read this article and realize how political correctness doesn't just apply to speech or jobs.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna

It threatens your safety.

Tasty..

Chocolate Rain
The bell curve blames the baby's DNA
Chocolate Rain
But test scores are how much the parents make

>>2321666
oh, so let's exchange one scientifically disproved theory for another piece of pseudoscientific bullshit, brilliant, OP!

well
1) almost all nations are against capital punishment
2) there's no intelligence genes to identify the people you want to preserve
3) environment > genetic

also, sage for troll baitin

ITT: Butthurt fags white knight on race.

>>2321729
If that's your way of naming "reason and logic", then yes.

But then again, if I myself was a completely retarded loser who needed to feel better about himself by deluding himself into believing he was a part of the better group, and therefore automatically better than all others of other groups, taking credit for others achievements - then yes.

PROTIP: You are waay below average if you can't comprehend simple scientific facts, which, logically, makes you inferior than most humans regardless of race. Enjoy your failure at life, and keep whining.

>>2321760

Anti-racists are more predictable than their racist provocateurs. Always assuming and spewing out little memorized facts to prove their bullshit reasoning is correct. Easily trolled.

>>2321729
Wow, what a complete argument debunking years of scientific discovery! And think of all who treated you as a retarded loser, now you'll show them you're a winner, because you were born one!

Welcome to eugenics, we've got fun and games. We've got everything you want, honey we know the names.

Flynn effect.

IQ is increasing. IQ has been on the rise for almost 100 years. No one knows definitively why. If IQ is increasing naturally though, then why the fuck should we bother trying to engineer an increase?

>>2321791

I'm actually starting to think the average racist is intellectually superior to these dumbshits.

IQ doesn't measure anything objective at all. take the questions on IQ tests at face value. it also doesn't measure worth. there are many kinds of intelligence that are not included in IQ measurement, both that people would consider being included under the meaning of the word "intelligence" and not, but still being cognitive skills.

ITT people who don't understand regrestion toward the mean.

Also, it's not really the IQ that's the problem but rather the crime rates they bring.

my IQ is 127. does i win?

>>2321903
I have an I.Q. of 148. I win.

>>2321917
but i have more sex.

>>2321666
Why not stop funding welfare; IQ correlates to income after all. This way, the dumb bums can die off and not reproduce.

Okay, this is as stupid as "Let's get rid of poverty by killing all the poor people!"

... IQ is relative, fucktard, and the ability to score higher in an IQ test is entirely dependent on how often you have taken similar tests before.

>eugenics
Go back to biology class, kid.

>>2321952

>biology

Go back to eugenics class, kid.

>>2321945

This is all so nineteenth century.
Why even argue. Its like trying to convince a Babylonian that the Earth is round.

>>2321970

>the Earth is round

HAHA OH WOW, you fucking pretentious jackass.

IQ is not a true measure of intelligence, since it cannot take into account trained skills.

And besides, the less intelligent people have a place in society, I think we're still pretty far away from having armies of robot laborers. Just because you're not an intellectual doesn't mean you can't excel at art/music, software programming, security/policework, etc;

TL;DR technocracy + racism for the lose.

>>2324033

People do not care because of low IQ, they care because of theft, robbery, assult, rape and murder and the fact that by about 2050 there are no more white countries in the world.

why don't we just educate stupid people?

Who's going to take out the trash and clean the floors then, OP?

>>2324728
You can't predict demographic tendencies like that.
Russia will still by white(look how good they fare), Canada will still be white, Australia will still be white.
USA will first turn white/brown before all hispanics are declared white(like they did with the irish).
Actually white and yellow population in some african countries will grow.

Stupid people still have a use in society.

It's lazy sacks of shit that we should get rid of instead. Most of 4chan falls under this, self included.

>2: A significant proportion of blacks are more intelligent than the average asian.

Did you mean to say INSIGNIFICANT? Because I am pretty sure you meant to say insignificant.

I recently got tested at 113 and in my honest opinion anyone under 160 should be euthanized.

There is no reason not to.

Taking out low IQ's will take care of most niggers, plenty of spics, and white trash. I see no downside.

>>2324752
He take out his own trash and clean his own floors? Or he'll just have to pay someone a lot more to do it.

Stupid people are those with the lowest IQ.

Are you stupid enough to think that you can get rid of them?

>>2324848
>Or he'll just have to pay someone a lot more to do it.

Exactly.
This is why this doesn't work.

IQ was developed in order to be predictive of schooling, as in, how well someone would do in school.

The point was to take people who weren't going to do as well and to give them special help.

Not to say that anyone's smarter than anyone else.

IQ =/= Intelligence.

>>2324752
His wife.

here are some facts:
there is a relatively strong correlation that people with significantly higher IQs tend to be significantly more competent in the workplace than their peers.
higher IQ entails an above average ability to recognize complex patterns, improved verbal skills, and the ability to quickly and reliably solve most any type of mathematical problem. These skills are relevant one way or another regardless of your job or area of research and study.
The IQs of children adopted at birth to parents with higher IQs than their natural parents were, on average, lower than the IQs of natural children of parents with similar IQs to the adoptive parents, controlling for socioeconomic factors.
IQ has a strong basis in genetics and IQ is a relatively good predictor of average workplace competence of any group.

>>2324832
What about, like, human decency and civil rights? Or is that just for the weak? Internet tough guys on 4chan have no need for the girly shit.
KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL THE POOR TONIGHT

As long as a bunch of niggers die I'll be happy.

>>2324832
I don't disagree. My life ain't worth that much.

>>2324832
it might be a better idea not to exterminate the human race, but whatev.
plus you NEED stupid people. Who else will us smart people use our superior intellect to control en masse to do our collective will, now that we are largely throwing human rights out the window?

What everyone is missing here is that intelligence is relative.

If you remove people with the lowest intelligence, people of medium intelligence are now the lowest.

>>2324900
The remaining people will be smart enough to figure something out.

>>2324906
...and the population is now more intelligent...

>>2324906
That might work out alright. Just eliminate the bottom 10 percent every generation or so.

kill all fuckin niggers. eradicate them. i hate those animals.

>>2324911
And what is the advantage of that?

>>2324900

You don't have an IQ above 160.

But...

We need stupid people to do all the shitty jobs that intelligent people won't do.

Everyone here thinks they are smart.

Believe it or not, most of you are worth less than a semi-retarded street-sweeper.

>>2324927
i never said i did.
i meant relatively smart, as in, significantly above average, but no, nowhere near 160.

IQ is modeled using a Normal Distribution right? So I take it that the left half of the model, those with IQ's lower than 100, are all the "stupid" people. If we get rid of ALL of them, we are then left with half of a bell curve.

So the new model would have to be revised wouldn't it? If it's revised into another bell curve, those who were at the mean and at the standard deviations midway through the model would fall into the lower half and a new standard of IQ would have to be defined. So according to OP's logic, we would have more stupid people wouldn't we?

tl;dr OP is stupid.

>>2324872

Allowing retards like me to live serve absolutely no purpose. I can't accomplish anything at all and I hate myself for that.

Let the smart(160+) people reign supreme and the world will be a happier place.

>>2324937
I don't really mind my own elimination. I only wish I would be able to witness the awesomeness of civilization after I'm dead.

This is the stupidest topic I've ever seen.

Fortunately, none of us will amount to anything, and society will continue to ignore elitist basement-dwellers.

>>2324953
The one person of worth in this thread.

100 is the average, and will always be average, shitstains.

>>2324959
Speak for yourself.
But I don't subscribe to the ludicrous stupidity of the majority of threads on 4chan, so that's probably for the better.

>>2324953
you are an idiot. Its a one time thing. There will always be a bottom half, but its about a better future since the bottom half currently goes beyond retarded. If they are eliminated the new bottom half with actually be tolerable.

Niggers and retards don't deserve to live anyway.

ITT: Why aspies should never be in positions of power.

>>2324953
Yeah, more comparitively stupid people, but they'd still be really fucking smart.

>>2324959
if you prefer shitty relationship threads, well then i suppose some of us are just morons like that.
but seriously, we don't necessarily have to kill all stupid people, just chemically castrate them. killing is unnecessary because stupid people are still useful, and, it is good to have a relatively limited number.
once germ-line gene therapy becomes widely available, we can just remove inferior genes, whynot.
we can have an intelligent discussion about this topic.

Should we eradicate basement dwellers too? They seem equally if not more useless to society.

>>2324937
for the greater good my friend. Your life is irrelevant in the scope of our species. Our species must grow and thrive, that cannot happen if the dumb shits that exist now keep holding us back with their fundamentalist ideas and violence at those who would try to progress. Personally I would have no problem with being exterminated if it helped the human race further evolve. That is our purpose, to test out new gene combinations and die if it fails to help in the current environment

>>2324991
Sure. I've mentioned earlier in this thread that I don't care if I get eliminated in the process.

Why must you idiots pretend that social usefulness equates to "right to exist"? Civilization serves the living, not the opposite. The number of closet fascists posing as lolbertarians in this festering pit is ludicrous.

Keep Dreaming faggots.

In 40 years, every western country will have an african or arab majority.

IQ isn't meant to measure intelligence. How about you kill yourself OP?

>>2325012
That's why this needs to be done sooner rather than later. Subhuman scum needs to be eliminated immediately.

>>2324781

Really? Canada will be non-white by around 2040 and Australia by 2050, this due to Asians (the wrong kind).

>>2325006
no, civilization is a construct created largely (like everything else we create) to serve our innate drives all the better with the ultimate tendency and goal or improved reproduction.
we exist in societies because such existence serves each of us with a better means of survival to reproduce.
and if we can find a way to improve civilization so that humanity can reproduce all the better than they do now, perhaps by improving the gene pool and making us all the more competent, then so be it.

It's not that we should get rid of stupid people, but we should just stop coddling them. Take away the warning labels, government laws against inanity, and so forth. The idiots will then eventually kill themselves or put themselves in such a situation where they can't survive (since they won't be able to sue zillions of companies), and society is better for it.

After a few dozen teens get into accidents without wearing seat belts and snuff all the cans of paint they want, the gene pool will eventually get better. In fact, the teen years are when people try the most crazy shit, so make sure that teens can do almost anything they want to themselves. Those that are worthy of becoming adults will adapt quickly to changes and/or realize that what they're doing is completely stupid, and those who don't will likely die an agonizing death, but a death still.

>>2325037
And who's going to eliminate them? You?

>>2324971
>>2324986

LMAO.

First off, if we are measuring intelligence by IQ then it doesn't matter if the new half is smarter or more tolerable than the previous half. It would still stand, according to your definition of an IQ, that those in the lower half are stupid. If you are going to measure intelligence using the IQ then it doesn't matter who's in the lower half, they are still stupid because they fall under the standard.

The solution? Don't measure intelligence with the IQ.

>>2325043
the gene pool is improved more by there being a greater variety, than there just being less variety of "reall smrt good iqs lol" people.

Oh yay another IQ circlejerk thread, it's a shame everyone in this thread apparently doesn't have the IQ to realize that if everyone under 120 was exterminated, then the average would re-adjust and you would have to go re-exterminate everyone again.

But hey, whatever makes you social misanthropes feel like you're superior to every living being as you valiantly take up the sword of r9k and unleash a hellish internet fury on these so-called 'lesser beings' in which you've never actually met before and may only exist in your mind.

>>2325065
you are an idiot, the point is we should prune off as many innately stupid people as possible while leaving an optimally sized population. Most of the world's problems today can be traced to idiocy, so kill the excess, but make sure they are stupid. Sure, there will always be those at the low end of the human spectrum in IQ, but if we do this they will be less stupid, and society will be better for it. And IQ tests are a good indicator of competence. Simply changing what we define as stupid can only harm us and will accomplish jack shit.

I have a hard time believing that I would have been dumb if I had been in a different environment, so genes, I think, have something to do with IQ, and ethnicity has to do with genes. Therefore, it is POSSIBLE that ethnicity could have an effect on IQ.

However, all we have ever conducted has been bullshit biased study after bullshit biased study. So maybe some day we will know if there is correlation, but for now, the racists blindly follow the conclusion of the hardly credible studies, and the non racists call it bullshit.

Everyone is just looking to confirm there own beliefs, and this arguing achieves nothing.

>>2325114
>there own beliefs.

Goddamnit, I hate homophones. Their* own beliefs. I know the difference, I just make the error once in a while.

>>2325073
see: >>2325111
you people seem to think there is no benefit in preventing innately stupid people from reproducing, and that once you do, the 'bottom half' of the remaining population will magically become as stupid as the old 'bottom half' before the pruning.
The point is there will be on average more intelligent people.

>>2325111
hahaha "optimally sized population" "innately stupid people" "IQ tests are a good indicator of competence" haha oh wow. If your post wasn't so retarded i might rage.

>>2325130
That's a sign of genetic inferiority. Off to the extermination camp you go.

>>2325114
there are plenty of credible studies which have already come to this conclusion (see:NLSY).
read "The Bell Curve". All the unbiased stats you need to prove the obvious about idiots and certain ethnicities.

>>2325157
;-;

Can I at least choose my method of extermination? I prefer poison in a nice cold bottle of Coca Cola. Death is tasty...

Oh, and if we went by this standard, we'd probably only have illiterate people left on the planet.

>>2324953

Good troll. If that new mean wasn't far superior to the old you would have a point.

>>2325138
see: >>2324871
i see you prefer to blabber on about absolutely nothing instead of trying to refute statistics which you point out to be somehow so simply fallacious, retard.
IQ, like everything else, has a strong basis in genetics, so yes, there are innately stupid people.
and finally, by 'optimally sized population' i mean one where the total net chances of survival and quality of life for all individuals in the population is maximized.

>>2325111

First, who's to say that those with lower IQ's are stupid and incompetent and don't deserve to live?

I'd like you to look at how you are using the IQ. You are using it as a measure of intelligence right? You believe the IQ is a strong enough measure of intelligence to give you reason to kill off the lower half of the model. Killing the lower half would essentially redefine what is stupid and as you said yourself, "can only harm us and will accomplish jack shit". Do you see what I mean now?

By killing the lower half, you are REDEFINING the IQ and by your logic, redefining what is "stupid".

You people are seriously fucking stupid.
Everyone has their uses, regardless of their IQ (which is an opinionated test based off "educated questions").

We need everyone, and we can use everyone.
Why is that something difficult to comprehend?

This is all irrelevant bullshit. You ARE suggesting we get rid of people with inferior IQs, not RACES with inferior IQs, right?

Why do you want to kill stupid people?

Do you want 6 billion lawyers in the world?

What use is it to know that, on average, there are more intelligent whites then intelligent blacks? There are still black people that are more intelligent than certain white people, so what purpose does the average serve, other than to give a justification for racist remarks?

how people were raised more often determines their success in life. look at the hood niggers, they are raised to be dumb animals.. they try to read? fuck nigga books are for fags.. they try to do well in school? fuck nigga studying is for fags, go fuck girls and make babies and be worthless like the rest of us. same with mexicans. now lets look at asians.. they do those things and.. why you not read better books? why you not do better in school? hence why asians kick everyone else's asses in things of that nature. hey lets look at white people too.. read a book? thats nice honey, but make sure to look good and be nice to everyone and have lots of useless people around you to take up all your time and you cant tell them to fuck off for more important things cause you have to be nice. same shit as niggers but on the opposite side, instead of animals we get to be.. shit i dunno butlers?

my point is, its all how you were raised, i was raised to be useless.. so big surprise, im useless. its all i know how to be. same with other people. we turn out just like our parents raised us whether we like it or not, it's engraved in our psyches.

my point is race has anything to do with it. you can be mexican, and have parents with a high achieving mindset like asians, and you will kick ass just like them. or any other race. barack obama is a good example of this, he had high achieving parents regardless of their race, and he is fucking president. dubya is a moron but got in power because most people in america were raised as morons too.. so they were like.. omg hes like mah brother.

race has NOTHING to do with it, its how you were raised.

>>2325196
i'm not refuting the facts, i'm refuting what you're trying to use them for. It's retarded.
Some people are born with lower IQ than other, that's right, does that mean they need to be killed? why would it? When IQ is largely genetic, there is also a nurtured part, by changing that nurtured part, you can increase the IQ, and then the IQ of the next generation will be higher? oh no it won't, because we didn't kill those people and everyone got smarter, so they're still stupid even if they're not. what do we infer from this?

>and finally, by 'optimally sized population' i mean one where the total net chances of survival and quality of life for all individuals in the population is maximized.

As an economist i'd like to see you do this, dipshit.

>>2325270
I'm advocating your side, but I still must point out that genes DO have something to do with it. I happen to think that people are born intelligent, and that the environment contributes to the mindset of work ethic, not intelligence.

Lawyers aren't smart. They're people who work hard, and some of them are smart.

>>2325179

Sigh, again? Do you not see that new mean is NOT superior to the old? The mean will ALWAYS be defined as the average. ALWAYS. So what happens?

You can't say the new mean is better than the old because you are measuring intelligence using IQ in the first place.

Kill off the lower half right? Now you have a new model. USING THE SAME LOGIC THAT YOU FIRST USED TO DEFINE WHAT IS STUPID, THOSE IN THE NEW LOWER HALF ARE JUST AS STUPID AS THOSE IN THE ONE BEFORE. The IQ model doesn't have any sentiments towards those in the lower half of the old model, it's only doing it's job of measuring intelligence (according to you).

>>2325291
the new mean is superior to the old because they probably have better skills in mathematics and patter recognition etc.

>>2325284

sup, >>2324953 here

i've been trying to do the same thing throughout this whole thread. i've already pointed out to him that his logic of using the IQ model to eliminate "stupid" people is flawed but he still clings to his sentiments. whatever. now we know who really has the low iq. LOL!!

>>2325114

Newsflash: "Racists" are not retards who suddenly feel the urge to go hate something. Most "racists" become "racists" after having subhumans invade their town and going from almost zero crime to daily threats and seeing themselves or their family and friends beeing robbed or raped while the media screams that they have no culture and everything in their society was built by the invaders. Before that they usually preached "understanding" and "multicultural enrichment" like everyone else.

IQ tests don't measure anything.

>>2325312

That may be so, but a new IQ would have to be administered to establish a standard and the new model would still have a bunch of people in the lower half. OKAY NOW KEEP THIS IN MIND! NOW, we go back to what people have been saying earlier and measure intelligence using the new model. WHAT HAPPENS?!?!?!?!? THERE ARE NOW MORE STUPID PEOPLE! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY ARE SMARTER THAN THE OLD ONES, ACCORDING TO THE IQ MODEL THEY ARE STUPID. HEREIN LIES YOUR PROBLEM! And thus someone else will come along and say "Let's get rid of these stupid people!"

>>2325328
Would you please provide a source on such outlandish claim?

>>2325345
only keep doing it until we have maintained an optimal population a la >>2325196
we have too many people. who should we prune? the stupid ones :D
what should we use to decide? IQ :D.

>>2325373
a) we don't have too many people
b) we don't know what the optimal size of the population is but we know we havn't reached it.
Also the equation for the optimal size of the population would be a dynamic one so maybe we should just freeze down all the stupid ones and thaw them up when we needed a population boost in response to a new technology that increased the optimal size of the population and then we could freeze them down when a hurricane hit a large agricultural area and lowered the optimal size of the population.

yeah, sounds clever doesn't it.

>>2325328
I don't know about that man. I have no problem with Blacks, yet I've been attacked by them. I've also been attacked by members of my same race, why should I be concerned with the Black guy? . It doesn't bother me that your fear is what draws their attention. If you give them shit, they'll return the favor.

What about professional athletes, ditch diggers and bartenders?

>>2325406
If they are too stupid, we kill them.

>>2321666

in theory yes, you could be right. but i would say your missing 1 very important point:

INTELLIGENCE ISN'T EVERYTHING

go to your college. go to the engineering department. look at the people there. now, ill admit some are fine, but do you really want a world ruled by emotionally devoid and socially stunted hard science majors? you need creativity, culture, art, philosophy for our species to flourish. you need muscle bound idiots to hunt and destroy enemies. if we allow humanity to be ruled by uncharismatic 4 chaning e-peen stroking virgins we will all die out.

tl;dr as much as it sucks mating cannot be restricted with any amount of successful result in the long run.

IT'S LIKE I'M REALLY IN OLD /n/!

>>2325406
Bartenders you say?

>>2325438
>INTELLIGENCE ISN'T EVERYTHING
Something stupid people say.

>>2325464
>LOOKS ARE NOT EVERYTHING
Something ugly people say.

>>2325328
>Gangsters invaded my neighborhood, so now I hate all black people, and I justify it because I'm really the victim of all of the vandalism here BAWWWWWWW.

"Victimization" really doesn't justify ignorance.

>>2325291

God damn it. IF you were kill of the shorter half of the population there would still be an average, yes, but that would be TALLER than the old average.

Doing the same with regards to IQ would still leave an average, always defined as Intelligence QUOTA 100, but people of the new average would be MORE INTELLIGENT than people of the the old as they can solve more complex problems and have deeper thoughts.

In other words what is today realtivily clever people would then be the new norm WHICH IS THE FUCKING IDEA.

Regression toward the mean would mean that the next generation will not be as bright but it will be a step beyond the past one, and if this is repeted it will lead to a better humanity.

Now killing half the population might not be preferable as it can be done in other ways, but the principle is the same; favor people with disirable traits (intelligence, friendliness, patience etc.) and limit the spread of bad traits (greed, indiffence etc.).

In short it is mankind taking evolution in its own hands as as natural selection no longer applies. Read about eugenic to learn more.

>>2321760
your grammar makes me laugh uncontrollably. your condescending acts make me think you are, like 90% of this board, a troll. god dammit, /r9k/, you suck so bad because of people trying to fulfill your standards.

>>2325488
Nothing ignorant about hating niggers and other mongrel dirt races.

>>2325488

Where did ignorance come in?

>>2325511
And that's why no conclusions drawn from these studies should ever be taken seriously. People are trying to verify their own beliefs.

>>2325511
agreed, definitely.


zxcvxzcvkdkdkdk

>>2325550

Guy on 4chan hates niggers: Studies on race and IQ are wrong.

Who takes these IQ tests? I have never been approached to take one and to be honest, if you went to a ghetto, then to an affluent area it would still be white versus black but there would obviously be a difference no matter which race they were.

I think you're just looking for an excuse to be racist.

>>2325464

you and a 6'4" bohemeth are hiking. a big 400lb rock falls on you. and another on him. he lifts it off. you die.

thanks for playing.

>>2325601

I believe it.

block0rz

>>2325620

Yes but the differences will center around differeant means.

>>2321666

And to you OP or anyone defending this, I ask this question:

After you have slaughtered the "stupid people", what are you going to do about the jobs that they held that kept society going? Surely *you* aren't going to run out and get a job as a waiter, are you? How about a construction worker? How about farming? Cleaning dishes at a restraunt? Menial factory jobs assembly whatever?

Also, what about the people that are book smart but have absolutely no common sense at all. Where do they fall into your greater scheme?

fuck niggers. i was in the line at gamestop yesterday and this fuckin douchebag nigwig was ahead of me reading a magazine and he walks up to the cashier when his turn comes and sets his merchandise down, along with the magazine. the cashier takes his purchases, along with the magazine as gamestop sells magazines as well, and it was on the counter with the rest of his shit, and the nigger gets all offended, saying "whoa whoa hol' up mayn dat aint fo me. i brung dat in wit me, y'all aint even sell dat." i guess the clerk was able to confirm that he was telling the truth (surprisingly), but i liked how he also got back at the faggot with "ok, 'dogg,' calm down" in a great not-black accent.
the way these animals act is simply astounding. these fuckers certainly shouldn't expect to receive any respect when they so clearly make no effort to give any.

>>2325702
quit crying about it on 4chan and do something about it. we don't want your sob story

>>2325683

omg logic IN MY 4 CHONZ!?!?

good point. op is flawed. this is why people with common sense must be allowed to keep the book smart in check.

I have an IQ of 154.

>>2325683
I've done a couple of those things. Pay me enough and I'll do it. Technology will improve and fewer people will be needed in those jobs anyway.

>Also, what about the people that are book smart but have absolutely no common sense at all.
I'm not against killing them too.

>>2325702
no one's crying about it, fuckface. i didn't spend two seconds thinking about it until this thread. and i don't buy that you don't care about it when you're the one replying to it. try again.

>>2325743

what empirical measurement system would you use? i know of no way to judge common sense numerically.

>>2325722
"Like a #2 pencil I always have a point"
-bloodhound gang

Also, I ask of you OP this question:

What about musicians, writers, artists or other entertainers? They are surely not all the smartest people out there but can produce beautiful things and entertain us all.

Some people do not seem to realise that all undesirable traits have to go, no matter what they are.

Personally I think few really propose killing all stupid people; it's like wishing you could kill all lawyers.

>>2325291

The model remains the same, so relatively, the new bottom half is now considered stupid, but surely you can acknowledge that there would be a difference between the original bottom half (that would be killed off) and the new bottom half. The point is that the new bottom half is superior to the original bottom half; sure, they are now the bottom half of the model, but the whole point is that the model is now composed of a population that is superior to the previous population. You are measuring the intelligence of a concentrated group that is different than the original group. The new group as a whole is superior to the previous group, despite the fact that the new group still has people with low IQs. The IQs of the new bottom half will be lower than they were before the removal of the bottom half, but those people are still more intelligent than the original bottom half, despite the fact that they are now morons in relation to the new upper half. The point is that the population would consist of more intelligent individuals who are capable of higher thought than the previous population regardless of their place in the new model. The new model is comprised of people who were more intelligent in the old model.
Capice?

>>2325785
Yes, that is admittedly a bit trickier. Anyone have any ideas?

>>2325743
yeah, remember when we outsourced to Mexico under the promise of "We'll have more high tech jobs here in the States to replace the factory jobs that we're outsourcing"

Guess what, the cake was a lie and now everything is made in China and made so inexpensively that it is in most cases, cheaper to buy a new -whatever- than it is to repair / fix whatever it is.

That aside, a person's worth to society means more than having a high IQ, Anon. Only a fool would debate this.

>>2325800
>What about musicians, writers, artists or other entertainers
Kill them too if their intelligence is low.

>>2325876

starve them to the point of death and give them the choice of food or hot sex.

if they choose sex over sustenance, let them die?

not very accurate, but effective at determining priorities. lol

I'm now going to counter your points using basic psychological knowledge

1. IQ tests have been shown to be culturally biased, check out the report by Gould on Yerkes' research.
2. There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned lies and Statistics.
3. This is a nature/nurtue DEBATE not the Nature/Nurture Final solution.

Intelligence is an ambiguous and convoluted subject, to take action and use eugenics is inhumane.

"Why do you think you are better than me?"
"Because I said so"

Im sure someone else has brought this up but IQ tests are biased

>>2325938
>>2325956
Biased against shit races. Not really a problem if we accidently kill too many of them.

It's a common misconception that IQ tests are biased. Unfortunately it is not true.

kill all fuckin nigger garbage...where's the local klan when you need them?

>>2326022

Indeed, the now-refuted claim that tests are hopelessly biased is treated as a truism in public life today. The shift in private, if not public, beliefs among IQ experts is undoubtedly a response to the overwhelming weight of evidence which has accumulated in recent decades on the reality and practical importance of racial-ethnic differences in intelligence. This shift is by all indications a begrudging one, and certainly no flight into "racism."

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994egalitarianfiction.pdf

>>2326000
Goddamnit. We should eliminate all people who have been trolled as long as I have. My troll sense has been tingling, but I haven't been responding.

7/10.

Environment has a very high impact on test scores, but none on intelligence.

>>2325800

On the opposite skilled people tend to have higher IQs. As with anything you do you become better at the tests the more them, and people with a natural skill of analysing graphical patterns do "unfairly" well but if you take two people without prior experience, one successfull and one unsuccessfull, the successfull will most likely do better.

This is because the test will measure your ability to discover patterns and predict results which is more or less what human intellect is all about.

As an example a talented speaker can understand what response a phrase will give depending on when and how it is presented by understanding the patterns by which and audience will react. Higher IQ means he can understand more complex patterns achive better results. Same when working with technology. Same when working with anything which requires you to think. Higher IQ means better at realising what and why, and how to use that favorably.

Of course IQ is not all that matters. A friendly athlete of average intelligence is still desriable, one who is criminally insane isn't.

A comparison of expert and non-expert views

Charlie L. Reeve, and Jennifer E. Charles
University of North Carolina Charlotte, United States

>The highly visible non-scientific commentaries (e.g., Gould, 1996; Murdoch, 2007) continue to give the impression that the field is in disarray. Indeed, such a sentiment was expressed by Reeve and Hakel (2002) who stated, "... scientific research on intelligence has often met with fierce public opposition. Even within the scientific community, the debate is often sidetracked by misunderstandings and misconceptions. The same questions are asked repeatedly, false claims and criticisms are based on misconstrued or misunderstood evidence, and important questions remain ignored. This wastes the resources, time, and energy of partisans, scientists, and the public." (p. 69).

>Though some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007

>>2325491
Fucking thank you. At least someone else gets it.

>>2325722
It's called pragmatism, not logic, you ignorant fuck. Its pragmatic for us to have fucking stupid boorish cunts to run around in the fields and toil and do my bidding. Society as it exists now needs these people to function, but that doesn't mean civilization and societies have to be structured as they are now; the idea of moving towards a society of intellectuals is hindered and stunted by coddling the infirm and inferior and effectively natural selection and the evolution of the human species (usually due to antiquated ideas of morality and justice and misguided attempts at being humane for some false lofty ideals). Idiots who are too incompetent to see the facts, or that willingly choose not to because the majority of society decides that - reason and logic be damned - their morals and gods tell them science and fact are wrong. Humans are not equal, we are highly evolved animals, and animals do whatever it takes to survive; the new evolution will reward intelligence and cunning; those who are mentally unfit will not survive.

>>2321666
>Why don't we just get rid of all the stupid people?

Oh jesus christ not another suicide thread.

>>2326151

theres a reason Spencerian sociology is only completely accepted by batshit insane people.

Social Darwinism DOES NOT WORK.

the reason that humanity functions is because our our variability. yes people are different. but intelligence is not the god trait. the US used $10 million developing a pen that could write in zero gravity upside down in any temperature. THE RUSSIANS USED A FUCKING PENCIL.

if you argue pragmatism then how do you explain a GRAD STUDENT FROM MIT KILLED HIMSELF BY LETTING A HORSE FUCK HIM UP THE ASS AND RUPTURE HIS COLON!?!

you want a society of intellectuals. this is because you are an intellectual. understandable. Plato said that Philosopher kings should be governing and controlling the world. its valid, but doesn't work in practice.

the only way that humanity will survive and progress is by letting nature take its course and allowing variety to expand and grow.

you say the intelligent and cunning will survive. who wins in a fight. the intellectual? FUCK NO. the muscle bound "boorish cunt". intellectuals, despite how much you and i both wish it were true, will never outlive or dominate all other traits of human nature. its not about morals or evolution. its about the facts. diversity wins because specialized traits only work in controlled environments built to spec.

>>2326151

Well thank you for showing that someone actually reads what I write. Others conveniently ignore it and then make the same statements again.

>>2326281

You do not seem to grasp is the fact that man uses technology to compensate in environments he wasn't designed for and as such has been specialized for that specific purpose. Man's characteristic as a species it that he is adapted to constantly be using tools and that is what should become better at.

Also diversity is not the key. There are room for different traits so long as they are beneficial but those are relativly few. People with those traits are to be kept (or rather allowed to reprocriate) if they are good at what they do (have high IQ) whereas people who are not or have undesirable traits (eg. good at manipulating or raping without conscience) will not.

The resulting species can not be described as diverse as it will for most traits be homogeneous.

>>2326489
If you over specialize you breed weakness.

>>2326281

You miss the point. I'm not saying it works in practice. It clearly doesn't, because society prefers to coddle the inferior rather than let them die off as they should, naturally. Humanity has evolved to the point where the next natural progression of evolution should be occurring through scientific processes within our own species, but morality and religion and various other superstitions held by the less intelligent are holding society back. We will never reach our full potential as a species so long as people who are incapable of higher thought exist as a majority.

Clearly the Russians displayed higher form of intelligence in your example than the United States by realizing that use of a pre-existing technology would be more pragmatic. Just because a student is at MIT does not preclude the fact that he is an idiot and let a horse fuck him in the ass.

As an isolated example, a "brute" would probably win in a brawl against an "intellectual." But the point is that the brute fights using strength and force because that is all he is capable of; the intellectual is more highly evolved and uses their higher reasoning faculties to create a situation in which he has the upper hand, in addition to potentially being capable of physically overpowering the brute. The idea is that a society of intellectuals is more evolved in the modern world. The intellectual is the new hunter, predator. It is the lower half of the curve that holds fast to ideals that prevent the evolution of the species. I don't see what variety within the species has to do with it, and I believe that evolutionary history has shown that the most ones most fit for their environment survive. Evolution has microcosmed in human form; the new evolution is that of knowledge and discovery. Those incapable of evolving do not deserve to survive. It is up to the intellectuals to save humanity by removing the lower half of the curve that prevents the evolution of knowledge.

you guys do realize blacks are dying off right?

>>2326489
if they are good at what they do (have high IQ)

IQ does not correlate to if they are good at anything other than taking IQ tests. at best it describes how well the tester was educated in math science and english. it says nothing for abilities that the person may possess. the highest recorded IQ in the US works as a Bouncer. how is that beneficial to the human race? judging by IQ and intelligence does nothing to predict problem solving, ingenuity, or adaptability. you're assuming that science and engineering can fix anything. it cant.

>>2326543
If this is true then that's the best news I've heard in 10 years.

If this were to happen, humanity would tear itself apart.

How do you really expect to kill half the population? Even if you started a campaign to kill the "stupid" people, I'm pretty sure they'd rise up against you. Not only that but you'd never be able to convince all of the "smart" people that what you're doing is just.

"We're smart! We've got better technology! We can kill them all!"

Yes, just like in Vietnam, right? High tech weapons vs. some guy with an AK-47 and a bicycle. Last I checked, we gave up on that war.

"LOL War on Terrorism" anyone? High tech weaponry vs. some guy with an AK-47 and some explosives. Look how well that is going.

Brains + technology =/= automatic win

>>2326542
"It is up to the intellectuals to save humanity by removing the lower half of the curve that prevents the evolution of knowledge."

how are stupid people preventing you of doing anything? and who is to say that intellectuals care about saving humanity in the first place? if they are truly intellectual and have no hold ups such as morality, religion, and superstition as you say, then they wont care about humanity at all. they will be solely concerned with themselves, the rest of society, whether smart or not be damned. morality is firmly based on the base that it is required on order for the species to survive. social laws must be enacted to prevent 1 singular intelligent mind from destroying the world on a whim.

>>2326606
The Holocaust worked pretty well.

At work today a black woman got fired because of how stupid she was.

I was doing the same job as her (data entry, yeah I know, shit) but I was doing it about 3 times as quickly and with about 6000% more accuracy. I should be getting paid more.

>>2326543
yeah... too bad all it will take is humans to live in very sunny regions for a few generations to make the black man come back. I fucking rage when people talk about race as if it is the same as the separation between species. Its just an adaptation that humans can obtain, like naturally having a low metabolism.

>>2326628
>black woman
>stupid
Now the question is, is the stupid caused from being a nigger or from being a woman?

>>2326626
But failed in the end. So what's your point?

Eugenics is a slippery slope. Once you put one group on the chop block, you but everyone on the chop block. So tell me OP, have any genetic irregularity? Any family diseases. If you do, you should breed since you're continuing the disease...

>>2326657
Try it again.

>>2325073
This issue was already solved; see here:
>>2324917

How about just castrating the stupid people as a compromise? They can still do the shit jobs, but they won't reproduce. Things will still suck for a couple generations, but the effect will be the same in the end.

How about we kill everyone that's stupid, regardless of race.

Of course, this means that more black and white people will die but that just leaves productive members of society.

>>2326544

Learn to internets: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf

Regarding your example: That fact that a puppy is born with six legs does not mean that dogs have six legs. Meditate on that for a while, answer below.

> judging by IQ and intelligence does nothing to predict problem solving, ingenuity, or adaptability

This is plain wrong. What you need to grasp is that the accuracy of 'skill determined by IQ' like most thing conforms to normal distubution and forms a bell curve. A single bad prediction proves nothing just as one perfect prediction proves nothing. What a sufficent number of tests has shown is that it IS reliable to determine skill as a factor of IQ. Deal with it.

That you would want to take other things into consideration as well has already been stated, that doesn't change the fact that low IQ is undesirable.

Hope I got the numbers right.

>>2326534
That is why you should not OVER specialize.

>>2326606
The US losses are entierly self caused by not allowing themselves to freely attack the general public (for rasons of moral). It is not because their enamies are in any way supperior; it is because it has limited itself. If the concern HAD been to win at any cost it would have easily been done.

>>2326631
Yes, but those would be intelligent blacks. I hope you do realise that different races eventually become different species as time progresses and that there can be diffences other than height and skincolour between races.

>>2326615
No one said that. Of course only individuals who wish to preserve mankind kan be allowed to breed.
The reason why we can't just form a colony for the intellectuals n'stuff is that the stupid people would ruin it. It would be declared a "nazi" colony and the US or someone would come and "liberate" it.

>>2326723
Yes, that it the most practical solution if the measures go beyond just limiting the number of children.

>>2326747
Doesn't work. Regressiong towards the mean.

>>2327041
>The US losses are entierly self caused blah blah bla

"at any cost" So, you're willing to sacrifice yourself and other "smart" people to kill the "stupid" people?

>>2326766

the op says nothing about g. yes, they say g is a good determinant and the main factor in IQ, but not everything can be explained by IQ or g. the same 1/3 did not take power all throughout history. if the g theory were true beyond contestation then other groups with higher than avg IQ and g scores would have a much more important role in the balance of power.

i can admit that while g is a good concept that describes most different types of "smarts" it cannot accurately predict new and useful ideas. therefore any "hunch" we may have would never warrant extermination of almost 1/3 of the population.

>>2327041

um he did say that quote if that's what you're talking about. and how would you go about determining if one even cares about the rest of humanity. its not as if a sociopath couldn't lie about it.

you people are idiots... stupid people are allowed to exist for very good reason other than the koom-bi-ya one.

stupid people are useful to more dominant people (people with $$$$) because they are still profoundly economically useful. They are great tools, you fags just don't realize it yet.

its sad most of you don't realize this

i wonder what OP's thoughts on nazi eugenics are

>>2327112

There was no argumentation about whether doing things at any cost was anything I prefered. Stop making things up.

The point was that Brains + technology does in fact mean automatic win if you allow yourslef to use them fully, which the US did not in any of these cases. They lost because they themselves set up rules that held (and still holds) them back, not because the other factions bested them. Whether this is right or wrong is entierly beside the point.

By observation. If they do nothing to harm society there is no problem. If they fuck up ...

Perhaps we developed the tendency to "coddle" the "inferior" because that's just what we're supposed to do, in the grand scheme of things, whether we like it or not? The current state of affairs wasn't dropped on our heads by an alien mothership, this is the path that *our species has naturally taken*.

Or do you really think some unwashed dullard on 4chon knows better than the invisible hand of natural selection. The course of human history, let alone the course of human evolution, is longer and more complex than anyone today would care to admit. I'm sure if you asked the Egyptians, back when Europeans were still bashing rocks together, or the Mayans, back when Europeans were tearing themselves apart and stagnating in their own filth, what they thought, based on their own experiences and worldview, about a European's intelligence and potential for success, you'd hear a very similar tune being sung now, and yet look at those areas of the world now.

You all claim to be more objectively intelligent than the norm, and yet all we see here is proof positive that noone here can properly attract a desirable mate or get off their ass to find a job.

As This Graph Clearly States i am Far Superior then most But i am just a simple man and i am a bouncer but I AM smarter then you all but i am humble but i am not BETTER THEN YOU in any way other then the fact that i am SMARTER THEN YOU

>>2327367

damn... i think he won. moot point is moot. and yes, i meant moot not the witty misspelling of mute.

Gotta go, will see if this is still here later.

>>2327355 was for >>2327140

>>2327186
Well, I think the willingness to use other people is also an undesirable trait.

>>2327120

That is correct; in the short run eugenics has adverse effects. It is the long term effects that are desireble

Hot-Black-Chick-Sage

Serious question, if you believe that IQ does not measure something real or isn't valid as a concept. What sort of evidence would make you change your mind?

For example, those who believe that IQ is a valid concept would need to change their minds of IQ did not have high correlations with real world outcomes. What would make you change your mind?

PROTIP 1: Hereditary diseases almost always have a benefit. Hence why they haven't been breeded out yet.

PROTIP 2:
Statistics mean nothing, as any action on race/IQ statistics would necessarily disadvantage the people who aren't in the center of the bell curve. Even if you are advocating intelligence supremacy in some bizzare twist of might is right, race is still neither here nor there.

>>2327649
in b4 durr hurr shes obviously mixed

>>2327739
Well, do a bit of research on the 'great minds' behind IQ testing. It stinks of eugenic bullshit. Plus, the fact is, there IS no correlation between IQ and intelligence. Einstein had mediocre IQ, whilst the man with the highest IQ ever tested is patently a nonce.

>>2327792
She? A giant turd has a gender?

>>2327811
0/10. At this point you're pissing in a ocean of piss.

If some basic family planning or eugenics work took more of a basic role in people's lives, many tragedies could be avoided.

For instance imagine if EVERYONE knew what was good/ bad about their bodies and genes? Couples would automatically know the risk for their gene-type regarding giving birth to a child with Downs syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.

They could at least avoid some of these problems.

>>2327788
You're not being explicit. No, hereditary _diseases_ do not have to increase one's fitness. The genes associated with those diseases do. Sickle cell anemia does not increase one's fitness. Sickle cell trait does.

>>2327788
Why is race excluded a priori? Isn't it an empirical question whether the races have the same attributes when it comes to IQ (average, variance, etc)?

Eugenics rocks. Shame it's fallen out of favor.

We can start this slowly. We can start out eliminating retards.

>>2327865
Evolution doesn't work over a few generations. Even if you were trying to breed super humans it would take centuries and most likely wouldn't get the results you wanted at the end of it all anyway. Shit doesn't work

>>2327885
This is already happening. People are increasingly screening for diseases like Down's Syndrome and taking the appropriate steps.

We can't kill of stupidity, but The idea of smart family planning isn't immoral. Potential parents should at least be encouraged to be gene tested for genetic disorders. I'm not advocated making conception illegal if there is a genetic disorder with a significant likelyhood, but rather making parents aware of the risks and possibly counciling them on how to raise a child with X genetic disorder AHEAD of time, so as to minimize the harm that comes to the child and maximize their standard of living.

Also important to note: Genetic disorders do have some upsides oftentimes. For example, Sickle cell anemia was essentially evolved to fight off malaria.

I personally am going to carefully look into the genetics involved when/if I do have children in order to be aware of the possibilities. If genetic manipulation is at a usable stage at that point, then I'd like to at least minimize the likelyhood of a damaging disorder.

People are human, despite any flaws, despite race, despite disabilities, and thus should at least be considered. Some humans truly are better at functioning, some humans are better in many senses, but by virtue of being better, ought we not try to build up and help those below us so as to create a society where we can thrive even more? I apologize for the off-topic blurb, but It should be considered in this argument.

>>2327299
they carpet bombed the shit out of the jungle with B52s.

you know what the VC did? they took their bicycles around the craters.

>>2327907
Works well enough on other animals.

>>2327968
Carpet bombing is rarely an appropriate way to do anything. Far more effective: burn the forest or systematic rape.

>>2327943
>ought we not try to build up and help those below us so as to create a society where we can thrive even more?
No. Doing this just holds successful people back while doing little to help unsuccessful people.

>>2327907
You misunderstand the purpose of social Darwinism. The goal is not to create a new species, it's to introduce an additional measure of artificial selection. Evolution has two components - introducing new traits through mutations and selecting for certain traits. Social Darwinism is only concerned with the latter component.

>>2327907
evolution takes place every generation, even, inbetween generations

>>2327943
See, the "help the less successful to improve society as a whole" was but no longer is a good idea. If the goal is to improve society, it's now more effective to replace the less effective people with more effective people (slowly, of course - it's just a matter of encouraging the effective to breed and discouraging the ineffective). Then it requires little to no upkeep and we can get on with the actual work.

>>2326000
It's nothing to do with race, it's to do with culture, as shown in the report by Gould, immigrants than initially took the test when entering the country scored significantly higher when they had time to intergrate with the culture. That doesn't mean that their skin insta-changed to be white, it means they were in a different environment! Oh snap! Did I just bring up more evidence towards IQ being environment based, whilst you have nothing, I think I did.

Bitch got served.

The only reason you want a eugenics movement is because you think you'll get some, well let me tell you, when they said not even with a barge pole, that wasn't conditional.

>>2328150

This post is proof that the world desperately needs a eugenics program to destroy the moron genes.

>>2328147

Yes, but only stupid people are breeding, and they're surviving off the productivity of other people who figured out better answers.

>>2328150
I will pay you $5,000 to get a vasectomy.

>>2328150
Problem here being that they still scored significantly lower, even after generations of intermingling cultures without actually breeding with the locals. And as soon as someone mates with another race, boom, instant higher scores for the next generation. Statistically speaking.

>>2328148
It's not your post in particular, but a common theme running through many pro-eug arguments. "Society is being held back by certian people." Held back from what? What magical achievements do you think we haven't made it to and won't make it to without taking away people's basic human rights?

Obviously we differ in opinion, you look at society and see failure, I look and I see achievement, ultimately you're just a pessimist with a God complex (and probably a tiny penis).

>>2328148
what actual work is there to be done after getting rid of 'the less successful people'? success is relative in the first place, and why the fuck would it make the world a better place if the upper echelons of society decided to gut the lower ones? who gives a shit if it's more productive afterwards, you're left with a society that has already demonstrated its willingness to eliminate entire segments of civilization for essentially arbitrary reasons. any kind of selection like that, and I don't care if it's straight up genocide or state-mandated sterility, will corrupt the moral fabric of any society beyond repair. and don't talk about fucking lepers or whatever, because those past efforts were done with the less fortunate just as in mind as those who were not yet the less fortunate.

tl;dr: if we fuck up anyone's shit we're likely to try to fuck up everyone else's shit.

>>2327943

You assume that being human has some sort of meaning. That humans are somehow above animals. We are not. We are insignificant specks in an infinitely large universe. You are approaching this issue with preconceived notions about human worth. The fact is, humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals. As such we operate like animals, on a much more complex level maybe, but everything we do is still attributable to basic primal urges.

>>2327367
We coddle the infirm and weak because of our societal delusions of grandeur. In "the grand scheme of things" we are nothing. Our actions have no grand spiritual significance. Death and destruction are the natural order. The idea that humanity is worthy of any sort of special treatment is absurd. The path of human civilization has been guided by schizophrenics who talk to an invisible, unknowable magical creator zombie ghost that exists without any basis in knowledge of the world; these people are responsible for creating the morality that you assume is absolute.

Human evolution will inevitably continue. I just hope that humanity evolves to become stronger and not weaker; intellectual evolution is clearly the evolution of the future. And realistically, do I support the extermination of half of humanity? No. But it's not because they don't deserve it.

>>2328192
I'll pay YOU $6,000 to lick my asshole.

Mmmm yeah baby, do it, that's right, you can poke a little, mmmmm, yeaaah.

>>2328150
Does Gould discuss modern IQ tests? I don't think there is any question that older IQ tests were very culturally biased. Criticizing the results of work done in the early 20th century doesn't invalidate the field (otherwise, lets criticize population genetics without taking into account Fisher, Haldane and Wright). To "serve" folks who believe in the validity of IQ tests (and even those who believe in the validity of g) you'll need to do more than just pick off the low hanging fruits.

Here's what you need to do: break down each IQ test into its subtests (because advocates of IQ validity already know that different subtests are valid on different domains). Now criticize each with reference to their modern incarnations (so you can't use the Gould-esque slander of a bad history). You don't even need advanced stats. I'll settle with a study finding a low r between any IQ subtest (or even an entire IQ test) and some real world outcome where the test seems like it would correlate to (IQ and income, verbal IQ and reading ability, etc, etc). Cross-cultural work will make your case stronger. And this is only a basic serve. To be truly strong, come at us with stuff like this: http://cscs.umich.edu/%7Ecrshalizi/weblog/523.html (I don't buy all the conclusions, but it's a fairly good criticism that shows some understanding of what the fuck is going on).

>>2328200

We are being held back from making the advances that dumb people, who outnumber smart people, fear because they can't understand them.

If you want 10 lbs of ready rock, that can be arranged too.

I'll even throw in the glass pipe, free.

>>2328262
With reference to the idea of a normal distribution of IQ scores, how do stupid people outnumber smart people?

>>2328216
why the fuck do existentialists hate animals so much? ok, so we're animals, what the fuck does that have to do with our worth? animals are living beings too, with feelings. you probably understand that or else you're gearing up to go on a school shooting at this point in your life. who gives a fuck if stars are bigger than us? stars are incapable of having any kind of perspective at all. they are meaningless physical objects.

what pisses me off about existentialism is that it for some reason utterly dismisses any importance of something as obvious as the concept of self, and instead embraces dead, physical objects as being some kind of greater truth. were their religion not centered along the lines of preventing such a reaction, this would get tons of Eastern mystics to rage that the soul is forgotten for the immaterial physical world.

that's kind of bullshit too, but the bottom line is that my dog means more to me than Andromeda, so fuck that. what I see in a telescope is not as important as what I see in the newspaper, because I believe that sentience is fundamentally more important, more complex, and more decent than any physical object.

and all that philosophical bullshit aside, who gives a fuck? if you don't give a fuck about yourself, because of your own alleged insignificance, then why the fuck are you so dedicating to preserving some abstract ideal of 'truth' (such a stupid fucking word) that you're willing to stress in your own philosophical dialogs what essentially amounts to nihilism? I don't give a shit about acknowledging dead babies and all that I mean, why don't you just pick an idea that feels a little hearty and helps you get up in the morning?

>>2328196
Evidence me up cunt-face.

Where are your FACTS. Look up Gould if you want mine, tell me where to find yours, or should I just follow that trail UP YOUR ASS?

If your results are infact true, they still do not eliminate environment, or even reduce it to any degree, do you know what happens when a parent raises a child? It gives it an environment, and it's more than likely it will be the same environment they grew up with, passing onto the hild their CULTURE.

BOOM! HEADHSOT!

OH, shit. Niggah's gonna burn his lips.

>>2328200
I'm impressed by your ability to deduce completely relevant facts about my person from thirty or forty words. Addressing the actual content of your post, though:

It's not that society is being held back by having certain people as that society would be better off if types of people were replaced by certain other types of people. Which is pretty hard to argue against without resorting to nihilism.

Also, the drive to improve oneself and one's society is innate, genetic ingrained, in all animals. Yes, there's amazing amounts of achievement in the world today. That's no reason to stop trying to increase the rate at which we accomplish wonderful things.

>>2328213
It wasn't actually an argument for eugenics, just following someone's logic and picking it apart. Whether or not it would be a good idea in practice is unrelated to whether or not it is a good/moral idea in theory.

I wish you people would actually frame proper arguments instead of this mindless back and forth trolling. We might actually get some intellectual debate done.

>>2328283
See, here's an example of liberal denial. You only look at the statistics you like, instead of examining how those statistics were derived.

>>2328259
Finally, one of you backs something up.

The problem with Intelligence is that it is still heavily in debate, as is the majority of Psychology, it being a relatively new area of science, so I say we just keep studying and put off doing anything drastic until some real conclusions can be brought about, with multiple studies and the scientific community agreeing on one conclusion.

>>2328283
Well, most of that was off of journals, but whatever, have some links.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf
http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/235-2.html

The latter references a number of relevant papers I'd recommend you read if you want to learn about the topic.

>>2328345
We can start with obvious retards.

>>2328345
while that's all a really solid point, does that mean that after a certain point in the study of the human mind and body we say 'let's fucking get the bad ones'?

>>2328283
You do know that citing Gould (or Lewontin for that matter) in a debate over IQ isn't going to convert anyone who already believes in the validity of IQ any more than me citing Jensen or Murray is going to convert you, right?

>>2328345
I totally agree. If I were a betting man I'd bet in favor of IQ being moderately heritable and being a valid concept (along with g), but that doesn't mean I am in a hurry to jump to conclusions. Don't cast me into the lot with the rest of these idiots who blindly love IQ because it furthers their agendas (racism, or nerd yearning to feel superior).

>>2328345
We've done thirty to forty years of solid research on the heritability of intelligence. None of it disagrees with the fundamental premise that intelligence is significantly (r-squared of well over .1, say, meaning basically that at least ten percent of differences in intelligence can be accounted for by genetics). How much more research do you need?

>>2328406
Well, a R^2 value of 50% only explains 25% of the variance.

>>2328213
Again, not arbitrary. It's the result of millions of years of evolution. It is the natural order of things that the strongest and best survive. The use of complex tools is the next step in the evolutionary chain; complex tools for survival are the result of superior intellect. In a society of intellect based on creating technology to survive, those who are more intelligent and thus more capable of creating more and more advanced tools should survive and benefit from their hereditary predisposition for success. Higher intelligence means a higher evolution. We shouldn't punish those with lower IQ's if they are able to keep pace with those who are advancing, but we shouldn't coddle and protect them when they can't at the detriment of those who are moving on. We don't have to eradicate the inferior, just stop protecting them at our expense, and forcing me to protect them.

Whether or not IQ tests are a valid assessment is irrelevant; if someone is capable of keeping up with the best, they are rewarded by not having their genes eliminated from the gene pool. If they aren't, then they should be allowed to disappear; society would be better off without them holding us back and slowing us down.

>>2328406
Enough to sterilize the idiots. Mine, yours, whatever.

>>2328412
Modern estimates put the r in the range of .7, so that's close to 50% of the variance of intelligence explained by genetics. Even r^2 of 25% from a test that people consider meaningless is pretty damn good in the realm of psychology.

>>2328425
uh. success in modern society could arguably be defined as reproducing less. the lower parts of society tend to have higher birth rates. Darwinism DOES NOT FUCKING APPLY. and what the fuck does 'keep pace' mean?

look, society doesn't need to continually make itself smarter. we need people to roof our houses and whatever else.

success has nothing to do, by modern standards, of many kids you have. if that were the case, Catholics would be kings.

>>2328470
You are using "success" differently than folks with an evolutionary perspective use "success". Look up fitness and reproductive success. Then come back and argue with that guy (hint, his ideas of evolution are ill founded so you should be able to come up with easy refutations).

>>2328470
Smart people can roof houses too. A smart person is not genetically unable to do anything a stupid person can do, but the reverse is not true. Having a society capable of accomplishing more is a good thing.

You want definite results from having more smart people: Alzheimer's disease doesn't yet have a cure. Curing it would be a good thing. A significant reason so little research is being done is because the intelligent people with relevant experience are more concerned with life-threatening diseases, eg cancer. More smart people in general would mean more research and then in theory finding a cure sooner.

You can never tell what will be the ideal genetic traits decades into the future. For all we know, we'll soon be attacked by aliens that gobble humans except for Downs kids. Afterwards, the Downsies reconstruct society anew.

>>2328470
Actually, I -want- roofers that can debate quantum theory with me.

>>2328526
You do know there are diminishing returns on IQ, right?

>>2328525
uh, fine. but the bottom line is that being successful in society has shit to do with natural selection.

>>2328526
that's totally true, it's obviously better to have a smart person than a dumb person for just about everything.

but is it better to get rid of people who are not as smart? obviously not. there's saying there would be an improvement if a theoretical scenario were achieved and then there's an attempt at a genocide perpetuated against something as vague as lower intelligence.

>>2328281

You cannot prove that you have a soul. You cannot prove your dog is anything. How do you know that Andromeda isn't worth something? How do you know it's not the most important thing in all of existence? You don't. You assume, or you falsely attribute worth through flawed logic. You're ideas are based in preconclusion. You are incapable of proving that life has value. That does not necessarily mean it does not have value, but until you have any means to prove this, I will continue to observe the world and make judgments based on what I observe. In nature, life does not seem to have value. Animals tear each other to bits and eat each other with no regard for feelings or the value of life. My observations lead me to believe that I am a highly evolved animal, but an animal nonetheless. It doesn't mean I don't necessarily have some intrinsic value or worth, but until I have a legitimate reason based on empirical though and observation for thinking that I do, I will refuse to assume so because a broken society it is so.

Eastern philosophies and mysticism makes alot more sense to me than most of the Western schools of thought because there is a detachment from the world. A detachment from necessity; the world doesn't have to have meaning, and that's okay. Everything is. We (probably) exist, but we have a very limited understanding of our existences. To assume that you are so important as to have a soul is foolish; to observe the history of the world and try to understand your place objectively (or at least as objectively as humanly possible) makes alot more sense than to go around claiming you know the truth.

I don't know the truth, but then again, I never claimed to.

>>2328566
Who said anything about IQ?
Well, ok, half the posters in my thread. My post, however, did not. IQ has issues of its own.

I'd like to see some studies on the diminishing returns thing, even if it isn't at all relevant - increasing average intelligence would still continue to increase results, just by less. In any case, we certainly haven't hit that point, if indeed it exists.

>>2328549
sure, that'd be quite cool and all, but do you think some shmuck who services your house should have to be smart enough to 'debate quantum physics' with someone as smart as you (who apparently enjoys debating about such smart things as quantum physics in conversation, rather than in mathematics, like how the people who actually have a dialog about that field of study do)? no, it fucking well is not.

so, should you snap off your roofer's pecker so you can get him to discuss high things of intellect? I'd say no.

>>2328583
I beg to differ. Social outcasts (who _generally_ are deemed unsuccessful by society) are less likely to propagate their genes. Evolution, QED.

What would you call being successful in society? Being wealthy? Being popular? What? I am willing to bet you'll find modest correlations between those things are number of viable offspring produced. Yes, you have folks like Steve Wozniak who are wealthy but leave no children. But do you really think this holds on the average? And no, IQ scores are not dropping so don't use that meme of the stupid out-reproducing the smart without some good evidence.

>>2328598
Technically eugenics does not require genocide, just encouraging the less intelligent not to reproduce. And while yes, there is a huge gray on whether a given person or family is unintelligent, at some point it becomes obvious.

>>2328612
again, why are you so fucking obsessed with being this bastion of truth that you're willing to linger on things that are obviously not good for you as a person living your life? and you clearly have a half-baked education on any religion if you're so dismissive and shallow when it comes to existential matters, if all you can do is say 'but how do you prove it?' when faced with ideas about sentience and perspective that are by definition beyond of empirical study. all existential matters are beyond empirical study. this is not why existentialism sucks: this is why your argument sucks dick. Stephen Hawking has a far superior understanding of the universe's physical mechanics compared to anyone, but he is also very compassionate and humane in his philosophies.

you are indeed claiming to know the truth if you are demanding proof, or rather, admitting to a desire for some absolute truth. the problem with this kind of reasoning within existentialism is that it essentially counts on some kind of progress of a being, a being which that doctrine defines as worthless, thus the possession of that idea, and the entire idea by nature of ideas being limited to individuals, is necessarily moot, but that's a much larger issue for existentialism.

>>2328689
genocide the elimination of a specific group of people, in very broad terms. eugenics is often thought of as a less violent form of suicide, though that is a bit more abstract in associating the two and I guess one doesn't always require the other.

>>2328612
>To assume that you are so important as to have a soul is foolish;

One of the things about Eastern religion and mysticism is that it counts subjective "irrational" observations on the same level as objective "rational" ones. It also understands the paradox of objective observation a hell of a lot more than most of the cyborgs in this thread.

"If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Yeah, we all make fun of that shit, but do you ever really think about it? You would say that it makes the same sound as a tree that is witnessed, because you believe in objectivity. But everything you think of as "objective" truth is made entirely from subjective observations. You never know what the unseen falling tree does because you can only extrapolate from what you have seen, which is subjective data. In fact, the only reason the tree makes a sound at all is because you have a concept of sound. If there were no one observing it, the concept of sound or no sound would not even be meaningless, it would be beyond that, because there would not even be meaning to contrast with meaningless...are you getting this yet? When you understand this koan, you realize that all of these things you think are objectively true are again, subjective judgments, no matter how you rationalize it. And if you truly care about doing the rational thing, you would realize that objectively speaking, stupid people have just as much a right or not a right to exist as smart people, since rights or not rights or stupid or smart are all products of subjectivity and do not objectively exist.

Bottom line, here: Anyone who thinks getting rid of stupid people is a good idea is trying to rationalize their own hatred.

>>2328621
"even if it isn't at all relevant - increasing average intelligence would still continue to increase results just by less" {-- This is the definition of diminishing returns is.

But Malcolm Gladwell talks about this in his newest book, _Outliers_ (and yes, I know he isn't exactly an authority on science). Basically after a certain point random chance comes in. Yes, (not exact figures) no one with an IQ below 130 is going to win a Noble prize but having an IQ over 150 doesn't necessarily give you a better chance. I admit my hunch on this isn't based on any strong evidence, but I suspect as IQ goes up then the other personality factors that influence success tend to go down. When you combine them you do get wonderful results (think Carl Sagan or Robert Oppenheimer), but I'd be willing to bet that they are rarer than pr(high IQ)*pr(other skills) would suggest.

Keep in mind, I am willing to drop this theory if I see some contrary evidence.

>>2328770
Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125 (this is kind of cliche, but it works), so you need to change your "theory".

>>2328655
Catholics. Hispanics in America are the fasting growing demographic, even though they have like half the average income of whites or Asians. and it was the same story with the Irish a hundred years ago. and look at India, or China. why is Europe's population falling? it has shit to do with success or being social outcasts, although I've heard that the Japanese are too afraid of each other to fuck enough to keep up their population, so you might have a point there.

>>2328762
I've got some issues with the body of your post, but the conclusion doesn't even follow logically from them.

Addressing the body:
While yes, everything is subjective in that it's impossible for us to get objective information through our senses and thoughts and so on, there's absolutely no point in acting as if that were so. All of society and virtually everyone within it goes by the assumption that observations are, for all intents and purposes, objective.

Most of society is not "productive" . They are usually slaving away making someone rich.

Outside of the West, this concentration of wealth and property has never been more than a temporary state of affairs, that people should be living in relative poverty AND not be able to be self-sufficient. This is prison, not mere lack of comforts. This is the clever "cycle of poverty", that creates such useful Epsilons, chavs, soldiers, etc.

I don't think this "society" is healthy, obviously. Purging all the "stupid" people would be counter-productive to the rich (because this is how they want it) and pointless to eugenicists (because it wouldn't get at the root causes.)

It's ironic that

>>2328762
wait a second, that's a koan? really?! I had no fucking idea. but yeah, basically. and then all that line of reasoning is somewhat vindicated by analogous rules in modern physics. it's interesting to see that spiritual thought and scientific principle have roughly coincided.

>>2328803
OK, let me try again. If you label a phenomenon in reality as "sound" (air vibrations), you can, pragmatically speaking, determine whether or not it is there, either by enough reasonable consensus (20 "normal" human beings who heard it also), or a device that is known to react a certain way to "sound" (a microphone). That data is not impossible to gain.
However, the concept of "sound" is a mental division that is made on a reality that does not inherently possess such distinctions. Nothing in objective reality requires that you split it into sound and other phenomena, these are subjective devices we use to perceive our world, they are a map of the terrain.

Now...splitting people into smart and stupid is just as objectively arbitrary. We all are what we are, nothing has a "use" or "purpose" objectively, no one is "smart" or "stupid" objectively, because such divisions are not objectively present in reality, they are products of our own observation.

>>2328801
Counter (even though I dislike them): Mormons. Smaller than Catholic Hispanics, but growth rates seem comparable. Also quite successful.

I am willing to wait on the returns of Hispanics in a generation. I do suspect they'll be less successful than immigrant groups of the past eras, but I don't think they'll be nearly as bad as most people think.