Superiority/Inferiority?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I was typing up a reply. Here is an excerpt. 

Quote

If superior is defined as better, and inferior as worse; then if your metric for defining the quality of a race is by it's aggregate IQ, then by definition having a higher average IQ makes a race superior to one that's lower.

However I'd argue X races are superior based on having a greater culture and tendency towards libertarianism and cultural nationalism rather than ethnic nationalism. 

Breaking it down to people; assuming all else is equal, guy X being better at piano than guy Y makes him superior unless piano skills aren't the thing of guy Z. Superiority and inferiority are subjective unless measured relative to something. Which might make it still subjective given whether or not A is valued makes all the difference of whether or not it's "objective" or "subjective". Although if I defined piano skills as the metric for human superiority/inferiority, then it would be objectively provable that John is superior to Johan because John has mad-piano-skillz and rocks the crowds while Johan can't differentiate a piano from a pancake or a toilet and repels crowds. Or John is superior to Jacob because he gets slightly more of an income for his piano playing than Jacob (should I use income of piano playing to determine superiority of piano playing, which itself is my example's standard of superiority/inferiority).

Or, to be more concise, superiority at something is objectively provable given a standard, and if a bunch of people are statistically higher on average than another, then that people is superior to the other people so long as what's being measured is of value to the measurer or judger. Which therefore makes superiority/inferiority subjective. Yet also objective... I think this warrants a separate discussion. 

Does this make logical sense? I am saying that X can be objectively measure, but whether or not it is of any value is subjective, and therefore X is subjective. Is X subjective? 

Like I might not value the theory of relativity (because I am entirely ignorant of it) yet I'm sure (?) it can be measured. If it can be measured and clearly defined, it's objective, right? It's the value part only that's subjective, right? 

[ofd]

The objective measure for success on the individual level is to pass on your genes, on the family level the continuation of your family and on the ethnic level the existence of social institutions and their future. How this happens depends on selective factors that are only partially up to humans. Adaptions occur to the climate, the geography and geology. To some extent also sexual selection and cultural laws restricting it (in some cultures you may not marry a cousin and so on). Natural selection doesn't care about ideologies it cares about what works. And if you can't pass on your genes or your people die off there was either bad luck or a maladaption.
'

[Siegfried von Walheim]

@ofd Not at all what I was getting at. Rather whether X race can be argued as superior or inferior. 

I think the short answer is "yes", and depending on which metric I use (as well as whether I value one end or the other) is who is superior or inferior to whom or what.

Like Singaporeans are the masters of IQ while Russians are the masters of attractiveness and Japanese are the masters of entertainment. Now the last two things I know are objectively provable!

Although on the issue of adaption, the idea that all races are equal can be substantiated if the metric being used is geographic suitability, since most (or all living) races are fit for their given lands though some are more flexible then others (at least when helped by technology). 

[RichardY]

I like to think of apple trees, if you grow an apple tree from seed from a commercial apple, it has a high chance of going back to something like a crab apple tree. The commercial apple is obviously better for people to eat, though the crab apples are more numerous and less strain on the tree, can be more widely eaten by animals or used to make jam. Objectively(consciously from shear weight of number) the crab apple could be said to be more successful in passing on its genes, with or without human intervention and grafting from more commercially viable scion apple wood, however to even be able to conceive of success in an Objective way the "I" relative or absolute to the world the phenomena of consciousness is required. 

Maintaining a higher IQ imo would be dependent on a few things. 1) Brute force processing power, the downside being larger brain, larger skull, require larger hips. Interesting as you can contrast this difference between Norwegians and Swedes. Norwegians have broader shoulders and hips due to the demands of the terrain, where as Swedes are more slender. Swedes are also more Entrepreneurial (IKEA, Volvo, Husqvarna and SAAB).  

2) Fragmenting the individuals psyche relative to a group(leftists and the dissolution of Ego consciousness) thereby offloading processing power. However, also the sense of personal identity and any individual success. I believe there are various methods of allowing fragmentation occur in order to increase IQ. 

Were Neanderthals superior to Homo-sapiens? They had larger brain capacity, better cold resistance, were stronger, superior eyesight, superior tools earlier on. Yet became extinct or interbred to extinction with homo-sapiens. One theory I remember hearing was that homo-sapiens were more social and thus better able to adapt as a group. Go team.......

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

I like to think of apple trees, if you grow an apple tree from seed from a commercial apple, it has a high chance of going back to something like a crab apple tree. The commercial apple is obviously better for people to eat, though the crab apples are more numerous and less strain on the tree, can be more widely eaten by animals or used to make jam. Objectively(consciously from shear weight of number) the crab apple could be said to be more successful in passing on its genes, with or without human intervention and grafting from more commercially viable scion apple wood, however to even be able to conceive of success in an Objective way the "I" relative or absolute to the world the phenomena of consciousness is required. 

Basically the apples we eat as humans taste better but aren't as easy to make or feed into domestic animals like crab apple trees. Meaning the one that's superior is the one that's best fit for the consumer. Right?

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Maintaining a higher IQ imo would be dependent on a few things. 1) Brute force processing power, the downside being larger brain, larger skull, require larger hips.

Dats some nice traits to have y'know. Dem wide hips in particular...

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Interesting as you can contrast this difference between Norwegians and Swedes. Norwegians have broader shoulders and hips due to the demands of the terrain, where as Swedes are more slender. Swedes are also more Entrepreneurial (IKEA, Volvo, Husqvarna and SAAB).  

Are Norwegians smarter than Swedes? IQ wise? I think they're about the same. Though if Swedes actually are more entrepreneurial and slender, I don't assume they correlate, though I do assume intelligence and entrepreneurial-ness does. Of course whether it's "objectively" smarter to risk the family farm in starting a business or not is hard to say; presumably the smarter folks would be better able to weigh the chances of success as well as carry themselves to success.

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

2) Fragmenting the individuals psyche relative to a group(leftists and the dissolution of Ego consciousness) thereby offloading processing power. However, also the sense of personal identity and any individual success. I believe there are various methods of allowing fragmentation occur in order to increase IQ. 

I think the aristocracy might be an interesting way to fragment the better individuals from the group. Although they becomes groups themselves and mellow out after a while...Making it kind of like a rollarcoaster that goes up and down within a certain window.

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Were Neanderthals superior to Homo-sapiens? They had larger brain capacity, better cold resistance, were stronger, superior eyesight, superior tools earlier on. Yet became extinct or interbred to extinction with homo-sapiens. One theory I remember hearing was that homo-sapiens were more social and thus better able to adapt as a group. Go team.......

Well, it is a sign of higher IQ to be able to organize a group and be able to make best use of the group's members. I wouldn't call that collectivism since I'd figure collectivism would be "each man of a given class (think vocation, or in the video game sense o the word) is disposable"  versus "each man of a given class has a particular thing they're best at doing".

An interesting opening of an idea but without answers. 

My assumption is that the smartest peoples have both a strong sense of group as well as individual. Like an army that treats its soldiers as interchangeable doesn't fare as well as an army that has each person do what they do best, and maximize any special talents (like being able to forecast the weather, exploit terrain, spy on the enemy, etc.).

[lorry]

Check out podcasts #379, #380, #383 and #652, my dude.

[ShindouHikaru]

20 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Russians are the masters of attractiveness and Japanese are the masters of entertainment. Now the last two things I know are objectively provable!

How exactly can you prove these two things? 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

3 hours ago, ShindouHikaru said:

How exactly can you prove these two things? 

Russian attractiveness: Use Yandex and Russians will appear more often in search results, also models like Nastya Zhidkova and Ariadna Majewska come to mind (the latter is Polish, but close).

Japanese Entertainment: Video games. Especially ones like Persona, Nobunaga's Ambition, Final Fantasy, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Valkyrie Profile, Star Ocean, Disgaea, Dark Souls, Dynasty Warriors, Harvest Moon, Ogre Battle, Dark Cloud, etc. etc.

 

[ShindouHikaru]

On 10/31/2017 at 8:28 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Russian attractiveness: Use Yandex and Russians will appear more often in search results, also models like Nastya Zhidkova and Ariadna Majewska come to mind (the latter is Polish, but close).

Japanese Entertainment: Video games. Especially ones like Persona, Nobunaga's Ambition, Final Fantasy, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Valkyrie Profile, Star Ocean, Disgaea, Dark Souls, Dynasty Warriors, Harvest Moon, Ogre Battle, Dark Cloud, etc. etc.

 

True, I misconstrued your statement. Makes sense. I equated "masters" to "best". 

[ShindouHikaru]

On 10/30/2017 at 8:39 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Like Singaporeans are the masters of IQ while Russians are the masters of attractiveness and Japanese are the masters of entertainment. Now the last two things I know are objectively provable!

Wait a minute, you can't be a master of IQ or attractiveness. These are things you're born with. Genetic lottery =/= mastery. No wonder this statement looked weird to me. Sure you can master entertainment but the other 2...

Mastery: possession or display of great skill or technique

[Siegfried von Walheim]

7 minutes ago, ShindouHikaru said:

Wait a minute, you can't be a master of IQ or attractiveness. These are things you're born with. Genetic lottery =/= mastery. No wonder this statement looked weird to me. Sure you can master entertainment but the other 2...

Mastery: possession or display of great skill or technique

Well, I meant it in the "being the best" sense, although I purposely exaggerated when I said Russians are the masters of physical beauty and the Japanese of entertainment because of my own preferences.

If IQ is my ruler for measuring racial superiority/inferiority, then it is most definitely either the Jews, the Singaporeans, or that other city-state.

[smarterthanone]

Didn't read thread but grouping is a function of math which is a human quality and is subjective. Why group by race when you can group by eye color, location, height, ... IQ. Why is everyone so anal about race? The group of the top 5% of africans by IQ is intelligently superior to all asians as a whole. So what? Obsessing over grouping by race is very stupid. Why do people even bother to identify with race? Personally I identify with intelligent people.

[ShindouHikaru]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

The vulgar language below is in fact, playing devil's advocate. While I agree with the core values listed below, the vulgar language is to reflect the mirror image of spite, hate and intolerance on both sides. Here goes.

As far as this topic is concerned, your post is the only hateful one I've seen. For the individuals focusing on the reality of group IQ differences in this forum, I have yet to sense an inkling of "hate", "intolerance" or "spite". You wouldn't happen to be psychologically projecting, would you? And do forgive my insolent tone. I'm simply doing it to reflect the mirror of spite, hate and intolerance on your side ^.^

 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. A computer that has 32gb of memory when most people will never using that much is really just a waste of electricity because those memory sticks have to be powered on. A CPU that has 8 cores when I get EVERYTHING I need to get done with just ONE core AND I USE WINDOWS XP NOT WINDOWS 10 is fucking overkill. Having a bigger brain doesn't make you smarter, it just means you 1) stand upright, 2) have thick bones and large body 3) is in perfect proportion with the rest of your body, including musculature, vascular types, etc.

Interesting, in order to prove your assertion you turn to an analogy as opposed to science. Very interesting.

Quote, "Ten years ago, a meta-analysis that examined the results from 26 imaging studies concluded that the correlation between IQ and brain volume is consistently in the 0.3-0.4 range".

"Since it would be against human nature to admit defeat, scientists have crafted a third measure of brain size called the encephalization quotient, which is the ratio of actual brain mass relative to the predicted brain mass for an animal’s size (based off the assumption that larger animals require slightly less brain matter relative to their size compared to very small animals). By this metric, at least, humans come out on top, with an EQ of 7.5 far surpassing the dolphin’s 5.3 and the mouse’s measly 0.5.".

https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter 

 

There is a 0.3-0.4 correlation between brain size and IQ. And as far as brain size relative to body mass is concerned, Humans are at the top. Meaning we've evolved to prioritize the development of the volume of the brain. More so than any other animal. Dear Philociraptor, please use science to validate your claims. As opposed to a half baked, monotonous analogy. Please research before opening your filthy mouth ^.^

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

There is a reason we don't have gigantic room-sized brains.

As though natural selection would desire such an inefficient model. Laughable. 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

Duh. Seriously, you people have no common sense.

In my experience individuals that accuse others of having no common sense suffer heavily from the Dunning Kruger effect. Have very little ability to suppress their underlying emotional triggers, and of course dogmatically arrive at a conclusion and justify this emotional conclusion with an ex post facto justification. 

 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

Most humans are stupid, gullible, jealous selfish little shits who could care less about anyone else. It's all "me me me me me". And this IQ test bullshit, racism and other forms of collectivism (at their root are all communism) is just more ways that the lazy, jealous little psychotic cry babies of the world can justify the taking of other's possessions because they don't want to work for it themselves. But the stupidity of those evil (evil as in figure of speech/slang, not actual evil. If it were actual evil then fuck them and hope they die ) bastards isn't heredity, it's laziness and psychosis-levels of fear of peer rejection.

How can it possibly be stupid for a warm blooded mammal to desire to maximize resource acquisition while expending the least amount of energy as possible? This doesn't sound very stupid... this line of reasoning seem to be in line with the nature of animals. Perhaps lazy, but certainly not stupid. Dear Philociraptor, why do you make these stupid assertions? It's rather unsightly. Hmm, and you now claim that theft isn't "actual" evil. Why do you continue to make such stupid statements? You wouldn't happen to be the grand son of  McArthur Wheeler, would you? Ahh, and of course you claim that IQ is bs, which of course isn't an argument. Of course this isn't a proof of the invalidity of IQ, but McArthur Wheeler the third would deem it so. You use the term "racism" and don't expand any further. Perhaps you're new to debating. Or perhaps your grand father influenced you quite a bit. 

 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

Think about it, if you could use political power to use a certain type of " intelligence test" to see who should be sterilized and who should be allowed to breed, you wouldn't have to do shit else to get what you want. You could literally just do whatever the fuck you want. You would just take by force the possessions of others, like their money and their properties much like the nazis did, but no one would be able to say that's what you are doing because everyone believes it's necessary "for the race" etc. Of course, the tests we use today in America are the version the nazis used after they bastardized and propagandized Alfred Binet's IQ test to demonize jews and promote automatic sterilization campaigns of jews blacks and white germans who opposed hitler. There'd literally be no limit to how many lives you could destroy.

And of course the spawn McArthur would invoke Godwins law. Equating the scientifically validated understanding of IQ with Nazi's and sterilizations. In this thread you're the only one to invoke this law, you should feel honored. Truly, a magnificent specimen.... This is sarcasm dear Wheeler.... no need to get excited. 

 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

Funny how I can say this type of thing again and again on these forums, and the rest of you have no rebuttal, you just run away because you don't know what to say. Yet you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over in other threads. 

McArthur, have you ever considered the possibility that we simply choose not to read your posts due to it's tiresome length? I've never encountered you on this forum but all of this is rather easy to rebut. You haven't disproven the century+ scientific data in relation to IQ. You simply invoked a simpleton's analogy and declared victory.

 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

You problem is that you think the "smart" thing to do is to just go along with the establishment agenda of dividing and conquering people, and making certain others seem like retarded apes compared to you.

I promise McArthur, we don't need to make you appear to be of the lower primate classes. You're doing such a splendid job that our contribution is truly superfluous. 

 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

You think you can't fight that ideology even though inside of yourself you know it to be wrong so you pretend that all this IQ and race bullshit is justified because that's the only way you can get ahead in the world. It's pathetic really.

Ohh McArthur, why is it wrong to point out that there are group differences in IQ? A lot can be predicted through an analysis of IQ. Criminality, economic success, life expectancies etc,etc. Do tell my dear Ape..... I mean, McArthur, why is the supposedly wrong data on IQ so predicative of so many things? Is it a coincidence that there are no below 90IQ nations that have a very high human development index? So many coincidences, truly a mystery....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

"A survey of more than 2,000 people living in the UK has found that those with a higher IQ are more likely to live a longer life"

https://www.sciencealert.com/smart-people-are-significantly-more-likely-to-live-longer-lives-study-finds

Japan Avg IQ: 105. Japan Homicide rate: 0.31 per 100,000 inhabitants

El Salvador Avg IQ: 80 El Salvador Homicide rate: 108.64 per 100,000 inhabitants. 

South Korea Avg IQ: 106. South Korea Homicide rate: 0.74 per 100,000 inhabitants. 

Jamaica Avg IQ: 71. Jamaica Homicide rate: 43.21 per 100,000 inhabitants. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:44 PM, Philociraptor said:

To be honest, I'm glad whites are no longer a large majority and it isn't the first time that pasty people have "become" a minority. There is not enough time in the world to convince them all to stop being so fucking racist and hateful on average as all they know how to do is follow the orders of their globalist masters

Be careful what you wish for, when Whites left Detroit it went from being the crown Jewel of America, the Motor city to being a shit hole. Without a high IQ populous, carnage ensues. Hence why the safest places to live in America are also the places in which the population is dominated by Whites and Asians. Aka 100 and 104-106 IQ populi. 

Safest city in America? Irvine California

Demographics? 

100 IQ White: 65.2%

104 - 106 IQAsian: 32.3%

85 IQ Black: 1.8% 

87 IQ Hispanic: 7.4%

https://www.infoplease.com/us/california/demographic-statistics-84

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

 

On 11/2/2017 at 11:22 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

The more shitposting I see on this forum, the less I want to stick around. It's not even properly moderated.

You're rather arrogant for a simpleton McArthur Wheeler the Third. It may be best if you didn't stick around. And once more, do forgive my insolent tone and vulgarities. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate  

[Siegfried von Walheim]

23 hours ago, ShindouHikaru said:

As far as this topic is concerned, your post is the only hateful one I've seen. For the individuals focusing on the reality of group IQ differences in this forum, I have yet to sense an inkling of "hate", "intolerance" or "spite". You wouldn't happen to be psychologically projecting, would you? And do forgive my insolent tone. I'm simply doing it to reflect the mirror of spite, hate and intolerance on your side ^.^

Note: He copied and pasted a conversation from other people. I remember reading the stuff verbatim from someone else arguing with another someone else. He said he at least somewhat agrees but trying to argue against what he copy and pasted is kinda...well, you're arguing against the wrong person. Not that you're at all wrong, just that you misunderstood I think what was meant.

23 hours ago, ShindouHikaru said:

You're rather arrogant for a simpleton McArthur Wheeler the Third. It may be best if you didn't stick around. And once more, do forgive my insolent tone and vulgarities. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate  

Edit the above quote. I didn't say that. 

I think the occasional shitposter is actually amusing since it's like the bad guy in a WWE thingy coming out to get thrashed by the heroes.

[ShindouHikaru]

18 hours ago, Philociraptor said:

I am not going to bother responding to the bot above. It's a waste of my time. If anyone else would like to debate what I've said above, that's fine. I've met with *actual* humans on this forum so I know who you are when you post. Go on, anything you want to say.

I've reported the above post as it is a scripted bot.

Are you baiting? You're either dumb or an elaborate troll. Clearly I'm clearly not a scripted bot, and of course you can't respond to my post, I left no openings because I'm a fan of science and logic, as opposed to emotionally driven propaganda. 

18 hours ago, Philociraptor said:

If anyone else would like to debate what I've said above, that's fine.

Debate what? You've said nothing worthy of debating. Everything you posted is opinion. Nothing factual, nothing scientific, strictly opinion. Easily refutable as I have done. 

"I've met with *actual* humans on this forum so I know who you are when you post. Go on, anything you want to say. I've reported the above post as it is a scripted bot". This feels like bait. It would be far too depressing to imagine that these are your actual opinions. Please respond and tell me if you're baiting or not. 

18 hours ago, Philociraptor said:

Go on, anything you want to say.

Don't mind if I do. I anticipated that this would be your reaction. Why? Because you're not following the scientific method. You're not reasoning from first principles. There isn't a single link in your full post, therefore you're not  driven by logic but by emotions. And of course you will disregard the science presented, have your cognitive dissonance kick in and trot out your emotionally driven propaganda. All the while claiming that, "Funny how I can say this type of thing again and again on these forums, and the rest of you have no rebuttal, you just run away because you don't know what to say". Such is a human, pitiful. 

[ShindouHikaru]

22 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Edit the above quote. I didn't say that. 

You didn't say what? You didn't say, "Note: he copied and pasted a conversation......."? Confused. Are you sure that he copied pasta? Because he did suggest further that I was a bot. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

19 minutes ago, ShindouHikaru said:

You didn't say what? You didn't say, "Note: he copied and pasted a conversation......."? Confused. Are you sure that he copied pasta? Because he did suggest further that I was a bot. 

The last thing you've got quoted in your above post has my name in the quote bar instead of his. I don't want anyone to assume I've said what he said.

ADDED: To be precise, the quote bar in your post directly above the one I made complaining about it. It'll say my name instead of Philociraptor's.

He might be baiting but I know he copied pasta because I read that conversation some weeks ago. 

Of course either way I think you're wasting your time with him. If he's just taking a dump and leaving it there; ignore him. If he actually is responding to you with arguments; then you've got something.

P.S. I love Hikaru-no-Go <3

Edited November 7, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[ShindouHikaru]

6 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

The last thing you've got quoted in your above post has my name in the quote bar instead of his. I don't want anyone to assume I've said what he said.

Lool, my bad. Didn't even notice that. Wonder how it got there.... considering I quoted the raptor. 

 

6 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Of course either way I think you're wasting your time with him. If he's just taking a dump and leaving it there; ignore him. If he actually is responding to you with arguments; then you've got something.

I fully intend to. 

 

6 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

P.S. I love Hikaru-no-Go <3

<3 Touya X Shindou <3