Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Avoiding Paranoia

Post  Shelby Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:15 pm

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:To eliminate paranoia, did you access an opportunity cost risk calculation on a probabilistic basis between carrying or not?

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:> Where would I get the numbers to plug into a formula

That was my point. Why expend into activities where the opportunity cost calculation is random?

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:I am not babbling, perhaps you just don't comprehend. It wouldn't be just the Nth time. You commanded me to be brief.

I am saying it makes no sense to expend effort in areas where you don't have good data on the opportunity cost, if there are other areas where you do have good data and the opportunity cost is compelling.

I wouldn't waste my time creating my own swords, building computers from breadboards, training myself in armed combat, etc.., although I did do all of those activities before I became a teenager and learned some economics theory. Haven't you ever heard of the economic concept maximum division-of-labor?

If I thought I had a real security threat, I would hire a security expert or move. Your armed combat skills are as useless as video game against some expert determined threat. You are overgrown kid, who wants to play dungeons and dragons his whole life.

Last edited by Shelby on Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:36 am; edited 2 times in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty fight or flight impulse

Post  Shelby Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:12 pm

And this one is very scientific :rolleyes:, it demonstrates our evolutionary fight or flight impulse in uncontrollabe:


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty IQ

Post  Shelby Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:55 am

This may seem like a narcissistic post, but I am genuinely trying to figure out what is the utility of the IQ and SAT tests, and what are the caveats.

I finally figured out what exactly is the type of genius IQ that I apparently have, and why it is not reflected entirely in my IQ scores (real IQ test in elementary, online IQ tests, SAT, ACT scores) which range from 128 - 138 (note on the 138 score I actually disagreed with the test on philosophy question, and I am correct, which would have put me above 140).

Specifically I have the ability to visualize and simplify relationships in my head, as if I am seeing them:

I remember this started very young, where I would lay in bed before falling asleep and I could work out complex scenarios in my head, whether it be alternative possibilities for movie I had watched (especially those hated "Come back next week to see what happens") and even working out solutions to equations and math problems in my head. For example, I often do complex math in my head by factoring out the common roots, e.g. if you ask me to multiply two long numbers, e.g. 288 and 532, what I first do is multiply 200 x 500, then I add 80 x 500, add 8 x 500, etc..

There is a photo of me as an infant (1-2 years old?) constructing things with a plastic hammer and working out how the complex shapes of plastic toys can fit together or inside others, as well my Mom said I was the only child she knew that took all of his toys apart. What caused me to enter computers was I took apart my electronic games and ended up at a black chip with silver legs, and I went to Radio Shack to buy a book on digital logic so I could learn what those things do. That is probably not that unique among those who became engineers, but perhaps I am even more visionary than most of them, which is what I have generally found in my limited dealings with other engineers. There are few who were way out in the stratosphere, for example Adam who I worked on Poser at Fractal, but I can't remember his last name. He was all over the potential of nanotech back in 1995.

Contrast this against some of the kinds of IQ that you need to score very high on an IQ or SAT test:

* language ability: This could include the ability to complete sentences or recognize words when letters have been rearranged or removed.

I struggle with these, because these involve assimilating large stores of memory. Rather what my IQ excels at is working with a smaller set (10 to 100) of variables that describe a complex set of intersecting manifolds (solutions spaces). I excel in creativity, i.e. visualization of solutions or outcomes. I do not excel is storing large data sets and assimilating them, but I can do this above average (120s IQ), but no where near genius.

I also notice I have mild dyslexia, often spelling "must" as "much", typing words or letters in wrong order. Usually I catch these on 2nd reading. I think it is caused because my brain short-circuits (takes a short cut) when engrossed in relaying the solutions sets to the output, which inherently can not be not a bijective operation.

* spatial ability: the ability to visualize manipulation of shapes
* mathematical ability: the ability to solve problems and use logic

Example of my ability:

See if you can solve this puzzle (I did in the above link):

"what is the area of the outer circle in terms of the defined distances?"
Psychology - Page 2 Mon_p_10


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Applying degrees-of-freedom to feminism and other socially binding "rights"

Post  Shelby Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:36 pm

Shelby wrote:
The feminist accuser is privileged because "she" seeks social castration of the accused who has violated her right to equal everything. The accused lives without obligating others to confirm his right to his penis and testosterone. Fundamentally, "rights" are the antithesis of freedom. If equal distribution were possible, then perfection would be possible and nothing would exist, i.e. if the economic cost of arriving at 100% coverage of any natural phenomena were not asymptotically infinite. Put another way, knowledge requires (or is) degrees-of-freedom, thus the feminist is ignorance directed because "she" attempts to lower the degrees-of-freedom of the male, such that his actions must dovetail with her perceived rights. The distinction between rights and (social) harmony or resonance, is that the amount of power required to obtain work is proportional to friction, thus truly harming others is inefficient and ignorance directed. Tolerance unbinds and leads to greater diversity and more degrees-of-freedom.

Shelby wrote:
Some of both sexes may perceive themselves vulnerable to economic rape by fascism that can evolve from statism. An armed citizenry is more effective than police who arrive even 1 second after ejaculation. Thus the female has a free market option that doesn't enslave herself in social force, which also does not bind the freedom of people who want to flirt and copulate. But for the feminist, preventing the rape is not enough and she is willing to sacrifice her own future freedom in exchange for preventing acts that lead to nature's intercourse, such as flirting with a sexy woman or being sexy.

Last edited by Shelby on Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Optimal size (or mode) of political structures

Post  Shelby Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:41 pm

Even amongst those who recognize that the centralized government is strangling us, and even those who see that fiat is a way to steal and control the people, they would advocate a centralized legal tender gold standard, or some kind of local enforcement of private banks competing to issue money (to try to regulate against the bank runs we had on fraudulent banks doing fractional reserves in the 1800s). In other words, they always think that somehow we need to prevent the people from hurting themselves. When in fact what we need is for people to not bind each other in centralized structures that have lower, or no degrees-of-freedom other than redistribution and theft.

I stated the problem is the Dunbar number limitation, where when a society grows larger than the number of people who can all know each other personally and anneal decision processes as numerous individual decisions in a free market, then decisions are made by proxy, because there is no information flow, i.e. there is no way to optimize the decisions so that everyone maintains their degrees-of-freedom. This proxy is created by the power vacuum, i.e. that power is needed because of the friction of competing interests in a large enough society where the Dunbar limitation prevents cognizant coordination of individual decisions.

Remember I stated that Copute could potentially overcome the Dunbar number limitations, i.e the number of people we can reliably know well enough to have an informed view of the functioning (or non-functioning) of the society (i.e. coordinated progress). The theory of Copute is to make knowledge fungible so that human societies mathematically perform more like ant colonies, where each ant is getting smarter due to the value of the networking effects, e.g. "Google is my external memory":

Catherine Austin Fitts' (, former USA HUD undersecretary and WallStreet insider) did something conceptually similar with a program of community efficiency through maximization of resources based on the transparency of money flows using the computer information network she developed. Early results from the program promised phenomenal results for areas the size of small to medium size counties and could have been easily scaled up. As always, free information flow and absolute transparency are the key factors. Her program also had the promise of eliminating corruption, waste, fraud, and was putting people to productive work who otherwise would have been on unemployment or public assistance.

The key observation is that it enabled statistical information transparency, which enabled informed decisions, for more than just a small group that can know each other personally. But her paradigm failed politically, because its weakness is it required centralized or hierarchical (i.e. top-down) action, thus it was attacked and shut down.

Copute deviates in that each person contributes without concern or even necessary awarenes of what others might be doing (i.e. bottom-up), yet due to the technical foundations, these contributions do not bind each other and thus do not result in political gridlock. Copute in theory breaks through the Dunbar number limitation of coordinated progress. And it is impossible to attack and shutdown Copute. It is an idea, and the code is open source. Once it gets momentum, it is not easy for anyone to put a profitable idea and digitally copied code back in the bottle.

Also note, human behavior is more like pack animals than herd animals or lone predators. This is so hard-wired that humans will readily follow slick and untrustworthy leaders who use words to appeal to their emotions and is the reason organized religion and philosophy (including atheism, feminism, environmentalism, etc) has been so useful to the ruling elite. The only way this tendency can be effectively countered is with early education on how to think critically and independently - it will set the brain patterns for life.

On the positive note, as you have agreed, the elite are reaching the point of law of diminishing returns, so information flow is busting out all over the place, and they can not contain it. Those who don't avail of this information to free themselves (even from their vested interests, e.g. those reliant on food stamps, medicare, etc), will go down with the Titantic.

> BTW, Fitts' program was not part of a govt program, it was a private venture of her
> Hamilton Securities investment management firm - so, it didn't require centralized action
> or rely on govt funding but it did watch the flow of govt money into and out of the
> community and that was too much transparency for a criminal government.

Agreed that is what I meant by top-down. It required centralized collection of data and illuminated fraud and waste in the centralized system. Thus it required to make adjustments from the top-down, removing waste as seen from the top.

What I am proposing is a system that anneals from the bottom-up, without any one actually deciding or even knowing how it is annealing.

Free market systems have the quality that you can't actually see how they are optimizing, you only see the optimum results.


> Your method is too reductionist as if human beings and their societies can
> be adequately represented by equations. Not so, certainly not by the
> relatively crude methods we have to represent complex abstractions, many
> of which have only a marginal degree of being quantitative.
> Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, humans can rationalize
> murder because that level of violence is inherent in those parts of our
> central nervous system represented by the reptilian and mammalian brains.
> As you correctly make the point, the word "rights" has become overused
> and thus nearly meaningless. Classic liberal philosophy (basically
> Libertarians) contends that humans should be allowed to live their lives
> as freely as possible as long as they way they live their life does not
> impinge on the freedom of another. A physical attack violates this
> philosophy, irrespective of hormonal urges.

Please see my prior post where I discuss feminism.

Exactly what I wrote. It reduces the degrees-of-freedom of both the attacked and the attacker. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not fail to abstract-- it is the most fundamental quality of nature (because it follows directly from what is necessary to exist, as I have explained by explaining why nature can't be linear, equal, perfection, nor perfectly measurable, i.e. dimensioned).

The attacked will get more degrees-of-freedom (and not enslave themself by encouraging a centralized apparatus that naturally morphs to other issues, e.g. natural foods fascism), if they prevent that outcome by arming themselves, instead of expecting the police and government to protect them. Which btw is impossible, because the police are always at least 15 minutes too late. And the supposed comparatively greater deterrence for police versus a well armed citizenry is a lie if you look up the statistics.

> The gray area in the issue of minority "rights" to special or fair
> treatment (e.g. preference for hiring or admission to schools) is best
> handled by a like-minded community that decides to vote with its
> pocketbook and ostracization of those businesses and people who violate
> what that community considers to be socially reasonable behavior.

That doesn't work. Imagine I live in the community, the democracy passes a law that infringes my degrees-of-freedom, because it is not a 0 cost for me to move ex post facto. The society doesn't compensate me for their theft.

Redistribution via "rights" is theft, no matter how you slice it, because it decreases the degrees-of-freedom.

This is precisely why I am creating Copute, because you can never get away from people wanting to get something for free, by joining together. Precisely what 1 Samuel 8 says. The people are not satisfied to be one with God, they want to get together so the King can give them something (degrees-of-freedom) taken from the whole.

Why people want to enslave themselves? Ignorance.

> The
> fittest level of organization for humans is a meritocracy with a strong
> sense of compassion and voluntary assistance for those who are physically
> or mentally weaker.

Yes when the charity is done from individuals to other individuals by their their choice, not as an edict of the law for a collection of people of which less than 100% agree.

> A combination of efficiency and humane treatment
> generates a high level of dignity for the group, so better survival
> overall.

Indeed, that is why charity starts in the heart, and must not end up in the law.

> Doesn't the bible say something about being judged by how the
> least among us are treated? Of course, there is also the golden rule - do
> unto others and you would have them do unto you.

Most definitely. But each of us acting on our own choice to voluntary do things of our initiative actually increases the knowledge in the system, i.e. increases the degrees-of-freedom. If you instead codify this in law, it is always redistributive.


> We seem to mostly agree here.
> I'd say though that you are hasty in believing shared community value cannot
> be effectively reinforced through peer pressure as I suggest. I didn't say law
> because law is really just a formality and layer of red tape of the same system
> of community level negative reinforcement directed at those who behave in a way
> that is fundamentally abusive to the rest of the community. I just used your ongoing
> example of the general idea of "rights" thinking in broader terms of, for example, a
> community shunning a member who cheats or abuses a citizen merely because he or she
> doesn't like their race, gender, or age. Instead of calling a tribunal to intervene and issuing
> fines, it is more efficient to spread knowledge of the abusers' actions and let the community
> refuse to do any business with them or assist them in other ways.

I find social pressure to be revolting. I love people, and I see no need for it.

Can you give me an example of a kind of abuse that would require social pressure?

I bet you will find that all cases can be handled by ignoring the person or shooting them if they are trespassing on your clearly marked "No Trespassing" private property.

Here in the Third World, there are no zoning laws, so if neighbor puts pig shit, noisy male rooster, karaoke at 120db, etc.. in their yard, then I am screwed. I don't like it, but I admit it caused me to not even contemplate wasting money on buying a small lot. Instead I rent, so I can move if something develops that I don't like. I realize now this is much more free market than the system of westerners who bind themselves in delusions of perfection (bubbling underneath is all the reality, then they are shocked when it rises to the surface, yet they still continue to think they can achieve a Utopian society).

I kind of like it like here in Third World now, it is more real.

So my views have been highly influenced by my experience here, although I always sort of leaned this way my entire life and perhaps I don't know why. I guess because I love freedom and thus peer pressure feels so limiting and irrational. It is not like peer pressure actually works, but yet the westerners continue to delude themselves and ignore the crap that seeps out of their Utopian cartoon life. Or they try to blame the crap on each other (i.e. the false war between various political positions) or on other things. In reality, all humans have the same shared goals, which is to prosper and be happy. If we stop making the same stupid mistake of deluding ourselves on Utopian fantasies, then we could stop feeding the beast of our own enslavement.

> Again, in a pack style of social organization, this is how discipline for optimal survival
> of the group tends to operate. Ostracism from the group often means certain death in the animal kingdom.

Yeah maybe I am trying to get rid of that irrational survival mechanism that no longer applies with the principle of maximum division-of-labor.

> The neoconservatives (Rothschilds and their ilk) would prefer human organization to be
> like that of bees. Clone-like slave workers serving a super elite oligarchy.

Agreed, I don't believe work should be monotonic drudgery, instead I think it should be inspiring, creative, and dignified.

I hope you noted the key phrase in my summary of my "ant like" model for Copute, where I said the individual ants become empowered by the network. Each human "ant" is able to fully leverage the network as their massive external memory and extended senses.

> Their ideological writers, like Strauss, the so-called father of neoconservatism, claim nature
> supports their survival of the fittest (real translation: most rapacious) attitude and the
> absence of any general code of morality (e.g. golden rule),

They believe in a zero-sum game, where the pie shrinks or doesn't increase, and thus they gain by stealing. I believe in expanding the pie by increasing degrees-of-freedom and thus increasing knowledge and prosperity. Unfortunately, people can't seem to get away from their arcane pack/tribe instincts, and so they always slip back into the same Utopian BS. That is why I am doing Copute, so they do not realize they are in the "ant like" network, they just reap the benefits.

My morality is rational. If I decrease your freedom or truly hurt you, I decrease mine and hurt myself too.

> yet they stand on
> ideological quick-sand using incorrect arguments on evolution and fitness.
> They can't grasp that millions of years evolution leading to homosapiens
> has created a species that is best adapted to using its large neocortex for adaptability,
> diversity, open communication, and learning - that is the resiliency that allowed it to
> become the dominant species on the planet. This force of human nature is so powerful
> that it cannot be subdued even with their centuries of meddling and attempts to pacify
> natural urges for autonomy with drugs, entertainment, and a hologram society.
> That's why, in desperation, people like Ray Kurzweil, fantasize of a way to split humans into two genetic castes.

Agreed on that. The humans aren't dumb in the network, it is just that the free market looks robotic if you are watching it work, e.g. watching ants do their actions, but then at the end we see the 20 foot mud castle art result, and we realize there is intelligence in there.

From the top level, the ants look dumb, i.e. free markets look disordered or uncorrelated to their final result, but I the participants in the network don't view themselves that way. And we will not see ourselves as dumbed down by a network that empowers us to maximize our knowledge.


I am not saying we don't need each other. I would like to see us lean on each other more for love, knowledge, and prosperity, not just when we need to mess with people in the group. Wouldn't that be nice that we came together for positive reasons, and not enforcement reasons?

> Here is an example. Most small groups, communities, or tribes tend to
> rely on central water sources whether it is a fresh water lake or a river
> source. The survival of the group depends on access to this resource.
> If someone deliberately pollutes this source so that it can no longer be
> used without risk of grave illness or death, then the group has no choice
> but to force the offender to permanently stop or leave the area. I am not
> talking about social conformity for the sake of "fitting in" and looking
> and acting like everyone else. This is about survival of the group which
> can manifest in various ways.

You don't need groupwise "peer pressure" for that. One person in the community can shoot the person and then it is finished. Assuming the offending party wouldn't listen to common sense from a few of his neighbors. Also if it is a corporation doing it, then the community might have to organize temporarily if they can't drive the result via boycott.

I am not worried about people wrongly shooting each other, because when everyone is armed, those who shoot unjustly will be shot by the rest.

There is a very important distinction I want you to appreciate here. The peer pressure is not easy to attain. You have to risk you own life, so your judgment of support from the peers has a very high bar. This keeps peer pressure from degrading into that Utopian nonsense and browbeating crap.

Why are people so afraid of being armed and responsible? Because it is easier to suck up to the tit of socialism and be mind programmed by TV. Ignorance is easy. Responsibility is difficult.

> The problem here is that our assumptions on the nature of the hypothetical
> group/community are different. Also, you assume that without a basic
> structure of acceptable behavior some form of anarchy will not occur. We
> have no human example of that, so it shouldn't be assumed.

We have proof of it. It is the 1800s, when the USA was the fastest growing and most prosperous nation ever seen on the face of this earth.

> Constant
> chaos in a group lowers its survival chances.

USA wouldn't have made it this far without that firm foundation of chaos in the 1800s. Now we've pretty much exhausted it. Those who avoid going back to it, are going to perish and suffer Utopian eugenics. Those who go back to high entropy are going to survive and breed.

> Even the most simple
> hunter gatherer communities still found to exist in their natural state in
> the early to mid 20th century had a basic sense of acceptable behavior.

Yes pack instinct was important then. But now in the knowledge age (where physical issues are insignificant compared to knowledge disparity) it is a liability.

> The essence of rules vs. no rules in this general debate is a matter of
> degree not kind. Rejecting authoritarianism and centralization does not
> require one to be an anarchist.

Anarchism has a wrong meaning for most people. Actually high entropy means freedom and prosperity, not mayhem and destruction.

> Since humans first walked this planet, I
> guarantee you that this issue has been and always will be that of a
> pendulum rather than an on/off switch.

The off is getting orders-of-magnitude less off on each swing, because the value of knowledge is rising orders-of-magnitude higher than the value of physical locality.

We are about to see a massive transformation. We already are. These programmers are earning $150,000+ per year while the rest are unemployable due to lack of knowledge skills.

> I understand your excellent examples of life in the Third World and how
> that mostly unregulated society is preferable and more sustainable than
> the way things are done in the U.S. As Catherine Austin Fitts says, the
> empire has created too many artificial layers of complexity, that gives
> them more control and more ways to steal wealth.

Almost all of it is friction and not helping. I can not think of one practical example that requires a government or groupwise social action.

It can all be done with private capitalism and the annealing of choice.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Excellent explanation of junk science warning signs

Post  Shelby Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:18 am

Mass hysteria or "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds":


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Inheritability of IQ doesn't render social engineering ineffectual

Post  Shelby Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:57 am

Shelby wrote:
As for social engineering, arguments for inheritability of IQ could lead to government regulation of reproduction.

If IQ is inheritable (regardless of financial support) and a determinant of abilities that impact evolutionary outcomes, then the ability to impregnate as many (smart) women as possible would be an evolutionary advantage. I think there has been some discussion in past that other factors are more important than IQ above a certain threshold, e.g. 115 - 130 or so, thus it may not be necessary to impregnate a very smart woman.

My experience thus far (age 46), is my IQ has tested some where in the range of 130 - 140, I thrice impregnated someone whose IQ is probably in the 100 - 105 range. The kids' IQ seems to be very close to mine, perhaps 10 points lower. So in terms of evolution, perhaps the IQ of the mate is not as important as the ability to impregnate as many women as possible.

Right now, I could impregnate a different woman every week, if that was what I thought was best for all parties involved.

I am doubting any single statistic is an evolutionary determinant. If there was one dominant metric of evolutionary outcome, then knowledge wouldn't exist because everything would be static. Remember in the blog about software engineering, we concluded that software is the encoding of knowledge and that is why software is not like other engineering, because the software product is never static and finished.

Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem tells us that without infinite samples, we will have aliasing error w.r.t. some perspective, in a world of several billion different situations, e.g. esr can't fix the plumbing on my neighbor's house (nor impregnate her) with his 160 IQ, because it isn't efficient (free market) for him to be every where and do everything. We must try to remember that each of our perspectives is flawed as a general model for society-- nature requires diversity and dynamism for the free market and knowledge to function.

Applying those concepts, I can conclude that collectivism of any form (especially insurance) is guaranteed gridlock. Problem with insurance is that the group should only pay for the damages collectively as they occur, not as some model over time that guarantees failure, e.g. any savings pool can't be invested with guarantees without bonds, and yet bonds destroy the free market. I have gone into this in great detail else where.

Suffice it to say, that all forms of futures contracts inhibit the fitness of the free market. Ditto IQ as a contract of future performance.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Math IQ of an autistic person

Post  Shelby Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:39 am;housing

See at the 3:04 point in the video, the kid is visualizing the structure of 3 x 3 x 3 = 27, but visualizing the number 3 as a triangle, the 3 x 3 is a (yellow) triangle on each corner of a (red) triangle. Then 3 x 3 x 3 is a (green) triangle on each corner of a (yellow) triangle, which is on each corner of a (red) triangle.

The interesting thing is that he is memorizing numbers not as words, but as geometric shapes. Thus he formulating a generative structure of the mathematical concept. I would be very interested to see how he visualizes the structure of the derivation (or pattern in the number) of PI, which enables him to recite the digits.

I read his also explained how to do multiplication in your head using intersection of lines:

Psychology - Page 2 10006.1.1

This is nothing new. I knew this method when I was Grade 3. Drawing lines is mimic the process of digits multiplying. This case is 21x13, in the form of Binomial theorem it is (20+1)x(10+3) which can be expanded as 20*10 + (20*3 + 10*1) + 1*3, in another form it is 2*100 + (6 + 1)*10 + 3 = 273. This is same process how the video shows adding each digit unit together. Drawing lines could be funny for kids who are trying to learn multiplying, however, it is useless while applying to big numbers.

Interesting, but I can do that faster in my head by breaking it into parts:

22 x 10 = 220 + 22 x 3 = 220 + 66 = 286

I can write backwards and visualize complex nested geometric dimensions as he does here:

But what I cannot do is memorize a long sequential list:;housing

Rather I can memorize a pattern that I can see all at one time. It is this lack of exceptional memory capabilities, which has me scoring lower on IQ tests. That is why I say my IQ is very high (probably genuis, i.e. 140s to 160s) in the generative essense realm (Math visualization), but my average memory capabilities hamstrings me so that I tend to score 120s to 130s on IQ.

There is a photo of me as a baby disassembling things and reassembling them, similar to Jake and the cereal box photo. Also my mother said I was the only kid she ever heard of that disassembled all of his toys after quickly getting bored of playing with them. I worked for Tom Hedges who had this same photographic memory, and he said I had a special talent. I remember I fixed a bug in Mark Zimmer's (another genius) code with unraveling the grain, that was particularly convoluted. I am very good with complex nested relationships.

For example, I can think faster than what he is explaining here:

200 smartest ever:

Here is an interesting IQ test problem, which demonstrates my IQ. You can draw 4 lines and each line must begin where the prior one started. Connect all the 9 dots.

* * *
* * *
* * *

Here is how I reasoned about the solution.

  1. If I start at a dot and intersect 2 new dots per line, I get 9 dots. But the problem is there is no pattern where lines can start and end at dots, where the last line does not end at an already intersected dot. Thus the last line only intersects 1 new dot. Thus I conclude the only possible solution must include lines that don't always end on a dot. I studied the rules again and conclude that is not prevented by the rules.
  2. Any first line that intersects 3 dots and does not end on a dot, will only allow a 2nd line that intersects 2 dots, or vice versa, this is because all the lines that can intersect more than one dot either run parallel or perpendicular to each other.
  3. Thus the only possible solution would have to use a starting line that intersects three or two dots and does not end on a dot, and at least one line intersects 3 new dots and the others 2 new dots. You can reverse the order of the lines to get the pattern that starts with line that intersects only 2 dots.
    Psychology - Page 2 Default

Btw, here is an impossible one that "nobody could solve", which I solved just now:

The rules says the lines can't cross, but it doesn't say that they can't meet at the same junction box, thus:


In the above we are not connecting houses to each other, rather connection from the junction box to the next house. Okay so I cheated, but as the video points out there is no solution unless there is hole. The Junction box serves as a hole.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty The genius with photographic memory that I worked for

Post  Shelby Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:21 am

We were producing what become Corel Painter, the world's most popular commercial natural media painting software (the one you use a pressure tablet with and originally was distributed in a real 1 gallon paint can):


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Negs in Pick-Up Artist theory

Post  Shelby Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:48 pm

JustSaying (Shelby) wrote:
> at least so far as I’ve yet seen, have a generative explanation for why women friend-zone nice guys and fuck bad boys

> the only plausible explanation I can come up with is that in the EEA, when early humans
> lived in small hunting bands, the behaviors modern assholes now use to fake alpha must
> have been reliable indicators of superior status

Another possible explanation which I find more plausible is negs may place females in the emotional state of being dominated by an alpha. A bitchy female is projecting that she views herself as worthy of only an alpha male, the bitchiness is to chase away the lesser males, so as to not clutter her limited time window for reproduction.

Temporal social status or raw IQ alone may not be a reliable enough indicator of the dominant or successful genetics over the long-term. Evolution may have evolved the alpha females to be seek other cues of competitiveness. And/or given the emotional lean of females which I suppose is necessary for child rearing, combined with the inexact means which a female can readily measure genetic fitness, the feeling of being dominated and mating with a potential alpha may be one possible strategy. We are not observing that all females pursue this "negs" metric strategy, though nearly all will chose to be dominated (in their "instinctive hindbrain") by the metric or strategy they have chosen to determine alpha genetics:

> The neg must be seen as fundamentally an equalizer of relative status in field, and, arguably,
> what a woman has done to deserve it is to think she’s “too good for you”. It is intended to
> puncture bloated egos, especially of highly attractive women with “bitch shields” who will
> literally not give you the time of day unless you deploy it.

@Ken Burnside
> I have used ‘negs’ – Eric does misunderstand them; they’re meant to be a signal for “I see
> through your bullshit, but understand why you have to do it.”

Both comments are congruent with my theory above.

> To tie it all up: Statism, whether you call it liberalism, progressivism, socialism, whatever, is
> essentially about turning everyone into betas or herbs. Individualism, in all its forms, is about
> turning everyone into alphas or sigmas.

The alphas need the social control system. The sigmas can compete with alphas yet don't crave control because they win without social control:

@M. Simon
> comfortable with the ins and outs of the nasty alpha – she knows I have a roving eye
> My favorite “line”? “Sleep with me naked. No sex.” You could see the wheels turning. She
> thinks, “If I get naked there WILL be sex.” And then I would sleep with her naked. No sex. In
> about 3/4s of the cases she would come back gagging for it... Her thinking? “Is there
> something wrong with me? Is he gay? I have to find out.” And in the other 1/4 of the cases?
> I got to sleep with a naked woman.

Clever but probably a beta prop. Alphas and sigmas have more important things to do in developing and maintaining their USPs and more open crotches to choose from than free time.

> It seems like guys are either too beta or too alpha, and so as a girl you need to choose between
> having a boyfriend you’re not attracted to or a fuck-buddy whom you are. If you’re like me, and
> choose neither, it can get kind of lonely.

The only way to pass on your genetics is to mate. Many females apparently choose a strategy that balances mating as high up genetically as they can, while not destroying the rearing potential of the offspring. One strategy is using betas for rearing assistance while mating with alphas. Others such as Marie advocate the more conservative strategy of mating and rearing with a beta (or perhaps a perceived "alpha" per my theory above). There are numerous possible strategies. Shenpen pointed out that older females are nearer to the end of their reproductive window and are more likely to prioritize a perceived beta for the rearing stage.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Why we have emotions

Post  Shelby Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:17 am

JustSaying (Shelby) wrote:
> A group with a charismatic leader might do better yet, as synergy and innovation
> might allow them to bring down a mammoth and eat for a month.
> In this sense, the charismatic leader arises as a mutation in society and either helps
> (leading to enhanced survival/prosperity) or hurts (leading to an evolutionary dead-end).
> Either way, the social propensity to “follow the leader” is an evolutionary trait.
> As a side note, humor as a charismatic skill may be a way of implying that you are
> neither a threat nor an enemy. Weirdness goes hand-in-hand with mutation.

Attraction to weirdness (as a signal of uniqueness) could plausibly populate diversity in the gene pool enabling adaption to unknown future challenges to survival.

Evolution rewarding individuality (regardless of a priori judgments of value) is a cool theory for anarchist, in light of the discussion (in the prior blog #4757) debating whether equality and social justice may lead to dystopian political correctness a.k.a. Doublethink.

Regarding your "either way"...

> Lazarus posited that emotions result from first a conscious or hindbrain appraisal.
> Emotions apparently motivate humans to choose successful evolutionary strategies.

A mathematical theory of why we have fuzzy emotions.

Evolution may maximize diversity of trial balloons, thus exists our fuzzy emotional system to motivate us to make it so.

Given fuzzy metrics, this is a probabilistic outcome similar to esr's maximize breadth of options (see blog #4699) strategic insight. For example, I posited that 'negs' in PUA theory, may be triggering the emotional desire of a female to be dominated, as a signal of a potential alpha (respecting Occam's razor and orthogonal to any more difficult to falsify theory of why harsh dominance is an evolutionary signal of alpha-ness). There is a theory of how this relates to degrees-of-freedom in terms of solving for the dynamic local and global optimum pathway(s) to the dynamic, unknown future.

Our emotions help us to make decisions. Therefor they must have some evolutionary purpose.

I am positing that emotions are purposely inexact decision tools, so as to motivate us to try a wide range of options, in order to maximize the genetic pool.

The first and third links in my prior opening post, going into the advantage of why such a maximization of options, leads to the winning outcome (whether it be board games or I am positing also evolution and the game of life).

Last edited by Shelby on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Why banksters must exist

Post  Shelby Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:26 am

@peri1224 wrote:
... $7 and $7841 remain true and verifiable in the books ...

Incorrect. $100 and $7841 is the correct cherry-picked calculation. $7 is double-counting of inflation. If you want to discount the value of the 1930-issued $100 bill I am holding today, then you must also discount the $7841 of 1930 manufactured gold that I am holding today.

Thus you can either say $100 vs. $7841, or you can say $7 vs. $549, where $549 = $7841 x 7 ÷ 100.

@peri1224 wrote:
And surprisingly it even absolves the banks somewhat...

(gold standard)...That is free market in action without bankster manipulation...

...Why you would go and defend these !#*%@# banksters and their money printing is beyond me.

@silverFalcon wrote:
...Can you believe the scam the came up with years ago? "We will own this planet for little bit of paper" - and they will (having banks, US army to enforce their actions, media to brainwash sheeple) if we keep watching dancing with idiots shows.

@kscmac wrote:

if the sleeping majority just would wake up...

When you blame the bankers for that fact of nature that politics exist because the non-alpha and non-sigma males can not compete without politics, then you are identifying yourself as a beta, gamma, or omega male.

I am clearly a Sigma male.

Here is are some resources for you to begin your study and transform to a higher social status. If after careful and open-minded study of the following, a reader still does not understand how the following causes me not to blame the bankers for that which is a natural part of evolution, then I posit that reader doesn't have sufficient intellect to be Sigma (cum Alpha) in the social hierarchy.

...political affiliation, which appears to be most importantly a selfish gene socioeconomic opportunity cost phenomenon, than the manipulative control that it also may be. As I see it, political affiliation is the complex positioning of alpha males (greed and control) combined with the complex manipulation of omega males. All perceive they are positioning themselves advantageously for gains in what they perceive to be important to their happiness and evolutionary relevance...

Correction. That should be manipulative control of betas, gammas, and omegas. The sigmas can compete with alphas yet don’t crave control because they excel without it, outside of the mainstream social paradigm, or by empowering the individual:

Politics legislates that which can not be controlled top-down, magically promising the people what they think should be but either can not or not sustainably. (For example, ) Equality and social justice means plunder and the redistribution of wealth...

...If I am correctly interpreting esr’s summary of Olson, it implies the special interests groups are a minority, however they comprise the entire population playing the political game.

Why do you protest against politics, given it is a natural form of human competition? Anarchism would unrealistically require that everyone is a pure sigma (the sigma in PUA theory a.k.a pickup artist theory)– not libertarians who think they can legislate liberty.

Sigmas are successful when they reject political capital (and money as much as practical) and make innovations or insights in the free market. When they drift to relying on the monetary or political capital they’ve earned from those innovations or insights, they are falling away from their optimum efficacy...

...Non-sigmas don’t think they can get all their desired results without some politics. The alphas serve their demand to be deluded on the efficacy of political action.

...The unfitness of debt and political action is apparently evolutionary necessary or optimum, else it wouldn’t be natural and someone would devise a private sector solution...

The masses demand debt, because they demand more than what can be. They demand more than their true value in the social hierarchy. This creates a power vacuum, which the alpha-male banksters fulfill. It is as natural as the sun rising every day.

...Also there is the political power vacuum of a non-fractional reserve which can’t stand, because the people will always choose those who promise more than they can pay for, i.e. people will always choose excessive debt when it can be hidden in the collective...

...Infinite degrees-of-freedom (perfect fitness) could not be observable in any reality. There are no absolutes. Contrast requires imperfection. Existence requires perception. Perception requires contrast. Full circle to my early comment...

Make sure you click the link in the prior quote to "my early comment", as it is key to understanding the universe. Stephen Hawking is wrong because he uses a circular illogic (i.e. if A then B because if B then A).

It is important you understand the theory of PUA, i.e. social status since it governs how the masses (the non-alpha and non-sigmas) behave politically:

Given fuzzy metrics, this is a probabilistic outcome similar to esr’s maximize breadth of options (see blog #4699) strategic insight. For example, I posited that ‘negs’ in PUA theory, may be triggering the emotional desire of a female to be dominated, as a signal of a potential alpha (respecting Occam’s razor and orthogonal to any more difficult to falsify theory of why harsh dominance is an evolutionary signal of alpha-ness). There is a theory of how this relates to degrees-of-freedom in terms of solving for the dynamic local and global optimum pathway(s) to the dynamic, unknown future.

In short, if you don't understand the nature of politics, then you are just pissing into the wind about it being the fault of the bankers.

No malice intended. I am truly trying to help you become a sigma-male, but very few can make that transformation. You should know if you can, after reading this post.

@peri1224 wrote:
The fact that we have these parasite banksters around our necks and their talons on the money supply is the restricting factor, not that stupid old canard of gold coming out of the ground per year, (you also falling for this??) which is only 1 or 2% of total gold stocks above ground. All these stocks represents supply - at the right price. So if necessary, let the gold price rise slightly and some gold will come out. Money supply problem solved. That is free market in action without bankster manipulation.

You don't seem to appreciate that the political demand for pulling the future into the present is unlimited and insatiable (which only a paper lie can supply), because the beta, gamma, and omega males are never satisfied for as long as they are not alpha or sigma males on the totem-pole of evolutionary mating and social status.

An appreciating gold price would further suppress the lower social status males who have less gold. They will never agree. They would rather be deluded on their true social status.

The lower males think they address their inequity by allowing the collective to encourage debt and address all of their special interests and goals which they think will make them all equal. Equality and democracy are the lie fed by the alpha-males to the lower males. Debt is mathematically incompatible with a non-fractional reserve (e.g. gold) monetary system. This is why the insatiable social status demand of the lower males forces fiat and gold to compete in boom and bust cycles. You can not change this any more than you can stop the sun from rising.

The masses have always since recorded time demanded more from the system, than is sustainable.

Although 'lower' in the PUA theory of social status, from the evolutionary theory I proposed for explaining why our emotions must be fuzzy and which requires the diversity value of the individual, I am not and could not a priori assert that any person is irrelevant (or even lower) in evolutionary relevance.

What you fail to understand is that a physically impossible nirvana of infinite degrees-of-freedom where everyone was equal would be a system that mathematically can not exist. Because nothing could change, no knowledge could be generated, and nothing could be perceived because there would be no contrast.

...Essentially by implication you claimed that infinity (infinite degrees-of-freedom to attain good at all possible perspectives) must be observable, else it is impossible...

...Whether it exists or not, infinity or the finite bound is decomposed co-inductively as observations directed towards its final unreachable or finite bound that we can not prove is final.

How sad a finite universe would be, where the scientific method could be shelved and knowledge would cease to expand at some finite bound. The scientific method requires that we never trust a bound (e.g. Planck’s constant precision) as final and continue searching and testing forever.

The order of social status which devalues the individual superficially (while the individual is still truly valued for diversity by evolution), is plausibly necessary to motivate and illuminate individual diversity. If everyone was a purely isolated individual, we would all be equal in a sense, but we wouldn't interact and compete. We have to place some value on others, to motivate us to interact with them. If every individual had unique knowledge, this would exist only for as long as they did not interact. If every individual had the same knowledge, there would be no reason to interact.

***************FOLLOW UP**********************

ShivaDestructor wrote:
It is a crowd that basically consists of discontent males using language patterns and subliminal cues to get laid

The taxonomy of male social order types (alpha, sigma, delta, gamma, and omega) is generally applicable to social structure, because woman go for hypergamy:

ShivaDestructor wrote:
The PUA crowd principally aim to press certain buttons in the female psyche to turn them into mindless sex robots...

...Notice: both sides want to dominate and manipulate - there is no faith in and use of cooperation - it is sex warfare for animals.

Although some users of PUA may be obnoxious, the theory is playing into the way evolution optimizes our survival, as I had begun to string together as a coherent theory at the above links.

ShivaDestructor wrote:
The absolute majority of those PUA sigmoids are nowhere close to being a sigma. Why? Because they are being jerked around by their fear of pain and their dicks

My assertion is that politics exists because of the hypergamy and the social order of males. Thus everyone who plays politics is not sigma either (although they might be closer in some cases). Thus any one who blames the banksters for their own or for society's problems, is playing politics and not yet a sigma.

The sigma recognizes the natural order and the reason evolution requires this social order and requires the politcs and thus requires the banksters.

The sigma can create new innovations that increase individual liberty in the private sector, even befuddling and rendering the political sector impotent, e.g. peer-to-peer networking. I actually have some long-held plans to destroy much of the political system with my programming.

Just Do It! (Nike commercial)

Whining is for politicians and their minions of slaves.

ShivaDestructor wrote:
A true sigma would be like a Zen buddhist in mind frame. No buttons in themselves to push, no need for pushing buttons in others. Compassion and love and truth.

Very much agreed. Well stated.

ShivaDestructor wrote:
This was one of the most to-the-point statements regarding economy I've seen for a long while. Our basic problem in society is that we are un-ecological. We consume more than our natural resources can provide

Thank you. But I disagree we are un-ecological. The inexorable trend is always increasing resources per-capita since beginning of recorded history. Nature has this system for us as the way it optimizes evolution. We can't overconsume resources. We boom and bust. And this boom and bust cycle is absolutely necessary to motivate the individual diversity that we need to optimally anneal to the unknown future. I linked to that math here:

That link posits that the fuzzy emotions of hypergamy is absolutely necessary for optimal annealing of evolution. Follow the second link on that page linked above, to dig into the math of simulated annealing.

ShivaDestructor wrote:
the credit affliction is a disease that started in the US

Credit disease originated at the start of the agricultural age when we could invest and produce excess savings, in some form or another.

ShivaDestructor wrote:
Either you just created a chasm between you and peri1224 or you pushed him into enlightenment

I should clarify that I was responding to 3 people who felt a gold standard perfection would be a cure, not just peri1224.

Also I think my edit of my original comments, makes it clear that being a non-sigma is also important for evolutionary success of human species. So if peri1224 wants to become an alpha (a leader of social structure) and thinks he can do a better job of educating the lower orders (betas, gammas, and omegas), then he can play that role in evolution. In fact, Carroll Quigley was arguing for this to be done. But in any case, he will never eliminate borrowing from the future, and the power vacuum it creates, because that is part of the way evolution maximizes competition and fitness.

Carol Quigley wrote in Tragedy & Hope, "I know of the operations of this network [the Round Table Groups] because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

I've known him for years and we have met in person twice, and he knows I like (or even love) him as a person and enjoy talking with him. I have met his family, etc.. So I hope my rushed writing did not come across in a way that I am not intending.

He feels very strongly that if we could eliminate the banksters, then we could protect the future of our children and our way of life. Although I share the discontent with some of the outcomes from the evil, I am coming to realization that it has been this way since the beginning of mankind and it is up to each individual to become a sigma and rise above it all.

I don't want to grow up being angry and bitter. I like to win!

Fighting against evolution and what nature wants is failure. I don't want to spend my life pissed off at the banksters, when the masses are chosing to be locked into the social structure which makes debt and banksters necessary.

Being idealistic and saying we can educate them is like wishing for equality of sexes, equality of people, and social justice. I am realizing after several years of study. And these things are all lies, because SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS says the universe is always trending to maximum entropy, which means maximum diversity (a.k.a. independent possibilities in a probablistic sense).

That might sound like mumbo-jumbo, but it is a fact that if everyone was the same, we would have no reason to be alive.

It really is a simple concept. Nature is always increasing the diversity of situations and outcomes. In order to match up to that (so we can survive), we evolve to maximum diversity too.

Basically eliminating the banksters, is nearly synonymous with saying we will eliminate the bottom half of the bell curve of IQ. It ain't going to happen, because nature needs all that diversity.

ShivaDestructor wrote:
It can be read "generously" as coming from a position of truth (where the recipient either gets it or is willing to work with it)

I am confident that is the case.

I understand the simple answer of "eliminate the banksters" and implement a "gold standard" is very alluring. But when you really think about the way evolution works, it doesn't make any sense.

Nature operates with opposing contrasting diversity-- not with perfection.

Perfection has no opposing contrast, thus it doesn't exist, because it can't be perceived. For example, how do you perceive color when all color is perfectly the same?

ShivaDestructor wrote:

You don't seem to appreciate that the political demand for pulling the future into the present is unlimited and insatiable (which only a paper lie can supply), because the beta, gamma, and omega males are
never satisfied for as long as they are not alpha or sigma males on the totem-pole of evolutionary mating and social status.

An alpha male is also never satisfied, it is just that he has hit a local maxima in his hierarchy.

Agreed but he has not hit a maxima.

The alpha craves more control over the lower ranks to raise his relative position.

The lower ranks crave to move up the ranking, but instead of gaining freedom, they fall in the political trap set by the alphas in symbiosis with their fellow lower members.

Even the sigma is never satisfied, the sigma wants more freedom and empowerment of the individual, so the sigma seeks more knowledge and truth.

Alphas don't trust sigmas, because sigmas innovate away some of their control.

ShivaDestructor wrote:
Equality and democracy are the lie fed by the alpha-males to the lower males.

This can be read in at least two ways, and both can be true at the same time.
1. Equality and democracy does not exist in reality and hidden forces pull all the strings.
2. Equality and democracy IS NOT TRUE/DOES NOT WORK.
I can prove point 2.

Both are true. The hidden force is nature and evolution. The banksters don't pull all the strings, neither collectively nor individually for themselves. They don't get everything they want obviously.

It is a big game. A big competition, called EVOLUTION.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

Debt is mathematically incompatible with a non-fractional reserve (e.g. gold) monetary system.

How/why? I lend you a gold coin, you pay me back later? Or is it the interest that you are thinking about (interest creating "money" out of nothing)? We could pay interest in apples though.

Compounded interest is one problem, for if you compounded 3% for a few hundred years it would be more atoms on earth. Either the economy does not run on debt or it must be eventually fractional based or there must be a bust because the activity did not expand enough to compound the interest.

The other problem is that demand for debt is insatiable, because the alpha and the lower ranks are never contented and the only way they know how to win is via the political process, e.g. chopping off the heads of the banksters is a form of political action. It does not change the paradigm. Where there is a demand for debt, new banksters will appear, just as sure as new weeds sprout in the garden because the environment is still conducive.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

The masses have always since recorded time demanded more from the system, than is sustainable.

Hunter/gather societies are/were self-regulating - when there is nothing left, move on (the problem with current society and technology is that we have nowhere to go - we cannot yet hop into a nice rocket and land on a luscious green planet next doors).

So is our current credit mess. I edited my prior post, you can find a link there to a chart that shows that despite booms and busts, resources per-capital have been inexorably increasing since 323 B.C.. Btw, iron was a precious metal at that time.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

Or maybe you were pointing to "demanded" not as in "overtaxing" but rather as "needing/wanting" - then I agree.

You are missing the mathematical point, which is fitness. It is all about what evolution wants, which is maximum fitness. See the link below. Also go to my prior posts and find where I linked to the math of why simulated annealing must be optimized for evolution.

It is all about resiliency and being able to survive the long-tail events that are unexpected. Fitness is how nature is always optimally prepared to solve the dynamic annealing.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

What you fail to understand is that a physically impossible nirvana of infinite degrees-of-freedom where everyone was equal would be a system that mathematically can not exist. Because nothing could change, no knowledge could be generated, and nothing could be perceived because there would be no contrast.

If you remove "physically" then you are describing G-d and why we cannot understand G-d, regardless of tradition

Please see how I differentiated between insane and sane faith: (this is difficult if you don't know induction and co-induction) (the layman's version, but read the others too) (induction and co-induction explained, plus clarifying my point) (arguing against Hawking, that sane faith is rational)

Fake (insane) faith:


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty racism

Post  Shelby Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:10 am

Note I tried to post this on Esr's blog as follows, but he has banned me. Thought you might be interested in my logic.

That is the most convoluted way of stating simply that racism is profiling based on race (due to a race possessing a higher mean propensity) instead of the actual measured value of an individual's propensity.

Racism is not stupid and rather quite rational when the individual measures of propensity are not available, such as when I venture into the hood. And if you are truly concerned about individual freedom, then you must recognize that even if the probability of an individual measure points to a higher propensity, it doesn't insure it is independent of another measure of dis-propensity which an individual might posses. The myopia of statistics is what was not sampled.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

Back to top Go down

Psychology - Page 2 Empty Re: Psychology

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum