99% of all humans should be culled according to IQ...

Trust me lad, you should be glad that this isn't happening.

Yes, the human race will be reduced to a single-sex species in this culling since the emotional logic of women invalidates any meaningful usage their IQ score. People will be produced through careful genetic selection in artificial wombs.

Think so? Think again, brainlet.

Attached: IMAG0363-3.jpg (1065x283, 124K)

Just because you are sad about your IQ of 70, doesn't mean you should kill the people who are like you.

Just because you can look up a photo, does not mean you are smart.

I have no need to argue with peasants such as you...

What good is a society that is better at producing when it's not being used for anything? What good is the best tool if there is nothing to use it on, no one to put it to use, and no good purpose for the job it gets done to even exist? A better process is made for the purpose of arriving at a better product. As such, it is the height of stupidity to sacrifice the product to produce a better process, when the purpose of that process is to improve the product in the first place.

I have a radically different theory. If we're going so far as to cull, then we're wasting valuable resources.

Every newborn child should be removed form their ignorant parents and raised with the best possible education and cultural routine. We need to eradicate idiocy at its roots by eliminating poor upbringing. Billions of useful and intelligent people are better than a few who were lucky enough to have that upbringing while also being quick learners.

kek
I see it would be a gay society since finding a women with a 115 IQ would be rare

>Word graph
lol

Intelligent people get their intelligence from both sides, bucko. Perelman's mother was a graduate student in mathematics.

Trying to kill the vast majority of humans is a fool's errand. You'll just end up getting yourself killed.

The purpose would be providing a comfortable lifestype for the intellectually eltie so they can explore and advance while somewhat skilled humans in the 115-130 range can work as servants.

>all this low IQ cope
clocks tickin, honorary negroids.

I was just teasing, user, but the ratio of men to women would be very, very disproportional.
if you look take at something like mensa, males are double their numbers.

I see you took nothing away from it. Classic npc response.

Attached: NPC.jpg (220x229, 4K)

Do I get bennies and breeding girls/boys if I've over 130?

IQ doesn't accurately measure intelligence OP, the fact that you assume this is making you out to be feeble minded. Oh wait, this is r9k.

>i have street smarts

No its not about theory vs street smarts. It does not measure any kind of intelligence. It measures your ability to do IQ tests. It has so many variables that you cannot isolate intelligence, thus it is completely worthless for measuring intelligence.

See this is why people tell you that you shouldn't want this to be true because it wont work out too well for you. They're doing it to help you.

>It does not measure any kind of intelligence. It measures your ability to do IQ tests.
t. someone who has never taken an IQ test or even looked up the exact tasks it involves
"ability to do IQ tests" happens to correlate 1:1 with general intelligence.

Not all IQ tests are verbal, or even mathematical. Most are logical tests with objects that people find familiar.There's a lot of variation in type, as well as correlation to standardised testing.

Fact is that you're defining intelligence into an abstract so that you can say nothing defines it. Well, define it and we'll test for it.

I actually have a 145 iq. I'm just saying it's meaningless.

>"ability to do IQ tests" happens to correlate 1:1 with general intelligence.
Yeah, when you define "general intelligence" as "ability to do IQ tests then that's what happens. Rofl.

>Fact is that you're defining intelligence into an abstract so that you can say nothing defines it. Well, define it and we'll test for it.
Intelligence is literally abstract reasoning (or more accurately, abstract understanding). How do you define something abstract into an abstract?

>How do you define something abstract into an abstract?
Mathematics is both abstract and clearly defined.
If you can't imagine a solution to this question, you clearly didn't actually score 145 on an IQ test.

>Mathematics is both abstract and clearly defined
I didn't ask you to give me an example of something that is both abstract and clearly defined. I asked you, "how do you define an abstract into an abstract?". You shouldn't be criticizing anyone else when you can't even understand a simple question.
>If you can't imagine a solution to this question,
It was a rhetorical question anyways. First you have problem understanding the question, then you have a problem understanding the nature of the question. So yeah like i said, trust me when i say you should be glad no one is implementing the schizophrenic theories you shit out.

>"how do you define an abstract into an abstract?"
Come up with a list of qualities that make a person intelligent.
Invent a series of tasks that test for those qualities.
It's not that hard, user.

I am not asking you how to quantify an abstract. Jesus christ. I am asking you, how do you define an abstract into an abstract? You fucking cant. Its a rhetorical question. You cant define an abstract into an abstract, the sentence itself shows how nonsensical that idea is.

Serious response: people with 115 to 130 IQ aren't Gods. Human beings are incredibly stupid, even 115 plus. Those 140 IQ people just look smart in comparison. They also tend to grow egos the higher up they are. The world would go to shit as people with egos don't hold themselves back.

Yes, and your stupid rhetoric is irrelevant to the topic at hand
One of those anons accused you of goalpost-moving what defines intelligence in order to classify IQ tests as useless
I listed the tasks that you could complete in order to make your own better metric of intelligence, which is how IQ tests were created in the first place

Case in point for this is OP himself. He believes that he is entitled to sacrificing the lives of 99% of humans for his desires. What level of egomania do you have to be to think like that? Actually, i am not principally opposed to his ideas, i just think that it should be those people like himself who should be used for the service of others.

You actually believe the cutoff should be 115? PFFFFTTT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Have you even taking an IQ test your trifling peasant? 140 should the be the cutoff, why would we allow brainlet mongs to roam freely consuming soicial media like facebook and instagram like cattle grazing in the fields? They should all be torn out of their beds at 6 in the morning and herded into government buildings to subjected to IQ tests TOMORROW, and KILLED ON THE SPOT if they don't get so much as measly 140. No longer shall the inbred cockatoo bogaloo brainlet-jew be king in this world. Never again will the virtuous intellectual be subject to cuckery by the likes of meathead jocks and worthless 9-5 drones. Only the truly intelligent beings will remain, the kind who couldn't be accepted into universities because SOCIAL SKILLS ARE WORTH MORE THAN SMARTS IN ARE SCHOOLS. In 100 years a machine will be invented that scans the IQ of every man women and child on the planet, instantly melting the brain of any IQlet who dares breathe the precious oxygen (O subscript 2) in are air reserved only for those who's minds deserved to be nurtured and be among their own kind.

The discussion about intelligence is irrelevant to the discussion of IQ? Well, i guess you do have a point, lol.
>One of those anons accused you of goalpost-moving what defines intelligence in order to classify IQ tests as useless
No he didn't. You don't even know what moving the goalposts means lol.
>I listed the tasks that you could complete in order to make your own better metric of intelligence, which is how IQ tests were created in the first place
Which is irrelevant. You accused me of "definining intelligence into an abstract", then when i explained to you how nonsensical that is you went off on tangents that are irrelevant to the point at hand. Frankly i don't think you even know what you're talking about anymore at this point as you're clearly confused.

>No longer shall the inbred cockatoo bogaloo brainlet-jew be king in this world. Never again will the virtuous intellectual be subject to cuckery by the likes of meathead jocks and worthless 9-5 drones.
If those people are able to consistently dominate and outdo you, they're superior to you. Pick up a book on evolution

>b-but i value intelligence the most so it should be the only thing that matters! My own personal values and feelings trump reality!
Ok lad.

>No he didn't. You don't even know what moving the goalposts means lol.
>Which is irrelevant. You accused me of "definining intelligence into an abstract", then when i explained to you how nonsensical that is you went off on tangents that are irrelevant to the point at hand. Frankly i don't think you even know what you're talking about anymore at this point as you're clearly confused.
I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Your question is irrelevant because intelligence isn't abstract; it arises from physical structures and it can be empirically measured. People have different subjective definitions of it, but all of those definitions are based in concrete qualities and abilities.
You're attempting to make it sound like some mystical unexplainable attribute.
Working memory is not an abstract concept. Visuospatial reasoning is not an abstract concept. Verbal skills and vocabulary size are not abstract concepts. etc. etc. All these things can be easily tested.

You have no idea what you're talking about, you can't even follow a simple conversation. You jump from one discussion to the other.
>Your question is irrelevant
It's actually a direct response to you, so if that's irrelevant than what you were talking about in the first place is irrelevant. So blame yourself, not me.

Now before i go and debunk what you just said, you should know that YOU are shifting the goalposts now from "how do you define an abstract into an abstract?", to "how do you quantify intelligence?".

>because intelligence isn't abstract; it arises from physical structures and it can be empirically measured.
The physical structure it arises from is the brain. So, going by your logic, to empirically measure intelligence you'd have to observe the brain itself. Making someone do some puzzles and physically measuring their brain is not the same thing. Thus according to your own logic, IQ is not a valid and empirical way to test for intelligence.
>Working memory is not an abstract concept. Visuospatial reasoning is not an abstract concept. Verbal skills and vocabulary size are not abstract concepts. etc. etc. All these things can be easily tested.
All of those are literally abstract concepts lmao. Are you joking?
>You're attempting to make it sound like some mystical unexplainable attribute.
It pretty much is. You don't know half as much as you think you do, which is a classic symptom of dunning kruger. Ever looked into that? It explains a lot about your opinions and behaviour.

Why did so many brainlets miss the part where I said 115-130 would be slaves?You don't seriously think being sub-human intelligence is an accomplishment, right?
An intelligent person doesn't bother themself with ideas like "entitlement" or "rights". They just do what works and don't concern themseoves over whether it offends the sense of right and wrong of lower entities.

when did manchildren become evil? Back in the day manchildren used to just be lonely spergs. Now they're making up elaborate theories on eugenics and genocide. Where did it go wrong?

>an intelligent person doesn't bother himself with the consequences of his actions, he just acts without thinking
Are you sure? Then again coming from you i'm not surprised that you think that.

so basically we just kill all blacks, mexicans, A-rabs, poos, and SEAchimps

Yes, we kill everyone but you. Everything that you are is good and everything that everyone is is bad. How didnt they figure this out before? Fuck me what am i saying, of course only a genius like you could have figured out something that complex and sophisticated.

Silly brainlet, right and wrong have nothing to do with consequences at all. Of course I think about the consequences, about what will benefit me the most. I don't care if billions die for it if those billions are unintelligent. I care no more about them than I do for cattle.

>everyone is
everyone else is*

Also, I'm thinking of creating an imageboard high-IQ society which would require verified IQ scores of 130 or higher to participate.

Low iq people are consistently less considerate of how their actions impact others. A low considetation of how your actions impact others is highly correlated with low iq. Higher iq is consistently correlated with a higher awareness of how your actions impact others and, also with higher empathy.
So yes, they are more or less the same thing.

>I care no more about them than I do for cattle.
You are cattle. Look at what you are. Who respects? What have you achieved? How much power do you have in real life? Your entire life you have been and you continue to be driven from here to there, willy nilly, like cattle. And all you can do is whine and screetch at the top of your lungs. But you remain impotent and, like cattle, unable to affect the course of your own life let alone those of others. That is why you have been driven to such despair and pent up feelings of inferiority and rage that you want to serial murder literal billions of people for no reason (you have to expend energy to kill people, not only does it not achieve anything, it's actually a net negative). And at the end of it all you remain the screeching little man you are.

Is this one of those stormfags you youngsters yell about?

Just because I have empathy doesn't mean I interpret it, incorrectly, as right or wrong. Empathy is, to me, just a tool for better understanding the people that I use. You can assume what you like about me, I know for certain, without a doubt, that you are not only less intelligent but less knowing than me by a great distance. Every sentence gives away just how unintelligent your worldview really is.

IQ and temperament are inherented. Giving someone an education wont mean anything if they cant understand it or would rather eat crayons and sucker punch other classmates like a wild animal.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8-wRHCCg4

>wanting chinks and jews to rule

Finally a based and redpilled post about intelligence

The majority would be jewish and asian, yes. Says a lot about european, american, and african "culture".

Empathy here is defined as emotional as well as cognitive empathy not just cognitive empathy.
>just a tool for better understanding the people that I use
You use no one. You are below everyone else. You get used.
>You can assume what you like about me
You know it's true though. That's why you immediately have to convince YOURSELF that i'm just dumb so you can dismiss what i said, because accepting it would implode your worldview and shatter your self image. Classic case of ego defense. Here is a thought that you can think about from now on, if you can't even see past your own ego, how do you expect to understand anything else?

Such a pity that someone with such a hunger for debate would be born with such little competence. I truly do feel sorry for you, user. Had you been birthed by smarter people you might have had a chance to understand, well, anything. As it is I'm afraid your best use is in a glue factory.

>You don't know half as much as you think you do, which is a classic symptom of dunning kruger. Ever looked into that? It explains a lot about your opinions and behaviour.
Not that user, but what you've basically said is that they're wrong because you, personally, think they're wrong and stupid.
Dunning-Kruger shouldn't be brought up outside of discussions about psychology and it pisses me off to see people use this as an argumentative tactic.

I can practically feel your SEETHING anger and inferiority complex brewing up. Does reality make you feel inferior, user? Does it make you feel like the little man you are when you are forced to accept things as they are instead of running away to your delusions? Because it should.

Anger isn't going to make you smarter user.

It was just an off hand remark dude, chill out lol

>Empathy here is defined as emotional as well as cognitive empathy not just cognitive empathy.

tfw I make up new definitions after the fact after I misuse a concept

I'm not even that guy and he's a douche, but this is effing weak.

>It does not measure any kind of intelligence. It measures your ability to do IQ tests.

It's really sad when, driven by a pathetic and frankly fucking gay ideology, people contort themselves into knots to achieve willful blindness.