein did not crunch it. Hell, I can't even square a rubiks cube, so don't expect me to bother.

Oh, yeah. The IQ tests are not perfect. I think I accidentally got that rating. It should be much higher.

Only thing is, a sufi traveller once said, God gave of my friend immense intelligence as a tool to achieve great things. My regret was that till he died, he never acquired the wisdom to do anything with it.

Tsk. Tsk.

You know, I know so many who are wiser than me and meet them everyday. I envy them and wonder, when will I ever be like these great people.

[mackzulkifli]

Sorry, I had just remembered to post this. Tsk. Tsk.

Chang asked you to post this huh?

Cool.

What were you saying of sheeps?

[kwchang]

HehHehHeh, Mack, you had me rolling on the floor. I am still wiping the tears while I type this....

BTW, NO, I did not ask Maxi to post it, so he's not a woolly caprine. What really happened was when I first saw it last midnight, I thought it was a joke and move it to the Jokes' channel. Then I was illuminated by Maxi's protest PM today that this is a serious and thought provoking post. I agreed to put it back in the main forum but with a condition that he explained it to us lesser mortals.

I am glad he did start this thread because it caught your attention. Actually, I do agree that it is rather thought provoking (once my grey matter caught up with my fingers). I think maybe Orchi himself can help provoke more thoughts :)

[Maxi]

The West has failed with democracy!
What happen to Malaysia and Singapore in the postwar time?
We are taught that there is no better system – as if this statement is a law of nature. Immediately when you question ‘democracy’ some smart chap comes and compares it with totalitarianism, feudalism etc. what ever we experienced in the past. The past will never come return and cannot be the future.
Singapore and Malaysia are not the result of democracy or freedom struggle, the Elite in the West simply had by that time their dollar-colonialism’ in place, which was much better than the imperial colonialism of older days.
LKY as a law and order man decided for a different way than his Malaysian counterparts. LKY was a Confucianist and as such for a code of conduct. British colonizing left Western ideas about freedom in their minds, which were contradicted by his (LKY's) rule-set.

Both LKY and Malaysian leaders had similar ideas about an independent Asian future for their country. Both had to show that they have understood the Western concept of modernity and that they can build the bigger and higher buildings and traffic system etc. which took away from the old world charm of the once so beautiful areas. All colonized countries are ready to destroy their heritage when it is connected to the colonizers - not realizing that it is their past.
The incoming leadership had mostly no better concept than to rename roads and buildings.

Singapore – meaning LKY and Malaysian leaders like Mahathir developed a clear vision and implemented this against all odds and succeeded. The successful rich Singaporeans took over the role of the ugly rich Westerner and dominated, wherever they appeared in Asia.

'Governments come and go, but the family is there for ever'. This concept was not there in the early days of their leadership.

It is sheer common sense and wisdom that the family is the true foundation of society. Governments are to serve this society and not the other way around.
The West has been destroyed by the idea of individualism at the expense of the family. All social programs which where designed to benefit the individual, had at the same time a weakening effect on the family bond. The architecture did no longer accommodate large families or different generations under one roof and weakened the families further - instead we see urban life changing into a majority of single households. Community life is being replaced by TV that forms our value system and shows us that each of us is a king in his own right. The traffic and crime statistics show that we do what we feel like and take what we desire, without concern for communal benefit or moral obligations.
All democratic nations start a legal system which invents annually 10.000 to 12.000 new laws, which are narrowing the so-called freedom and controls the individual more and more.

LKY's political outlook on world politics was quite different to Mahathir's. LKY had a more pragmatic approach that was based on performance and the abilities of his efficient Chinese population, who outsmarted with hard work most of their competitors. That's why they are referred to as the Jews of the East. They have an inborn instinct for opportunities and the ability to not only smell the opportunity - but to realize the idea into practice. Other Asians are not less smart, but they lack the latter. At all times will Chinese deal in honor and 'loosing face' is an important part of any dealings - this is the major difference to Jews, who love money above all.

Ethnically all South East Asians are of Chinese origins and they always welcomed new blood. They intermixed with neighboring races in the Pacific and Indian Ocean basin and did however not appreciate blood-suckers.

LKY's idea to educate his people in Asia is a rescue attempt for Asian values and a Asian way of life that got watered down and screwed-up with Western education abroad.

The old Chinese emperors already objected to all Western religions, as they found that they have a negative influence on their value system. Modern Asian leaders are secular towards religions without realizing that by being so they form the foundations for the decay of Western civilization. The underlying concept of the OT (Old Testament)is creating good-and-evil as opposed to the idea of yin-and-yang and thereby setting different values for the idea of a peaceful and harmonic life.

I agree with Dr. Henry Lindner's view, that the OT tells us that we are anthropomorphic and above all creation. The OT teaches that God created us 'free' to command and destroy at will - all animals and life-forms as we see fit. The OT is the prototype and the antique form of a 'terrorists handbook' http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html . Its brutal teachings are the root cause for many of today's problems in society.

Some do not see the underlying thought of LKY's family concept and directs instead the attention to the difference between Zhongguoren and Huaren. But Chinese were traditionally always less concerned with origin than with clan and race and therefore Zhongguoren or Huaren only developed in post imperial times. LKY's policy is to strengthen clans - and this brings him a lot of enemies - but is the reason for Singapore's economical strength.

LKY's political outlook on Asia is far less impressive than the one of Mahathir who looked at the underlying economical concept differently. Politics is only the rule-set by which the economical advantages for a country are played.

All Western countries today follow the American Consumers versus Producers concept. The Anglo-American approach assumes that the ultimate measure of a society is its level of consumption. Competition is good, because it kills off producers whose prices are too high. Killing them off is good, because more-efficient suppliers will give the consumer a better deal. Foreign trade is very good, because it means that the most efficient suppliers in the whole world will be able to compete. It doesn't even matter why competitors are willing to sell for less. They may really be more efficient; they may be determined to dump their goods for reasons of their own. In either case the consumer is better off. He has the ton of steel, the cask of wine, or -- in today's terms -- the car or computer that he might have bought from a domestic manufacturer, plus the money he saved by buying foreign goods. This logic leads to false conclusions as we can see today.

Asians tend to follow the German economist Friedrich List's view, who argued, that a society's well-being and its overall wealth are determined not by what the society can buy but by what it can make. This is the corollary of the familiar argument about foreign aid: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for his life. List was not concerned here with the morality of consumption. Instead he was interested in both strategic and material well-being. In strategic terms nations ended up being dependent or independent according to their ability to make things for themselves. Why were Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians subservient to England and France in the nineteenth century? Because they could not make the machines and weapons Europeans could. List wrote in his book 'The National System of Political Economy' "The forces of production are the tree on which wealth grows,". The tree which bears the fruit is of greater value than the fruit itself.... The prosperity of a nation is not ... greater in the proportion in which it has amassed more wealth (ie, values of exchange), but in the proportion in which it has more developed its powers of production. This is the path Japan followed and China is going now.

Mahathir understood that in economics and politics alike the Anglo-American theory emphasizes how the game is played, not who wins or loses. If the rules are fair, then the best candidate would win. But Mahathir knew that the rules are never fair and are always bent to suit the stronger. This was one reason why he refused to deal with the IMF and did not accept their tempting terms.
In fact Mahathir informed all ASEAN tigerstates of the impoverishing attempts of IMF, which was rather embarrassing to the IMF who eventually failed to gain control over most Asian countries - unlike South America where they succeeded to impoverish all countries, which were in the 70s free of debt. Only Indonesia refused to listen to Mahathir and accepted the IMF terms and was subsequently impoverished.

Mahathir's concept was; 'if you want better politics or a stronger economy, you should concentrate on reforming the rules by which political and economic struggles are waged'. For imposing rules on the big players Mahathir was too small and so he was seeking the acceptance amongst the Islamic leaders who quickly understood him. Mahathir's achievements for the Islamic world is a new political understanding for the economy, the introduction of the Gold Dinar as inter-exchange currency amongst Islamic nations and the awareness that Islamic oil fields are no long leased to US multinationals but renewals are rather signed over to Sino-Energy companies. This in itself was a open declaration of war to the PetroDollar.

For some the jump from Einstein to Democracy and political development of South East Asia is a bit far, but I am quite willing to expand on this and weave it further together for the other three guys...;)

[mackzulkifli]

Hahahaha,

You are definately on something man. Come on lah. Share.

Anyway, I am by far not as analytical as you buddy. Though I agree in the fundamental destruction of the family structure as it is now, I believe that there is a cycle in our social evolution. As past civilisations have proven, to build anew one has to deconstruct the past.

Secondly, when has failure been a bad thing? It is merely the excuse of a defeatist mind to judge the actions of others, hopefully to empower him with respect in the eyes of those who are sadfully taken by this line of argument, intellectual or not so but lacking wise judgement.

LKY and Mahathir were fragments of a time passed. While I hold deep respect for both these men, for rather than preach in some community forum, they got off their behinds and managed to build taller towers, larger buildings and sowed the seeds of future progression, immaterial if it contained the seeds of discontent or inspiration. A good that does good or a bad that does good is still better interms of end scenario than a post that does nothing more than condemn.

I think the family unit, barring the lineage of inducting new born sons to carry the surname, is merely an anthropological result of genetic build capability to widen the gene pool by assimilating the experience and strong survival capabilites developed by an earlier generation to further the newer one. Like you buy new computer lah, after that you transfer the data you got from old to new, so you don't lose it. What do you IT geeks call it? Migration ah?

The true foundation of society is the collective morals it imposes upon itself to advance it's status quo as time goes by and avoid destruction of species. However, there seems to be a phenomenon called change mechanics that allow a strong species with no place to evolve due to natural changes in climatic situation to die out in order for the currently weaker but with the ability to outpace the former in time, to be rid of one preadator and progress. The dinasours went, so maybe 3 millenia down the line a talking tree will be digging up my fossils and wondering what was the stain on my bones that I got from 10 years of smoking a plant like him.

Dr. Henry Lindner's has some other views as well, early on that is not so widely published and to date has more views. If you were to take every academicians view seriously, track them cross sequentially, well, first you will die of hunger, having no money to eat and secondly if some bloke gives you food, you will not eat it at all because you know what our modern diet does to our body and finally go insane after arguing with yourself for 24 hours straight and realising that both your arguments are logical.

This para for example,

Mahathir understood that in economics and politics alike the Anglo-American theory emphasizes how the game is played, not who wins or loses. If the rules are fair, then the best candidate would win. But Mahathir knew that the rules are never fair and are always bent to suit the stronger. This was one reason why he refused to deal with the IMF and did not accept their tempting terms.
In fact Mahathir informed all ASEAN tigerstates of the impoverishing attempts of IMF, which was rather embarrassing to the IMF who eventually failed to gain control over most Asian countries - unlike South America where they succeeded to impoverish all countries, which were in the 70s free of debt. Only Indonesia refused to listen to Mahathir and accepted the IMF terms and was subsequently impoverished.


Brother, have you heard of Dr. Nash, a schizo who figures out the game thoery? Well, if we are going to play who's more pseudo, I suggest you read the Prisoners Dillemma and assign Mahathir's thoughts in that para alone as
m1=he knows
m-1=he thinks he knows
m1(1-1)=he know but pretends to not know so people know he knows
m1(1)=he knows they know, they know he know, but haven't agreed on anything
etc.

m2=he decides to play with m1 shallow variable
m2(-1)= he decides to play knowing he might lose (gamble lah)
m2(-1)+(1+1)=he decides to play, they know he knows and vice versa and both parties plan to negotiate but is waiting for the game to begin, to assess negotiaating advantadges.
etc.

Oiya. That algorithm can kill you man. Rational calculus and quantitative evaluation of decision making, just to show everyone that the move was justified. Problem is, with deeper analysis the more severe the paralysis.

Like this lah, wanted to go out eat roti canai, stuck here already. See so bloody stupid.

Anyway, your copy paste statements don't impress me brother, not because I think you are stupid. Contrary to that, I believe you are preaching to the wrong bloody crowd. Jeff in Havard lah, send hin an email.

Meanwhile, In suggest you pseudo intellect your way to bed. It's getting late. Lack of sleep distorts decision making and also lowers general productivity. No money even more dangerous to the family architecture.

Jangan marah okay, I am just a concerned neighbour.

Nite nite.

[mackzulkifli]

Oh, just for conversation for the watercooler crowd to uplift you, the populace does not respect intelligence. It respects achievements and persuasive arguments. So a low IQ macha with high EQ can whack me silly in an election. But his high EQ will empower him with empathy and thus, he shall work for what is right to him, the common good of all. However some high IQ fella who lost to this macha, feeling insulted will use academic arguments to fool himself further of whom shud be the rightful victor. Essentially, when it gets critical and the academic emplys harmful cunning, the incumbent is drawn into it to protect his seat, with the common good in mind. Dr. Nash, why la you think of all this. Sigh.

Off for my roti canai.

Don't forget, drink water before bed and the go pee.

Cheers.

[mackzulkifli]

Jeff, if you are up to this to impress your Havard gang, when you get back I am going to pretend to be your girlfriend and post in your blog that I am pregnant.
:D

If not, Sorry ah brother. Playing only lah.

Risk mitigation. :eek:

[Maxi]

You are an insulting imposter who is not capable of an intellectual argument. Your doubtful claim of IQ148 says nothing about your intellectual abilities. Behind your statements is zero thought – only emotion. Einstein was in anycase right, with his classification.
Your claim, that Dr. Lindner has different views today, show that you are also a liar. Dr. Lindner happens to be a pen-pal of mine and we develop thoughts.
There is a difference quoting a Albert Einstein’s controversial statements – who’s remarks might insult some people, and a personal insult in a forum. The idea behind controversial statements is to aggravate people to analyze different thoughts and theories in a serious manner.

Intelligent people operate with arguments and words and not insults.
I give you however the benefit of the doubt that you are probably lacking more upbringing and manners than intelligence.

No offence – continue smoking and enjoy your Roti Chennai.

[wildbill]

Hi Maxi,

Mac was right and hit you right on the spot. It hurt, doesn't it?

As I saying, there is a fine line between a gen***** and a psy***.

[pcyeoh]

Maxi, how can you conclude your argument with "No offence" when you made the following statement on a good friend of mine - "Intelligent people operate with arguments and words and not insults. I give you however the benefit of the doubt that you are probably lacking more upbringing and manners than intelligence." Your very own statement also removes all doubts in me that it is another case of "the pot calling the kettle black" In this forum, people can claim anything and express freely their thoughts which are opened for rebuttal from people like you and me. But let us confine our rebuttling on his statement rather than the personality which incidentally is one of the rules of the forum. Saying "you are probably lacking more upbringing and manners than intelligence" is also insulting Mack's parents and this I cannot take it lying down. And labeling Mack as "an insulting imposter" just over one statement made out of jest is also beyond my comprehension. Sorry, I have to come to the defence of a good friend whom I have known just over 3 monthly teh tarik sessions, exactly 60 days and 202 postings in this forum.

[uchangeng]

Man are hunter, both eyes located in the forward direction of his face. Being a hunter, man is bornt opportunist.

People with brains are those perfect opportunists.

[mackzulkifli]

Well PC, sincerely, I thank you. It's reassuring to know that I have friends despite my often childish pranks.

Maxi, if you ask the regulars, I am rather new here too. I have never behaved in the manner you read last night and if that insulted you, than I retract what I said. I do however need to say this to you. I don't need you to believe if I am smart or stupid. You can scream bloody murder, I shall appear anywhere, in front of anyone and by mere conduct alone, I have been judged by men much greater than myself as a polite, affable and where I can, I try to stress that I have yet to gather the wisdom to do anyone much good. Yet.

As to your claims that I am an insulting imposter who is not capable of an intellectual argument, you are right. I prefer not to be insulted by being called an intellectual and I very seldom argue. When I do argue, it's over soccer. Not global politics.

Go, develop your thoughts with Dr Lindner, I am not worthy of your company nor time. You belong in the company of great minds, while I prefer great company over intellectual arguments that lead to no conclusion.

Yet, allow me to just dissect your intellectual thinking for a moment. This statement I made really irked you.

Dr. Henry Lindner's has some other views as well, early on that is not so widely published and to date has more views. If you were to take every academicians view seriously, track them cross sequentially, well, first you will die of hunger, having no money to eat and secondly if some bloke gives you food, you will not eat it at all because you know what our modern diet does to our body and finally go insane after arguing with yourself for 24 hours straight and realising that both your arguments are logical.


What I said here was Dr. Lindner has some other views early on that is not so widely published, which is true. Did I say he contradicted his current view? No. I was reffering to the development of his train of thought and the research methods he employed would require a cross sequential recording of key pertinent events that triggered an anti-thesis to his earlier thesis, the one he has his DR. in front of his name for. Eventually, he would reach his current conclusion, a synthesis. If you were to study it, it would be faultless. Why? As a post graduate student he compiled data and drew suppositions from it to advance a thought. Upon completion, he had time to see how event reacted to certain critial factors in his thesis. He compiled a list of anti-thesis, things exactly opposite of his PhD thesis and used them as a accuracy guide that led him to conclusively prove his thesis is strong on facts. That, becomes his synthesis and the basis of his lecture, or a chair in the field of his expertise.

I do not know the honourable Doc but I do know that generally, that is how researchers advance their thoughts. To truly know if something is right, you find what is wrong. You assign the case facts to the relevant wrong and rights and after a time, you have proof. That's developmental research.

So see, I did not say anything bad about Doc. In your haste you simply assumed I did. I was told this wos common among intellectuals. They focus so far ahead they dont see what is just ahead of them.

Thankfully for me, I am no intellectual. Actually, Sir, I am mentally retarded and have proof of that. They call it learning disability. So that is the reason you misunderstood me.

I actually took that tone last night to see if you could be a friend, for had you just laughed at me and said I was pulling your leg, I would have loved to share my roti canai with you.

If you were analytical, a simple click on my name would have pulled out all my posts for you to see that I am never rude, I always refuse to be confrontational and most times, I prefer to allow both sides of the argument to gain credence. In truth, my disability [sic] stupidity allows me to see both sides of the coin, so in most cases I am incapable of winning an argument.

Your statement is true.
This one,

Intelligent people operate with arguments and words and not insults.
I give you however the benefit of the doubt that you are probably lacking more upbringing and manners than intelligence.


I came from a broken home and while my mother worked in Kuala Lumpur, I stayed back in Penang, mostly unsupervised. As such, I fell into friendship with street urchins. The funny thing is, these guys are still my friends today and don't rely on intellectual arguments to keep each other happy. Just sincerity.

I think upbringing is reflected not by manners, for I might be short of that. I just saw your retorts and rants that no one would engage your intellectual challenge in here quite insulting to my fellow forummers and reminded me of a horny silverback gorilla thumping his chests to pick a fight.

So I did, I picked a fight in a manner that you could not possibly win. I picked a fight that had to display light hearted banter and complex use of nuances to imply a thought pattern. I chose the rule, who can talk most stupid and come out smarter.

Well, you have admitted I talked stupid.

I have admitted you are more intellectual.

But i do admit, i was smart enough to get you so riled up, you accused me of something I did not do. Lie about your pen pal.

See, sometimes stupid people can outwit intellects. That's called being round the block buddy, do it once in a while and you will see that if you see through humble eyes, the world is a nicer place.

Shoo.

[mackzulkifli]

Oh silly retard me. On your way out, please try not to step on whatever dignity you dropped when an intellect has to leave because a stupid rude and lacking of upbringing kid just made him look like an intellectual [sic] challenged.

And don't ever come back here trying to make the USJ people engage you so you may tell them how stupid they are. We might not be smart like you. But we are nice people who enjoy each other's company.

Now get lost and this time for good.

Chang, If I may

http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/search.php?searchid=11977

Analyse the post history, from Churchill to this.

I already knew last night this fine intellectual gentleman was picking a fight.

Apologise for my unusual behaviour. To all friends too. I'll have to curtail these childish pranks. The best would have been to ignore.

But you guys know lah. I have itchy fingers. :D

[wildbill]

No offence – continue smoking and enjoy your Roti Chennai.

Who is this Maxi guy, a Malaysian. I doubt it.

[mackzulkifli]

He is, using streamyx IP.

Very intelligent. I think PCYeah used that on me once while we were joking. He read up on me.

No need also. I wonder why though. Odd. Comes in on the 8th and baits with advertising posts and economics. LOL

Like big game hunter.

What's that alien movie? Predator?

:D

[kwchang]

Maxi, the following comments are just very very near the edge....

You are an insulting imposter who is not capable of an intellectual argument. ....you are probably lacking more upbringing and manners than intelligence.
and I bet you know it as well. So cool it man, we have some intellectual fisticuffs and leave it at that. Next time you get yellow carded, I promise.

Everyone can give his views, no one needs to agree. Just share your views and we leave the others to digest it. Same with everyone else. I don't agree with everyone but I let you people debate, intellectually and in a civilised manner.