Image not available

703x1023

bill-gates-017-26....jpg

๐Ÿงต Nerds

Anonymous No. 16148724

Are "nerds" not actually high IQ but rather just people who spend a high amount of time gaining knowledge in an attempt to compensate for their genetic inferiority? And then when they create technology it isn't usually for the betterment of mankind but a reflection of their bitter damaged egos? Is intelligence just an illusion and ultimately useless? Aren't all those people in Africa more evolutionarily advanced because they are able to reproduce more?

Image not available

994x1200

photo_2023-02-21_....jpg

Anonymous No. 16148804

>>16148724
>Aren't all those people in Africa more evolutionarily advanced because they are able to reproduce more?
No, look up r-selective vs K-selective genetics.
>the rest of your questions
Yes.

Anonymous No. 16148817

>>16148804
Yeah yeah I've heard that r whatever shit before man but how do you know that overall they're going to have less offspring that survive? The popalulation growth in Africa is vastly outrunning Europe so I don't think it matters which reproductive strategy they're using

Anonymous No. 16148824

>>16148804
Also this is about differences between species anon. Different races aren't different species. Pretty sure applying r and k selection to humans is retarded

Image not available

1280x1134

photo_2023-05-30_....jpg

Anonymous No. 16148851

>>16148817
>how do you know that overall they're going to have less offspring that survive?
That's not the inference. A smaller percentage of their offspring survive but that doesn't mean the number who survive would be smaller. When their population growth reaches a threshold, they die off quickly, especially if not subsidized by foreign aid. Their societies are not self sufficient enough to maintain a stable number naturally.
>Pretty sure applying r and k selection to humans is retarded
Why? The corollaries are pretty obvious.

Anonymous No. 16148860

>>16148851
>When their population growth reaches a threshold, they die off quickly, especially if not subsidized by foreign aid
Do you have any actual data that shows this having happened?

Anonymous No. 16148866

>>16148724
I would agree with the knowledge and low IQ, as I am anything but a genius. I was always terrible at math, but somehow here I am as a computer security researcher as a college dropout. I only got this way by reading a ton of books and book smarts are not the same as IQ.

Image not available

1029x909

photo_2024-01-13_....jpg

Anonymous No. 16148891

>>16148860
When Zimbabwe was Rhodesia, they required no foreign aid. The US alone has sent Zimbabwe over 3 billion dollars since 1980, meanwhile the life expectancy of the average black therein has decreased substantially since 1980. A similar situation happened in South Africa with the poverty rate of the average black increasing since apartheid ended.
>South Africa has a 32.6% unemployment rate and half of the population is 100% dependent on state welfare (https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2023-01-06-half-of-south-africas-population-are-100-dependent-on-state-welfare/).

>The "Social Development" Minister, Lindiwe Zulu, said (https://dailyinvestor.com/south-africa/34380/south-africa-has-27-3-million-people-on-grants-but-only-7-1-million-taxpayers/) that giving everyone free money is "addressing poverty." 27.3 million people receive state grants but only 7.1 million people pay taxes, down from 7.4 million in 2022. The White population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa#Racial_composition_of_each_age_group_in_2020_(estimates)) is around 4.7 million.

>In late 2023, Cyril Ramaphosa, president of South Africa and the communist ANC party, celebrated (https://twitter.com/MbalulaFikile/status/1700055136305881111) the expansion of the welfare state: "No government on our continent supports citizens in the way that the South African government does."

Anonymous No. 16148899

>>16148891
Ok so that shows they had less (((money))) when the west stopped giving it to them but it doesn't show that they all started dying off.

Anonymous No. 16148905

>>16148899
It's almost as though you need food to survive and you need money to buy food, that is, if you can't into farming.

Anonymous No. 16148909

>>16148905
Yeah but did they start dying off with less money?

Anonymous No. 16148920

>>16148909
How would they not? They literally can't feed themselves without relying on foreign aid.

Anonymous No. 16148925

>>16148920
Yeah but did they?

Anonymous No. 16149504

>>16148804
I don't think there is such a thing. There are species better or worse at not dying, and they breed accordingly. Also it's unfair to compare domestic bunnies with wolves, as they underwent possibly the most extreme change in behavior from the wild species.
>>16148851
>>16148860
As far as I know, the only recorded time their population crashed was when they failed to outbreed the things that were killing them.

Anonymous No. 16149513

>>16149504
Now I noticed the foreign aid... I mean rabbits, of course.

Anonymous No. 16150705

Intelligence is commonly the focus of grandiose delusions because intelligence is intangible.
Its a lot easier to imagine that you're smart when you're low IQ than it is to imagine that you're tall when you're short

Anonymous No. 16151127

>>16150705
It's only a little bit harder to tinker with IQ tests until they give high score to smart people like yourself.

Anonymous No. 16151216

>>16148724
21st century warlords look embarrassing tbqh. neutered

๐Ÿ—‘๏ธ Anonymous No. 16151676

>>16148724
>in an attempt to compensate for their genetic inferiority
Speak for yourself. I wield both powers.

Image not available

960x847

64324678.jpg

Anonymous No. 16151679

>>16148724
>in an attempt to compensate for their genetic inferiority
Speak for yourself. I wield both powers.

Anonymous No. 16151890

>>16148824
it's not about different species, retard, it's about two different approaches to reproductive strategy. It can be more readily illustrated with two species that entirely devote their biology to one strategy vs the other, but most species have varying manifestations of both with different consequences.

Human societies differ based on their r-selectivity vs k-selectivity. That's why you can have a population with diverging groups within it, where one segment of the population has high investment into few children, while the other side of town is baby mamas as far as the eye can see