The IQ Question

testes size has to do with fidelity and how much the species "Cheats" and nothing to do with delivery efficacy.

I think what you're saying is that big balls are r-selected; smaller balls are K-selected.

fuck off nigger. my white dick is 6" and I regularly hit the cervix.

it's really hard for the people with high IQs. My IQ is really high, and I have a really hard time relating to people with even average IQs. I think faster and the intelligence difference is immediately obvious - to me. When I meet someone on my level it's wonderful.

Larper spotted

low IQ faggot spotted

fact 6: low iq is correlated with being a nigger

Without taking sides here - you don't have to have an extremely high IQ to know that it's hard to related to someone who is way dumber than you. It just happens more often to higher IQ people.

However: if you're well into your 20's and frequently communicating with people who are way dumber than you - unless part of your job is being the only smart guy in a room full of idiots - that's on you.

Attached: 1548868849600.jpg (208x242, 16K)

no

don't tell us, we already know all of this. Good luck explaining this to the left

>IQ Question
so the IQQ?

So is IQ nature or nurture? Are we born with a finite capacity or are we able to develop our critical thinking skills beyond what they are?
I believe for some people the answer is yes. Some people, regardless of any other factor, can develop their brain to be in the upper quartiles. Other people I don’t think so. I think some people are just stuck on being a certain IQ and
Not being able to advance.

>So why shouldn't we treat low-IQ like a disability and devote resources to helping them integrate with society?
because we're nazis
we believe in natural selection
survival of the fittest

>So is IQ nature or nurture? Are we born with a finite capacity or are we able to develop our critical thinking skills beyond what they are?
IQ doesn't exist
They are measuring different types of intelligeni, like spatial awareness or pattern recognition.
reality is there are multiple forms of intelligeni, someone might be a great communicator, some else a computer scientists
you'r ability to preform in any era is gentically limited
your job is to find an area that you are strong in and hope your ceiling is above avg.
and you still need to work.

in the modern west, our education system is total shit because it's designed to teach white guilt. a lot of people would preform better if they had a proper education.

in short IO is like your natural limit
but it varies depending on the task
and you still need practice.

Iq is about 0.8 (or 80%,if you must) heritable in the US. How much of a trait is genetic depends on the enviorment. Just like if you starve as a kid, you will be short, but if you eat more you won't get taller. So if you compare Africa to the US, more of the variance will be explained by enviorment.

But it doesn't really matter. "the enviorment" or "culture" is only a result of people's genes and nature around you. Black parents and communities are bad at raising children because their parents are low iq, lazy and violent, which is genetic.

Many sources: thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-heritability-of-iq/

I would argue that we can conceive of things that we can't fully understand and because of that, we're not at the limits of intellect as a species. So we're constrained, some more than others, by nature. Nurture has shown to be effective in increasing IQ though (regularly solving puzzles can help you develop an aptitude for it). It seems to me at least that we have a range set by nature but we can work within those boundaries.

This makes sense when you think about it, the same thing occurs with strength, or running speed. Some are born naturally stronger than others, take men and women as a whole for example. You can choose to work at it and be as strong as you can be but that might not even hit the lower boundary for someone else who, without even working at it, will always be stronger than you.

>IQ doesn't exist
>They are measuring different types of intelligeni, like spatial awareness or pattern recognition.
Not quite. What they are trying to measure is general intelligence (g). Yes there will be some variance in what subtests you are good at but not only is it highly correlated with you overall score, subtests have shown to be a bad predictor for your outcome. (1)

I'm very wary of this stuff, because it close to moving into the "different kind of intelligence" pseudoscience, that doesn't measure intelligence at all. It only measures skills and sentiments so everyone can feel intelligent in some way when they are not.

(1): srmhp.org/0202/iq.html

>This makes sense when you think about it, the same thing occurs with strength, or running speed.
Increasing inteligence in Adulthood has shown to nearly impossible and only temporary. This sentiment you have stems from a misunderstanding of what inteligence is. It is not a skill. Iq tests are designed to be culture and skill neutral.

see

Attached: 5f3.jpg (680x695, 34K)

Why though?
Low-iq people are still useful to society. They need extra help to be productive and obviously they aren't as productive as everyone else, but as long as they don't require more than they produce it's still a net gain for society. There's a discussion to be had about actual retards, but someone with an iq of 80 can still perform a useful role in society and live a fulfilling life. And so can their 80 iq children, and their 80 iq children.
It's all going to be irrelevant in a few generations when we can just modify people anyway with genetic and cybernetic enhancements, so seriously why even care at all?

>Not quite. What they are trying to measure is general intelligence (g). Yes there will be some variance in what subtests you are good at but not only is it highly correlated with you overall score, subtests have shown to be a bad predictor for your outcome. (1)
what is general intelligence?
i get the abstract idea.
but when you make a test, what are you testing?
what have you defined as general intelligence? pattern recognition?
It's arbitrary. that is the issue

>Low-iq people are still useful to society. They need extra help to be productive and obviously they aren't as productive as everyone else, but as long as they don't require more than they produce it's still a net gain for society. There's a discussion to be had about actual retards, but someone with an iq of 80 can still perform a useful role in society and live a fulfilling life. And so can their 80 iq children, and their 80 iq children.
Low IQ people are useless to society because of automation
only use is cannon fodder.

>Low IQ people are useless to society because of automation
That's not a good route to go down, because literally everyone will be useless because of automation. No matter how high your IQ is you aren't smarter than a machine. Unless you want to really follow your natural selection fetish to its logical conclusion and extinct humanity in favor of superior machine intelligence, you probably want to rethink this.