IQ Problem

16% of the worlds population have an iq below 85. What should be done to address this issue?

This is a real statistic you can look it up yourself. It’s absolutely terrifying the more you think about it. Thats over 1.3 billion people.

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IQ is solely a statistical construct, so 16% of any given population will ALWAYS have an IQ score below 85.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Obviously but given that the average 100 IQ person is already a moron think about all the people who are way below that.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not if we make illegal

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      standart deviation might change -> so 16% of any given population will not ALWAYS have an IQ score below 85.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The society also needs janitors, construction workers, garbage collectors etc. I even claim that those people have more benefit to the society than consoomer midwits.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >16% of the worlds population have an iq below 85
      It's way more than that. the mean of 100 only applies to the civilized countries. The average iq of the world is estimated to be high 80s. I'd say almost half of the world is below 85

      Once you get below 80 there is nothing useful for those people to do in a developed country.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The function of the neocortex is dimensionality reduction. Its faulure makes you think you're a super smart guy, who understands how complex everything is, but the reality is that everything seems complex to you because you're an idiot. It's unrealistic that something so evolved and finely tuned could be improved so quickly and easily, you are breaking it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Being a janitor or garbage collector doesn't require any IQ above 80. You can even train a chimp to do these jobs. So no no matter how dumb you are there's always a job you can be useful in

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Being a janitor or garbage collector doesn't require any IQ above 80.

          Wrong. The military has found that an IQ of 83 is the lowest you can have and NOT be counter productive.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They won the WW2 when that was the average.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They won the WW2 when that was the average.
            >the WW2
            GET THE FRICK OUT!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To a native English speaker, The WW2, or the World War Two, sounds awkward. Natural is WW2, or the Second World War.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Who the frick cares we all know their language well enough and these morons probably cannot say one sentence in ours.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody needs to know fricking hindi dickhead
            Par ailleurs, je ne suis pas monolingue, putain!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Who the frick cares
            You are poisoning my beautiful language when you post shit like this. It creates a positive feedback loop where ESLs invade english spaces, frick up the grammar, and then reinforce one another's bad grammar because the blind are leading the blind. Learn to fricking speak, Vikram. Or don't, please. I don't want your culture shitting up mine more than it already has.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >my beautiful language
            lol, lmao
            the bastard of languages, english, is a horrendous sight to behold for anyone with knowledge of languages other than that fricking mess

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            oh yeah, being able to precisely delineate what I want to say in both time and space succinctly is so ugly, huh? I don't understand how anyone was able to build a civilization without my tongue. I speak french now and even though my brain acclimated to it its bonkers how many words are missing comparatively speaking and how much context needs to be implicitly understood through colloquialism and sheer experience. Not surprising the greatest inventions and breakthroughs were developed by english speakers, we were able to actually tell one another what we were trying to say in a reasonable amount of time! It's almost as if the real beauty in a language is it's capacity to send useful messages to another speaker, something you and your street-shitting culture never figured out until you started bastardizing and copying mine. Have fun eating shit off a dirt road and burning your wife after fricking a goat, Rishi.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You won't find many languages so much lacking in abstract vocabulary, and you certainly won't find a more longwinded one.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            english has the perfect balance of succinct and verbose
            french is naturally a more verbose language you punjabi dipshit

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I speak french now
            You spoke half French already with your mongrel tongue

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The difference is that you need to know their language, but they don't need to know yours. Hope that helps

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No I don't, I'm perfectly fine without it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yet here we are continuing to converse in it.
            No one knows anything ab my language and you don't see me b***hing about that, so what's the deal here bud

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’re posting on an English site homosexual

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and these morons probably cannot say one sentence in ours.
            And that's because we speak English (the language of scientists, conquerors, and philosophers) and you speak some irrelevant tropical oogabooga babble

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wait... it is not called The War of Japanese Aggression?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No because they did nothing wrong

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The military has found that an IQ of 83 is the lowest you can have and NOT be counter productive.
            They won WW2 when that was the average.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They won WW2 when that was the average.

            Dude are you mentally challenged?
            The test is set so 100 is average.
            The average is ALWAYS 100... always.
            The test and scoring is modified as time goes on.
            The test given in 1945 is NOT accurate for today... it was a DIFFERENT test than you would get if you took the test today.
            The average IQ in 1945 be the same as the average IQ in 2025... 100

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The point is that 100 then equals to 83 now.
            You are a moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The point is that 100 then equals to 83 now.
            >You are a moron.

            NO it does NOT... the tests are NOT the same, nor are the populations being tested the same.
            IQ is mainly genetics, upbringing, and physical health. The average person form 1945 is NOT the same as the average person in 2025.
            If YOU were put in 1945 you would appear to be nearly moronic, you would not know anything about working on a farm or proper behavior (for that time). You would not even know how to properly cook food with a wooden fireplace... you would truly appear to be an moron

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If YOU were put in 1945 you would appear to be nearly moronic,
            You surely would be.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, you would not even know how to look a book up in the library or how to use slide rule.
            Even you hand writing would look moronic (penmanship is no longer considered in school). They would need to move you the 'special needs' equivalent classes.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Intelligence isn't about knowledge, moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The discoverer of the Flynn effect -- Richard Lynn -- could explain this to you. The gains were on the least g-loaded parts of the exams. In other words this has not been an increase in genotypic intelligence, but in fact a decline.
            And in Western countries there has been an outright reversal of the Flynn effect since around the 90s.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My explanation is better - high IQ results from brain damage to the neocortex, which is the part responsible for dimensionality reduction, so everything seems complicated when it works poorly. You essentially grow up in a much more complex world than somebody with a strong neocortex. It's unrealistic tgat you could improve something so drastically so quickly, you broke it.
            The neocortex is what allowed people to live these seemingly simple (but cognitively more demanding) lives, and, while you may think that you are the smart guy who gets how complex everything is, when simple tasks become complex, complex tasks become unfeasible.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Environmental factors alone are not sufficient to explain the drop in intelligence. Phenotype comes from genetics and environment.
            The flynn "effect" when originally noticed was surprising because people were expecting IQ to be dropping due to predicted result of dysgenic selection pressures.
            The observers flynn effect was a result of environmental benefits masking the decline in genotypic maximum intelligence. Environmental improvements are no longer large enough to mask the plummet in genetic quality.
            If idiots like you can't get past the "ew icky" reaction to eugenics immediately, our civilization will collapse without eugenic intervention, if there's even enough time to innovate such interventions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm pretty convinced that the flynn effect was quite selective in its function.
            You didn't see much impact on the upper echelons it was just a lift in dumber people that raised the average due to better nutrion (debateable) less disease and more access to schooling
            Which is why I think innovations per capita and similar statistics are a better metric

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes probably. Some claim reaction times are decent at inferring intelligence. From this, IQ of populations form 1880s are inferred: 15 points more than today.

            High school teachers today are 115IQ. If the above is true, 1880's high school teachers were 130, the same as today's college professors.
            Today's police are 100-115. Imagine a college professor as a cop. Now you can see why police today are so crap.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Flynn is nothing more then the increase in abstract reasoning and visio-spacial reasoning, both of which, like chess ability, or musical ability, or most mental abilities are improved when you train them. The Flynn effect is only found on psychometric tests that measure those two things, and is not present on other forms of psychometric tests that are used as IQ tests, live verbal abilities, mathematical abilities and working memory etc. (infact for those measures they've gone down).

            The increase of those two abilities does not imply an increase in general intelligence (or what is the essence of IQ), that was never the interpretation by those that discovered it, or any intelligence researcher then or since. If you interpreted it that way you have many problems. Were the generations (1880s-1960s) which where responsible for the majority of major scientific discoveries, Apollo-11 and classical music, on average, literal morons (70 - 83 IQ relative to us), or does the measurement of IQ, across generations manufacture artefacts. Where did all the geniuses go if we're, to the standers of those generations, genius or at least very superior in terms of IQ. Also it has been observed since as old as IQ tests existed that stupid people have more children then smart people, how come we're getting smarter. Furthermore, the validity of IQ and general intelligence as a construct, is depended on the fact that IQ abilities across domains correlate with each other, how come they're negatively correlated when compare people, across generations rather then within generations. (aka Verbal and mathematical reasoning have gone down, but visio-spacial and abstract reasoning have gone up).

            https://i.imgur.com/S72QUzL.jpeg

            >Being a janitor or garbage collector doesn't require any IQ above 80.

            Wrong. The military has found that an IQ of 83 is the lowest you can have and NOT be counter productive.

            >jpb CRINGE
            isreali defence force finds jobs for people with 70iq

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >70iq is better
            >Yes, it is
            where are all the black and bong Einstein's lmao

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they didn't have an iq of 70, though, relative to us they probably had an IQ of around 110.
            >muh flynn effect
            nope, IQ tests are a flawed measurement of general intelligence, the Flynn effect is just an example of such inaccuracy

            The Flynn is nothing more then the increase in abstract reasoning and visio-spacial reasoning, both of which, like chess ability, or musical ability, or most mental abilities are improved when you train them. The Flynn effect is only found on psychometric tests that measure those two things, and is not present on other forms of psychometric tests that are used as IQ tests, live verbal abilities, mathematical abilities and working memory etc. (infact for those measures they've gone down).

            The increase of those two abilities does not imply an increase in general intelligence (or what is the essence of IQ), that was never the interpretation by those that discovered it, or any intelligence researcher then or since. If you interpreted it that way you have many problems. Were the generations (1880s-1960s) which where responsible for the majority of major scientific discoveries, Apollo-11 and classical music, on average, literal morons (70 - 83 IQ relative to us), or does the measurement of IQ, across generations manufacture artefacts. Where did all the geniuses go if we're, to the standers of those generations, genius or at least very superior in terms of IQ. Also it has been observed since as old as IQ tests existed that stupid people have more children then smart people, how come we're getting smarter. Furthermore, the validity of IQ and general intelligence as a construct, is depended on the fact that IQ abilities across domains correlate with each other, how come they're negatively correlated when compare people, across generations rather then within generations. (aka Verbal and mathematical reasoning have gone down, but visio-spacial and abstract reasoning have gone up).

            [...]
            >jpb CRINGE
            isreali defence force finds jobs for people with 70iq

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            a flawed measurement of intelligence and the portion of intelligence which is genetic - the most important piece for long term civilization.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >70iq is better
            >Yes, it is
            where are all the black and bong Einstein's lmao

            they didn't have an iq of 70, though, relative to us they probably had an IQ of around 110.
            >muh flynn effect
            nope, IQ tests are a flawed measurement of general intelligence, the Flynn effect is just an example of such inaccuracy
            [...]

            The use of the cerebellum increased, as it took over the lost neocortex.
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304394018304671

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            frick homie? what u sayin

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm saying that the neocortex in modern people is damaged, so the cerebellum has to pick up the slack, working harder than it should, likely work on tasks that it isn't at all meant to be doing, but you measure the result as a high IQ. Healthy people measure low on those tests, because at least a part of what they measure are compensatory mechanisms for the absent neocortex, so healthy people never develop them. One of them appears to be hearing language as a string of letters.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Once you get below 80 there is nothing useful for those people to do in a developed country.

        Wrong. Low IQ females can be used in brothels, low IQ males can be used as test subjects in medical experiments and security guards

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are correct. Europeans and East Asians have average IQs of ~100-105. The rest it's quite grim. Blacks ~80. Abos and Melanesians ~70. Arabs ~85. Indians ~85. Natives ~85. Eskimos ~90. SE Asians ~90. Central Asians ~90. Native Americans ~85. Latinos ~90.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That is your moron take. I don't want morons at all in society getting useless genders degree and shit.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >16% of the worlds population have an iq below 85
        It's way more than that. the mean of 100 only applies to the civilized countries. The average iq of the world is estimated to be high 80s. I'd say almost half of the world is below 85

        Once you get below 80 there is nothing useful for those people to do in a developed country.

        So who will work the 15 dollar an hour janny jobs?

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > "Now, we have tried to figure out a system of selection, with all kinds of tests, so that we get the best of the best. And so you guys have been very carefully picked out from all these schools to come here. But we’re still working on it, because we’ve found a very serious problem: no matter how carefully we select the men, no matter how patiently we make the analysis, when they get here something happens: it always turns out that approximately half of them are below average!"

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is an issue?—In what way in particular? If you are intelligent (you are not), in what ways are dumb people a problem to you specifically?
    >muh wasted raw materials
    That is not a problem: knowledge is scarcer than hydrogen atoms. If anything, the opposite statistic is far more terrifying: less than one percent of the population have 140+ IQ.
    >muh politics
    Become a capitalist, but unironically. Vote with your feet, and with money. So far, but not permanently, intelligence is inherited. But luckily, wealth compounds faster than intelligence.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Christian Universalist AI will save humanity

    What percentage of the world is below the age of 10.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Starts with a eu and ends with genics

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Genocide Africans.
    But actually it’s the whites and East Asians who are shrinking or maybe even becoming permanent minorities

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Since the dawn of history the Black has owned the continent of Africa - rich beyond the dream of poet's fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      POV: you haven't read the first 4 chapters of guns germs and steel

      just to clue you in the reason is lack of speedy information transfer (horses) the roman chariots and horses made the library of alexandria more easily available to scholars far out which means more people could access information faster

      africans had no animals which would be good for mounting which could also be domesticated

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just return to

        [...]

        please. You belong there. For anyone curious, the following excerpt is from the introduction of that book
        >My perspective on this controversy comes from 33 years of working with New Guineans in their own intact societies. From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is. At some tasks that one might reasonably suppose to reflect aspects of brain function, such as the ability to form a mental map of unfamiliar surroundings, they appear considerably more adept than Westerners. Of course, New Guineans tend to perform poorly at tasks that Westerners have been trained to perform since childhood and that New Guineans have not. Hence when unschooled New Guineans from remote villages visit towns, they look stupid to Westerners. Conversely, I am constantly aware of how stupid I look to New Guineans when I’m with them in the jungle, displaying my incompetence at simple tasks (such as following a jungle trail or erecting a shelter) at which New Guineans have been trained since childhood and I have not.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It’s easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct. First, Europeans have for thousands of years been living in densely populated societies with central governments, police, and judiciaries. In those societies, infectious epidemic diseases of dense populations (such as smallpox) were historically the major cause of death, while murders were relatively uncommon and a state of war was the exception rather than the rule. Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on their genes. Today, most live-born Western infants survive fatal infections as well and reproduce themselves, regardless of their intelligence and the genes they bear. In contrast, New Guineans have been living in societies where human numbers were too low for epidemic diseases of dense populations to evolve. Instead, traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents, and problems in procuring food.
          >Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However, the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies had little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance dependent on details of body chemistry. For example, people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A. That is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent...That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            amazes me that it was cost effective to refine those toolheads to that degree. Are they decorative or ornamental in some way hence the effort put into them? Or does that quality of tool pay for itself?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Another possibity is that they could act as a trade or prestige item?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/2WRcSes.png

          >It’s easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct. First, Europeans have for thousands of years been living in densely populated societies with central governments, police, and judiciaries. In those societies, infectious epidemic diseases of dense populations (such as smallpox) were historically the major cause of death, while murders were relatively uncommon and a state of war was the exception rather than the rule. Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on their genes. Today, most live-born Western infants survive fatal infections as well and reproduce themselves, regardless of their intelligence and the genes they bear. In contrast, New Guineans have been living in societies where human numbers were too low for epidemic diseases of dense populations to evolve. Instead, traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents, and problems in procuring food.
          >Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However, the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies had little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance dependent on details of body chemistry. For example, people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A. That is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent...That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners

          And also Jared Diamond, the author, is a israelite.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >New Guineans tend to perform poorly at tasks that Westerners have been trained to perform since childhood and that New Guineans have not
          kek

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/2WRcSes.png

          >It’s easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct. First, Europeans have for thousands of years been living in densely populated societies with central governments, police, and judiciaries. In those societies, infectious epidemic diseases of dense populations (such as smallpox) were historically the major cause of death, while murders were relatively uncommon and a state of war was the exception rather than the rule. Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on their genes. Today, most live-born Western infants survive fatal infections as well and reproduce themselves, regardless of their intelligence and the genes they bear. In contrast, New Guineans have been living in societies where human numbers were too low for epidemic diseases of dense populations to evolve. Instead, traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents, and problems in procuring food.
          >Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However, the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies had little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance dependent on details of body chemistry. For example, people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A. That is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent...That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners

          The self-loathing of today's fabric of the Anthropocene is sad. Luckily, through time, such self-loathing is self-defeating because it does not cause its own self-replication, which ends in self-annihilation.

          [...]
          The problem with your idea is that our society has declined as the flynn effect happened. People correctly noticed that people were getting stupid, but IQ tests show the reverse. Why? Because High IQ is caused by brain damage. How is it possible? You lose the capacity for dimensionality reduction. You seem smart for yourself, and those even more damaged, but to a healthy person you look like a moron trying to figure out something obvious. The environmental improvements that were based on correlations with IQ only broke it even further. There is no "dysgenics" - the average IQ increased as people got brain damaged.

          No I'm not. And, to clarify the judgment - to a healthy person, the more brain damaged you are, the stupider you seem. When you are brain damaged, the judgement of those less damaged is inverted: the more damaged, the smarter they seem. moderate damage? Smart guy like you, make him an engineer. Or whatever he wants. Mild damage? I guess he could learn to drive a tractor, what do you think? No damage? Useless. More damaged than you? He is the professor who wrote your crappy textbook, but you admire him as the smart guy who wrote several papers on the discrepancy between theory and observation of the proton proton interaction, so you accept him as your authority.

          No, I don't think so. It's the exact same reason why AI could suddenly make useful pictures. Or, maybe you could imagine as a gearbox, or a horn on the speaker, or at least a lever. You have this part of the brain, that can do some intellectual heavy lifting, but the world outside is too information sparse, so it needs the autoencoder to do its job. Otherwise it's like an engine with a too low gear ratio to really use its torque.

          kek. Your genes do not have multidecadal properties. Your grandparents should have worked harder.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are mentaly ill

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >africans had no animals which would be good for mounting which could also be domesticated
        Could other factors about the envrionments of africa affected the peoples of africa in other ways? Perhaps their genetics?
        Pointing out there's differences of intelligence between the races isn't the glorify one over the other, as we didn't construct our genetics, the environment shaped it. We didn't shape the natural environment of europe to naturally select for intelligence any more than africans shaped theirs to select for middling intelligence.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >16% of the worlds population have an iq below 85. What should be done to address this issue?
    bullshit, the percentage is higher than that.
    what did they set zero as?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      *what did they set 100 as?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Vaccines will kill billions of morons, slowly. Turbo cancers will get more common, media will blame micro plastics and global warming, and those morons will listen and believe.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >16% of the worlds population have an iq below 85.
    And they ALL post on IQfy

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Install Communist regimes. They have a good track record at increasing literacy rates and education.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no, there needs to just be a eugenics program, as Nietzsche suggested in his philosophy that humanity will evolve into a mentally superior species.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    like in the movie GATTACA where people are genetically enhanced to increase IQ

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    read emil kirkegaards blog he posts a lot on IQ polygenic scores, the genes which explain differences in IQ

    https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/on-genetic-potential

    https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/on-israeli-intelligence

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that's a product of the design of the IQ test moron

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There will always be people with an IQ in the bottom 16% but the current state is just unacceptably degenerate, these are people who create massive societal problems.

      They lack the ability to complete high school or attain higher education and are prone to unemployment. Create crime and are a burden on society in many ways.

      If the bottom 16% of the population in genetically determined IQ were paid money to undergo voluntary sterilization then society would improve. Atheism rates would go up, the economy would improve, and there would be more people with a college degree.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We should start subisidizing in vivo and in utero gene therapies for intelligence
        If you force it on people you've just created a resentful enemy with a brain smart enough to make an atom bomb. If you give them the option through some type of healthcare program they're more likely to see you as a liberator and not someone imposing an unwanted change on their biology and identity

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What should be done to address this issue?
    Not everyone should be able to vote to elect political leaders, but everyone should be able to say they are not happy with the current selection. In other words: change elections from being an elective process to an evaluative process. In other words, instead of asking "who do you choose for a leader", ask "should we change leader"?
    I can't vote to pick the pilot of an airplane, but I can "vote" not to ride in his airplane by walking out of it.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fricking anime looking ass homosexual piece of shit

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >6% of the worlds population have an iq below 85. What should be done to address this issue?

    First off, there will always be an intelligence gap: those with larger engines not only outperform those with smaller engines, they also develop networks and mate with those equal or larger engines, and so too their children. Our current elite institutions ensure that logic: you get into Ivy, develop networks within Ivy, and mate with other Ivies. You could further the gap by considering geological barriers: you move to wealthier and wealthier areas where the genetic pool is limited.

    Supposing you are a politician, how do you strengthen your nation?

    Consider the Flynn effect: IQ steadily rises. As IQ increases, our definition of intelligence must also change. Over time, the old 140+IQ would be the new 100IQ if we use old models in comparing future IQ. That suggests that today's 140+IQ could be seen as tomorrow's 85IQ. So, the gap between 140+IQ and 85IQ will always be there. Thus, you need to develop evolving institutions that chase ever-higher IQ. Using institutions, genetic filtering and selective breeding sort itself out.

    From here, you can see the economic issues. IQ operates on exponentials, so when cognitive elites start exponentially outperforming the average person, the average person may feel insecure, which is analogous to today's problems of inequality. That poses a problem because, in democracy, by definition, the majority rules—and the majority of people have average IQ. So, how do you solve this? A possible answer is equitable euthanization, which sounds oxymoronic. But it makes sense: if individuals fail to meet cognitive demands, they can no longer have children. In exchange, they could, for example, get mansions or free travel across the world or pay less taxes, etc. Naturally, they could still have children, which means paying higher taxes. Here, genetic filtering and selective breeding also sort itself out.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Environmental factors alone are not sufficient to explain the drop in intelligence. Phenotype comes from genetics and environment.
      The flynn "effect" when originally noticed was surprising because people were expecting IQ to be dropping due to predicted result of dysgenic selection pressures.
      The observers flynn effect was a result of environmental benefits masking the decline in genotypic maximum intelligence. Environmental improvements are no longer large enough to mask the plummet in genetic quality.
      If idiots like you can't get past the "ew icky" reaction to eugenics immediately, our civilization will collapse without eugenic intervention, if there's even enough time to innovate such interventions.

      The problem with your idea is that our society has declined as the flynn effect happened. People correctly noticed that people were getting stupid, but IQ tests show the reverse. Why? Because High IQ is caused by brain damage. How is it possible? You lose the capacity for dimensionality reduction. You seem smart for yourself, and those even more damaged, but to a healthy person you look like a moron trying to figure out something obvious. The environmental improvements that were based on correlations with IQ only broke it even further. There is no "dysgenics" - the average IQ increased as people got brain damaged.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're talking nonsense

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No I'm not. And, to clarify the judgment - to a healthy person, the more brain damaged you are, the stupider you seem. When you are brain damaged, the judgement of those less damaged is inverted: the more damaged, the smarter they seem. moderate damage? Smart guy like you, make him an engineer. Or whatever he wants. Mild damage? I guess he could learn to drive a tractor, what do you think? No damage? Useless. More damaged than you? He is the professor who wrote your crappy textbook, but you admire him as the smart guy who wrote several papers on the discrepancy between theory and observation of the proton proton interaction, so you accept him as your authority.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            by your logic 70iq is better

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, it is.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think you should go back to the drawing board on this one.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, I don't think so. It's the exact same reason why AI could suddenly make useful pictures. Or, maybe you could imagine as a gearbox, or a horn on the speaker, or at least a lever. You have this part of the brain, that can do some intellectual heavy lifting, but the world outside is too information sparse, so it needs the autoencoder to do its job. Otherwise it's like an engine with a too low gear ratio to really use its torque.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >70iq is better
            >Yes, it is
            where are all the black and bong Einstein's lmao

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        actually i have brain damage myself from what my neurologist has told me is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder, I suffer pain all the time from my neurological disease "dysautonomia" I can assure you brain damage doesn't make one intelligent whatsoever you just lose the ability to remember things and lose insight and capacity to understand math and science, my IQ was 130 in 2017 and I became a member of MENSA, I can tell my IQ must have declined as the disease continues to progress.

        dysgenic IQ is explained by a higher fertility rate in less intelligent couples, this is also observed in countries that are less intelligent having a higher birth rate, for instance African countries have an extremely high birth rate

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        people with less education who are less intelligent have been documented to have more children and countries with a lower IQ have a much higher birth rate

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no "dysgenics" - the average IQ increased as people got brain damaged.
        Dumb people having more kids than smart people will inevitably make the population dumber. All you can say is we haven't observed the effects of dysgenics.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >All you can say is we haven't observed the effects of dysgenics.
          no, the welfare system acts as a state directed dysgenics system, we clearly have covert dysgenic government policies and we can see all too clearly their effects.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If dumb people have more kids, and people got dumber, why do they now have fewer kids than they used to?

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Legalize the creation and selling of genetic therapies. Legalize the parents of a child to do any degree of genetic engineering on their kids genetics. In essence write the laws to make children the property of their parents to remove moralizing busy bodies interfering.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    100 IQ a few generation ago isn't the same as 100 IQ in the current generation btw. the way IQ is constructed the mean will always been 100 and the percentile stay the same.
    however, I agree that we need to improve intelligence of the population, maybe a eugenics program to help high IQ people with economics incentives to have more children is needed. there was a program in the last century IIRC which were quite successful (despite what the MSM shills said, many of them became professors and successful)

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think we all know which group of people have that low IQ

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      IQfyners

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My IQ is over 140 and I am unemployed and all I do is jerk off

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your IQ is closer to 70

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No it's true I'm a genius but I'm just not self loathing.
        I don't even have a passion for trading, I prefer the boring and simple.
        I did try the whole "prove yourself" schtick, but it got boring fast.
        If i were bred with a hard working masochistic person then the offspring would probably be phenomenal.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    From the point of Ai from the nearest future, you're not that much smarter than they're, so you're together with them should be taken care of with ubi and shit.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    even within less developed countries uneducated women are the ones having the most children

    this is evidence of widespread "dysgenic fertility" which may partially explain the reversal of the Flynn effect

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Intelligence has become a maladaptive trait.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do you actually know what an IQ of 85 looks like in the real world, you little baby?

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    rape them

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing.
    If intelligent is evolutionarily fit as people believe, the problem will solve itself.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *