Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:17:39 UTC No. 16583236

And yes, I know that an IQ of 100 means average intelligence in the population, but you know what I mean.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:18:48 UTC No. 16583238

>>16583235
>>16583236
Probably metabolic or physical limits on how much you big your brain can get before you can't get out of the woman's vagina

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:42:21 UTC No. 16583251

>>16583235
>Why did evolution determine that an IQ level of around 100 was sufficient and not push for higher intelligence?
>Looks at South Korea and Japan birthrates collapsing at 104-105IQ average

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 01:19:17 UTC No. 16583271

because evolution is fake

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 01:20:42 UTC No. 16583272

>>16583251
>Looks at South Korea and Japan birthrates collapsing at 104-105IQ average
that has nothing to do with IQ. also 104-105 is nothing special.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 01:24:24 UTC No. 16583274

>>16583272
105 is amazing to somebody dumb enough to think that is the reason they have a low birthrate.
Guy probably has an IQ of 85

Stop guessing start learning at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 01:42:22 UTC No. 16583290

>>16583235
>Why are humans so stupid.

Because we are animals?

We can't create the earth and universe. We just live in it

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 01:44:25 UTC No. 16583292

>>16583272
>that has nothing to do with IQ.
>Looks at all the countries with near or over 100 IQ have low birthrates
>Looks at all the countries with below 90 IQ have high birthrates
Hmmm...

>also 104-105 is nothing special.
>among the highest national averages for IQ globally
>nothing special
Hmmm...

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 03:19:09 UTC No. 16583338

>>16583292
it's technology and society you retard

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 06:47:54 UTC No. 16583430

>>16583235
>Why did evolution determine
evolution doesn't determine everything. 100 IQ is simply the most good enough IQ. There are no selection pressures for more

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 06:53:20 UTC No. 16583431

>>16583430
*anything

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 10:04:05 UTC No. 16583508

It's because of morality. We could solve this, but the methods would be very bad and mean so we don't. That's it

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:08:32 UTC No. 16583531

>>16583235
Funny fact:
No matter how smart humanity is, 100 will be the IQ.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:58:21 UTC No. 16583546

>>16583235
Humans have reached near peak qualitative intelligence. The only way to really increase the cognitive output is by quantitatively increasing cognitive tasks and increasing short term memory size. There is not much room to do that with humans, but for AI you can increase it a lot. Soon peak human intelligence will be as important as peak horses for transportation. There might be some nobility about it but if you rely on peak horses for transportation you will have huge shortcomings.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:23:06 UTC No. 16583564

Humans are on an evolutionary roller coaster ride the likes of which has never seen before. It's impossible to understand why any of it is happening in such detail. It's "going down" now according to some retarded studies, but who knows what will happen longer term?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:28:55 UTC No. 16583569

>>16583338
You have no technology and no complex society in 60IQ countries and you certainly won't have independently

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:18:16 UTC No. 16583846

>>16583564
learn to read graph

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:31:56 UTC No. 16583852

Humanity's population is booming and lower IQ correlates with more children. Evolutionary speaking, you're better off having low IQ, since you're more likely to spread your genes. Genes that make you stupid are more likely to spread than genes that make you smart, at least in the modern world.

Evolution is working as "intended"

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:41:05 UTC No. 16583859

>>16583235
The moment intelligence reaches the threshold sufficient for civilization to take off, the environment changes, dysgenic effects start working, intelligence is no longer being selected for.
When history begins, we were no less, and also not any more smart than we had to be.
Land talks about this.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:44:41 UTC No. 16583863

>>16583238
There's a lot of room for optimization at current size at weight
See bird brains

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:43:21 UTC No. 16583908

I'm fascinated by the threshold of intelligence below which processes of the conscious and unconscious mind that we take for granted simply do not happen. It's such a taboo subject, so potentially inflammatory in polite company. Adult human beings with the cognitive capacities of dull children whose perception of the world and themselves is not merely a difference in degree but a difference in kind. Their problems with conditional hypotheticals, the past and the future, their lack of inner monologue, mental imagery, or imagination, and the inevitable conclusion that they simply are not equipped to deal with the complex modern world in a rational, independent manner. Imagine being one of those things. Being human but less so. Barely perceiving but unable to grasp fully their terminal inferiority.

I wonder what percent of the population falls beneath this threshold on a functional level, through a varied combination of low genetic cognitive potential, a dearth of intellectual nurturing during childhood development, and the innumerable sources of aggregate brain damage that can accumulate over time until the capacity for true human thought is sufficiently diminished as to render the subject effectively mindless. Zombies.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:36:42 UTC No. 16583970

>>16583908
yeah
this all sounds smug, but really it's a bitter realization - that vast swathes of humanity are my inferiors and that the world is so much worse as a consequence.
Nurturing pity, or ideally apathy to them instead of resentment and scorn is not trivial, but necessary

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 21:08:25 UTC No. 16583991

>>16583846
fuck off nerd

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:22:58 UTC No. 16584044

You do realize that 100 is meant to be always average iq right?
If a population starts getting smarter and say averages around 111 iq. The benchmark to get 100 would be increased so that those smarter people now get an iq of 100. This makes 100 the makes average of population. IQ is not meant to show how smart you are, it is there to show how smart you are relative to others. So anybody with iq above 100 will always be above average and everybody below that score will always be below average.

This is called the Flynn Effect. So a person who has a iq of 100 should score 115 or something in a iq test from 50 years ago.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:17:27 UTC No. 16584190

>>16584044
learn to read >>16583236

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:33:50 UTC No. 16584202

>>16583235
Lower iq's just breed more and breed more in highschool where people are the most fertile.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:52:54 UTC No. 16584216

>>16583235
You don't need to be Einstein to rawdog hometown jenny behind a walmart. Once you nut, it's out of natural selection's hands

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:59:40 UTC No. 16584223

>>16583908
>>16583970
if you have the capacity to understand language, you can learn anything the most brilliant genius can learn. You will just be slower at it, and it will require a little more determination. The genius also needs to be determined, but the threshold is lower.

A lazy genius won’t get very far above average. Willpower, focus, and commitment to learning is vastly more important than raw intelligence (if we define “intelligence” as the rate at which you gain insight about a topic). It becomes more difficult to make up the gap as we age, which is why early childhood education is so important. It’s insane how much a good preschool can change the trajectory of your life. Still, anyone who can read can learn physics or mathematics. They just have to commit to it.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 05:43:42 UTC No. 16584361

>>16583274
>t. doesn't understand bell curves

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 06:13:50 UTC No. 16584369

>>16583235
Do you see that curve going down in last thousands of years?
That started around the bronze age collapse, and nobody fucking knows why is happening. There are only lame ass speculations.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 06:26:32 UTC No. 16584375

>>16584223
Yeah, I think that given the base capacity for language and enough time and dedication, the vast majority of individuals could unlock a much higher of potential than their default. I think nurture is more essential than nature, because no matter how high the potential of the nature, with a poor nurturing, you're fucked.

But that's just theoretical potential. The problem is we are stuck with the people who have failed to live up to that potential and have no system that would provide them with the intensive, dedicated didaction that would be required to bring these fucking imbeciles up to a function level of intelligence. There's just no system for that at scale.