Why IQ?

[josh0324]

Hello, this is my first post as a community member. Please don't eat me alive if this question/topic has already been discussed. Please just leave me a link or tell me what to search for and I'll find the answers there. Also, if I've posted this in the wrong section, please let me know.

 

Assuming the answer doesn't yet exist, here goes...

 

I don't dispute I.Q. statistics. I don't dispute the bell curve. I don't dispute any emerging genetic or ethnic trends. However, I have to ask, what makes a high I.Q. populous preferable to a low I.Q. populous?

 

The reason I ask is, there are many high I.Q. people who have the liberal/progressive/Democrat mindset. To me, it seems just as likely that a high I.Q. populous will vote itself into socialism as a low I.Q. populous. The working class in my community contains many low I.Q. people, and a large majority of them voted for Trump, and they routinely vote conservative/Republican and are in favor of individual rights and against bigger government.

 

So, why is I.Q. relevant? Why is a high I.Q. populous preferable to a low I.Q. populous?

 

Because, personally, I'd prefer to be surrounded by people who aren't "smart" enough to vote themselves into the slavery of socialism.

 

The only answer I can think of is that maybe, just maybe, if we had enough high I.Q. people to vote away the welfare state, then low I.Q. people would stop coming. However, as I said, there are plenty of high I.Q. people voting Democrat, so the chances of success seem pretty low.

 

Thank you all in advance for your replies; I look forward to reading them.

 

[mckaizer222]

It's complicated, especially now... I think the answer is how they come to their conclusions.

My personal theory as to the topic at hand is this...  "God is Dead"...  There are a lot of lower IQ people that are religious.  High IQ Liberals are generally Atheists.  
Christian values tend to value hard work as well as charity and good works.  So they tend to vote for more conservative candidates, also Republican candidates tend to pander more to the religious right.  

The Atheistic Leftists are just as religious as the Christian conservatives, but instead of having faith in God, they have replaced Christianity with State religion...  They essentially worship state power, instead of a deity...  

Now we have Millennials (of which I am one) who never learned the value of hard work, and who have had a system that is set up against them...  It's a lot easier to sell Socialism to someone than it is to sell Conservative values of hard work, no matter how detrimental Socialism is long term.

People tend to look out for their own best interests, and don't care about the long term repercussions, I think that is the main problem with society.  I have always been someone who wants to improve the world around him, some people are so self-absorbed they could care less.  

Technology certainly doesn't help...  it's a double-edged sword, very few people actually use it meaningfully.

Hope this made sense.

 

[smarterthanone]

Just because someone is an unsophisticated farmer in middle america doesn't mean they have a low IQ. I think you have some confirmation bias going on here.

 

[Eudaimonic]

There's no reason to prefer a high IQ society over a lower IQ society.

However, a lower IQ society is more prone to violent/immoral behavior, so if your prefer a more peaceful and moral society to live and raise your kids in, you ought to prefer a higher IQ society.

As well, a higher IQ society will tend to be more open to therapy and more peaceful means of parenting, which, through generations, would eliminate the irrational psychological roots of socialism/communism.

[Wuzzums]

Here's a snippet of on of Jordan Peterson's lectures on this.

The point of it is that there are no jobs available for people with an IQ lower than 85.

Add to this that the sweetspot for criminality is IQ 80-90.

However if you go lower than 80 you won't get much crime mainly because people are too stupid to do anything, including crime.

 

The government says it fixes societal problems and most people believe it. The welfare programs are actually a very clever attempt at keeping the criminal elements of the population subdued. No jobs for the 80-90 IQ therefore let's give them money so they don't riot. The problems appear when 90+ start using welfare, and when welfare recipients want more welfare, and when the non-welfare recipients start making a lot more money making the welfare recipients more jealous thinking they're getting all that money from the gov'ment because they're too stupid to understand they worked for it, and so on and so forth... So the criminal elements request more welfare and the government asks the working people for more welfare in order to fix the problem, aaaand at this point it's just a vicious circle. The more we subsidize something the more of that thing we're gonna get therefore the more we subsidize dumb people the more dumb people we'll get.

There are a lot of communists/socialists who are indeed good people and they're communists/socialists not because they hate the rich but because they think it fixes the problem of poverty. And if the problem of poverty is fixed then it means they'll live in a paradise because the criminal element won't invade their homes and rob and murder them.

 

So given all of this the solution would be some sort of eugenics program (like family planning) where the household income dictates the number of kids you're allowed to have. If I'm not mistaken China has a similar program. Sounds do-able.

BUT we also know that criminality is also DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to wealth inequality. This is bad considering that in any economic system if it runs for long enough the inequality gap widens more and more to astronomical proportions. This is true no matter the IQ's of the population.

 

Now I don't know of any studies but my theory is that if crime is inevitable, high IQ crimes are white collar crimes whereas low IQ crimes are the violent kind (rape, murder, theft). Given this it's far better to get smeared in the press by high IQ communists/socialists than to get robed, raped, and murdered by some dumbass.

[AraiBob]

Hello,

In my experience a 'high IQ' does not mean 'good decisions'. One of the abilities of a high intelligence is to hold contradictory ideas in the head, in order to contrast or to understand. But if the information is incomplete, the conclusion is often not correct.

And we live in a world-wide lack of education and honest information. If you really want to know something, you have to work at learning, a LOT. Use resources 'others' won't, and to consider ideas that are NOT politically correct.

Then, it helps to be a bit intuitive, to help you consider notions, for which you then get evidence for.

Only then can anyone, of any IQ, make good decisions. And too many people are 'fixed' on the next social event, football game, dance, and so on. It takes a real and honest effort to find real information, which is difficult to do when you have a full-time job, with a family to take care of. The 'adult education' ends up too far down the list.

[ofd]

Quote

And we live in a world-wide lack of education and honest information. If you really want to know something, you have to work at learning, a LOT. Use resources 'others' won't, and to consider ideas that are NOT politically correct.

Can you give an example where hard to find information has practical implications for everyday life?

[Boss]

Well, higher IQ does seem to correlate with more successful outcomes so in theory having a higher IQ population would result in successful outcomes. However, correlation does not equal causation. I feel direct evidence is the better bet, as in using what has worked for you and what has worked for the people you are trying to help, which is philosophy. 

 

[Eudaimonic]

http://www.highiqpro.com/high-iq-benefits

My in depth research.

[AraiBob]

16 hours ago, ofd said:

Can you give an example where hard to find information has practical implications for everyday life?

"Practical Implication"?  How about all the false news and propaganda on social media? If you believe any of that, you will be handicapped in making good decisions. There is the notion that 'snow-flakes' are somehow low IQ? I think they have bought into the 'narrative', the false narrative, and have not, yet, figured out the true facts. And as long as they 'believe their own propaganda', they won't be able to make good decisions.

I saw a movie yesterday... Perhaps it might help... The Celestine Prophecy (2006)  << IQ, by itself, is not enough. Data, real and factual data, plus..

[ofd]

Quote

How about all the false news and propaganda on social media?

What about them? If you let false news, gossip, and other people's opinions dictate your everyday life and major decisions you are an idiot.

 

Quote

If you believe any of that, you will be handicapped in making good decisions.

Of course, and rightly so.

 

Quote

There is the notion that 'snow-flakes' are somehow low IQ?

No. They live in a filter bubble and have few to no orignal thoughts outside the confines of their reality. Laci Green didn't suddenly wake up, do some research and heavy thinking. Instead, she banged an 'alt-right' guy, defended him and was then expelled from the synagogue of SJW.

 

Quote

yet, figured out the true facts.

For most people, facts don't matter. See cognitive dissonance for a further discussion on that.

 

Quote

And as long as they 'believe their own propaganda', they won't be able to make good decisions.

as one smart fellow wrote, several years ago:

Quote

 

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds.

 

That epistemology doesn't hold true for everyday life. You can have a perfectly normal life, believing absurd things. False news don't influence the way you brush teeth, when you go go bed, what job you pick and so on. Unless you live in a cult, your everyday life will be roughly the same.

[ShindouHikaru]

On 7/21/2017 at 9:58 AM, Eudaimonic said:

There's no reason to prefer a high IQ society over a lower IQ society.

However, a lower IQ society is more prone to violent/immoral behavior, so if your prefer a more peaceful and moral society to live and raise your kids in, you ought to prefer a higher IQ society.

As well, a higher IQ society will tend to be more open to therapy and more peaceful means of parenting, which, through generations, would eliminate the irrational psychological roots of socialism/communism.

Isn't this a reason to prefer a high IQ society over a lower IQ one?

[luxfelix]

Is there a tradeoff correlated between high and low IQ?

For example, does higher IQ bring with it health risks or something that a low IQ would be resistant to? (A biological reason for the benefits of mean regression?)

I recall hearing about how sickle cells provided carriers with some resistance to malaria (environmental adaptation?); maybe low IQ has a similar silver lining?

Perhaps related, can r/K coexist (and low/high IQ coexist), filling niches and benefitting one another? If there is a certain IQ threshold that needs to be met for coexistence, do we know what that is?

[Diego1751]

High IQ populations have a greater ability for deferral of gratification, and sacrifice for the future is required to build a civilization

I for example am already planning for retirement and having a family instead of the Hedonism that my peers are into. 

Also from my research it seems to me that IQ had a lot to do with the ability to make abstractions.  Combine that with two decades of government indoctrination in schools and no critical thinking or moral reasoning skills and that might have something to do with it.

Just my 2 cents

[luxfelix]

I don't doubt that higher IQ is preferable for advancing civilization; asked simply, is lower IQ all bad?

[Kikker]

On 20-9-2017 at 10:24 AM, luxfelix said:

Is there a tradeoff correlated between high and low IQ?

For example, does higher IQ bring with it health risks or something that a low IQ would be resistant to? (A biological reason for the benefits of mean regression?)

I recall hearing about how sickle cells provided carriers with some resistance to malaria (environmental adaptation?); maybe low IQ has a similar silver lining?

Perhaps related, can r/K coexist (and low/high IQ coexist), filling niches and benefitting one another? If there is a certain IQ threshold that needs to be met for coexistence, do we know what that is?

 

On 21-9-2017 at 8:49 AM, luxfelix said:

I don't doubt that higher IQ is preferable for advancing civilization; asked simply, is lower IQ all bad?

It's very hard to find such relations. Maybe you can look for studies about certain activities being too simple or too complicated for a person and how it affects productivity and/or happiness. Also you could frame your question differently by asking whether high IQ diversity is beneficial to a society, since a higher average IQ generally means a society can do more stuff more quickly with the same amount of people.

[Mole]

When you have a lower IQ, you are usually not as valuable in the market. In a welfare state, it might be more beneficial for a low IQ person to be on welfare rather than work. Not only does this make them leechers, but they will also vote for a bigger government for the same reason. This is why we often think of lower IQ immigrants as less preferable in our current welfare states.

[Chris hart]

Look politics is almost irrelevant right? You have the US, Soviet Union, and many other countries with various ways of government that were all highly developed and advanced. And vice versa. That is because it is mainly iq that drives innovation and economic expansion. And high iq will always be in high demand, and used. So changes in government affect high iq and high earners the most, but it's also almost petty and irrelevant at the same time right? They will keep their jobs, but the lower end that gets jobs from them might take a hit. The take away is that the nation will still always benefit from high iq, but things will shift on the bottom. So there is a constant demand to get in to get that technological benefit, regardless of the welfare state. At the same time, high iq individuals need the necessary infrastructure and technology to be productive, so regardless of government, they will be attracted to high iq countries. In other words, high iq leads to more progress.  So at the end, the most important thing for a nation is to market itself to high iq individuals. Which is basically what america did, right? It doesn't matter who your father was, etc. But now the insanely high iq have unlimited labor mobility, and they are most valuable to the low iq nations, cheap labor nations, or centrally planned nations.  At the end of the day, this will jack up bad regimes with steroids.  The entrepreneurs who escaped slavery to be successful are now capitalizing on slave nations. But even though these nations take away jobs, they only provide unskilled labor and feed the high productivity products to the high iq nations. And hence the high iq nations benefit and advance technologically. So politics aside, the majority of the surplus comes back to us, because we can escape our regulations, but not iq. So why doesn't the iq transfer elsewhere? Well, obviously, China, who has a billion people doesn't have facebook, but we know how much it makes off the US a population a third of its size. That is because china doesn't have someone with the iq to knock off facebook, or they cant deal with the free speech that would make their slave labor less profitable. Because they have to deny technological advancement to their people to keep control, they cannot provide the tools that their population needs for its high iq to progress, so they will not be able to catch up. So maybe politics plays a role i guess right, but the cheap labor nation didn't benefit, the welfare state did because it was smart, open, and free. 

[ProRational]

It is much worse than 'socialism' you have heard of Margret Sanger being praised by clinton. Aside from Sanger's negro program there are far more severe consequences to reintroducing "progressivism" they called such programs (fascism and communism) progressive because it was the re-engineering of the state (along with history and social customs). Listen to Dinesh D'souza and the arguments he presented. Look deeper than the documentaries or books check beyond the surface. Also heed his example, while it was not illegal for Clinton to donate to the head of the FBIs investigation into the e-mail account disruption, it was illegal for Mr. D'souza to donate privately o a political candidate after Obama was running a second term. The high I.Q.s are out there but unfortunately you have the majority of mainstream information sources biased in their political affiliations and an editor that will not steer them towards the middle. So in order to educate you must move online (not just Youtube, they'll ban a pro2A video but not an ISIS propaganda video, even though both are labeled as educational)   

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

On 7/21/2017 at 1:00 AM, josh0324 said:

Hello, this is my first post as a community member. Please don't eat me alive if this question/topic has already been discussed. Please just leave me a link or tell me what to search for and I'll find the answers there. Also, if I've posted this in the wrong section, please let me know.

 

Assuming the answer doesn't yet exist, here goes...

 

I don't dispute I.Q. statistics. I don't dispute the bell curve. I don't dispute any emerging genetic or ethnic trends. However, I have to ask, what makes a high I.Q. populous preferable to a low I.Q. populous?

 

The reason I ask is, there are many high I.Q. people who have the liberal/progressive/Democrat mindset. To me, it seems just as likely that a high I.Q. populous will vote itself into socialism as a low I.Q. populous. The working class in my community contains many low I.Q. people, and a large majority of them voted for Trump, and they routinely vote conservative/Republican and are in favor of individual rights and against bigger government.

 

So, why is I.Q. relevant? Why is a high I.Q. populous preferable to a low I.Q. populous?

 

Because, personally, I'd prefer to be surrounded by people who aren't "smart" enough to vote themselves into the slavery of socialism.

 

The only answer I can think of is that maybe, just maybe, if we had enough high I.Q. people to vote away the welfare state, then low I.Q. people would stop coming. However, as I said, there are plenty of high I.Q. people voting Democrat, so the chances of success seem pretty low.

 

Thank you all in advance for your replies; I look forward to reading them.

 

https://pseudoerasmus.com/2015/10/04/ce/

 

Search intelligence on the page.

Enjoy