Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 00:37:37 UTC No. 16188761

>>16188755
Are you trying to claim there is a logical dichotomy here?

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 02:19:39 UTC No. 16188860

pasta negress loses to asian master race

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 03:53:22 UTC No. 16188939

>>16188755
>have this theory that having an IQ above 120 is meaningless
You're wrong, IQ is outright dysgenic, or rather as I would put it a symptom of brain damage. The primary function of the neocortex is dimensionality reduction, it turns a million of pixels into a thousand times smaller latent space of more meaningful labels. Whatever comes nextis supposed to work in this latent space, and is overwhelmed by the deluge of mostly meaningless garbage, so it starts assigning meaning randomly to things like facial features, pieces of clothing, things lying randomly somewhere, and so on.
The more powerful the neocortex, the simpler everything seems, the less words you need to express the same thing, presumably IQ tests were subverted to give high score to people with a weak neocortex, and essentially the whole idea of how smart people think has been turned on its head.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 04:01:48 UTC No. 16188947

>>16188939
That is enough evidence you and all your spawn must be exterminated for the good of mankind.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 04:12:17 UTC No. 16188954

>>16188947
You must see that, it just isn't working right? That it wasn't just some individual failure of intelligent people failing to use their intelligence to get ahead, but everything is falling apart now. Not only the society as a whole, but fields that you would especially expect to flourish, like science, cinema, art, literature.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 04:12:54 UTC No. 16188955

>>16188755
>IQ above 120 is meaningless
on the contrary, there should be a mandate that only IQ above 140 are allowed to run for office, make decisions, vote...
anyone lower than that should be treated as second class citizens (aka cattles).

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 04:22:05 UTC No. 16188960

>>16188755
Minimax dummy

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 04:31:02 UTC No. 16188963

>>16188755
IQ might or might not give us some new great ideas or theories that will transform humanity, beauty will never give us anything, especially since it is always about the rarity and exotic, so lets say the whole population will get 20% more beautiful, it won't change anything, there will still be some that are at the very top that we will consider beautiful and average will stay average, exciting no one just by sheer look alone.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 07:04:43 UTC No. 16189092

i consult man bear pig to make informed decision

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 07:28:26 UTC No. 16189117

>>16188963
>since it is always about the rarity and exotic, so lets say the whole population will get 20% more beautiful, it won't change anything, there will still be some that are at the very top that we will consider beautiful and average will stay average

That's legitimately a womanly way of thinking. Guys will want anything above a certain level, and the 'novelty' factor is granted by women having different features, where a man will choose a girl who might be less "conventionally attractive" in favor of being smitten by her unique characteristics. For guys, making everyone 20% more beautiful would just reduce the number of less than desirable women (though the remaining few genuine uggos would then just be considered only by the most desperate).

It's presumably very different for women, who want men primarily for the 'It factor' and who are capable of exuding confidence beyond others.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 08:01:40 UTC No. 16189155

>>16188755
Both? That girl is from Northern Italy, and Northern Italians have an average IQ of about 105.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 08:09:51 UTC No. 16189169

remove the stupid, insane, ugly and unfit gradually raise the baseline

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 09:08:53 UTC No. 16189206

>>16188955
t. cattle

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 11:12:20 UTC No. 16189327

>>16188963
purely relativist way of looking at beauty is retarded

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 11:38:05 UTC No. 16189360

>>16188963
>beauty will never give us anything,
On the contrary. Beauty is the triumvirate, next to truth and goodness, of the only three abstract/mind-related things which we desire for their own sake. Everything else follows, is merely a tool/design to accomplish something.

beauty = that which evokes the sensation of the sublime without it needing to "negotiate its terms (like its usefulness)" beforehand. You know it when you see it. The most self-evident appreciation to something visual possible.

truth = attainment of facts that evaluate to "true" if reduced and rendered in logic/math)

goodness = moral evaluation of the things that are inalienable and categorical, which we deem "good".

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 11:48:58 UTC No. 16189378

>>16188755
120 would be the average iq if I had this
>>16188955
based

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 11:51:45 UTC No. 16189381

>>16189378
Oh FUCK IT. I fucked it.

Can't you see my sadness?

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 17:36:32 UTC No. 16189796

>>16188755
it's not meaningless. without a big iq you basically have no purpose in life. all the paths that could bring you money and success are closed for u. you can't become a scientist without iq, you can't create a good business without iq, you can't have a decent job without iq, you can't be a specialist without iq.
i'd argue that iq is basically everything, its even more important that knowledge since it's mostly based on problem solving

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 18:29:16 UTC No. 16189852

>>16189796
>without a big iq you basically have no purpose in life
Why?
>all the paths that could bring you money and success are closed for u
Money isn't your purpose in life. And IQ doesn't even correlate with IQ beyond a certain point. Emotional intelligence and other personality factors matter more.
>you can't become a scientist without iq
Scientists don't make shit. And they are not all geniuses either. Richard Feynmann had a sub 130 iq
>you can't create a good business without iq, you can't have a decent job without iq, you can't be a specialist without iq
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 18:52:40 UTC No. 16189880

>>16189852
>Why?
because all doors are locked for you. you can't really self improve in terms of intellectual capacity, therefor you won't be an efficient worker, therefore you won't make good money, therefore no girl will want to procreate with you so you won't fulfil your life's duty and you'll feel bad about yourself, since you contribute nothing to this world.
>Money isn't your purpose in life. And IQ doesn't even correlate with IQ beyond a certain point. Emotional intelligence and other personality factors matter more.
it's not in of itself, but it's a measure to a purpose of life
>Scientists don't make shit. And they are not all geniuses either. Richard Feynmann had a sub 130 iq
they still contribute to society and are widely respected, without iq none will respect you and society will look down upon you.
>Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit
cope more. hard work means nothing where the only demanded capability in this world is problem solving, and that is obviously an iq.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 19:02:21 UTC No. 16189894

>>16189880
*BTFOs you*
https://liu.se/en/news-item/de-som-tjanar-mest-ar-inte-smartast

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 19:57:52 UTC No. 16190000

>>16189880
You are mentaly ill, or a jew posting nonsense on purpose.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:01:00 UTC No. 16190007

>>16188755
Yes, IQ above beauty. If we're smart enough we can solve beauty. CLONE VON NEUMANN!

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:24:13 UTC No. 16190046

>>16189894
This does not contradict my statements though. You can't even become a shitty programmer without a decent iq, let alone some scientific employee.
>>16190000
You have no evidence to actually abolish what I said

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:31:02 UTC No. 16190057

I would not allow anyone to breed at all

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:34:24 UTC No. 16190061

>>16188955
Absolutely not, high IQs have demonstrated multiple times throughout history that they are no better at managing organizations and understanding people than lower IQs.

In fact they can be super dangerous because they will always find a way to rationalize their distorted ideologies. When you live in a society, there isn't always an objective right or wrong way to do things, and more often than not it comes down to the will of the strongest or the majority depending on the social structure. It rarely comes down to facts and logic.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:46:30 UTC No. 16190085

If the world IQ were at 120 of the English white average, the HDI would go up, and crime would go down drastically.

The economy would improve, atheism would become more prevalent, mental illness would become less prevalent and severe, homelessness would be less prevalent,

IQ is what explains the differences between first-world countries like Canada and Japan vs third-world countries in Africa, where crime, poverty, and religious extremism are problematic.

BMI would go down, smoking rates would go down, technological progress would be accelerated, and there would be more college graduates.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:55:43 UTC No. 16190105

>>16189796
>>16189852
>>16189880
>>16190046
>>16190061
IQ is literally brain damage. It's never good for anything. As above, it's the result of the inability to process raw inputs into meaningful pieces of information. High IQ people can't learn ont their own, and need extensive explicit training. They spend all the time on analyzing something meaningless (the bike shed effect), they only think they are smart.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:11:31 UTC No. 16190124

>>16188755
Based on the seething in this thread, only 145+ IQ needs to exist

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:23:40 UTC No. 16190142

>>16190105
that's why they're responsible for all the inventions the humanity created? I am not talking about some spergs on chan who larp as owners of high intellectual capacity. I am talking about people who invent things and level up technological advancement. People like OpenAI employees, high class physicians etc

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:33:11 UTC No. 16190159

>>16190142
>that's why they're responsible for all the inventions the humanity created?
It's why technological advancement all but ceased.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:42:47 UTC No. 16190169

>>16190142

>In 1965, the year he won his Nobel, Richard Feynman gave a talk at his former high school in New York and told the students that when he took an IQ test at school, around 1930, he scored 125.
>William Shockley was tested twice at school in the 1920s and failed to reach the IQ of 135 required to join Lewis Terman's pioneering survey of gifted children
> Luis Alvarez, too, was rejected by Terman--which meant that Terman's programme lost a further opportunity to ‘discover' a future Nobel laureate. In fact, none of Terman's gifted children went on to win a Pulitzer prize or a Nobel prize.

>When asked in a 2004 interview with The New York Times what his IQ is, Hawking gave a curt reply: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:47:52 UTC No. 16190177

>>16190169
>when Einstein visited the US in 1921, he was informally subjected to a question set by the inventor Thomas Edison, an advocate of intelligence testing for his prospective employees. Some journalists asked Einstein: ‘What is the speed of sound?' He confessed he did not know, and replied patiently that there was no need to carry this information in his head, as he could look it up in a book. Next day, the inevitable headline was: ‘EINSTEIN SEES BOSTON; FAILS EDISON TEST'.
https://www.nytimes.com/1921/05/18/archives/einstein-sees-boston-fails-on-edison-test-asked-to-tell-speed-of.html

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:57:07 UTC No. 16190190

>>16190169
>>16190177
the exception proves the rule, anyway iq in the rage of 125-130 is not low. I am talking about people who have iq in the range of 100-120 because this is where all hardships begin.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 22:01:43 UTC No. 16190201

>>16190190
>climate scientists excluding data they don't like.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 22:06:12 UTC No. 16190214

~140 IQ here, revere/discard opinion accordingly
>>16188755
A) In this day and age, you don't need eugenics to improve genes. We have CRISPR and gene editing and all that.
B) Genetics is only one half of the key to a truly intelligent society. I used to be a complete moron (~115 IQ) until I managed to excise most of the unhealthy habits and thoughts that weakened my mind. I imagine it must be the same for others.
The cultural zeitgeist must be moved away from self-destructive and towards more enlightened ideals. I, however, do not see how.
>>16188939
>pseudopsychological gobbledygook
You sound like you've misread a Sherlock Holmes book and assumed all smart people are constantly obsessed over meaningless details. They don't. Dexter's Laboratory and Jimmy Neutron are kids cartoons, not accurate depictions of real people.
>>16188955
>only IQ above 140 are allowed to run for office
Why not 150? We only need so many congressmen and presidents, even with such a high requirement you have well over a hundred thousand potential candidates.
>>16189852
>Why?
Because you literally can't even COMPREHEND life you retard. With an IQ below 80 your average desire is "ooh, I want ice cream!" Even 105-120 IQ midwits can't find a purpose beyond dying for some self-righteous fabricated ideal.
>Money isn't your purpose in life.
>And IQ doesn't even correlate with success beyond a certain point.
Spot the contradiction.
>Emotional intelligence and other personality factors matter more.
Emotional intelligence is just a made up concept by midwits who can't stand the thought that they might not be the smartest.
>>16190085
>implying smart people can't believe in things you don't believe in
>implying smart people can't be affected by conditions we still don't really understand
>implying smart people can't be subjected to destructive behaviors

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 22:12:28 UTC No. 16190222

>>16189381
wot?

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 22:21:40 UTC No. 16190235

>>16188755
Sounds like incel chuds demanding pussy they never got.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 22:40:33 UTC No. 16190279

>>16188755
120 is king of midwits, probably like yourself. Euthanize yourself.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 00:22:45 UTC No. 16190439

>>16188755
Woman: beauty
Man: IQ
What's so hard about this

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 03:54:00 UTC No. 16190634

>>16190214
The fact that it has several names (the law of triviality, the bikeshed effect) basically proves it's a widely observed effect, and not just my personal bias.

I actually claimed Sherlock to be unrealistic. The example that I like to use is Holden Caulfield.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 14:41:52 UTC No. 16191124

>>16188755
We had this thread just a few days ago.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 21:23:54 UTC No. 16191668

>>16188755
>You are in charge of an eugenics program
Just like >>16164594 ?
>Would you put IQ above beauty, or viceversa?
Sure, as long as appearance doesn't indicate severe genetic issues.
>I have this theory that having an IQ above 120 is meaningless
I guess it might seem that way for anyone below 140.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 21:35:03 UTC No. 16191679

>>16190279
Richard Feynmann was a midwit?

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 21:36:04 UTC No. 16191681

>>16188755
IQ doesn't work like that. Look up regression toward the mean. If you have to select then select for beauty.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 21:38:29 UTC No. 16191684

>>16190214
>Genetics is only one half of the key to a truly intelligent society. I used to be a complete moron (~115 IQ) until I managed to excise most of the unhealthy habits and thoughts that weakened my mind. I imagine it must be the same for others.
No, I've been at this IQ for my entire life, from the earliest standardized tests and never changed whatsoever. I remain unchanged.

You would know that though if you were triple nine+

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 23:46:28 UTC No. 16191839

>>16188755
If you can't a hot girl yourself you're a retard and you don't deserve to live.
>verification not required

Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 23:47:51 UTC No. 16191843

>>16188755
I would put PHENOTYPE above both.