Interesting thread on race and iq debate
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
IQ is really a series of thresholds.
If your population’s average IQ is north of a hundred, then you can build and sustain prosperous societies.
If the average is sub 80, then you’re going to be stuck in a dysfunctional dirt world.
Also, if you’re at 100 average, you don’t need to be controlled by a higher IQ population. You’ve already proven you can manage yourselves.
My point is that acknowledging the problems with Somalian immigrants is not a tacit admission that you should be ruled by the Japanese (or any other “high IQ” demographic).
My controversial take is that even moral proclivities are somewhat hereditary. Some people are inherently more honest, compassionate, honorable, etc. we just haven't taken the efforts necessary to decouple from cultural influence and really try to quantify it. And I suspect whilst the East Asians and Ashkenazi populations might have the edge in the abstract reasoning that constitutes IQ, the WASPs have the lead in the communal morals. Which could help explain some of the surprising outcomes of their respective empire building attempts. The efficiency gains of a high-trust, low-friction, self-policing population at 100 iq could outweigh the gains slightly higher reasoning abilities alone might contribute when trying to scale up a nation.
And because we no longer recognise these differences or take steps to specifically cultivate them, our society as it stands is structured in a way that those communal and pro-social traits are on the cusp of endangerment in the population as a whole.
Look up some of the Ashkenazi studies. I think the whole 'really high IQ' thing is largely overblown. The test groups weren't equal, for one, and it wasn't equally distributed IQ, even in the results, but verbal IQ specifically, as I recall. Even the results didn't say they were smarter than whites as a whole, because it was massively skewed to verbal IQ. But the real issue is that they were measuring relatively highly educated children, who are of course going to outperform children on average.
Good points, though. It is interesting that, in some ways, whites outperform even Asians, despite a lower average IQ. It could just be different values, though. Empire building isn't the only measurement of IQ, although it is relevant in basic societal competence.
Also, IQ isn't the be-all, end-all anyway. Asians are now having many of the same issues that the West had forced upon it, and look to be falling, albeit more slowly, to the same cultural decay. Doesn't matter how high your IQ is, if you let your culture get overtaken, for whatever reason.
Vox Day demolished the myth that is high IQ for Ashkenazi jews.
https://voxday.net/2018/04/29/the-myth-of-jewish-intelligence/
Never let anyone run that on you, because it is false.
Leather Apron Club did a good breakdown of the high jewish IQ myth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stLCurXu0fc
Europeans might exist at the ideal nexus of IQ and testosterone.
Of course, now everyone is low T because of horrible diets and environmental poison.
Also, I’m not sure anyone can claim IQ supremacy when we’re all being replaced by sub-90 IQ retards.
I think the White population, also the Jewish, has a broader bell curve than East Asians, so more geniuses but even more idiots by percentage(China's population is so high that on a non-relative basis they almost certainly have more geniuses and idiots than any other country save perhaps India). But geniuses are what drives society forward more than a higher average IQ, inventing things, etc.
Honestly this why yellow niggers disgust me even more than brown and black niggers. They know the difference between right and wrong. They're just evil and don't give a shit. Having a gorilla tier IQ is mitigation, even if it makes one unsuitable to live amongst the civilized.
Good clarification, although no one was saying that. Like you say, you can acknowledge someone has a higher IQ, while still being happy with how your people do things, and wanting to keep independence.
Asians or whoever could have 1000 IQ. Doesn't mean they get to take my freedom...at least not voluntarily. At 1000 IQ they could drop Gundams on us, or something, of course, but you get the point.
And if your average is 80, doesn't mean I get to rule over you...also doesn't give you a right to come over and fuck up my country, either.
Different groups of people are different. I don't really much care about IQ, personally, but do acknowledge the differences. I just want to be left alone, and don't want outsiders fucking with my shit.
I don't care who people are, or how they act. I just don't want them coming to my place and destroying everything.
That's just completely wrong. You can develop a prosperous society even in below average IQ populations. It's going to depend mostly on your cultural institutions practices. Colonial America is actually a good example, considering most of the colonists were not highly intelligent (and as was standard for agrarian societies of the era), most were illiterate. Instead, cultural practices that promoted and incentivized long-term time preference, planning, and communal co-operation were the thing that made them a prosperous society.
Or a counter-example might be something like the Assyrian Empire. It is fairly reasonable to assume that a Bronze Age civilization based entirely out of a cult that celebrated extreme levels of violence and warfare, where nearly the whole of the population would be illiterate except a 'reading/writing' class of merchants, would have been fairly low IQ. Their civilization lasted 4,000 years. Another example might be the Mayans, Aztec, or Egyptians.
Low IQ civilizations can absolutely exist and be prosperous. They just can't be prosperous in Liberal civilizations which require high levels of individual intelligence due to individual responsibility.