26 Århus, Denmark
Join today
Find great matches with our advanced matching system!
Join today
Find great matches with our advanced matching system!
My self-summary
I study linguistics at university, but I'm a philosopher at heart (actually more a scientist now a days). I like science and study many of them out of sheer curiosity, and also contribute to the fields from time to time - I'm a polymath. I like drinking. I am brutally honest. I am allergic to obvious irrationality. My outlook is something like: Hopeful misanthropic realist. I'm a wannabe Francis Galton and Arthur Jensen, which naturally means that I'm a huge fan of differential psychology, behavioral genetics, and stuff like that. :)

Since I have a lot of matches that call themselves "feminist", some elaboration is necessary. I understand that most of you are from the US, a country infested with Christian conservatives who want to ban abortion and otherwise curtail female freedom. I hate them as well.

However, what I don't want to hear about is the wage gap (men earn more money) as if it was mainly a function of oppression. The wage gap exists in basically every culture. This is mostly a function of natural (not cultural) sex differences. Men work more, take more risks and work in higher paying fields due to their interests. These traits are normally distributed within the sexes but the distributions are displaced. This is what gives rise to statistical group differences. That is how humans work.

I understand that there is an inequality in how humans think about sexually promiscuous people based on their sex. I don't think of girls that way but I also understand that this is expected for evolutionary reasons (due to paternal uncertainty).

In general, one can categorize feminist trends by their history. The first wave was about getting women the vote (suffrage movement). The second wave was about getting women out on the job market. These are both good changes. The third wave is about denying natural sex differences and requiring that group outcomes be statistically equal. Such movements, whether feminist or racialist-egalitarian or communist, must be fought at all costs. There is a general fact human nature of the impossible triangle. One cannot have all three of the following: 1) group differences in behavior, 2) equal freedoms, 3) equal outcomes. (1) is given by nature and not easily changed (genetic manipulation necessary). Hence, one must choose between (2) and (3). Choosing (3) is group discrimination, treating people based on their group membership. Anyone who likes individualism (and all the good stuff about being different) must choose (2) in order to be consistent.

The same as the above applies to racial differences. Yes, past institutional racism was evil. However, there is no major "white privilege". It just so happens that European humans are smarter (general intelligence) than African Americans and Mexicans. East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) and Ashkenazi Jews happen to be even smarter and so are various smaller groups (e.g. Indian Brahmin). This gives rise to the usual statistical differences. The differences are mostly heritable and cannot easily be changed (we can do it with genetic methods, e.g. genetic engineering and embryo selection). To insist on equal outcomes necessarily means one must restrict freedoms of the better performing group, i.e. adhere to group-based discrimination. Ironically, the people who profess to fight racism are actually racists themselves, for they believe we should discriminate between people based on their racial heritage. People like that are despicable.

Individuals of whatever sex and race shall have equal freedoms to pursue their goals, statistical outcomes be what they may.
What I’m doing with my life
Very short edition. See fuller description under "I spend a lot of time thinking about" section.

I study linguistics at Aarhus University. On the side I study a broad collection of sciences and academic fields, and engage in various other intellectual projects. I recently co-founded a political party focused on bringing rationality back into politics. We're running a pro-science, pro-technology, pro-personal freedoms, etc. party. Name: The Internet Party (, cuz we wanna try out online democracies in various ways. Especially liquid democracy. We're basically a more science-positive, pro-personal freedom Pirate Party with a broader policy.
I’m really good at
Very fast reading. I read 46 books last year, and I set my goal for this year at 40 (37 so far per the 2nd June). I have compared myself with other people at a similar intelligence level, and I read much faster than them. Very practice, many work ethic.

Remembering stuff from reading it years ago.

Formalizing arguments. Clear and sharp thinking. Anything to do with conceptual reasoning.

Puns. Especially lame and bad ones. Basically, I have a high neural propagation depth.

Being an asshole. (A mild case of Gregory House)

And apparently, joking. Someone told me that me and Tulimafat were the two funniest people he knew.

Project leading. Coming up with ideas for projects and directing a team to victory (i.e. completion).

Per the above, convincing people to work with me on projects for free.

And anything else highly g-loaded.
The first things people usually notice about me
Controversial opinions, assertiveness, immense knowledge of all kinds of stuff, rapid talking, brutal honesty, weird clothes.

I'm usually piss drunk at parties talking about science. Mostly differential psychology and behavioral genetics. But sometimes linguistics or philosophy, or some such. Always get ideas for new studies to do, projects to code! :)
Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food
Matching in musical tastes is not important nor is it a good conversation topic. Matching in non-fiction books, however, is (I think!). Anyway, you can find favorites etc. here:

Books: Goodreads.

Movies: IMDb rating history.

Music: Lastfm profile.

Fuck food.
The six things I could never do without
[Generic joke/complaint about this section.]
I spend a lot of time thinking about
Now learning how to do stats with R, especially latent trait modelling.

Figuring out why the male% of comedians has declined since the 1900s BUT that the decline was non-monotonic and there was an increase in the 70-80s. That is weird.

Predicting socioeconomic inequality from how racially diverse the populations are. Unfortunately, someone else thought of this idea already in 2007, so I'm too late. :(

So I started an academic publisher, currently publishing two journals. More will come. A few more papers on the way. :)

Predicting immigrant social variables from their countries of origin. Yes, this is surprisingly doable. One paper published, another two on the way.

A psychometric meta-analysis of compensatory education to check for Jensen effects (strong negative effect found). Edit: this one is sent to the reviewers of Intelligence now.

Using reported SNP's for g/edu. attain. in cross-racial datasets to see if the genetic hypothesis is true. Yes.

More general themes: some psychometric papers (sex differences and reaction times, the Danish immigrant population, country of origin, national IQs and outcomes, IQ in the media), and various linguistic papers I have to write for class (mostly slightly interesting to boring).

How to improve the world by changing things in various ways. Being a politician, this is actually important.

More specifically...

I have three blogs, which I don't use that much anymore. In Danish, English, and Esperanto.

I run an academic-ish site about drug legalization I am a strong proponent of legalizing and regulating all drugs. The drug war is way more harmful than are the drugs, and much of the harm of the drugs is directly caused by the current prohibition policies. Think about what alcohol prohibition did for alcohol and society in the US. The same it does for other drugs and society in countries all over the world today.

I run an academic site about reforming the Danish orthography Basically, the Danish spelling system is horrible and is badly in need of a reform. The number system is also fucked up. So my interests are definitely spelling reform and language reform.

I also have a bunch of smaller projects some ongoing, some completed, see the main site for details.

Some of my other interests. I have tried to group them a bit by relatedness.

Improving humans: transhumanism, eugenics of the non-forced kind/liberal. Especially embryo selection, which is the act of extracting a number of eggs from the female. Mating them in vitro with sperm from the desired male. Then separating the fertilized eggs, and letting them divide once or twice. Then freezing them and taking out one of the cells for genetic testing. Do this for a large number of cells (say, 100). Select the cells with the best genes (for health, intelligence, attractiveness), and implant it in the female. No government coercion is necessary for this because parents really do want healthy, smart, attractive children already. Indeed, that is the whole idea behind discriminating between potential mates...

Other linguistic stuff: constructed languages, Esperanto (obvious).

Understanding humans: evolutionary psychology, intelligence research/IQ research/psychometrics, cognitive epidemiology, personality research, human nature. Humans are animals exactly like the other animals, and they evolved as well to fit their environment. This environment has included other humans for a long time, so naturally humans have cooperation and hostility adaptions, and a bunch of adaptions related to the mating game. The obvious ones being women's relative preference for high status+rich males, and males relative preference for beautiful+young females.


Politics/improving society: meritocracy/political theory, nuclear energy, evidence-based policy, copyright policy, patent policy, justice policy(not the right term?), internet policy, sex trade/sex work (I'm pro-legalization) and in general public policy. Lots of other stuff. Overall I'm something of a socioliberal (use the market for efficiency, regulate to correct for market failures), meritocratic democrat (decisions should be made by intelligent, informed peers in some kind of democratic way, e.g. liquid democracy with a libertarian social policy bent (legalizing a lot of things currently illegal for various health or morality 'reasons').

"I don't understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away? I can't follow the logic on that one at all! Of all the things you can do, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world. In the army they give you a medal for spraying napalm on people! In civilian life you go to jail for giving someone an orgasm! Maybe I'm not supposed to understand it..." (George Carlin, Napalm and Silly Putty (2001))


Philosophy stuff: logic, formal logic, modal logic, non-standard logic, philosophy of science, philosophy of physics. I haven't been too interested in this for some time, especially after reading and agreeing with Paul Graham about philosophy. While philosophy can be useful, armchair philosophy is generally useless and in excessive amounts even harmful to one's understanding of the world. One will not learn how the brain works if one sits around reading, say, phenomenology all day.

Somewhat recently got a renewed interest in the area, because of the recent interest in theory of mind, and the reasoning complexity behind such inferences. To study the complexity one needs to formalize the reasoning, which of course requires formal logic. :)


Various other science stuff: physics, biology, evolutionary biology (I started studying this because I wanted to know why the creationists were wrong), psychology, metascience/scientometrics. Specifically what makes a good scientific field. Paul Meehl said it well about social social, specifically social psychology.

"Perhaps the easiest way to convince yourself is by scanning the literature of soft psychology over the last 30 years and noticing what happens to theories. Most of them suffer the fate that General MacArthur ascribed to old generals—They never die, they just slowly fade away. In the developed sciences, theories tend either to become widely accepted and built into the larger edifice of well-tested human knowledge or else they suffer destruction in the face of recalcitrant facts and are abandoned, perhaps regretfully as a “nice try.” But in fields like personology and social psychology, this seems not to happen. There is a period of enthusiasm about a new theory, a period of attempted application to several fact domains, a period of disillusionment as the negative data come in, a growing bafflement about inconsistent and unreplicable empirical results, multiple resort to ad hoc excuses, and then finally people just sort of lose interest in the thing and pursue other endeavors."
- Paul E. Meehl (1978) Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 806–834.


Computer stuff: programming, python, data mining. I like to do data mining studies of stuff... Like studying the sex ratio of TED speakers (73% male), or the spammability of skills in DOTA2 and LOL (much more spammable in LOL).

Now also doing LATEX for writing academic papers. :)
On a typical Friday night I am
Very likely drunk somewhere close to the university, likely a friday bar. I particularly like the physic's bar. In other words, in Aarhus at or near the university. I like drinking. Living is too boring without alcohol once in a while. I bore easily.
The most private thing I’m willing to admit
I'm not a very private person and I very rarely lie. Obviously, I would like that other people were also like this but only a few are. I'm also very direct. If you ask questions, it is very likely that you will get an honest answer. Beware that you may not like the answer received, and for this reason, I sometimes ask people if they REALLY want my answer or not.
You should message me if
Basic strategy: If you like me and you think that there is a good chance that I will like you. Chances increase proportionally with how similar we are. Which means that if you are a creationist, firm believer in astrology, anti-rationalist or indifferent to knowledge, gender/third wave/neo-feminist, or just someone that likes fluffy thinking in general (continental philosophy, social constructivism, psychoanalysis, ...), then it will almost certainly not work. Basically, you should like science and dislike pseudo-science and religious crap.

If you don't have a Myers-Briggs type in your profile. Personality psychology is cool, pseudoscience isn't.