If we killed everyone under 120 IQ points, would life be (a) better or (b) worse?[views:9123][posts:90]_____________________________ [Mar 5,2010 1:25pm - Lamp ""] ouchdrummer said:Just because you guys feel that way, and would act that way,does not make it true for the majority of the intelligent. Whether or not you "hate" that attitude, it exists. And it exists in what i would guess to be a large portion of the intelligent population. So whether or not you claim that you would "clean toilets" the majority of people smart enough to do a job that PAYS more, and that isn't so SHITTY(haha, pun) would get such a job. The attitude exists because there are tons of idiots on the planet who aren't suited to be employed for anything more than cleaning toilets. It's transference... "Oh, I don't have to worry about it, someone else can get it." If that someone else didn't exist, there's your motivation to clean your own toilet right there. |
| _____________________________ [Mar 5,2010 1:29pm - Lamp ""] arilliusbm said:The disire and thirst for knowledge supercedes any portential one may have for attaining such knowledge. One could have a 160 IQ but sit around indulging themselves in various forms of entertainment, resulting in an idle mind. if only society was at a renaissance-state right now... We are blinded by our society and we are hindered by our surroundings. The only answer should be a restructuring of society as we know it. I don't think the world would have most of these entertainment forms if society was actually intelligent. There wouldn't be anybody who would actually be duped by reality TV, American Idol, most video games, etc. I'm guessing anyone on this forum would agree that having a hobby like music means you're exercising your mind more since it's an acquired skill, and it takes a trained ear to spot different levels of quality in music. Really, I don't think the problem is certain forms of entertainment, the world could be a smart place if we all stuck to music, books, and even the Internet. TV and video games are a plague. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 1:36pm - arilliusbm ""] I'm not saying entertainment is bad. But when your brain is being entertained more than used for what it should be used for, therein lies the problem. Hell, I love sports and video games just as much as the next guy, but I know it's entertainment and knowledge is power. I am constantly striving to seek answers and truth, hence the conspiracies. |
| ____________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 1:41pm - ouchdrummer ""] Lamp said: ouchdrummer said:Just because you guys feel that way, and would act that way,does not make it true for the majority of the intelligent. Whether or not you "hate" that attitude, it exists. And it exists in what i would guess to be a large portion of the intelligent population. So whether or not you claim that you would "clean toilets" the majority of people smart enough to do a job that PAYS more, and that isn't so SHITTY(haha, pun) would get such a job. The attitude exists because there are tons of idiots on the planet who aren't suited to be employed for anything more than cleaning toilets. It's transference... "Oh, I don't have to worry about it, someone else can get it." If that someone else didn't exist, there's your motivation to clean your own toilet right there. Sure, but there are still jobs that pay shit, and will pay shit, cause they're easy, and nasty, that smart people don't want to do. I'd like it if it weren't true, and i'd like it if people everywhere got along, helped each other, and took responsability for anything around them that needed to be done. But it's never gonna be that way, to think that it would is silly. But i guess if we're talking about just killing off the stupid people anyways (which would obviously never happen) then why not force the smart ones to take part in a Utopian society, and like every minute of it. Sure. |
| __________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 1:50pm - arktouros ""] More's Utopia is too damn rigid anyway. A crunch will happen sooner or later. It won't save the highest IQs, but those most adaptable...which is a more desirable outcome. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 1:51pm - arilliusbm ""] In essence, we need more independent thinkers. Less sheeple. Most people are too brainwashed to question everything and/or think for themselves, so they rely on other means to tell them how the world works. This goes for some 160+ IQ people. We need to break the seal of censorship and propaganda, and those who are smart enough to think or themselves will live on. It kills me when Leno asks people on the street if they know where Afghanistan is and they have no idea. It kills me when our kids are 5 years behind Asia in math skills. It kills me that there's lack of funding for education. Too much military, too much governmental control and power inadvertently affects the populous through means of propaganda and brainwashing. We are living exactly the opposite of how we should live. There's more interest in power and money, when our focus should be on education and arts. This is dualy tied into how dumb the general population is. There is NO desire to improve, as we are too distracted. Like I said, we need a fucking Renaissance again. But alas, it won't happen until after we nearly destroy ourselves. |
| __________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 1:56pm - arktouros ""] arilliusbm said:There's more interest in power and money, when our focus should be on education and arts. Vestige of evolution. Greed is human. So is altruism... which one wins out? Story at 11 |
| _______________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:02pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] arktouros said:A crunch will happen sooner or later. It won't save the highest IQs, but those most adaptable...which is a more desirable outcome. This. Also, having a telepathic police dog that finds you food and rape victims helps. If A Boy and His Dog has taught us anything, it's this. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:04pm - arilliusbm ""] Exactly. The question should be whether or not our species is capable of striving for the things that really matter. Instead, we're all caught in a giant game of Risk and we're battling for resources. Humanity needs to wake the fuck up or gtfo. That goes for anyone with any IQ. There's no plausible way to kill off all of those who are "dumb" without killing those who are "smart." we're all in this together; I think it is inevitable that we are due for a bottleneck in the civilization, where both high and low IQed people die. |
| _______________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:14pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] In B4 dumb bomb |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:22pm - arilliusbm ""] The only plausible way to get rid of dumb people (judging by conservationist's posts in the past) is by rounding up all the races and cultures that are statistically proven to have a higher rate of people with lower IQs, and mass murdering every single one of them. Genocide, essentially. With billions of people on the planet, It would cost too much to give everyone an accurate test of intelligence. So hy not generalize and wipe their kind out? |
| __________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:24pm - arktouros ""] I have a feeling that's been tried a few times. One time, Israel happened....oops |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:27pm - arilliusbm ""] One time, AIDS happenned... Oops |
| _______________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:32pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] Just make it so a random episode of American Idol broadcasts CIA mind control instructions to suicide. Little LSD in the water supply will help. Make it a different one each season; everyone will know it's safe to watch the first couple while it's still hilarious, but the smarter folks will tune out long before it gets dangerous. Those who get caught up and keep watching because they actually enjoy it, along with those whose self-preservation instincts aren't sufficiently developed (or those in who they aren't given proper priority) will be wiped out, leaving the societal wheat cleansed of the chaff. (All contestants and audience members will be gassed at the end of each season; this will dissuade no one.) |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:35pm - arilliusbm ""] NWO techniques ftw. |
| _____________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:57pm - Lamp ""] In a way too, you could say that since IQ tests are scored on a scale of 1000, even someone with a 160 IQ who's deemed a genius could technically only be smart 16% of the time. Too much gray area to think about. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 2:59pm - arilliusbm ""] We are all in a matrix anyways. |
| _____________________________ [Mar 5,2010 3:08pm - Lamp ""] The easy question is would the world be better and I say yes. The hard questions are "how much better would it be?" and "in what ways would it be better?" This thread is going to be on my mind for the rest of the day, easily. |
| ____________________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 3:16pm - im thinkin slarbys ""] Conservationist said: im%20thinkin%20slarbys said:in general, it would be better, but i think you are dismissing the important roles dullards play in our society, and i'm not just talking about cleaning toilets. Also, you are gravely mistaken if you think getting rid of people below 120 IQ is going to solve all your problems. CASE STUDY: The tests i've taken have come out in the 145-155 range and I'm a walking waste of life by "conservative" standards (i.e. life = collecting unemployment, playing metal, fappage, rttp, that is all.) and one more thing, i would have no problem with this plot except for, if you get rid of all the low IQ girls, who am i going to have sex with??? You've put a lot of issues into one post, so I'm going to break it out which will move more slowly but more accurately. 1. What tests are these? Are these administered by a psychologist with experience in intelligence testing? 2. 145-155 is not genius, and no reliable test will give you that broad of a range. 160 is genius. 3. That some high intelligence people are dysfunctional does not mean that on the whole, high intelligence people are more functional than low intelligence people. 4. This is a useful resource: http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html 5. "Conservative" standards aren't as uniform or kneejerk as you'd think, especially considering that "conservative" is a very wide definition -- actually far wider than liberal. If the metal music is good, most conservatives would be OK with what you're doing, unless offended for religious reasons. And even then, they will probably not urge for its censorship. It's a small minority that makes sites like BoycottHouston.org yea i was pretty sleep deprived when i posted that... ultimately, i would totally support any mass depopulation efforts if such a thing were within the realm of possibility, (and especially if they would allow me to survive!! hahah) but i love playing devils advocate w you prozak, so let me try and summarize what i was driving at; As long as we're playing eugenics fantasy camp, why not employ a comprehensive battery of metrics to maximize the number of ultimately "competent" humans left in the gene pool and minimize the number of people who are smart but lazy, dysfunctional, etc. (shoot! i done disqualified myself!)??? In short, shouldn't someone of above average IQ be able to recognize the pitfalls in relying on one measurement of intelligence? btw, the tests i was referring to were certainly not facebook tests, one was administered by my college psychology teacher, a psychologist, the other i took online, but the questions were similar even if the scoring was not as accurate. i don't remember which was which as this was a long time ago, but on one i scored low 140's and the other low 150's hence the "range" i gave in my previous post (not tryin to brag it was pertinent to my point) as far as the term "conservative" goes, mea culpa, i should have known better than to paint with such broad strokes. what i was trying to express was that being an avid reader of your screeds, i think there are many people who would not fit your definition of productive competent humans despite having an above average IQ |
| _______________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 3:20pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] I test rather well and am easily the laziest man on Mars. [/anecdotal evidence, khed] |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 3:22pm - arilliusbm ""] +10 points for prozak name being dropped |
| ____________________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 3:25pm - im thinkin slarbys ""] im old school like that you down wit FMP??? yea you know me |
| _____________________________ [Mar 5,2010 3:25pm - Lamp ""] When I was four years old, my mom took me to get a formal IQ test and I scored a 138 without even answering all the questions. I was a real bizarre child. |
| ____________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 3:26pm - ouchdrummer ""] I would like to know how high conservationist claims his IQ to be. |
| ________________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 5:15pm - Conservationist ""] DestroyYouAlot said:For the record, my answer to the OP would be "undoubtedly," but the same could be said for any mass depopulation of the planet, so that may not prove much. I believe depopulation is gonna occur one way or another, so we should choose the one that serves us best as a species. arilliusbm said:The only plausible way to get rid of dumb people (judging by conservationist's posts in the past) is by rounding up all the races and cultures that are statistically proven to have a higher rate of people with lower IQs, and mass murdering every single one of them. I'd prefer to avoid that. Using Raven's matrices and a few other shortcuts, a computer-assisted pre-test can be created that will quickly separate the under-100s from the rest; testing the rest is feasible. Among other things, I would rather eliminate dumb individuals rather than races, which would strengthen every race. For example, African-Americans with an average IQ of 89 would lose a higher percentage of their members, but emerge at a competitive level -- and breeding more people is rarely a problem. im%20thinkin%20slarbys said:As long as we're playing eugenics fantasy camp, why not employ a comprehensive battery of metrics to maximize the number of ultimately "competent" humans left in the gene pool and minimize the number of people who are smart but lazy, dysfunctional, etc. (shoot! i done disqualified myself!)? IQ makes a good "first cut" to raise everyone to a minimal level of competence; after that, we kill the assholes and bean counters ;) one was administered by my college psychology teacher, a psychologist, the other i took online, but the questions were similar even if the scoring was not as accurate. i don't remember which was which as this was a long time ago, but on one i scored low 140's and the other low 150's hence the "range" i gave in my previous post Interesting there's such a range, but these sound legit. i think there are many people who would not fit your definition of productive competent humans despite having an above average IQ Definitely. And many of those are useless people. However, we face a dual problem of (a) radical overpopulation and (b) world IQ declining into the high 80s at this point. Removing the under-120s fixes that, and by removing the easily-manipulated, puts parasites under the microscope and allows us to address them more easily. With the population under control, that task is feasible; without it, unlikely. So it's a multiple-stage process. I am less concerned with hunting down every lazy shithead than I am with ending ecocide and raising humanity a notch; right now, we're devolving toward monkeyness. |
| __________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 5:39pm - narkybark ""] All I know is, this forum will be a lot quieter. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 5:52pm - arilliusbm ""] lol. Narkybark chimes in with classics. |
| ________________________________________ [Mar 5,2010 6:39pm - Conservationist ""] On inbreeding: http://www.conservationmagazine.org/articl...8n2/small-inbred-but-still-diverse/ |
| ____________________________________ [Mar 6,2010 12:43am - pooooooop ""] this topic is a sack of puke. intelligence is just one of COUNTLESS parameters that drive societies in positive ways. work ethic, bravery, endurance, honesty, integrity, sense of adventure, "morality", and emotional intelligence, for example, are traits that any person (smart or dumb) can possess. it's dumb to treat society as one linear brain-power continuum where one extreme is something like doctors, mathematicians, or programmers and the other end is full of cleaners and bus drivers and retards. it's all the different and infinite combinations of the above-mentioned traits (being hard-working, being kind, being brave, being intelligent, being consistent, having follow-through, and the list goes on forever - you could include shit like "loves dogs", "is obsessed with telling stories to other people") which push humanity forward. you don't need a big, pulsating brain to be the person who builds a daycare center. nor do you need a huge IQ to be the local ambulance driver, or firefighter, or even motivational speaker. conversely, an intelligent person is just as susceptible to stupid emotional problems and therefore susceptible to doing stupid shit like ANY other animal - how can you assume that mere cerebral intelligence will be able to override it more often in all circumstances? a goddamn ex-nuclear physicist is still capable of some really horrid shit if he's desperate enough. just because you can pinpoint a gazillion examples of ghetto fights, stupid people killing each other, blah blah doesn't mean that our humanity is gonna be raised a notch without them. when we have only smart people above a certain IQ, there are still going to be stupid people at the bottom of THAT group and "smart" people at the top. |
| ______________________________ [Mar 6,2010 2:10am - boxxy ""] narkybark said:All I know is, this forum will be a lot quieter. Yup. This forum gets dumber, and dumber, and dumber, rinse, repeat. |
| ____________________________________ [Mar 6,2010 10:09am - arilliusbm ""] This forums average IQ is 48. The only thing that brings it down that low is Pams IQ of 3. I kid, I kid. Or do I? |
| _________________________________________ [Mar 6,2010 10:22am - Conservationist ""] pooooooop said:it's dumb to treat society as one linear brain-power continuum where one extreme is something like doctors, mathematicians, or programmers and the other end is full of cleaners and bus drivers and retards. That's the assumption that most people have. And most governments. How well is it working? |
| ____________________________________ [Mar 6,2010 12:44pm - pooooooop ""] well, until we figure out a way to measure someone's true worth/usefulness based on an almost infinite and kaleidoscopic combination of values, we're stuck with using a very black&white linear basis ("highly skilled" vs. "unskilled", let's say), unfortunately. and yeah, it works like shit. however, focusing on one random property like someone's IQ won't get us very far either. if we had to pick one way and if it were up to me, i'd at least move in the direction of measuring someone's worth by their ability to "work hard" or not. that could be in any field - brain surgery, construction, being a cleaner, teaching, creative fields, being a cook, etc. etc. - i feel like that would get us a little further along. because being a "hard worker" covers so many positive and useful things. at this point i'm just thinking out loud, but you know what i mean. |
| ____________________________________ [Mar 6,2010 12:49pm - pooooooop ""] also, at least focusing on the ability to "work hard" or not would still accommodate the fact that there are natural divisions in society and labor - those who work with their hands, those who can engage their emotional intelligence, those whose skill often relies more on physical power, those whose skill employs their ability to remember a lot of info, those whose skill employs their ability to make convincing arguments, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. |
| ________________________________________ [Mar 6,2010 1:17pm - Conservationist ""] pooooooop said:yeah, it works like shit. I think we need to try something more effective. IQ isn't the be-all end-all, but it's a precursor to that. First and foremost, we need competent people. Even more, class warfare has ruined so much -- why not end it? A janitor can earn as much as a mid-level manager if there are fewer people and fewer variations in intelligence |
| ________________________________________ [Mar 6,2010 3:54pm - Conservationist ""] And this belongs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Oh yeah |
| ________________________________ [Mar 6,2010 8:01pm - sxealex ""] ouchdrummer said:genus genus genus genus? its genius genius. :P |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 17,2010 4:07pm - arktouros ""] Conservationist said:And this belongs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Oh yeah oh hey something you observe all the time but never knew it had been studied and had a sciency name. |
| _________________________________________ [Mar 17,2010 4:17pm - Vagoo Vikernes ""] The reason that you do not mean this is because you are a victim of normal 'nice-ism' propaganda! Both on the TV, in the newspapers and radio and.. parrents and school, The whole bunch, are running around telling you that you should care about others and that you should.. you should only care about others and you should feel sorry for the children in Africa because they are dying like flies. Why the hell should we care about them? There is no point what so ever. You gain nothing by doing that. The only thing you accomplish is to walk around caring for others and be anxious for all the skin and bone down in Africa. |
| _____________________________________ [Mar 17,2010 4:39pm - ouchdrummer ""] sxealex said: ouchdrummer said:genus genus genus genus? its genius genius. :P did i ever claim to be? Spelling nazi. |
| _________________________________________ [Mar 17,2010 4:46pm - Vagoo Vikernes ""] Europe is not a geographical, but a biological term. |