- The average smartness of arabs is on the rise.. - 1 Update
- Here is more of my thoughts on parallel computing and computing - 1 Update
- Here is my new poem: "Time is flowing and walking and running" - 1 Update
- Cesaria Evora - Mae Velha - 1 Update
- More explanation about the rule of "work smart and not hard".. - 1 Update
- More political philosophy about the rule of "work smart and not hard".. - 1 Update
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Sep 29 11:10AM -0700 Hello, The average smartness of arabs is on the rise.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, and you have to read the following so that to understand that the average smartness of arabs is on the rise, read the following to notice it: Why IQs Rise When Nations Experience Rapid Economic Development The latest data support these observations by showing that IQs have been rising steadily in countries experiencing the most rapid economic development during the past few decades. As a measure of the interaction between intelligence and modern cognitive stimuli that strengthen capacities for rational classification, quantitative reasoning, etc., a population's average IQ is therefore an indicator of economic modernization and development, not their cause. Read more here: https://evonomics.com/does-your-iq-predict-how-rich-you-will-be/ And read the following about arabs: Arab Americans better educated than most in U.S Read more here to notice it: https://www.michigandaily.com/content/arab-americans-better-educated-most-us And read why are Arab American Students Among the Highest GPA Achievers? Read more here: https://www.arabamerica.com/why-arab-american-students-among-highest-gpa-recipients/ More about arabs.. Look at the following video: Prophet Muhammad was white (Sahih Muslim) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGcCCY0XJGE&t=1s And look at the following video: Why Many Arab Americans Check 'White' On The US Census https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4PwaweUtDw More about arabs and arab inventors and arab thinkers.. I am a white arab from Morocco living in Canada since year 1989, and i am an inventor of many scalable algorithms... I am a white arab, and the name "Moulay" in my family name means that i am genetically and culturally descendent of arabs descendent of prophet Mohamed, and i am genetically a descendent of prophet Mohamed, the "Moulay" in my family name means mawlay in arabic and it means Monsignor, i am called Monsignor because i am white arab genetically and culturally descendent of prophet Mohamed, read about Monsignor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsignor I am a "white" arab, and as a proof look at this song and how the arab singers from Saudia Arabia in this video are "whites", i am also a white arab that looks like them and i am a gentleman that is more civilized, so look at this song in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abyHF_zG3ng And about Influence of Arabic and Islamic Philosophy on the Latin West, read the following: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-influence/ And look at this video at how Mesopotamians that were racially arabs were so advanced: Ancient Mesopotamia Inventions and Technology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRG3GZ7zLuc And i think arabs are smart people, Babylonians of Irak were racially arabs, read about them here: 3,700-year-old Babylonian tablet rewrites the history of maths - and shows the Greeks did not develop trigonometry Read more here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/24/3700-year-old-babylonian-tablet-rewrites-history-maths-could/ Also read the following about Arabs: Research: Arab Inventors Make the U.S. More Innovative It turns out that the U.S. is a major home for Arab inventors. In the five-year period from 2009 to 2013, there were 8,786 U.S. patent applications in our data set that had at least one Arab inventor. Of the total U.S. patent applications, 3.4% had at least one Arab inventor, despite the fact that Arab inventors represent only 0.3% of the total population. Read more here: https://hbr.org/2017/02/arab-inventors-make-the-u-s-more-innovative Even Steve Jobs the founder of Apple had an arab Syrian immigrant father called Abdul Fattah Jandal. Read more here about it: https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/who-is-steve-jobs-syrian-immigrant-father-abdul-fattah-jandali-3624958/ About USA and the brain's power.. I have just looked at the following video, look at it carefully: India Is Becoming Its Own Silicon Valley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHVNWtBuDVk Look in the above video at how the smartest people of high-tech in India are talking about USA, since they are saying that they don't want to come to USA because of Donald Trump(and this is related to my writing below), and i think what they are saying is that Donald Trump and his followers are racism towards other groups that are not of there white European group, so i think USA has made a big mistake by electing Donald Trump, and i think that Germany and other European countries have not to make the same mistake as USA, because read my my following writing to understand why: More political philosophy about immigration.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart, since i am an inventor of many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about an important subject that is immigration.. Let's look for example at USA, so read the following from Jonathan Wai that is a Ph.D., it says: "Heiner Rindermann and James Thompson uncovered that the "smart fraction" of a country is quite influential in impacting the performance of that country, for example, its GDP." And it also says the following: ""According to recent population estimates, there are about eight Chinese and Indians for every American in the top 1 percent in brains." But consider that the U.S. benefits from the smart fractions of every other country in the world because it continues to serve as a magnet for brainpower, something that is not even factored into these rankings. What these rankings clearly show is America is likely still in the lead in terms of brainpower. And this is despite the fact federal funding for educating our smart fraction is currently zero. Everyone seems worried Americans are falling behind, but this is because everyone is focusing on average and below average people. Maybe it's time we started taking a closer look at the smartest people of our own country." Read more here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201312/whats-the-smartest-country-in-the-world So as you are noticing it's immigrants(and there are about eight Chinese and Indians for every American in the top 1 percent in brains) that are making USA a rich country. And read also the following to understand more: Why Silicon Valley Wouldn't Work Without Immigrants There are many theories for why immigrants find so much success in tech. Many American-born tech workers point out that there is no shortage of American-born employees to fill the roles at many tech companies. Researchers have found that more than enough students graduate from American colleges to fill available tech jobs. Critics of the industry's friendliness toward immigrants say it comes down to money — that technology companies take advantage of visa programs, like the H-1B system, to get foreign workers at lower prices than they would pay American-born ones. But if that criticism rings true in some parts of the tech industry, it misses the picture among Silicon Valley's top companies. One common misperception of Silicon Valley is that it operates like a factory; in that view, tech companies can hire just about anyone from anywhere in the world to fill a particular role. But today's most ambitious tech companies are not like factories. They're more like athletic teams. They're looking for the LeBrons and Bradys — the best people in the world to come up with some brand-new, never-before-seen widget, to completely reimagine what widgets should do in the first place. "It's not about adding tens or hundreds of thousands of people into manufacturing plants," said Aaron Levie, the co-founder and chief executive of the cloud-storage company Box. "It's about the couple ideas that are going to be invented that are going to change everything." Why do tech honchos believe that immigrants are better at coming up with those inventions? It's partly a numbers thing. As the tech venture capitalist Paul Graham has pointed out, the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population; it stands to reason that most of the world's best new ideas will be thought up by people who weren't born here. If you look at some of the most consequential ideas in tech, you find an unusual number that were developed by immigrants. For instance, Google's entire advertising business — that is, the basis for the vast majority of its revenues and profits, the engine that allows it to hire thousands of people in the United States — was created by three immigrants: Salar Kamangar and Omid Kordestani, who came to the United States from Iran, and Eric Veach, from Canada. But it's not just a numbers thing. Another reason immigrants do so well in tech is that people from outside bring new perspectives that lead to new ideas. Read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/technology/personaltech/why-silicon-valley-wouldnt-work-without-immigrants.html Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Sep 29 10:09AM -0700 Hello.. Here is my new poem: "Time is flowing and walking and running" Here is my other new poem of Love that i have just written, read it listening at the same time at this beautiful song: Cesaria Evora - Mae Velha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhpAbA78IKM Here is my new poem of Love: Time is flowing and walking and running But my beautiful heart is always resisting Time is flowing and walking and running But my beautiful love for you is forever staying Time is flowing and walking and running But my beautiful desire for you is "also" always rolling Time is flowing and walking and running But my love for you is a so beautiful King Time is flowing and walking and running Like our love is also forever flowing like a beautiful spring Time is flowing and walking and running But my love is a beautiful ring around your beautiful angel wings Time is flowing and walking and running But my love is a so beautiful offspring Time is flowing and walking and running But our love is like our beautiful God that we are worshiping ! Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Sep 29 07:44AM -0700 Hello.. I want to share with you this beautiful song that i love much: Cesaria Evora - Mae Velha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhpAbA78IKM Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Sep 29 07:06AM -0700 Hello.. More explanation about the rule of "work smart and not hard".. I will be more logically rigorous and explain more, so read my logical proof: I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it: People who say "work smart not hard" pretty much always fail | James Gosling and Lex Fridman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaho2mbaVGM&t=99s Here is James Gosling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling And here is Lex Fridman: https://lexfridman.com/#:~:text=Lex%20Fridman%3A%20I'm%20an,Teaching%3A%20deeplearning.mit.edu I think i am a white arab that is smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and i say that Lex Fridman and James Gosling in the above video are not smart by saying that "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail, and notice that Lex Fridman says that the "not hard" in the rule means lazy, but this is not logically correct, since if the statistical distribution of the strenght and force of the work is normal in the real world , so i have to discern with my fluid intelligence that it is a system that means "work smart and not hard" and it can mean: "work smart and using an average force or strenght", so then it means that this system or rule doesn't pretty much always fail, also we can generalize and say: since the truth of "work smart and not hard pretty much always fail" depends on the statistical distribution(of the strenght and force of the work) in the real world, so we can not generalize and say that the rule of "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail. Here is more logical proof about how i am abstracting smartness to learning.. As you have just noticed that i just said the following: --- Yet more political philosophy about smartness.. I think i am smart, so i will talk more about smartness, smartness permits to learn, so we can abstract and say that smartness is like learning, so we can measure smartness by looking at "quality" of learning, so then if the learning is constrained by the envirenment it can can hurt the quality of learning and we can say that we are not smart, but there is still something about smartness, it is that smartness can be artificial or biologic, for example when you look at how the Sun causes lightning on earth, we can then learn from this system of Sun that is causing lightening on earth, and this learning from this system is artificial intelligence and it is smartness , so we can say that our universe also contains such systems that contains smartness of artificial intelligence and we can also say that we can also construct artificial intelligence. -- So how i am abstracting smartness to learning ? Here is my logical proof: I said the following about fluid intelligence: -- Here is my definition of "pattern", since i am using it in my thoughts of my political philosophy: A pattern is a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts. So you are understanding that fluid intelligence from genetics has to discern this coherent system and also extract the rule, it is also how we are extracting a theorem in mathematics, it is how works fluid intelligence from genetics. --- So you are noticing that this discerning the coherent system and extracting the rule(s) is the acts of fluid intelligence, so since we are discerning the coherent system and extracting the rules, so it gives after that the "learning", so we can then "abstract" and say that smartness is like learning. More precision about more political philosophy about smartness and more.. I have just said the following: "So i think we can say that the capacity of being genetically a good human artist is artificial intelligence and it is then smartness, since i view it as a mechanism or as a system that is artificial intelligence, but we have not to be pessimistic about the social mobility, since it depends on other factors than artifical or biologic human Smartness" I will give more precision: i mean that we have to isolate the part of the brain of being genetically a good human artist, so this part in the brain that comes from genetics of being a good human artist is not smartness that we know of the human brain, so by isolating the part like that we can define it as a mechanism or as a system that is artificial intelligence and we then can say that it is also smartness. Read my following previous thoughts to understand: More political philosophy about smartness and more.. Please read below how i am defining being genetically a good human artist.. What do you think is smartness ? If i say: 2 + 2 = 4 So are you capable of seeing smartness ? So if you are smart you will not only look at the equality of: 2 + 2 = 4, but you will also look at the constraints by saying that with 2 + 2 = 4 you are not learning much and by saying that we have to verify if learning is constrained by the envirenment(like too much limited or so), so now you are understanding what is smartness, and now you are seeing that saying that smartness is genetical and cultural is not the right abstraction, because the envirenment can also constrain too much that we can say that we are not smart. Yet more political philosophy about smartness.. I think i am smart, so i will talk more about smartness, smartness permits to learn, so we can abstract and say that smartness is like learning, so we can measure smartness by looking at "quality" of learning, so then if the learning is constrained by the envirenment it can can hurt the quality of learning and we can say that we are not smart, but there is still something about smartness, it is that smartness can be artificial or biologic, for example when you look at how the Sun causes lightning on earth, we can then learn from this system of Sun that is causing lightening on earth, and this learning from this system is artificial intelligence and it is smartness , so we can say that our universe also contains such systems that contains smartness of artificial intelligence and we can also say that we can also construct artificial intelligence. So i think we can say that the capacity of being genetically a good human artist is artificial intelligence and it is then smartness, since i view it as a mechanism or as a system that is artificial intelligence, but we have not to be pessimistic about the social mobility, since it depends on other factors than artificial or biologic human Smartness, and here is what i have just said about it: More political philosophy about social mobility.. I have just read the following article: https://www.redpepper.org.uk/social-mobility-is-capitalisms-cover-story/ So as you are noticing it says: "The prominent sociologist Michael Young claimed that fixed social strata were the regrettable consequence of a meritocratic society, as those who had secured higher positions through merit would use their advantage to ensure their offspring were able to secure similarly superior positions for themselves." But he is too pessimistic, since i think that we have to take into account the "context", i think with the current sophistication of internet and the abundance of knowledge on internet, i think this also enhance much more creativity and productivity, and also because of digitalization and by doing business on internet and on the social medias like Facebook and youtube etc. you can "quickly" exponentially grow your number customers and this will enhance much more social mobility, since as i said about Digitalization: Digitalization: Once something goes from physical to digital, it gains the ability to grow exponentially. So we have not to be pessimistic. And this is related to my following thoughts, read them carefully: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Nudyb_4QCRU Also capitalism switches from linear to exponential growth Read more here: http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/capitalism-switches-from-linear-to-exponential-growth More political philosophy about communism of China and communism.. You have to understand that communism of China of today is much more "modern", i think that it lets many become very rich, but it taxes the rich much more and that benefits its socialism, and it demands a greater "loyalty" of the Rich to the communist party of China, and i think that communism China is much more capable because China is a much more bigger and powerful country. Read the following article to notice it: China's Communist Party demands private sector's loyalty as external risks rise https://www.journalpioneer.com/business/reuters/chinas-communist-party-demands-private-sectors-loyalty-as-external-risks-rise-497631/ And read the following article to notice it: More taxes for China's super rich will narrow income gap https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1136002.shtml This is why i just said (read below) that communism of China is "useful", i mean it is useful for China and it allows us to see why it is useful and that's useful too ! More political philosophy about more interesting subjects.. I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it: Jordan Peterson | Full interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ruwVc0t2c0 I think that this Jordan Peterson is not smart by talking as he is talking about Marxism and Feminism, I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, so i will say that Jordan Peterson is talking about Marxism not correctly, because he is neglecting the "context" of Marxism, since we can say that Marxism is not "generally" a correct ideology, but Marxism can become "useful" in the context of Today world, so i will say that the Today communism of China is "useful", since here is what i have just said about it: --- But if you are not smart you will say that communism of China is evil, but this is not correct because you have to understand the essence of communism.. Here is how to explain it: There is competition and there is collaboration and solidarity, but competition has a problem, it is that it can monopolize too much, it is like the problem of monopoly that hurts competition and that hurts quality, so notice that today those that are smart or/and have more money are quickly making too much money with the help of exponential growth of capitalism and exponential progress, so this is a big problem for communism of China, so this is why communism of China of today is not confident with the private sector that is for them having this big problem, and this is why communism of China is not being confident with the West, so this why communism China of today is not wanting to become Democracy. So you can read my following thoughts about the problem of Globalization and the unequal distribution of income and opportunities to understand more(and i am giving a solution to it, so read it carefully): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/wlJu5j1xhPk I think that there is a bug in the world system, and it is that we want in capitalism to be competition and competitiveness , this is why so that capitalist countries do attract investment and smart people they have accepted the fact that people make too much money quickly(and you have to understand the context of exponential growth of capitalism and exponential progress), so as you are noticing that this is making communism of China not wanting to become Democracy, or it is making socialism of other countries such as Algeria etc. not wanting to become capitalism. So the West has to solve the problem of Globalization and the unequal distribution of income and opportunities so that to make Marxism much less relevant. ---- Also notice in the above video that Jordan Peterson is talking about Feminism and saying that he agree with Feminism on equality of opportunities, but he doesn't agree with being equity, but i think he is not thinking correctly since he is too vague, since read for example what i am saying about Meritocracy: Read the following article about Meritocracy from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/meritocracy/418074/ So as you notice it says: "The pursuit of meritocracy is more difficult than it appears," So i think in Meritocracy we can not be strict equality, so we have to get into the details and into the calculations to tune it correctly and efficiently so that to make Meritocracy efficient and at the same time less problematic, but we have to notice that Meritocracy is still important. Yet more political philosophy about decentralization.. We can say the following: The classical notion of decentralization does not necessarily imply democracy, and an organization may be decentralized without being based on democratic principles. But i ask a smart question of: Can we say that an organization based on democratic principles may be centralized ? Here is my answer: But we can notice that even though decentralization doesn't necessarily imply Democracy, Democracy is a "kind" of decentralization, and this kind of decentralization brings efficiency because we can notice that Democracy needs requirements such as competitive elections and free press, and i think that Democracy is more efficient than Dictatorship at fighting corruption(and corruption can mean lack of efficiency), read my following thoughts about Democracy and more to understand: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Nudyb_4QCRU But notice in my above link that i am saying that we have to seek like a balance between competition and collaboration, and i think that it is this new more efficient model of seeking like a balance between competition and collaboration that is the "cause" of bringing decentralization that brings efficiency, and i think that the tendency of our today world is to seek a balance between competition and collaboration. And since i am talking in my following thoughts about the socialist state of Algeria, here is my thoughts about socialism: More political philosophy about socialism.. I think that socialism today as a system is a result of an inferior act of human nature that has the tendency to being too much dictatorship or too much fascism, socialism is like measuring individual smartness with only smartness that comes from genetics neglecting smartness that comes from culture, it is like neglecting to reason about some important variables in the system in the context of this Globalization, it is also too much idealism that neglects to see the weaknesses of socialism in the reality and in practice, you will notice that even socialism in Democracy is a bad thing, but socialism of a dictatorship is even worse , since like in optimization in mathematics, since socialism has the tendency to make the government too big and inefficient, because it is simply socialism, so how to be safe from this act of socialism ? and since socialism has the tendency to make taxes too much high, so this is not competitive in the context of this Globalization that needs efficiency of competitiveness, and in dictatorship of Socialism we are not safe from corruption of the government, and corruption in morality can be lack of efficiency , so how can we "escape" this corruption in a dictatorship? so you are noticing with me that dictatorship is a big problem(read about it below on my writing to understand better),also since socialism is solidarity so it also has the tendency to help too much the national companies that are deficient and this not good and this even engender too much debt and this is not good in the context of this Globalization that needs competitiveness, and let us take a look at my writing about socialism in Democracy, it is not even in dictatorship, here |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Sep 29 06:44AM -0700 Hello, More political philosophy about the rule of "work smart and not hard".. I will be more logically rigorous, so read my logical proof: I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it: People who say "work smart not hard" pretty much always fail | James Gosling and Lex Fridman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaho2mbaVGM&t=99s Here is James Gosling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling And here is Lex Fridman: https://lexfridman.com/#:~:text=Lex%20Fridman%3A%20I'm%20an,Teaching%3A%20deeplearning.mit.edu I think i am a white arab that is smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and i say that Lex Fridman and James Gosling in the above video are not smart by saying that "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail, since the truth of "work smart and not hard pretty much always fail" depends on the statistical distribution(of the strenght and force of the work) in the real world, so we can not generalize and say that the rule of "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail. Here is more logical proof about how i am abstracting smartness to learning.. As you have just noticed that i just said the following: --- Yet more political philosophy about smartness.. I think i am smart, so i will talk more about smartness, smartness permits to learn, so we can abstract and say that smartness is like learning, so we can measure smartness by looking at "quality" of learning, so then if the learning is constrained by the envirenment it can can hurt the quality of learning and we can say that we are not smart, but there is still something about smartness, it is that smartness can be artificial or biologic, for example when you look at how the Sun causes lightning on earth, we can then learn from this system of Sun that is causing lightening on earth, and this learning from this system is artificial intelligence and it is smartness , so we can say that our universe also contains such systems that contains smartness of artificial intelligence and we can also say that we can also construct artificial intelligence. -- So how i am abstracting smartness to learning ? Here is my logical proof: I said the following about fluid intelligence: -- Here is my definition of "pattern", since i am using it in my thoughts of my political philosophy: A pattern is a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts. So you are understanding that fluid intelligence from genetics has to discern this coherent system and also extract the rule, it is also how we are extracting a theorem in mathematics, it is how works fluid intelligence from genetics. --- So you are noticing that this discerning the coherent system and extracting the rule(s) is the acts of fluid intelligence, so since we are discerning the coherent system and extracting the rules, so it gives after that the "learning", so we can then "abstract" and say that smartness is like learning. More precision about more political philosophy about smartness and more.. I have just said the following: "So i think we can say that the capacity of being genetically a good human artist is artificial intelligence and it is then smartness, since i view it as a mechanism or as a system that is artificial intelligence, but we have not to be pessimistic about the social mobility, since it depends on other factors than artifical or biologic human Smartness" I will give more precision: i mean that we have to isolate the part of the brain of being genetically a good human artist, so this part in the brain that comes from genetics of being a good human artist is not smartness that we know of the human brain, so by isolating the part like that we can define it as a mechanism or as a system that is artificial intelligence and we then can say that it is also smartness. Read my following previous thoughts to understand: More political philosophy about smartness and more.. Please read below how i am defining being genetically a good human artist.. What do you think is smartness ? If i say: 2 + 2 = 4 So are you capable of seeing smartness ? So if you are smart you will not only look at the equality of: 2 + 2 = 4, but you will also look at the constraints by saying that with 2 + 2 = 4 you are not learning much and by saying that we have to verify if learning is constrained by the envirenment(like too much limited or so), so now you are understanding what is smartness, and now you are seeing that saying that smartness is genetical and cultural is not the right abstraction, because the envirenment can also constrain too much that we can say that we are not smart. Yet more political philosophy about smartness.. I think i am smart, so i will talk more about smartness, smartness permits to learn, so we can abstract and say that smartness is like learning, so we can measure smartness by looking at "quality" of learning, so then if the learning is constrained by the envirenment it can can hurt the quality of learning and we can say that we are not smart, but there is still something about smartness, it is that smartness can be artificial or biologic, for example when you look at how the Sun causes lightning on earth, we can then learn from this system of Sun that is causing lightening on earth, and this learning from this system is artificial intelligence and it is smartness , so we can say that our universe also contains such systems that contains smartness of artificial intelligence and we can also say that we can also construct artificial intelligence. So i think we can say that the capacity of being genetically a good human artist is artificial intelligence and it is then smartness, since i view it as a mechanism or as a system that is artificial intelligence, but we have not to be pessimistic about the social mobility, since it depends on other factors than artificial or biologic human Smartness, and here is what i have just said about it: More political philosophy about social mobility.. I have just read the following article: https://www.redpepper.org.uk/social-mobility-is-capitalisms-cover-story/ So as you are noticing it says: "The prominent sociologist Michael Young claimed that fixed social strata were the regrettable consequence of a meritocratic society, as those who had secured higher positions through merit would use their advantage to ensure their offspring were able to secure similarly superior positions for themselves." But he is too pessimistic, since i think that we have to take into account the "context", i think with the current sophistication of internet and the abundance of knowledge on internet, i think this also enhance much more creativity and productivity, and also because of digitalization and by doing business on internet and on the social medias like Facebook and youtube etc. you can "quickly" exponentially grow your number customers and this will enhance much more social mobility, since as i said about Digitalization: Digitalization: Once something goes from physical to digital, it gains the ability to grow exponentially. So we have not to be pessimistic. And this is related to my following thoughts, read them carefully: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Nudyb_4QCRU Also capitalism switches from linear to exponential growth Read more here: http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/capitalism-switches-from-linear-to-exponential-growth More political philosophy about communism of China and communism.. You have to understand that communism of China of today is much more "modern", i think that it lets many become very rich, but it taxes the rich much more and that benefits its socialism, and it demands a greater "loyalty" of the Rich to the communist party of China, and i think that communism China is much more capable because China is a much more bigger and powerful country. Read the following article to notice it: China's Communist Party demands private sector's loyalty as external risks rise https://www.journalpioneer.com/business/reuters/chinas-communist-party-demands-private-sectors-loyalty-as-external-risks-rise-497631/ And read the following article to notice it: More taxes for China's super rich will narrow income gap https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1136002.shtml This is why i just said (read below) that communism of China is "useful", i mean it is useful for China and it allows us to see why it is useful and that's useful too ! More political philosophy about more interesting subjects.. I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it: Jordan Peterson | Full interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ruwVc0t2c0 I think that this Jordan Peterson is not smart by talking as he is talking about Marxism and Feminism, I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, so i will say that Jordan Peterson is talking about Marxism not correctly, because he is neglecting the "context" of Marxism, since we can say that Marxism is not "generally" a correct ideology, but Marxism can become "useful" in the context of Today world, so i will say that the Today communism of China is "useful", since here is what i have just said about it: --- But if you are not smart you will say that communism of China is evil, but this is not correct because you have to understand the essence of communism.. Here is how to explain it: There is competition and there is collaboration and solidarity, but competition has a problem, it is that it can monopolize too much, it is like the problem of monopoly that hurts competition and that hurts quality, so notice that today those that are smart or/and have more money are quickly making too much money with the help of exponential growth of capitalism and exponential progress, so this is a big problem for communism of China, so this is why communism of China of today is not confident with the private sector that is for them having this big problem, and this is why communism of China is not being confident with the West, so this why communism China of today is not wanting to become Democracy. So you can read my following thoughts about the problem of Globalization and the unequal distribution of income and opportunities to understand more(and i am giving a solution to it, so read it carefully): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/wlJu5j1xhPk I think that there is a bug in the world system, and it is that we want in capitalism to be competition and competitiveness , this is why so that capitalist countries do attract investment and smart people they have accepted the fact that people make too much money quickly(and you have to understand the context of exponential growth of capitalism and exponential progress), so as you are noticing that this is making communism of China not wanting to become Democracy, or it is making socialism of other countries such as Algeria etc. not wanting to become capitalism. So the West has to solve the problem of Globalization and the unequal distribution of income and opportunities so that to make Marxism much less relevant. ---- Also notice in the above video that Jordan Peterson is talking about Feminism and saying that he agree with Feminism on equality of opportunities, but he doesn't agree with being equity, but i think he is not thinking correctly since he is too vague, since read for example what i am saying about Meritocracy: Read the following article about Meritocracy from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/meritocracy/418074/ So as you notice it says: "The pursuit of meritocracy is more difficult than it appears," So i think in Meritocracy we can not be strict equality, so we have to get into the details and into the calculations to tune it correctly and efficiently so that to make Meritocracy efficient and at the same time less problematic, but we have to notice that Meritocracy is still important. Yet more political philosophy about decentralization.. We can say the following: The classical notion of decentralization does not necessarily imply democracy, and an organization may be decentralized without being based on democratic principles. But i ask a smart question of: Can we say that an organization based on democratic principles may be centralized ? Here is my answer: But we can notice that even though decentralization doesn't necessarily imply Democracy, Democracy is a "kind" of decentralization, and this kind of decentralization brings efficiency because we can notice that Democracy needs requirements such as competitive elections and free press, and i think that Democracy is more efficient than Dictatorship at fighting corruption(and corruption can mean lack of efficiency), read my following thoughts about Democracy and more to understand: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Nudyb_4QCRU But notice in my above link that i am saying that we have to seek like a balance between competition and collaboration, and i think that it is this new more efficient model of seeking like a balance between competition and collaboration that is the "cause" of bringing decentralization that brings efficiency, and i think that the tendency of our today world is to seek a balance between competition and collaboration. And since i am talking in my following thoughts about the socialist state of Algeria, here is my thoughts about socialism: More political philosophy about socialism.. I think that socialism today as a system is a result of an inferior act of human nature that has the tendency to being too much dictatorship or too much fascism, socialism is like measuring individual smartness with only smartness that comes from genetics neglecting smartness that comes from culture, it is like neglecting to reason about some important variables in the system in the context of this Globalization, it is also too much idealism that neglects to see the weaknesses of socialism in the reality and in practice, you will notice that even socialism in Democracy is a bad thing, but socialism of a dictatorship is even worse , since like in optimization in mathematics, since socialism has the tendency to make the government too big and inefficient, because it is simply socialism, so how to be safe from this act of socialism ? and since socialism has the tendency to make taxes too much high, so this is not competitive in the context of this Globalization that needs efficiency of competitiveness, and in dictatorship of Socialism we are not safe from corruption of the government, and corruption in morality can be lack of efficiency , so how can we "escape" this corruption in a dictatorship? so you are noticing with me that dictatorship is a big problem(read about it below on my writing to understand better),also since socialism is solidarity so it also has the tendency to help too much the national companies that are deficient and this not good and this even engender too much debt and this is not good in the context of this Globalization that needs competitiveness, and let us take a look at my writing about socialism in Democracy, it is not even in dictatorship, here is how it looks like: Now I will talk about some deficiencies of socialism like high taxation.. I think that there is a real impact of high taxation of socialism on economic growth, productivity and innovation. Take for example Francois Hollande of the french socialist party, I do not like the rich had cried Francois Hollande of the socialist party during the election campaign that led to the presidency of France. He went to a confiscatory tax and strangled the middle class with taxes. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment