The entire purpose of IQ is to find someone's intelligence value mostly independent from environmental circumstances. The tests are literally designed with that purpose in mind and are adjusted to make sure they don't punish people for things like literacy or simply not knowing formula, at least in theory they should be.
A genius level IQ wouldn't stop being a genius just because he was born in a hut and never got to go to school, short of extreme malnutrition or damage actually rotting his brain. The test would be written in his ooga booga language (or entirely verbal) and work with basic human instinctual concepts that had nothing to do with education, poverty, or any other excuse blacks use.
That's why this topic cannot even be given the tiniest of spotlights. Because IQ tests by design are a mostly genetic test, and those genetics show all non-Asian PoCs to be borderline retarded on average. Its hard to even discuss them without running afoul of some really non-PC discoveries and topics.
I'd wager if Jews didn't top IQ tests (which I believe because it goes hand in hand with their consistent neuroticism and mental illness), and that feeding into their superiority complexes, they'd be banished entirely. But because they do, we get to play this fast and loose game about it.
I'd wager if Jews didn't top IQ tests (which I believe because it goes hand in hand with their consistent neuroticism and mental illness),
About those numbers. When you look at those old studies that are the source for those claims of 107-115 average IQ for jews, turns out it's studies of select students from selective and wealthy private jewish schools in NY and such with just ashkenazis, and not a random sample of jews. So it's nonsense.
But let's accept those numbers for a moment, let's say that that 115 number actually was the average iq of ashkenazi jews, for the sake of argument, good for them. But isreal's average iq is 92-93, and the ashkenazi are 30% of isreal. So then how retarded do the sephardi jews (50%) and arabs (20%) have to be to bring the average all the way down to 92-93?
The answer? Very. Would almost make you think that some of those numbers regarding the jews don't quite math out, wouldn't it? The IQ numbers I mean, of course. And absolutely nothing else.
I know someone would have an issue with that part.
It doesn't really matter to me much because I A)reject the presupposed notion that "higher IQ makes you just better as a person" that comes along with it and B)know that higher IQs are heavily correlated with so many negative drawbacks that its just as detrimental to have (see their insane neuroticism).
Regardless, they believe it to be true, which is why they keep allowing IQ tests to exist despite it otherwise being anathemic to their politics.
You cannot do math. Assume that Sephardics have an IQ of 100. For Israel to have an average IQ of 92, then Arabs would have to have an average IQ of 40. That is drooling retards incapable of even cleaning themselves level. And yet somehow they are the greatest threat to Israel, able to plan and execute wide spread attacks that are equivalent to "1000 9/11s". You are a liar, and anyone claiming that Ashkenazis have an IQ of 115 are also liars.
40 is the IQ of many dogs. Dogs are capable of self-cleaning. Again, we have to consider how many children are present in the population, along with Arab Muslims who may be inbreeding and having IQ's in the 70's. Children are going to have IQs all the way down to near zero at birth. Toddlers are going to have IQ's around that of dogs. It may be possible that younger populations of incest produced children could have real damages to the IQ scores. And that number might only be as low as 20-30% of children.
I don't really understand the complaint here about low IQ people not being a threat to Israel. They're going to be a threat to any high IQ society by definition due to a propensity for violence. We can safely assume that with IQ inflation (since 100 is a moving average), that early Iron Age and Bronze Age empires were probably comprised entirely of people with IQ's in our current 70's. I don't think this is why Arab armies necessarily fail, but just because something is low IQ doesn't make it not a threat. I Bobcat is still a threat to me even though I'm smarter than it. All that being said, I don't really see Arabs internally being the greatest threat to Israel. Hell, I would expect Israeli Arabs to also have a disproportionately higher IQ anyways than their neighbors due to education, food, and less violence.
You really seem to have taken low Arab IQ scores quite personally, and I don't know why. Unlike you, I'm not making moral value judgements on populations with lower average IQs, nor am I a eugenicist, or someone proposing a genocide based on IQ scores. I'm making a moral judgement on incest, though.
I think they started turning on the idea of IQ when non-humans not only started registering (according to their hero Descartes, non-humans were expected to score exactly zero and be unable to learn squat-fuck-all), but started beating out humans (particularly retards, who are sacred.)
I remember hearing something along those lines when I was very young, and then they got angry when I asked why animals seemed to be so much smarter than some people.
Honestly, its easy to be smarter than lower percentile people as an animal just because your intelligence isn't being blocked by higher order thinking and emotions to the extent that humans are.
A full force no-function autism guy has an IQ on par and above probably a lot of animals, but because of his "more developed" brain he loses many basic instincts and ability to properly react to stimuli due to a failure in the computer that animals just don't have.
It really doesn't take much deprivation to lower IQ. If you didn't have modern healthcare, you wouldn't even notice such. I think it's also entirely possible low IQ groups can't provide that on their own. So there is something of a feedback loop. A high IQ group could share medical care and nutrition information with a lower IQ group and possibly raise a higher IQ generation, if the genes were there, who could modernize.
when a population remained low iq forever, I doubt there would be hidden high iq genes left, low iq populations tend to engage in behaviors that eliminate the intellectuals
I was born in poverty in one of the poorest states. My iq when last tested was still 132 and it wasn't magically lower because of said poverty. People just want to deny genetics
As was I, my friend. Two junkies high as fuck conceived me, and didn't stop doing the drugs while gestating and I was raised in similar Southern poverty as you (I believe I remember such). And while I don't remember the number, when I was tested in the 1st grade they wanted to jump me to the 7th grade, which I can only imagine means it was up there.
Its also why I don't put much stock in IQ beyond the "mentally retarded" differentiation. Its so genetic heavy that its almost useless beyond narcissism and bragging rights.
The entire purpose of IQ is to find someone's intelligence value mostly independent from environmental circumstances. The tests are literally designed with that purpose in mind and are adjusted to make sure they don't punish people for things like literacy or simply not knowing formula, at least in theory they should be.
But this always fails because the mean of 100 is actually not a consistent amount, and social factors (like upbringing) will still have a major impact on cognitive development. Your IQ raises rapidly as you grow, stabilizes into a slow growth, plateaus, and begins a gradual decline after 40, never to rise again.
No one is born a genius in a hut because they are babies, and babies have IQ's below that of most dogs. This is why a excessively young population will have lower IQ's on average. If that kid starves, or is exposed to violence, you can expect even someone who is pre-disposed to a genius level IQ to never get there. Their development is arrested. If the women in your society aren't sex selecting for IQ, you're not going to see upward IQ development because it isn't seen as a breeding advantage. If you have a society that doesn't disincentivize incest, you can see IQ's crater as well.
The environmental circumstances are inseparable from the biological one, because sometimes the environmental circumstances are causing the biological one. And that's actually much more of a reason why focusing on the IQ tests is far more scary to the Left. We know that Leftism causes IQ collapse. Again, normally through starvation from bad food policies, violence from social collapse, deaths of the elderly (either through purges or through lack of medical care, making the population more disproportionately young), and more recently: allowance for inbreeding and importation of low IQ immigrant populations.
If you narrowed IQ differences down, the terrifying fact isn't that there's going to be race differences, but political ones. And, the longer the area is Left-wing, the more destructive to IQ of that area it's going to become. Worse, there's no way to increase it without multiple generations of anti-Leftist policies. If you want to increase IQ rates at all, you have to hunt down and destroy Leftism everywhere that it sits.
It’s so on brand that you are denying racial IQ differences. As if race and ethnicity aren’t obviously expressions of genetics, which are themselves an expression of evolution via selective pressures including intelligence.
You're literally making stuff up. I never said that there were differences. I said that there were differences, and that there have to be differences, particularly based on propensity of youth. I even mentioned what the selective pressures were. Some of them are, in fact, environmental.
But this always fails because the mean of 100 is actually not a consistent amount
Its not consistent because we rarely re-adjust it anymore due to becoming a "fully globalized" world instead of a lot of independent countries who can have their own mean and bell curve. Especially due to the politics of the "global 100" putting half the planet as sub 70 retards.
Your IQ raises rapidly as you grow, stabilizes into a slow growth, plateaus, and begins a gradual decline after 40, never to rise again.
Your IQ is a capability. Its there with you from the moment you are born and we literally select for age because the guys who made it weren't so retarded they thought a 150 IQ 4 year old could do the same feats as a 150 IQ 50 year old.
If someone is unable to demonstrate their full IQ, that is a problem that the creators of each individual test should be accounting for to draw it out. They fail at it, often because of the politics of the entire idea of having to make a Pidgin test makes whitey uncomfortable talking to African tribesmen.
The entire reason its an IQ test and not a generalized test like from school is because its meant to have controlled for those environmental factors post-birth, and find the genetic brain capabilities.
Your IQ is a capability. Its there with you from the moment you are born and we literally select for age because the guys who made it weren't so retarded they thought a 150 IQ 4 year old could do the same feats as a 150 IQ 50 year old.
Your intelligence capacity is that, but I've seen nothing to show that IQ demonstrates what your achieved intellectual capacity will end up actually being. Just where you are from a relative position. It really seems like it makes more sense to use it as a way of seeing on whether or not your cognitive abilities are developing as expected by testing every year.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for. Asking questions about the names of baseball teams in early tests is pretty dumb. Especially when you hand the tests to people who can't read, or don't speak English (especially if all the questions are in English).
Even with genetic brain capabilities in mind, the IQ test can't eliminate environmental factors, because the subject is living in an environment. Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
And to go back to my original point, I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age. My example is by group exclusively, not by age cohort.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for.
Well a lot of the early tests were also being used as eugenical barometers and developed with very ulterior motives in mind.
Psychology as a field has a stark difference between "trying to properly understand the brain" and "learning to manipulate the brain to our ends" and its been that way from basically the outset. And category 2 there is often far more numerous, funded, and powerful so it drowns out the rest.
Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
Well of course literal brain rotting actions will diminish the brain's ability. But I don't think the equivalent to losing your fingers means your arm muscles are also now less capable, only that you can no longer manage to reach that capacity yourself. Its a pedantic difference in how it manifests in reality, but the difference is huge in the scientific details.
I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age
Of course it will be, the problem is we as a people can no longer properly define a "group" for the purpose of these tests beyond "the entire world" which leaves a lot of improper testing and poor control being thrown into the pot while calculating the "Average."
So in the end, the IQ scale will be useless beyond a very generalized picture until we can sort that out. And I doubt we ever will.
The entire purpose of IQ is to find someone's intelligence value mostly independent from environmental circumstances. The tests are literally designed with that purpose in mind and are adjusted to make sure they don't punish people for things like literacy or simply not knowing formula, at least in theory they should be.
A genius level IQ wouldn't stop being a genius just because he was born in a hut and never got to go to school, short of extreme malnutrition or damage actually rotting his brain. The test would be written in his ooga booga language (or entirely verbal) and work with basic human instinctual concepts that had nothing to do with education, poverty, or any other excuse blacks use.
That's why this topic cannot even be given the tiniest of spotlights. Because IQ tests by design are a mostly genetic test, and those genetics show all non-Asian PoCs to be borderline retarded on average. Its hard to even discuss them without running afoul of some really non-PC discoveries and topics.
I'd wager if Jews didn't top IQ tests (which I believe because it goes hand in hand with their consistent neuroticism and mental illness), and that feeding into their superiority complexes, they'd be banished entirely. But because they do, we get to play this fast and loose game about it.
About those numbers. When you look at those old studies that are the source for those claims of 107-115 average IQ for jews, turns out it's studies of select students from selective and wealthy private jewish schools in NY and such with just ashkenazis, and not a random sample of jews. So it's nonsense.
But let's accept those numbers for a moment, let's say that that 115 number actually was the average iq of ashkenazi jews, for the sake of argument, good for them. But isreal's average iq is 92-93, and the ashkenazi are 30% of isreal. So then how retarded do the sephardi jews (50%) and arabs (20%) have to be to bring the average all the way down to 92-93?
The answer? Very. Would almost make you think that some of those numbers regarding the jews don't quite math out, wouldn't it? The IQ numbers I mean, of course. And absolutely nothing else.
Vox Day wrote a bit more on this topic: https://voxday.net/2018/04/29/the-myth-of-jewish-intelligence/
Another video on the manufactured myth of jewish IQ.
I know someone would have an issue with that part.
It doesn't really matter to me much because I A)reject the presupposed notion that "higher IQ makes you just better as a person" that comes along with it and B)know that higher IQs are heavily correlated with so many negative drawbacks that its just as detrimental to have (see their insane neuroticism).
Regardless, they believe it to be true, which is why they keep allowing IQ tests to exist despite it otherwise being anathemic to their politics.
I will remind you that Arab families have problems with incest and interpersonal violence which might very well collapse that average.
You cannot do math. Assume that Sephardics have an IQ of 100. For Israel to have an average IQ of 92, then Arabs would have to have an average IQ of 40. That is drooling retards incapable of even cleaning themselves level. And yet somehow they are the greatest threat to Israel, able to plan and execute wide spread attacks that are equivalent to "1000 9/11s". You are a liar, and anyone claiming that Ashkenazis have an IQ of 115 are also liars.
40 is the IQ of many dogs. Dogs are capable of self-cleaning. Again, we have to consider how many children are present in the population, along with Arab Muslims who may be inbreeding and having IQ's in the 70's. Children are going to have IQs all the way down to near zero at birth. Toddlers are going to have IQ's around that of dogs. It may be possible that younger populations of incest produced children could have real damages to the IQ scores. And that number might only be as low as 20-30% of children.
I don't really understand the complaint here about low IQ people not being a threat to Israel. They're going to be a threat to any high IQ society by definition due to a propensity for violence. We can safely assume that with IQ inflation (since 100 is a moving average), that early Iron Age and Bronze Age empires were probably comprised entirely of people with IQ's in our current 70's. I don't think this is why Arab armies necessarily fail, but just because something is low IQ doesn't make it not a threat. I Bobcat is still a threat to me even though I'm smarter than it. All that being said, I don't really see Arabs internally being the greatest threat to Israel. Hell, I would expect Israeli Arabs to also have a disproportionately higher IQ anyways than their neighbors due to education, food, and less violence.
You really seem to have taken low Arab IQ scores quite personally, and I don't know why. Unlike you, I'm not making moral value judgements on populations with lower average IQs, nor am I a eugenicist, or someone proposing a genocide based on IQ scores. I'm making a moral judgement on incest, though.
I think they started turning on the idea of IQ when non-humans not only started registering (according to their hero Descartes, non-humans were expected to score exactly zero and be unable to learn squat-fuck-all), but started beating out humans (particularly retards, who are sacred.)
I remember hearing something along those lines when I was very young, and then they got angry when I asked why animals seemed to be so much smarter than some people.
Honestly, its easy to be smarter than lower percentile people as an animal just because your intelligence isn't being blocked by higher order thinking and emotions to the extent that humans are.
A full force no-function autism guy has an IQ on par and above probably a lot of animals, but because of his "more developed" brain he loses many basic instincts and ability to properly react to stimuli due to a failure in the computer that animals just don't have.
It really doesn't take much deprivation to lower IQ. If you didn't have modern healthcare, you wouldn't even notice such. I think it's also entirely possible low IQ groups can't provide that on their own. So there is something of a feedback loop. A high IQ group could share medical care and nutrition information with a lower IQ group and possibly raise a higher IQ generation, if the genes were there, who could modernize.
when a population remained low iq forever, I doubt there would be hidden high iq genes left, low iq populations tend to engage in behaviors that eliminate the intellectuals
I was born in poverty in one of the poorest states. My iq when last tested was still 132 and it wasn't magically lower because of said poverty. People just want to deny genetics
As was I, my friend. Two junkies high as fuck conceived me, and didn't stop doing the drugs while gestating and I was raised in similar Southern poverty as you (I believe I remember such). And while I don't remember the number, when I was tested in the 1st grade they wanted to jump me to the 7th grade, which I can only imagine means it was up there.
Its also why I don't put much stock in IQ beyond the "mentally retarded" differentiation. Its so genetic heavy that its almost useless beyond narcissism and bragging rights.
But this always fails because the mean of 100 is actually not a consistent amount, and social factors (like upbringing) will still have a major impact on cognitive development. Your IQ raises rapidly as you grow, stabilizes into a slow growth, plateaus, and begins a gradual decline after 40, never to rise again.
No one is born a genius in a hut because they are babies, and babies have IQ's below that of most dogs. This is why a excessively young population will have lower IQ's on average. If that kid starves, or is exposed to violence, you can expect even someone who is pre-disposed to a genius level IQ to never get there. Their development is arrested. If the women in your society aren't sex selecting for IQ, you're not going to see upward IQ development because it isn't seen as a breeding advantage. If you have a society that doesn't disincentivize incest, you can see IQ's crater as well.
The environmental circumstances are inseparable from the biological one, because sometimes the environmental circumstances are causing the biological one. And that's actually much more of a reason why focusing on the IQ tests is far more scary to the Left. We know that Leftism causes IQ collapse. Again, normally through starvation from bad food policies, violence from social collapse, deaths of the elderly (either through purges or through lack of medical care, making the population more disproportionately young), and more recently: allowance for inbreeding and importation of low IQ immigrant populations.
If you narrowed IQ differences down, the terrifying fact isn't that there's going to be race differences, but political ones. And, the longer the area is Left-wing, the more destructive to IQ of that area it's going to become. Worse, there's no way to increase it without multiple generations of anti-Leftist policies. If you want to increase IQ rates at all, you have to hunt down and destroy Leftism everywhere that it sits.
It’s so on brand that you are denying racial IQ differences. As if race and ethnicity aren’t obviously expressions of genetics, which are themselves an expression of evolution via selective pressures including intelligence.
with a name like that he's jewish
You're literally making stuff up. I never said that there were differences. I said that there were differences, and that there have to be differences, particularly based on propensity of youth. I even mentioned what the selective pressures were. Some of them are, in fact, environmental.
Its not consistent because we rarely re-adjust it anymore due to becoming a "fully globalized" world instead of a lot of independent countries who can have their own mean and bell curve. Especially due to the politics of the "global 100" putting half the planet as sub 70 retards.
Your IQ is a capability. Its there with you from the moment you are born and we literally select for age because the guys who made it weren't so retarded they thought a 150 IQ 4 year old could do the same feats as a 150 IQ 50 year old.
If someone is unable to demonstrate their full IQ, that is a problem that the creators of each individual test should be accounting for to draw it out. They fail at it, often because of the politics of the entire idea of having to make a Pidgin test makes whitey uncomfortable talking to African tribesmen.
The entire reason its an IQ test and not a generalized test like from school is because its meant to have controlled for those environmental factors post-birth, and find the genetic brain capabilities.
Your intelligence capacity is that, but I've seen nothing to show that IQ demonstrates what your achieved intellectual capacity will end up actually being. Just where you are from a relative position. It really seems like it makes more sense to use it as a way of seeing on whether or not your cognitive abilities are developing as expected by testing every year.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for. Asking questions about the names of baseball teams in early tests is pretty dumb. Especially when you hand the tests to people who can't read, or don't speak English (especially if all the questions are in English).
Even with genetic brain capabilities in mind, the IQ test can't eliminate environmental factors, because the subject is living in an environment. Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
And to go back to my original point, I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age. My example is by group exclusively, not by age cohort.
Well a lot of the early tests were also being used as eugenical barometers and developed with very ulterior motives in mind.
Psychology as a field has a stark difference between "trying to properly understand the brain" and "learning to manipulate the brain to our ends" and its been that way from basically the outset. And category 2 there is often far more numerous, funded, and powerful so it drowns out the rest.
Well of course literal brain rotting actions will diminish the brain's ability. But I don't think the equivalent to losing your fingers means your arm muscles are also now less capable, only that you can no longer manage to reach that capacity yourself. Its a pedantic difference in how it manifests in reality, but the difference is huge in the scientific details.
Of course it will be, the problem is we as a people can no longer properly define a "group" for the purpose of these tests beyond "the entire world" which leaves a lot of improper testing and poor control being thrown into the pot while calculating the "Average."
So in the end, the IQ scale will be useless beyond a very generalized picture until we can sort that out. And I doubt we ever will.
100 is arbitrary. It's just what the middle of corrected test score based a sufficiently large sample is supposed to be.
After double-checking, it's not arbitrary, it's relative.
It is a relative score on an arbitrary scale.