In the middle of the desert you can say anything you want
Over the past 20 years, the role of Russian organised crime in Europe
has shifted considerably. Today, Russian criminals operate less on the
street and more in the shadows: as allies, facilitators and suppliers
for local European gangs and continent-wide criminal networks.
The Russian state is highly criminalised, and the interpenetration of
the criminal ‘underworld’ and the political ‘upperworld’ has led the
regime to use criminals from time to time as instruments of its rule.
Russian-based organised crime groups in Europe have been used for a
variety of purposes, including as sources of ‘black cash’, to launch
cyber attacks, to wield political influence, to traffic people and
goods, and even to carry out targeted assassinations on behalf of the
Kremlin.
European states and institutions need to consider RBOC a security as
much as a criminal problem, and adopt measures to combat it, including
concentrating on targeting their assets, sharing information between
security and law-enforcement agencies, and accepting the need to devote
political and economic capital to the challenge.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/21959/21959-h/21959-h.htm full text of the book
College doesn’t make fools; it develops them. It doesn’t make bright men; it develops them. A fool will turn out a fool, whether he goes to college or not, though he’ll probably turn out a different sort of a fool.
Personality, IQ, reading ability in teenagers, and income are affected negligibly by the “shared environment” contribution. Drug abuse is also very heritable and not much affected by parenting.
Reading ability in children and grades in teenagers have a sizable (but minority) shared environment component; reading ability in toddlers is mostly affected by shared environment. Grades are generally less IQ-correlated than test scores, and are highly affected by school engagement and levels of “externalizing” behavior (disruptive behavior, inattention, criminal/delinquent activity.) Antisocial and criminal behavior has a sizable (but minority) shared environment component. You may be able to influence your kids to behave better and study harder, and you can definitely teach your kids to read younger, though a lot of this may turn out to be a wash by the time your kids reach adulthood.
‘‘‘Having a mother — even an adoptive mother, but not a father — with major depression puts children at risk for major depression, drug abuse, and externalizing behavior. Conflict at home ‘‘‘also predicts externalizing behavior in teenagers. Mothers of teenagers who treat them well are more likely to have teenagers who have loving and secure relationships with them. Basically, if I were to draw a conclusion from this, it would be that it’s good to have a peaceful and loving home and a mentally healthy mom. Father’s income and family income, but not mother’s income, predicts years of schooling; I’m guessing that this is because richer families can afford to send their kids to school for longer. You can, obviously, help your kids go to college by paying for it.
Written in 1908!
staves == sigils
If you wear a white coat that you believe belongs to a doctor, your ability to pay attention increases sharply. But if you wear the same white coat believing it belongs to a painter, you will show no such improvement.
Distribution targeted at SE, linked from https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialEngineering/comments/64xu55/til_there_is_a_free_osintoriented_linux_distro/ Might be interesting for the tools; todo: research existing SE/OSINT tools, didn’t do this since the Cree.py times
intelligence and thinking skill are not
directly related
Verbal facility: Intelligent people learn that well-articulated
is often mistaken by others for
well-thought-out. Since verbal skills come
easier than thinking skills, the intelligent person is
tempted to substitute the former for the
latter.
Backdoor commitment: An intelligent person can create a
rational and articulate argument to support
almost any position, sometimes without even examining it.
It is very easy for him to then slip into having an emotional stake in
the position, not because he has critically evalutated it, but simply
because he has pride of ownership of the argument in its favor.
Bias toward criticism: If you advocate an idea,
you make yourself vulnerable to the
criticism of others. If you shoot down
others’ ideas, you get to be the one
who showed others they were wrong. This
behavior can be very seductive. It is also
self-reinforcing: once you have been the critic for a while, you
visualize others doing to your ideas what you routinely do to theirs,
and are therefore even less inclined to put forward new ideas of your
own.
The “Everest effect”: Intelligent people often seem to prefer reactive
and analytic thinking over projective and synthetic thinking. In
reactive thinking the problem is there before you and you have to
respond, usually on the problem’s own terms. In projective thinking, you
have to find the problem, the objectives, and the solution space.
Reactive and analytic thinking appeals to intelligent people the way a
big mountain appeals to skilled mountain climbers: because it’s there.
However, most of the important problems in life require projective and
synthetic thinking.
Is this what MBTI calls rationality vs intuition? + in indian mythology there was something about the logic that divides to atoms to understand vs logic which understands things by having them whole
Speed: Because an intelligent person can reach a conclusion without walking through all the intermediate steps, he is tempted to do so. But some of the intermediate steps may be important and reveal considerations that make the easy conclusion inappropriate.
See suggestions that cognitive bias is mildly correlated with iq; find better sources than http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/why-smart-people-are-stupid
Bias toward cleverness: There are greater social rewards for demonstrated cleverness than for demonstrated wisdom. This can lead the intelligent person to habitually retreat into cleverness.
How is this different from “Everest effect” and “Bias towards criticism”?
gi
general relationship between the initial intensity of something and the smallest detectable increment is exactly what Weber noticed and formalized into “Weber’s Law”.
Another take on this is http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/biomedical/bionics/does-the-brain-work-logarithmically Relevant: about how easy it is to point at stuff I need a category for the intersection between Psychology and mathematical laws