Is this just a meme or is it worth the read?
you already know what the conclusions are
unless you feel you're a better sociologist and you're looking to criticise it then there isn't much you could glean from it really
>>8074289
>>8074314
Nonetheless, I can imagine intelligent people discussing the intellectual validity of this book on the basis of how the conclusions in this book were drawn. Personally I haven't read it but I know it causes a lot of butthurt on /lit/ and /pol/ but I have yet to hear a good argument on why the results and conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' were wrong.
>>8074332
realistically speaking it never has been proven wrong
there's a reason this sort of research is untouchable nowadays
It's bullshit. How well you will do in life has more to do with character traits than quantifiable intelligence tests. It tries to blame everything wrong with society on the growth of low IQ scores e.g. only low IQ women have children out of wedlock, which is empirically wrong.
Go on /pol/ and ask people their IQ and you will get an average of around 140: so how can you explain why they are all failures and virgin NEETs besides social forces?
>>8074334
Society isn't run by the most high IQ people, look at who's really in control... I would say intelligence is less relevant than character traits when it comes to really getting ahead in life.
It's bad, biased "research"
>>8074334
Not proven wrong in one devastating blow, but there are many solid points against it. The Flynn effect, the high importance of non-IQ traits like temperament to social success, and the slow increase of black intelligence over time, among other things, all lay some doubt on its claims. Plus, even if everything it says is true- IQ is mostly genetic, highly heritable, and critically important to being a functioning member of society- population IQ will only decrease by 6 points over the next 100 years, so it's questionable how critical the problem it presents really is compared to the economic, military, and environmental crises we face over the next few decades.
>>8074348
>Go on /pol/ and ask people their IQ and you will get an average of around 140
>>8074381
>but there are many solid points against it
there are many small, niggling points against it
let's also not forget that the race part is only a small part of the whole book
> so it's questionable how critical the problem it presents really is compared to the economic, military, and environmental crises we face over the next few decades.
I would agree with this though
I'd also submit that UN population predictions (any of their predictions really) are complete rubbish
>>8074550
In his defense, they'll be self reported and only people with higher iqs (or who are willing to lie about higher iqs) will respond. Plenty of people will probably have exaggerated scores from online tests as well.
140 is still very high
>>8074563
as someone who is very right wing, /pol/ is fucking stupid
I doubt they're much above 115
>>8074348
Everything you said shows that you don't understand the book. You're flipping out over stuff the book and most everyone who thinks IQ is useful agrees with you on. Nothing you said challenges the premise that there is some noticeable but obviously limited connection between IQ and capacity to succeed.
>>8074348
>/pol/
>140 iq
racism is linked to low iq, you know?
>>8074289
There's some truth to it undoubtedly. IQ is a good predictor of success in life. That's not to say there aren't smart failures and dumb successes, but it's definitely less likely.
>>8074348
I bet /r9k/ will tell you the same. You're probably genuinely retarded, does your mama change your diaper for you or are you a big boy who can do it himself?
Is there any trustable IQ test on the internet?
>>8074550
>>8074748
That's my point. IQ is dubious and most tests seem to be pure bull. IQ is less relevant then character traits at getting ahead in life.
>>8074643
http://harvardmagazine.com/2015/05/the-science-of-scarcity
Poverty literally makes anyone end up behaving stupidly and ends up being circular. Being poor makes you stupid and being stupid makes you poor. Being poor for a while ends up modifying people biologically and physiologically and their theoretical cognitive capacity.
Intellectuals are largely not necessary under capitalism. People are breed to intensify the division of labour which makes people specialize and lowers IQ across the board. As long as capitalism regulates birth IQ will lower because you only need a few people to be smart.
The books promotes the bland conservative answer that more liberalism and to abolish the welfare state and that will solve all issues. What ends up happening is the poor breed in poverty at even faster rates then with welfare. The reality is smart people serve little purpose and what is really needed by society is stupid people who can obey rules in large numbers.
>below 100: detritus, should be quarantined from the rest of the human race
>100-110: should be seen and not heard, fit for menial tasks
>110-120: thinks they're geniuses because they're doing a shit tier degree at a shit tier school, the most vocal group in society, at age 23 they realised "America are the bad guys duuuuuude" your average Chomsky fan
>120-130: contributing member of society, is vocal about their centrist political views, generally swallowed the establishment pill
>130-140: smart but doesn't think of themselves as geniuses, generally specialised knowledge in a certain field, may hold more extreme political views but hides them
>140+: those with the ability to change society and actually formulate new ideas, could be cultivated into the Philosopher-King if surrounded by others like them (which they aren't), immersed in realpolitik if they are involved in politics at all
we can all agree on this right?
>>8074800
>What ends up happening is the poor breed in poverty at even faster rates then with welfare.
you got statistics for that?
I saw a book called The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould at a bookstore once, and it's supposed to be about how The Bell Curve is wrong. Is that book right, or is it wrong and the other book is right?
>>8074855
Mismeasure of Man is largely seen as total shit that ultimately hurt the cause because of how bad it was
>>8074800
The layer of western society that faces the kind of poverty discussed in that article is fairly thin, and the evidence for heritable intelligence can still be found far from such dire circumstances. This certainly doesn't explain how bottom-income white kids on average outperform rich black kids on the SAT.
>>8074852
Compare birth rates in detroit to the congo
>>8074289
It's a meme book that was curbstomped before the popular breaktrough of internet. Therefore you it's hard to find any proper debunkings of it in the internet. Therefore it's still a cult book for stormfags. Compare with the pre-internernet memes that Yoko Ono destroyed The Beatles or that KISS is dangerous.
>>8074872
>there are super secret debunkings that you can't find but I know of
does your dad work for Routledge?
>>8074855
>The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould at a bookstore once, and it's supposed to be about how The Bell Curve is wrong.
The 2nd edition, yes.
>>8074860
>cluck heil, ckluk hiel!
Hardly.
>The revised and expanded, second edition of the Mismeasure of Man (1996) analyzes and challenges the methodological accuracy of The Bell Curve (1994), by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, which re-presented the arguments of what Gould terms biological determinism, which he defines as "the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status."
>>8074289
Charles Murray is an ex-CIA muh free market think-thank shill who has spent decades producing dubious, ideologically motivated research. Inspired, among other things things, the Clinton welfare cuts. That, together with this particular book's connection to the pioneer fund (pro eugenics organization) is enough to at least cast doubts on its credibility.
Coming Apart is really good, too.
>>8074289
>implying IQ is a true measure of innate intellectual ability
automatically garbage
>>8074893
this is easily the worst 'criticism' of the book
every intellectual undertaking has an ideology behind it
>>8074886
I think you replied to the wrong post.
>>8074891
It's just so apparent that Gould is upset about the possible implications of work on psychometrics rather than their potential usefulness. Discussing the policy implications or lack thereof for new research would be a much better use of the type of rhetoric Gould used than attacking the research itself.
>>8074898
>implying it implies that
read a book and then kys
>>8074899
Not all ideologies are equal. Some are rotten to the core.
>>8074909
Then that rottenness should be apparent enough on the surface that making claims about the core isn't the most effective way to keep someone from eating that particular apple.
>>8074909
sort of like people then huh?
>>8074898
IQ correlates with so many metrics of success - academic, financial, healthwise. It's not exhaustive, but it's a really, really strong predictive factor for success. Look into it. It's not pseudoscience.
>>8074872
My problem with the book is that it presumes that your position in society is determined by intelligence which is simply wrong unless you actually buy into the feel good liberal notion that meritocracy ever did or can exist
Intelligence (unless you are a total moron) is largely irrelevant in most high paying/respectable positions like CEO, politician, etc, etc... it doesn't matter if you have an IQ of 100 or 140 as long as you have the right character traits or are a psychopath and can project yourself properly
Average IQ, if it is biological, will naturally decline because we don't need people with high IQs since we have a developed division of labour which destroys the demand for individual geniuses
Trying to explain societies by abstract average IQs is stupid
>>8074914
Are there any forms of the IQ test with some legitimacy? I've heard so much about how bad they are at measuring intellect that I can't base anything off of them.
>>8074748
That's because niggers are more racist.
>>8074918
you're a fucking idiot if you think most CEO's aren't in the 130+ range
>>8074902
But that doesn't make the stormkukls right.
Consider this: In deepest Nigger Africa, the most dangerous animal isn't lions nor hippos. It's army ants. Of course the niggers, who can't read for shit, knows this. Otherwise they would be eaten.
So enter Richard Jewstein and Charles Muggay - The Great White Hopes. They r the best, bcuz they no ngiars. So they pitch their tent in the savanna, set up the lion scarers and prepares to go to sleep. Suddenly, Ooga Booga, from the nearby village with noo books, with a flashlight cries out that they can't sleep there, because the army ants will eat them.
So, who's the retard now?
>>8074748
I guess that's why black people are more likely to be racist than whites.
>>8074925
Not him but evidence please?
>>8074914
You can take a data set and make it say whatever you want, I personally know this is especially true in economics. Be sceptical of any social "science". Two "experts" can take the same data set and come to contradictory interpretations.
Am I success because I have a high IQ or do I have a high IQ because I am successful? Take it as you will.
>>8074926
The people who construct their lodgings from literal shit.
>>8074925
If your daddy has the right connections and you know a bit of rhetoric you'll do fine as long as you can project yourself properly
Tl;dr
Niggers are dumb
>>8074935
Trump's IQ is above 150. Try again.
>>8074943
Proof?
>>8074948
>smart parents produce smart offspring
Is there any proof that it's necessary?
>>8074918
>it presumes that your position in society is determined by intelligence which is simply wrong unless you actually buy into the feel good liberal notion that meritocracy ever did or can exist
False and false. It just says that a higher than average IQ is a useful trait and a lower than average one a hindrance. This doesn't mean that a meritocracy is in place, but rather that there will be gradual and imperfect drift in the direction of IQs over a certain point holding more power and wealth, but there will always be people outperforming those with higher IQs than themselves at one thing or another. It's a trend, not a system.
>Intelligence (unless you are a total moron) is largely irrelevant in most high paying/respectable positions like CEO, politician, etc, etc... it doesn't matter if you have an IQ of 100 or 140 as long as you have the right character traits or are a psychopath and can project yourself properly
Remember that only 15% of people have an IQ over 115, but physicians, attorneys, professors, and physical scientists have a mean average IQ of greater than that. We don't give them IQ tests as a barrier to entry. Just lots of difficult work and tests based on what they study in school. Even an investment banking CEO has to do a shitload of mathematical analysis and reading as a junior employee that many people would find stupefying. Remember this is the whole population we're comparing, not just smart guys versus geniuses. These professionals and scientists are not some sort of Nazi ubermenschen, but rather somewhat above average in one measure of what their brain does well. Doubtless there are other traits at play, but this one is in the mix too.
>Average IQ, if it is biological, will naturally decline because we don't need people with high IQs since we have a developed division of labour which destroys the demand for individual geniuses
But nobody's talking about geniuses except you. "Genius" IQ (if IQ can even indicate such a unique trait as genius) occurs far, far from the numbers used when discussing actual professions people have. No profession except maybe NSA autistic cryptologist is chock full of people with 150 IQs.
>Trying to explain societies by abstract average IQs is stupid
If you ignore everything else, yes, but you are the only one who think people outside of /pol/ do that.
>>8074332
>I have yet to hear a good argument on why the results and conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' were wrong.
>>8074334
>realistically speaking it never has been proven wrong
that's because you haven't actually bothered to look for, much less read, any of the criticism of the book by experts in the field.
when the book was published a group of 50 academics published an open letter pointing out the flaws in the book. you could look up any one of those people and find a good argument why the book is wrong. look up the work of Robert Plomin for example. His work points out that race does not explain much variance in intelligence and there are many causes of average differences between groups.
hst the book is worth reading because it is influential, but not because it is right
There is truth to IQ. Anyone that is not 125 and up is probably going to have the upper echelon of society barred from them. Hate to say it, some people are just better than others.
But, if you look into how IQ is measured, your verbal reasoning may be very high while your quantitative reasoning is average. Unlikely but possible. Play to your strengths.
>>8074934
No, cow dung mixed with soil. It works.
So, how's life in your plastic bungalow? Mold yet?
>>8074923
>>8074928
TRIGGERED
It's almost like the job of the social sciences is to 'prove' through shitty "well y'know, unverifiable woo-woo context and influence"-arguments that whites aren't, on average, more intelligent and that the rise of the West was "lol, just a contingency".
/lit/ - /pol/tards and memes
>>8074943
nice meme
that's an estimate based on the average sat for wharton students. trump was a transfer student from fordham who got in because his dad knew an admissions officer.
>>8074926
>intelligence = knowledge
Jesus Christ dude.
>>8074932
Successful people are generally successful because they have a useful set of traits for what they do. If pattern recognition and the ability to manipulate things mentally is useful in your profession, then a high IQ probably has probably made a lot of stuff easier.
>>8074961
>any proof that it is necessary
"Evidence that it is likely helpful" would be the useful phrasing of what you're trying to ask. The answer would seem to be yes, there is quite a bit that suggests you will have an easier time succeeding at demanding professions with a higher than average IQ.
I didn't even think this meant anything. I had to get neuropsychological testing as part of a study that I am part of for sleep apnea. Lolol I got 123. Will I be success guy?
>>8074969
What is cause and effect? Having successful, loving parents that are encouraging in the right way will not only make the children successful, but knock up their IQ scores quite a few notches as well.
Another botching of cause and effect is a dank swedish meme about horseback riding makes teen girls more successful later in life, teaches leadership and shit.
Ok, it may be true that equestrianism in itself is good for you. But the parents must first of all be able to afford it. So only that fact makes things more complicated.
William J. Matthews and Stephen Jay Gould (1994) argued that the authors of The Bell Curve made four basic assumptions about intelligence:
Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.
Intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
Intelligence must be primarily genetically based.
Intelligence must be essentially immutable.
According to Gould, if any of these premises are false, then the entire argument disintegrates (Gould, 1994).[10]
Similarly, anthropologist C. Loring Brace suggests that The Bell Curve made six basic assumptions at the start and argued that there are faults in every one of these assumptions:[11]
Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.
Cognitive ability has a heritability of between 40 and 80 percent and is therefore primarily genetically based.
IQ is essentially immutable, fixed over the course of a life span.
IQ tests measure how "smart" or "intelligent" people are and are capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
IQ tests can measure this accurately.
IQ tests are not biased with regard to race, ethnic group or socioeconomic status.
>>8074926
You sound like the voice I imagine Pynchon uses when he posts here.
Are you there, Tommy?
>>8074992
Wrong reply?
>>8074983
except i DO think iq matters and recognize that blacks on average have lower iqs.
strawman arguments are expected when you're dealing with double-digit iqs, though.
>IQ doesn't even matter, I bet you aren't a genius, in fact I think ur dumb, checkmate /pol/ ;)
>>8074948
>smart parents produce smart offspring
The thing is even if you accept this that doesn't say anything about your social position. People don't reach the top because they're abnormally intelligent but because of other psychological and social factors. If your not aggressive no matter how smart you are you will never be at the top. Most "smart" people occupy boring desk jobs or something at best or sit around on NEETbuxs masturbating to Anime.
>>8074963
>a higher than average IQ is a useful trait and a lower than average one a hindrance
That's just a truism.
The whole take away the book tries to get across is average IQ is going down because of welfare and other social programs, if we were more economically liberal average IQ would go up because the stupid would for some reason have less children because they would have less access to resources or something like that which I don't see following since poverty just seems to increase birth rates.
Without some form of eugenics average IQ, if biological, will keep going down... but I don't see why that even matters that much when you have an intellectual division of labour. Even if you agree with the premise of the book you have to take a nihilist position.
>>8074995
So he restated things that weren't stated in absolutes in Bell Curve as absolutes and then argued against his new absolute statements from there. Mediocre.
>>8075000
>dat pic
It took three people to write this
>>8074984
>If pattern recognition and the ability to manipulate things mentally is useful in your profession, then a high IQ probably has probably made a lot of stuff easier.
My parents have horrible pattern recognition skills but I am very good at it (probably from playing so many video games as a kid).
You don't get into positions of power because you are the most intelligent, there's way more factors at play and intelligence is just one. Assburgers will never rule the world anytime soon because they suck at communications for example
>>8074977
your maymay doesn't negate the fact that most trump supporters are stupid just like the blacks you protest.
>>8075016
>De'Nesha
>Nichelle
Until today I cannot even in the slightest comprehend why African Americans name their children such dumb names. I mean De'Nesha is obviously some We Wuz Kangz goobledegook but what right has Nichelle to exist?
>>8074984
>stormkuk in denial of how IQ test works
Sorry to break it to yo, but IQ tests are all about knowledge. There's no such thing as running EEGs or real time tests such as various video games.
Consider this early foray into dawkinism. If you've never seen a pig or a violin or a tennis court or a record player because you never grow up in an environment with pigs or violins or tennis courts or record players, you just got four nigger points.
The tests have been more sofisticated by "predicting" how dots on a 90-degree matrix will move and shit. But we as westerns are experts at judging 90-degree patterns. Our whole design is based upon that. So people that grew up in more natural environments will get more nigger points just because they doesn't shitpost on 4gag for boredom and detriment.
Jesus Christ, these threads. If you have 115 and up you can probably become a millionaire and write something interesting if you work at it. This thread reeks of scatter-brained, nerve wracking intellectual insecurity.
>>8075032
>what right has Nichelle to exist?
>mfw
>>8075039
sorry, loser. my iq is one of the highest.
im a confident alpha male who's transcended your beta mentality.
>>8075032
whites be catching up tho
>>8075041
Still a dumb name
>>8075022
Work on that reading comprehension. I never said the stuff tested in IQ tests was likely to be the only or even the dominant thing needed in one's line of work.
>>8075043
Whoa whoa whoa there big guy. How high we talkin top gun?
>>8075051
Thanks, jews.
>>8075051
>>8074995
>Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.
And that can be disproved just like that. There's people that are colorblind and general oblivious of strange patterns, so they won't discover dog shit on the pavement unless you point at it. Then there's people with terrific pattern recognition skills. They can see if a few pebbles are off.
Now, in a hunter-gatherer society, who would be the retard?
>>8075032
It's like you've never slept at a friend's house and seen that they do stuff differently there. Have you even visited another country? Stuff isn't the same everywhere. In burgerland there are many cultures and one of them uses these names.
>>8075060
>stormkuk
>having successful kids, because you didn't name them Thunderhammerfist Jewkiller
Pick one.
>>8075033
Good thing I never said it made sense to test the whole world with one set of tests or that doing so would even be useful. If you come up with something that works for "westerners" and only administer it to westerners, then you're on the right track.
>>8075008
>The whole take away the book tries to get across is average IQ is going down because of welfare and other social programs, if we were more economically liberal average IQ would go up because the stupid would for some reason have less children because they would have less access to resources or something like that which I don't see following since poverty just seems to increase birth rates.
Just like there's more to success than just IQ, there's more to birth rates than just money.
>Without some form of eugenics average IQ, if biological, will keep going down... but I don't see why that even matters that much when you have an intellectual division of labour. Even if you agree with the premise of the book you have to take a nihilist position
If you average IQ goes down, then you will have fewer high-IQ people born, basically a smaller talent pool. Given the ol' 80-20 rule or some other such approximation, you realize that this is actually important because those high achieving folks were causing most of the innovation. A nation and world with more of such people is, hopefully, a nation and world with more innovation, more efficiencies and less suffering.
>>8075088
>Good thing I never said it made sense to test the whole world with one set of tests or that doing so would even be useful. If you come up with something that works for "westerners" and only administer it to westerners, then you're on the right track.
So there's not one single test that fits all humans. Good, now we know that.
So is there a test that is applicable for a whole single country, say France?
>>8075105
You could get close enough for useful results.
>>8075008
Murray's work isn't really separable from his ultra-liberal ideology. In the end he's just arguing muh deregulation muh cuts less welfare. There's been a worldwide collapse in birthrates, specially in countries with strong welfare states. And it's not just 'the west' either, Iran's birth rate has declined dramatically since the revolution and is now comparable to France or Sweden's. You see the same pattern everywhere except in a few areas of subsaharan Africa.
>>8075125
Birth rates are about education and culture. If people think kids will interfere with their ability to maintain a standard of living they covet, then they will have fewer. People who don't covet such a lifestyle will have more kids on the same income. Education on family planning is also huge.
What we see in Sweden and France is that people are educated on family planning and want to be in the middle class, but realize that they will not be middle class if they have many kids. Now, do we change the culture somehow? Do we tax them more or less? Do we just replace them with uneducated Africans on welfare? There are a lot of hard questions here.
>>8075114
Désolé mon gars mais en France il y a des différences culturelles (pas autant qu'aux US évidemment) dans la population. Il y a les immigrés du maghreb venus pendant les années 70, les réfugiés asiat dans les années 80, d'autres réfugiés plus neufs venus de Syrie, il y a ceux qui ont grandi dans les bidonvilles puis les cités, il y a les petits blancs des cités, de banlieue, les riches, les pauvres. Les français de souche et les autres etc, comme partout ailleurs.
(Sorry dude but in France there are cultural differences, not as much as in the US of course but still) in the population. We got some algerians come to work in the 70's, asian refugess from the 80's, newer refugees from Syria, those who grew up in shanty towns and then estates, poor whites from the estates, the suburbans, rich and poor. All the kids those immigrants had, who are list between their parent's culture and french culture, and who turn to some kind of religious fervor. Home grown french people and others, like everywhere else.
>>8075125
*education, wealth and culture
Obviously wealth is part of the equation there in one way or another but education and values are huge.
>>8075125
Sweden's birthrate has actually been on the rise for many decades now.
>>8074835
Here's a (You)
>>8075088
>If you average IQ goes down, then you will have fewer high-IQ people born, basically a smaller talent pool. Given the ol' 80-20 rule or some other such approximation, you realize that this is actually important because those high achieving folks were causing most of the innovation. A nation and world with more of such people is, hopefully, a nation and world with more innovation, more efficiencies and less suffering.
Capitalism destroyed the necessity of well-rounded individuals by introducing more rationalized organizational forms which can allow one manager to get more done with less. The real innovation that occurs today is the result of research teams not any one intelligent individual. People just need to obey, which doesn't require intelligence but character and can be induced with the right drugs, and play the part of functionaries to the new emerging machine order.
Also intelligence doesn't make less suffering since the higher your IQ the more likely you are to kill yourself.
>>8075134
And all of these groups are equally prepared to enter the same niches in society but would also be subject to unfair cultural biases on any test ever? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Nobody is denying that upbringing has an effect on IQ or that what we test for in IQ tests isn't related to how things are done in western countries.
>>8075151
Again, not talking about geniuses, but rather people in the top 15% or so who are likely to be useful on something like a "research team" of the type that our predominantly high-IQ doctors and professors frequently participate in.
>Also intelligence doesn't make less suffering since the higher your IQ the more likely you are to kill yourself.
You're talking about outliers again. I'm talking about people who make good doctors, researchers and the like. Being a pointy edge in a round world isn't fun but it would be very hard to reach a point where that's a big percentage of the population. In any event, I was talking about the innovations done by the top 15-20% or so and how they have made the world more liveable for the rest.
>>8075134
So french from poor regions scores just as high?
And speaking of what passes for education in France. Let's say that there's an european conference of librarians or archivists. What the english or french do to show off how educated they are, is reading verbating from a manuscript.
Now, manuscripts, or conference papers or whatever, can be sent out before. So assuming that everyone has read it, why read it again? And if no one has read it, why not send it out before so that everyone else can read it, ponder upon it and ask questions and shit?
I'll say that the swedish-american model of summing up what you have to say in 3-5 (or up to 8 if you have the time) points and open for questions are much better.
Then of course, there's talks and lectures. But reading from a manuscript. Verbatim. I got the edukationz. My azz didn't burst of 3 years of bench,warming.
>>8075194
you killed the english language. Now no books can ever be written again.
>>8075207
I went to superiur ekole polytenik and the most fun thing was this parade.
>>8075068
In my country we regulate the possible names you can give your children. Which is the most sensible thing one can do as it prevents irresponsible parents from making their child an object of ridicule.
We still have the occasional imitation of American tomfoolery but that is thankfully limited.
>>8075225
but muh freedom
>>8075137
Yeah and all the kids are dark skinned
>>8074289
>le Old Del Paso Loli face
>>8075226
American naming conventions are the greatest example why extreme individualism is a detriment for a cohesive society.
>>8075225
what country? Here in France the officer who registers birth can and will stop a parent from naming his son something ridiculous. There's an example the law teacher gave where a kid was named Radiateur (heater) by his drunk father but the officer filed a request against it and so the kid was given a proper name. The name has to be a hindrance for the kid for the request to come through ("Fuckface" would be a difficult name to bear even for the most alpha of alpha teenagers).
>>8075234
America's too big for that level of cohesion across the board, and I'm not saying that's a good thing. The degree of freedom we have for naming allows for cohesion within subgroups the size of your entire country.
>>8075237
Germany. There have been some cases where people tried to name their child McDonalds or Satan.
>>8075243
The US (United States (a federation of states states have different laws (the US is so big and its people so diverse the laws can be very different from one state to another))) is a very big country.
>>8075237
>Here in France the officer who registers birth can and will stop a parent from naming his son something ridiculous.
Like Muhammed? Don't want the kids to be named after a cartoon figure.
>>8075274
>>8075276
>replying to your own post
Huge meme, most people don't take it seriously as it provides no substantial critical analysis, just going off of assumptions made in psychometrics.
>>8074991
>he fell for the environment/upbringing meme
no
http://www.unz.com/jman/all-human-behavioral-traits-are-heritable/
>>8075578
>The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
>A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
>>8075151
>Capitalism destroyed the necessity of well-rounded individuals by introducing more rationalized organizational forms which can allow one manager to get more done with less. The real innovation that occurs today is the result of research teams not any one intelligent individual. People just need to obey, which doesn't require intelligence but character and can be induced with the right drugs, and play the part of functionaries to the new emerging machine order
History shows that when humans moved from foraging into farming, this allowed for people who did not need to engage in hunting (bureaucrats, scholars, warriors, etc.), which vastly expanded the range of human activity.
Nowadays we force professionals to do sales, to participate in long meetings, to type their own reports and other paperwork, which is the same as forcing everybody to engage in hunting. We are going backwards.
>>8074289
The science is in, IQ is real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rm0LrO9vU
>>8075750
Some of that is extremely depressing.
>>8075952
That's why it makes people so upset and inclined to rationalize disagreement with it.
>>8075976
What should you do with people who literally just get in the way? Professor Peterson says at one point that the military has determined that those with IQs of 83 are essentially untrainable. Kill them? Not allow them to procreate at the very minimum.
Should we ban procreation for people that have IQs lower than say, 120?
>>8075745
Much of it is pointless drone-work which requires no intelligence, even more so after the arrival of widespread computer technology. The modern office dedicates increasing amounts of time and effort to convince the inmates they are useful and important. mandatory 'motivational' workshops. Situation begins to resemble the later days of the former Soviet Union. Our whole economic system might be fictitious all the way up. There are sillicon valley startups valued in billions which are yet to turn up a profit and in some cases even present an actual product.
>>8075738
low-iq detected
>>8075750
thx for this
>>8075750
Peterson is a pseudo-scientific hack on a par with Deepak Chopra.
>>8076009
I'm not good with "oughts." More of an "is" guy, so I don't have a strongly held opinion on this.
Banning procreation for people on public assistance would seem to serve a lot of purposes including reducing reproduction at the lower IQ tiers (and among people with other traits that make them untrainable or unwilling to work), and the main reason this isn't done is a combination of religious concerns and the democratic party's need to have people who are reliant on assistance.
>>8075750
This guy also did a lecture on Crumb, it was basically Redpill: The Lecture. I wish I had a professor as based as him when I was at university.
>>8076031
Offering incentives for the self-sterilization of people on welfare / public assistance might be a step in the right direction.
The funny part is that feminists / progressives et al are completely fine with assortative mating (ie, free market sexuality) but refuse to acknowledge that it is basically a form of eugenics. Apparently eugenics is only wrong if it's done by a National Socialist or by someone attempting to de-incentivize procreation people of a lower caste or IQ bracket.
The reality is that the entire history of biological life has been a massive thresher of pain and misery, countless individuals being culled from the gene pool to make what we are now enjoying. Civilization actually arrests this process.
>>8076028
Why? he seems redpilled and Rational, unafraid to utter un-pc truths. I believe it is the liberals and race deniers who are the true pseudoscience hacks
>>8076059
Yes but human stupidity is a constant, not a variable. If you limit the procreation of your stupid caste, I'm sure the other castes will self-stupefy to balance it out. You have no evidence to the contrary.
>>8076112
I tried to greentext this post to make it sound dumber but I cannot do so. It is simply too idiotic a statement to parody.
>>8076122
Thank you for the compliment.
>>8076031
>Banning procreation for people on public assistance would seem to serve a lot of purposes including reducing reproduction at the lower IQ tiers (and among people with other traits that make them untrainable or unwilling to work), and the main reason this isn't done is a combination of religious concerns and the democratic party's need to have people who are reliant on assistance.
Ever heard of Planned Parenthood? You do realize most abortions in America are performed on the financially unprivileged right?
>>8076059
>The funny part is that feminists / progressives et al are completely fine with assortative mating (ie, free market sexuality) but refuse to acknowledge that it is basically a form of eugenics. Apparently eugenics is only wrong if it's done by a National Socialist or by someone attempting to de-incentivize procreation people of a lower caste or IQ bracket.
Fucking who you find sexually attractive is not eugenics. Eugenics is consciously breeding for select traits which most people do not engage in, especially not men who are less picky than women when it comes to mating.
>>8076192
>Ever heard of Planned Parenthood? You do realize most abortions in America are performed on the financially unprivileged right?
Yes, I do know that. That doesn't keep people from carrying plenty of pregnancies to term as well as all the ones they abort.
**OFFICIAL RACIAL POWER-RANKINGS**
1. WHITE
2. ASIAN
3. ARAB
4. HISPANIC
5. AMERINDIAN
6. AFRICAN
>>8076233
>"Asian" is one race
read a fucking book anon
>>8076028
Calling someone a hack is all well and good but it has to go hand in hand with proving how. Like the repeatable IQ test results of the same ranking no matter the set of questions is hack because..?
>mice raised in unstimulating environments are found to be less intelligent compared to mice raised in stimulating environments
>implying this doesn't objectively disprove The Shill Curve (written by two rabid Zionists who thought Jews were genetically similar, btw)
>>8076501
The argument for IQ isn't that it's 100% inheritance.
>>8076408
He's talking about slants
>>8076233
Jews are objectively the superior race. Highest IQ, own the other races all the time.
>>8076572
Until the other races go: "Hey... Wait a minute..."
>>8076572
No, you have to factor in demographics to complete the equation. Applying the bell curve of IQ to demographics, there are ten times more Whites with 130+IQ than jews, in fact, there are more Whites with 130+IQ than there are jews in the world, by almost double.
>>8076501
>he fell for the environment meme
>he fell for the blank slate meme
>he fell for the race isn't real meme
>he fell for the genetics doesn't exist meme
>DUDE LIKE WE'RE ALL LIKE THE SAME LMAO
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/
>>8074563
>140
>very high
>>8076572
IQ isn't the alpha and the omega, that's the point. Coupled and balanced with other characteristics a healthily high IQ is a good thing.
When you say "Jews" in your post I assume you mean Askenazi Jews, the group who actually do have high IQs and not Sephardic or Berber Jews, and who also strangely enough have high white European admixture.
The point is balance, which white Europeans have. Ashkenazi Jews (who everyone means when they shout JEWS) do have high IQs, but they're also notoriously neurotic, anxious, effeminate, and have low testosterone. Saying that they are superior because they have IQ on the high end of the bell curve is like saying we should be ruled by MENSA members, who we all know are complete social autists who have never accomplished anything in their lives. It's apparent that once you go too high you start losing other things, it becomes to your detriment.
Also:
>[Jews] own the other races all the time.
I guess if you consider getting your shit compulsively stompted and getting throwm out of every country you inhabit for the entire history of human civilization to be "owning", then sure.
>>8076585
They basically bamboozled the whites into genociding themselves. Honestly I believe the world would be a better place if we stopped pretending and just put the Jews in Charge. China has an average IQ of 105 and there's over a billion of them. Imo the white race is weak and deserves to go extinct. High iq whites will be assimilated into the judeo-Asian ruling class while the rednecks either get sterilized or are bred into low-skilled mulatto labor units.
T. Half Jewish happa male
>>8076599
mine is 175 and it's borderline retarded, smart people have 200-250? geniuses have 250-300+, 140 it's half-animals and 120 and lower are amoebae
It's a spook
>>8076620
oh yeah well i have 235
>>8076605
So the Whites are the most Balanced and thus Superior Race?
>>8076616
>the fabled Jewish/hapa mental-illness genetic lottery
You're like one more post from shooting up your school my man
>believing in the modern day voodoo called psychology
This is how you spot a retard. Go read about the horoscope while you are at it
>>8076634
I'm also trans (any pronouns are fine with me) which is THE smartest demographic at 121.7 IQ average
>>8076634
wow you just roasted that nigga
>>8076630
Asiatics are smart but feminine, passive to a fault, collectivist like ants, can be stepped on. Jews' neuroticism and faggotry get their shit rekd continuously, all brains no muscle. Niggers are all muscle no brain, like animals to be domesticated and put to work.
White man is the happy medium, he is the one who has shaped the West to his image and secured hegemony over the East. For the last 2,000 years the boot of the white man has been planted firmly over the reigns of civilization. He is the apex predator.
>>8074925
Richfag here. My dads the CEO of a large international consulting firm. Him, as well as a lot of his mates, definitely have IQs above 110 but I wouldn't say any of them are 130 or above. It's true that their attitudes and social acumen is what distinguishes them
The people I know who are 130 and above are some artists at university who lack societal awareness and will fail in life
the scientific consensus is that intelligence is ~50% heritable and behaviour is also somewhat genetic
it's only once you bring race into the equation that it becomes a no no subject
>>8076616
>They basically bamboozled the whites into genociding themselves.
What led Whites to be hoodwinked is the cuckstianity ideology, a siren song that fundamentally is poison; egalitarian for any not you and yours at the detriment of you and yours, everyone god's children/the same, turn the other cheek/be a doormat(as it's interpreted,) born a sinner/hate yourself.
Ironically, jews hatred for cuckstianity and their attempt to get rid of it is good for Whites, bad for jews, of course, jews are propagandizing to replace it with junk, but replace the self loathing death cult with natural healthy ethnic identity and traditions combined with White's demographics and intelligence. Think national socialists or jews themselves magnified 1000 fold, Whites are a sleeping giant.
>Honestly I believe the world would be a better place if we stopped pretending and just put the Jews in Charge.
huehuehue, no, as I already pointed out, the pool of high IQ Whites dwarfs jews, don't need jews, at all.
>>8076605
I knew one of the Askhenazi Jews with an over 140 IQ, and he was forever onto a new batshit social science fad, from no government to no punishment for crime, ever, to no nation states and no borders. The high number of Jewish geniuses comes from an evolutionary pressure for narrow business acumen, given for example the Medieval period in which they were not allowed to own land to farm but were--unlike Christians--allowed to lend money. This pressure was strong and came absent the pressure to attune to natural principles and cycles, as the principles for treating the kin group came from culture and natural principles for treating outsiders well were not immediately evolutionary actionable.
The end result is people who can calculate bullshit very quickly, but who systematically invent and fall for crap like Rothbardian libertarianism and Marxism and so on. All of which have the same narrow technical appeal of usury, but work out (or would work out) nightmarishly in the natural world.
Meanwhile, I've known whites with IQs over 140 and though they are rare you get an glimpes at an entire sane, rational, realistic, imaginative holistic worldview that eludes the Jew with an IQ over 140. That's probably because the fucking crazy but skilled-calculator whites died off for being real-world idiots, while the equivalent in Jewish subcultures make killings by usury.
All Jewish ideologies are more like bank heist plans than living and breathing systems.
Look at the complete soulless looking worlds that spring forth from the Jewish mind.
>>8076703
Peppermint?
>>8076690
>implying Christianity wasn't part of the plan
The pool of high iq AZNs dwarves whites. Korea, Japan and China all have avg IQs over 105. There's a lot of variation among whites too, some of the shittier east euro countries are barely above nigger tier. The tech industry, which is bound to define the future, will soon be minority white goys. The true herrenrasse= Jews, east AZNs and high-caste subcontinentals
>>8076743
Butthurt Balkano-Dacian untermensch detected
>>8076714
You're correct, which is why I keep harping on how the clannishness aspect of, say, Islamic Arabs isn't necessarily bad but within the context of subpar Middle Eastern genetic stock it's a recipe for a perpetual underdog. Contrast moslem clannishness with the Sicilians mafia-style family kin altruism or the Western history of the Jews.
>>8076767
That will be you once you work out the math. 12-14 million jews, the claim of being a standard deviation higher than Whites would mean 14% have a 130+IQ, ie 1.96 million jews with 130+IQ. A billion Whites, 2% have a 130+IQ = 20 million, 10x the number of Whites with 130+ IQ than jews, more Whites with 130+IQ than there are jews at all.
>>8076800
Remember, there is a HUGE variation among White nations. The only one that's on par with East Asia is Italy, some are much lower. And there's 2 billion Han Chinese alone. As a Trans Jew Asian I'm a true genetic aristocrat. While You're probably a mongrel of various B-tier European ethnicities. Stay jealous peasant
>>8076820
>doesn't understand averages
>true genetic aristocrat
It's been fun.
>>8074918
>believing that society is a meritocracy
>liberals
Dude. Come on.
In my experience, the ones that insist that society is a meritocracy are conservatives, because muh Randian utopia.
Liberals constantly critique the unfairness of the system. The whole point of economic liberalism is that you can build a more meritocratic system by structuring society differently.
>>8076820
>Remember, there is a HUGE variation among White nations.
You have a different definition of huge and are talking of nations instead of race. For example, going by nations, jews median IQ drops to below a 100.
Asians have a sharper bell curve with a higher median butt drops off at the ends, ie asians don't have as many stupid and smart, on the high end it tapers off at 120 and flatlines after 125.
>>8074977
is that supposed to be fantano with a full beard?
Bias in Mental Testing was better.
its a good book :)
>>8076021
>>8079246
>the "moral realist" starter meme
>>8079246
Why do you hate Science and Logic?
>>8074381
the flynn effect actually isnt occuring and its literally a myth that gets thrown around. it happened for a while but now it doesnt.
