Ass Hat
Home
News
Events
Bands
Labels
Venues
Pics
MP3s
Radio Show
Reviews
Releases
Buy$tuff
Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls
  
  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food
  
  New Thread
  New Poll
Miscellaneous
Links
E-mail
Search
End Ass Hat
login

Posting Anonymously login: [Forgotten Password]
returntothepit >> discuss >> If we killed everyone under 120 IQ points, would life be (a) better or (b) worse? by Conservationist on Mar 4,2010 11:21pm
Add To All Your Pages!
toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 4,2010 11:21pm
Just askin'



toggletoggle post by Lamp  at Mar 4,2010 11:25pm
There wouldn't be any reality TV, that's for god damn sure. Better.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Mar 4,2010 11:28pm
GO WAY BATIN



toggletoggle post by ark at Mar 4,2010 11:32pm
Who would clean your toilet after a steaming load sesh?



toggletoggle post by quintessence_nli at Mar 4,2010 11:36pm
U SHUTT UP!



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 4,2010 11:43pm
ark said[orig][quote]
Who would clean your toilet after a steaming load sesh?


Same person who cleans it now... me. No one else needs to come into contact with this TOXIC DUMP.



toggletoggle post by Lamp  at Mar 4,2010 11:43pm
ark said[orig][quote]
Who would clean your toilet after a steaming load sesh?


You have to be unintelligent to do your own menial chores.



toggletoggle post by im thinkin slarbys at Mar 5,2010 1:01am
in general, it would be better, but i think you are dismissing the important roles dullards play in our society, and i'm not just talking about cleaning toilets. Also, you are gravely mistaken if you think getting rid of people below 120 IQ is going to solve all your problems. CASE STUDY: The tests i've taken have come out in the 145-155 range and I'm a walking waste of life by "conservative" standards (i.e. life = collecting unemployment, playing metal, fappage, rttp, that is all.)
and one more thing, i would have no problem with this plot except for, if you get rid of all the low IQ girls, who am i going to have sex with???



toggletoggle post by douchebag_patrol at Mar 5,2010 4:04am



toggletoggle post by douchebag_patrol at Mar 5,2010 4:06am



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 8:06am
no, it would suck. Think of all the things in the world that you DON'T want to do... that wouldn't ever get done.


Slar - sorry buddy, but i just looked at what your supposed 145-155 IQ means, and you know that you're claiming to be a genus? (or near genus) Check out the chart a little down on this page.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

If you admit right now that you were exaggerating, it will be funny, and you'd still be aces in my book. If you still claim to be a 145 - 155 then you get knocked down to probably full of shit.... with an outside possibility of being a genus.



toggletoggle post by Lamp  at Mar 5,2010 8:09am edited Mar 5,2010 8:11am
Why do you have to be unintelligent to work hard? I've tested over 120 my whole life and I prefer working hard and doings things that "nobody wants to do" over working in a shitty office any day.

And not only that, but all those shitty things would probably get done a hell of a lot better and faster. With less people on the planet, there would also be a lot less of it to worry about.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 8:13am
I didn't say you have to be dumb to work hard. I said there are certain jobs that the VAST MAJORITY of smart people would not do. Working hard/cleaning toilets in schools aren't necessarily the same thing. So yes, i think my statement still applies.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 8:15am
Alls I gotta say is those online / faceook / chain mail "IQ tests" aren't real tests. I hope people don't think those are accurate tests



toggletoggle post by Lamp  at Mar 5,2010 8:19am
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
I didn't say you have to be dumb to work hard. I said there are certain jobs that the VAST MAJORITY of smart people would not do. Working hard/cleaning toilets in schools aren't necessarily the same thing. So yes, i think my statement still applies.


If the world actually ran in an efficient manner, there would be a brush at every toilet and people would just clean it themselves after using it. Nobody would be dumb enough to steal the brush either. You wouldn't have to pay someone to do it.

Just a thought.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 8:23am
You're not just talking about a society where everyone is smart, you're talking about a eutopian one. Even with the smartest people in the world left, the toilet wouldn't be cleaned everytime. I agree with your earlier statement to a point, that intelligence doesn't necessarily dictate employment.. but i do think there is some correlation between manual labor/crappy work conditions and intelligence.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 8:24am
Intilligent people invent devices that can clean the toilet.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 8:24am
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
Alls I gotta say is those online / faceook / chain mail "IQ tests" aren't real tests. I hope people don't think those are accurate tests

of course not, maybe slar was... (sorry slar, if you're really a genus, than you can understand why people would be apprehensive about your 145-155IQ, and you can rise above and transcend.)



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 8:38am
Lamp said[orig][quote]
Why do you have to be unintelligent to work hard? I've tested over 120 my whole life and I prefer working hard and doings things that "nobody wants to do" over working in a shitty office any day.

And not only that, but all those shitty things would probably get done a hell of a lot better and faster. With less people on the planet, there would also be a lot less of it to worry about.


I agree totally.

I like cleaning my own toilets, mowing my own lawn, fixing my own house, and so on.

No task is better done by stupid people and if a task is stupid, we owe it to our humanity to automate it.

The attitude of being "above" certain labors pisses me off, and I am a total and complete anti-egalitarian. It's not egalitarian to do what needs be done and not involve others. It's common sense.

Good post.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 8:41am
im%20thinkin%20slarbys said[orig][quote]
in general, it would be better, but i think you are dismissing the important roles dullards play in our society, and i'm not just talking about cleaning toilets. Also, you are gravely mistaken if you think getting rid of people below 120 IQ is going to solve all your problems. CASE STUDY: The tests i've taken have come out in the 145-155 range and I'm a walking waste of life by "conservative" standards (i.e. life = collecting unemployment, playing metal, fappage, rttp, that is all.)
and one more thing, i would have no problem with this plot except for, if you get rid of all the low IQ girls, who am i going to have sex with???


You've put a lot of issues into one post, so I'm going to break it out which will move more slowly but more accurately.

1. What tests are these? Are these administered by a psychologist with experience in intelligence testing?

2. 145-155 is not genius, and no reliable test will give you that broad of a range. 160 is genius.

3. That some high intelligence people are dysfunctional does not mean that on the whole, high intelligence people are more functional than low intelligence people.

4. This is a useful resource:

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html

5. "Conservative" standards aren't as uniform or kneejerk as you'd think, especially considering that "conservative" is a very wide definition -- actually far wider than liberal. If the metal music is good, most conservatives would be OK with what you're doing, unless offended for religious reasons. And even then, they will probably not urge for its censorship. It's a small minority that makes sites like BoycottHouston.org




toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 8:43am
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
i do think there is some correlation between manual labor/crappy work conditions and intelligence.


There is because lower intelligence people are limited in what they can do. You wouldn't want an idiot to be your doctor, but he might acceptably clean a toilet.

Of course, if we all cleaned our own toilets and chipped in to clean public toilets, we'd probably have a healthier society anyway. No more class warfare at least.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 8:43am
douchebag_patrol said[orig][quote]


This may ruin it for you, but most snake charmers yank out the teeth of their cobras.




toggletoggle post by arktouros at Mar 5,2010 9:13am edited Mar 5,2010 9:14am
if this happened i wouldn't be upset, but it really limits the pool of potential railing targets.

i'm assuming higher IQ correlates to a more peaceful person but it certainly wouldn't mean a utopia. if people had to get wiped out, sorting by IQ would be the way to do it though. look at us little RTTP hitlers!



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 9:20am
Conservationist said[orig][quote]
Lamp said[orig][quote]
Why do you have to be unintelligent to work hard? I've tested over 120 my whole life and I prefer working hard and doings things that "nobody wants to do" over working in a shitty office any day.

And not only that, but all those shitty things would probably get done a hell of a lot better and faster. With less people on the planet, there would also be a lot less of it to worry about.


I agree totally.

I like cleaning my own toilets, mowing my own lawn, fixing my own house, and so on.

No task is better done by stupid people and if a task is stupid, we owe it to our humanity to automate it.

The attitude of being "above" certain labors pisses me off, and I am a total and complete anti-egalitarian. It's not egalitarian to do what needs be done and not involve others. It's common sense.

Good post.


Just because you guys feel that way, and would act that way,does not make it true for the majority of the intelligent. Whether or not you "hate" that attitude, it exists. And it exists in what i would guess to be a large portion of the intelligent population. So whether or not you claim that you would "clean toilets" the majority of people smart enough to do a job that PAYS more, and that isn't so SHITTY(haha, pun) would get such a job.




toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 9:21am edited Mar 5,2010 9:23am
Conservationist said[orig][quote]
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
i do think there is some correlation between manual labor/crappy work conditions and intelligence.


There is because lower intelligence people are limited in what they can do. You wouldn't want an idiot to be your doctor, but he might acceptably clean a toilet.

Of course, if we all cleaned our own toilets and chipped in to clean public toilets, we'd probably have a healthier society anyway. No more class warfare at least.

and "chipping in" to clean toilets? Again, you're referring to some peaceful Utopian society, NOT just the elimination of the intellectually inferior.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 9:22am edited Mar 5,2010 9:24am
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
Just because you guys feel that way, and would act that way,does not make it true for the majority of the intelligent. Whether or not you "hate" that attitude, it exists. And it exists in what i would guess to be a large portion of the intelligent population. So whether or not you claim that you would "clean toilets" the majority of people smart enough to do a job that PAYS more, and that isn't so SHITTY(haha, pun) would get such a job.


So you're saying the majority is always right, and if they believe the world is flat, it must be so?

arktouros said[orig][quote]
i'm assuming higher IQ correlates to a more peaceful person but it certainly wouldn't mean a utopia. if people had to get wiped out, sorting by IQ would be the way to do it though.


It's better than any other option. I doubt higher IQ people are more peaceful, but I question "more peaceful" as a goal. I think I prefer more competent/realistic to "more peaceful," and that's an anti-Utopian view -- we will never have peace, universal stability, etc. but at least we won't be incompetent.



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Mar 5,2010 9:22am
they want everybody to clean public toilets after they use them with community brushes. some sort of Brown Army.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 9:23am
I'm too lazy and tired to submit any intelligent responses this morning. Good luck with this -soon-to-be 700 views/50+ response thread, guys.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 9:24am
Conservationist said[orig][quote]
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
Just because you guys feel that way, and would act that way,does not make it true for the majority of the intelligent. Whether or not you "hate" that attitude, it exists. And it exists in what i would guess to be a large portion of the intelligent population. So whether or not you claim that you would "clean toilets" the majority of people smart enough to do a job that PAYS more, and that isn't so SHITTY(haha, pun) would get such a job.


So you're saying the majority is always right, and if they believe the world is flat, it must be so?

no we're not talking about right or wrong here, we're talking about what would happen if everyone below a certain intelligence died. Don't change the topic to match your argument.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 9:25am
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
we're talking about what would happen if everyone below a certain intelligence died.


OK, then what does what the majority wants to think about this have any relevance?




toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 9:25am
The question stated was if it would be better or worse, not "what's the RIGHT way for everyone to live together after stupid people died?"



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 9:27am
Conservationist said[orig][quote]
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
we're talking about what would happen if everyone below a certain intelligence died.


OK, then what does what the majority wants to think about this have any relevance?



The relevance is the majority of SMART people (which is what i clearly referenced) would be the entire population. So what they WANTED would dictate how the world worked... therefor have a HUGE impact on whether or not it would be better.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 9:29am edited Mar 5,2010 9:29am
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
The relevance is the majority of SMART people (which is what i clearly referenced) would be the entire population. So what they WANTED would dictate how the world worked...


Yes, but they'd also have to adapt to their reality. What happens now when you think, "I wish I had someone to do my homework/car repairs/etc for me?" and there's no one there.

You sigh and move on with it.

That's what would happen. And the benefits of not supporting 6.75 billion parasites would be readily apparent.

If everyone under 120 IQ points died, would life be better or worse? (Facebook group)



toggletoggle post by reimroc at Mar 5,2010 9:30am
Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't make them a smart person.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 9:33am
Conservationist said[orig][quote]
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
The relevance is the majority of SMART people (which is what i clearly referenced) would be the entire population. So what they WANTED would dictate how the world worked...


Yes, but they'd also have to adapt to their reality. What happens now when you think, "I wish I had someone to do my homework/car repairs/etc for me?" and there's no one there.

You sigh and move on with it.

That's what would happen. And the benefits of not supporting 6.75 billion parasites would be readily apparent.

If everyone under 120 IQ points died, would life be better or worse? (Facebook group)



Sigh.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 9:44am
The disire and thirst for knowledge supercedes any portential one may have for attaining such knowledge.
One could have a 160 IQ but sit around indulging themselves in various forms of entertainment, resulting in an idle mind.
if only society was at a renaissance-state right now...
We are blinded by our society and we are hindered by our surroundings.
The only answer should be a restructuring of society as we know it.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 10:04am edited Mar 5,2010 10:05am
reimroc said[orig][quote]
Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't make them a smart person.


No, but a high IQ is required to be smart.

Not all people with two arms are great guitarists, but it requires two arms to be a guitarist.

arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
One could have a 160 IQ but sit around indulging themselves in various forms of entertainment, resulting in an idle mind.


What percentage of 160s do you think do this, versus 105s?



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Mar 5,2010 10:06am
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The desire and thirst for knowledge supersedes any potential one may have for attaining such knowledge.




I believe this is the most important trait an individual can have.



toggletoggle post by brian_dc  at Mar 5,2010 10:09am
Only problem I'd see would be the greater opportunity for inbreeding with such a lessened population, which would, in turn, start up the infiltration of the dumb folk again.

You can't give kids IQ tests right out of the womb, so you'd have kids ducking the test and parents using parental instincts to protect their dumb kids. Wouldn't work.



toggletoggle post by brian_dc  at Mar 5,2010 10:10am
I guess that's not really the "only problem" with it.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 10:20am edited Mar 5,2010 10:43am
lol thanks for fixing my mispelling of desire and supersede, ark.

conservationist- I would still argue that the majority of them do. It's what society wants us to do these days. We are fed lies by the media, brainwashed by many, and reminded that Immediate gratification is the only way to attain things these days. The successors are those who choose to move beyond the boundaries society enforces and actively use their IQ for beneficial means.
Knowledge is a dead concept to some, and those who chose to use their brain instead of indulge it are the high IQ people that really matter.
we must reshape and reshuffle what is important to the human race. A society based on science, knowledge, and mathematics would be better for our race.
If we are to obtain that society, we would still have the lower IQ people on the planet.
We either chose to accept our scientific dictatorship, or we free ourselves and advance our species.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 10:36am
arktouros said[orig][quote]
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The desire and thirst for knowledge supersedes any potential one may have for attaining such knowledge.




I believe this is the most important trait an individual can have.


I agree. And i think it applies to musicians wholly as well. With drummers for instance, i don't think a natural musical ability is as important as being driven, focusing on bettering you're playing constantly, and always setting new goals.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 11:18am edited Mar 5,2010 11:28am
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
It's what society wants us to do these days. We are fed lies by the media, brainwashed by many, and reminded that Immediate gratification is the only way to attain things these days. The successors are those who choose to move beyond the boundaries society enforces and actively use their IQ for beneficial means.


True, but most high-IQ types see through that. Their invisibility is emblematic I think of something else: smart people hide from an insane world.

arktouros said[orig][quote]
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The desire and thirst for knowledge supersedes any potential one may have for attaining such knowledge.


I believe this is the most important trait an individual can have.


If the individual isn't intelligent enough to make sense of that knowledge, they will just get it wrong.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 11:30am
True. I still think society is hindering our species to the point where high IQ people lack that lustful thirst for gaining and using knowledge.
We need a new awakening or some sort; then we shall kill all people less than 120. I love being part of Bilderberg's master plan.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 11:30am
Conservationist said[orig][quote]
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
It's what society wants us to do these days. We are fed lies by the media, brainwashed by many, and reminded that Immediate gratification is the only way to attain things these days. The successors are those who choose to move beyond the boundaries society enforces and actively use their IQ for beneficial means.


True, but most high-IQ types see through that. Their invisibility is emblematic I think of something else: smart people hide from an insane world.

arktouros said[orig][quote]
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The desire and thirst for knowledge supersedes any potential one may have for attaining such knowledge.


I believe this is the most important trait an individual can have.


If the individual isn't intelligent enough to make sense of that knowledge, they will just get it wrong.


thanks for this insight.



toggletoggle post by Martins   at Mar 5,2010 11:36am
lol @ this thread
I wish I were smart enough to understand it.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 11:48am
Your braincells have had too much grass.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Mar 5,2010 11:59am
We should just trick everyone under 120 into killing themselves if we're so smart.



Just sayin'.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Mar 5,2010 12:01pm
For the record, my answer to the OP would be "undoubtedly," but the same could be said for any mass depopulation of the planet, so that may not prove much.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 12:09pm
Georgia Guidestones say it all!!1!1!



toggletoggle post by Lamp  at Mar 5,2010 1:25pm
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
Just because you guys feel that way, and would act that way,does not make it true for the majority of the intelligent. Whether or not you "hate" that attitude, it exists. And it exists in what i would guess to be a large portion of the intelligent population. So whether or not you claim that you would "clean toilets" the majority of people smart enough to do a job that PAYS more, and that isn't so SHITTY(haha, pun) would get such a job.


The attitude exists because there are tons of idiots on the planet who aren't suited to be employed for anything more than cleaning toilets. It's transference... "Oh, I don't have to worry about it, someone else can get it." If that someone else didn't exist, there's your motivation to clean your own toilet right there.



toggletoggle post by Lamp  at Mar 5,2010 1:29pm
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The disire and thirst for knowledge supercedes any portential one may have for attaining such knowledge.
One could have a 160 IQ but sit around indulging themselves in various forms of entertainment, resulting in an idle mind.
if only society was at a renaissance-state right now...
We are blinded by our society and we are hindered by our surroundings.
The only answer should be a restructuring of society as we know it.


I don't think the world would have most of these entertainment forms if society was actually intelligent. There wouldn't be anybody who would actually be duped by reality TV, American Idol, most video games, etc.

I'm guessing anyone on this forum would agree that having a hobby like music means you're exercising your mind more since it's an acquired skill, and it takes a trained ear to spot different levels of quality in music. Really, I don't think the problem is certain forms of entertainment, the world could be a smart place if we all stuck to music, books, and even the Internet. TV and video games are a plague.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 1:36pm edited Mar 5,2010 1:38pm
I'm not saying entertainment is bad.
But when your brain is being entertained more than used for what it should be used for, therein lies the problem.
Hell, I love sports and video games just as much as the next guy, but I know it's entertainment and knowledge is power. I am constantly striving to seek answers and truth, hence the conspiracies.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 1:41pm
Lamp said[orig][quote]
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
Just because you guys feel that way, and would act that way,does not make it true for the majority of the intelligent. Whether or not you "hate" that attitude, it exists. And it exists in what i would guess to be a large portion of the intelligent population. So whether or not you claim that you would "clean toilets" the majority of people smart enough to do a job that PAYS more, and that isn't so SHITTY(haha, pun) would get such a job.


The attitude exists because there are tons of idiots on the planet who aren't suited to be employed for anything more than cleaning toilets. It's transference... "Oh, I don't have to worry about it, someone else can get it." If that someone else didn't exist, there's your motivation to clean your own toilet right there.


Sure, but there are still jobs that pay shit, and will pay shit, cause they're easy, and nasty, that smart people don't want to do. I'd like it if it weren't true, and i'd like it if people everywhere got along, helped each other, and took responsability for anything around them that needed to be done. But it's never gonna be that way, to think that it would is silly. But i guess if we're talking about just killing off the stupid people anyways (which would obviously never happen) then why not force the smart ones to take part in a Utopian society, and like every minute of it. Sure.



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Mar 5,2010 1:50pm
More's Utopia is too damn rigid anyway. A crunch will happen sooner or later. It won't save the highest IQs, but those most adaptable...which is a more desirable outcome.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 1:51pm
In essence, we need more independent thinkers. Less sheeple.
Most people are too brainwashed to question everything and/or think for themselves, so they rely on other means to tell them how the world works.
This goes for some 160+ IQ people. We need to break the seal of censorship and propaganda, and those who are smart enough to think or themselves will live on.
It kills me when Leno asks people on the street if they know where Afghanistan is and they have no idea. It kills me when our kids are 5 years behind Asia in math skills. It kills me that there's lack of funding for education.
Too much military, too much governmental control and power inadvertently affects the populous through means of propaganda and brainwashing. We are living exactly the opposite of how we should live. There's more interest in power and money, when our focus should be on education and arts.
This is dualy tied into how dumb the general population is. There is NO desire to improve, as we are too distracted.
Like I said, we need a fucking Renaissance again. But alas, it won't happen until after we nearly destroy ourselves.



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Mar 5,2010 1:56pm
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
There's more interest in power and money, when our focus should be on education and arts.


Vestige of evolution. Greed is human. So is altruism... which one wins out? Story at 11



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Mar 5,2010 2:02pm
arktouros said[orig][quote]
A crunch will happen sooner or later. It won't save the highest IQs, but those most adaptable...which is a more desirable outcome.


This.










Also, having a telepathic police dog that finds you food and rape victims helps. If A Boy and His Dog has taught us anything, it's this.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 2:04pm edited Mar 5,2010 2:06pm
Exactly. The question should be whether or not our species is capable of striving for the things that really matter. Instead, we're all caught in a giant game of Risk and we're battling for resources.
Humanity needs to wake the fuck up or gtfo. That goes for anyone with any IQ.
There's no plausible way to kill off all of those who are "dumb" without killing those who are "smart."
we're all in this together; I think it is inevitable that we are due for a bottleneck in the civilization, where both high and low IQed people die.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Mar 5,2010 2:14pm
In B4 dumb bomb



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 2:22pm
The only plausible way to get rid of dumb people (judging by conservationist's posts in the past) is by rounding up all the races and cultures that are statistically proven to have a higher rate of people with lower IQs, and mass murdering every single one of them. Genocide, essentially.
With billions of people on the planet, It would cost too much to give everyone an accurate test of intelligence. So hy not generalize and wipe their kind out?



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Mar 5,2010 2:24pm
I have a feeling that's been tried a few times. One time, Israel happened....oops



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 2:27pm
One time, AIDS happenned... Oops



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Mar 5,2010 2:32pm
Just make it so a random episode of American Idol broadcasts CIA mind control instructions to suicide. Little LSD in the water supply will help. Make it a different one each season; everyone will know it's safe to watch the first couple while it's still hilarious, but the smarter folks will tune out long before it gets dangerous. Those who get caught up and keep watching because they actually enjoy it, along with those whose self-preservation instincts aren't sufficiently developed (or those in who they aren't given proper priority) will be wiped out, leaving the societal wheat cleansed of the chaff.

(All contestants and audience members will be gassed at the end of each season; this will dissuade no one.)



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 2:35pm
NWO techniques ftw.



toggletoggle post by Lamp  at Mar 5,2010 2:57pm
In a way too, you could say that since IQ tests are scored on a scale of 1000, even someone with a 160 IQ who's deemed a genius could technically only be smart 16% of the time.

Too much gray area to think about.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 2:59pm
We are all in a matrix anyways.



toggletoggle post by Lamp  at Mar 5,2010 3:08pm
The easy question is would the world be better and I say yes.

The hard questions are "how much better would it be?" and "in what ways would it be better?"

This thread is going to be on my mind for the rest of the day, easily.



toggletoggle post by im thinkin slarbys at Mar 5,2010 3:16pm
Conservationist said[orig][quote]
im%20thinkin%20slarbys said[orig][quote]
in general, it would be better, but i think you are dismissing the important roles dullards play in our society, and i'm not just talking about cleaning toilets. Also, you are gravely mistaken if you think getting rid of people below 120 IQ is going to solve all your problems. CASE STUDY: The tests i've taken have come out in the 145-155 range and I'm a walking waste of life by "conservative" standards (i.e. life = collecting unemployment, playing metal, fappage, rttp, that is all.)
and one more thing, i would have no problem with this plot except for, if you get rid of all the low IQ girls, who am i going to have sex with???


You've put a lot of issues into one post, so I'm going to break it out which will move more slowly but more accurately.

1. What tests are these? Are these administered by a psychologist with experience in intelligence testing?

2. 145-155 is not genius, and no reliable test will give you that broad of a range. 160 is genius.

3. That some high intelligence people are dysfunctional does not mean that on the whole, high intelligence people are more functional than low intelligence people.

4. This is a useful resource:

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html

5. "Conservative" standards aren't as uniform or kneejerk as you'd think, especially considering that "conservative" is a very wide definition -- actually far wider than liberal. If the metal music is good, most conservatives would be OK with what you're doing, unless offended for religious reasons. And even then, they will probably not urge for its censorship. It's a small minority that makes sites like BoycottHouston.org



yea i was pretty sleep deprived when i posted that...
ultimately, i would totally support any mass depopulation efforts if such a thing were within the realm of possibility, (and especially if they would allow me to survive!! hahah) but i love playing devils advocate w you prozak, so let me try and summarize what i was driving at; As long as we're playing eugenics fantasy camp, why not employ a comprehensive battery of metrics to maximize the number of ultimately "competent" humans left in the gene pool and minimize the number of people who are smart but lazy, dysfunctional, etc. (shoot! i done disqualified myself!)???
In short, shouldn't someone of above average IQ be able to recognize the pitfalls in relying on one measurement of intelligence?

btw, the tests i was referring to were certainly not facebook tests, one was administered by my college psychology teacher, a psychologist, the other i took online, but the questions were similar even if the scoring was not as accurate. i don't remember which was which as this was a long time ago, but on one i scored low 140's and the other low 150's hence the "range" i gave in my previous post (not tryin to brag it was pertinent to my point)

as far as the term "conservative" goes, mea culpa, i should have known better than to paint with such broad strokes. what i was trying to express was that being an avid reader of your screeds, i think there are many people who would not fit your definition of productive competent humans despite having an above average IQ



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Mar 5,2010 3:20pm
I test rather well and am easily the laziest man on Mars. [/anecdotal evidence, khed]



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 3:22pm
+10 points for prozak name being dropped



toggletoggle post by im thinkin slarbys at Mar 5,2010 3:25pm
im old school like that

you down wit FMP???

yea you know me



toggletoggle post by Lamp  at Mar 5,2010 3:25pm
When I was four years old, my mom took me to get a formal IQ test and I scored a 138 without even answering all the questions. I was a real bizarre child.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 5,2010 3:26pm
I would like to know how high conservationist claims his IQ to be.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 5:15pm edited Mar 5,2010 5:22pm
DestroyYouAlot said[orig][quote]
For the record, my answer to the OP would be "undoubtedly," but the same could be said for any mass depopulation of the planet, so that may not prove much.


I believe depopulation is gonna occur one way or another, so we should choose the one that serves us best as a species.

arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The only plausible way to get rid of dumb people (judging by conservationist's posts in the past) is by rounding up all the races and cultures that are statistically proven to have a higher rate of people with lower IQs, and mass murdering every single one of them.


I'd prefer to avoid that. Using Raven's matrices and a few other shortcuts, a computer-assisted pre-test can be created that will quickly separate the under-100s from the rest; testing the rest is feasible.

Among other things, I would rather eliminate dumb individuals rather than races, which would strengthen every race. For example, African-Americans with an average IQ of 89 would lose a higher percentage of their members, but emerge at a competitive level -- and breeding more people is rarely a problem.

im%20thinkin%20slarbys said[orig][quote]
As long as we're playing eugenics fantasy camp, why not employ a comprehensive battery of metrics to maximize the number of ultimately "competent" humans left in the gene pool and minimize the number of people who are smart but lazy, dysfunctional, etc. (shoot! i done disqualified myself!)?


IQ makes a good "first cut" to raise everyone to a minimal level of competence; after that, we kill the assholes and bean counters ;)

one was administered by my college psychology teacher, a psychologist, the other i took online, but the questions were similar even if the scoring was not as accurate. i don't remember which was which as this was a long time ago, but on one i scored low 140's and the other low 150's hence the "range" i gave in my previous post


Interesting there's such a range, but these sound legit.

i think there are many people who would not fit your definition of productive competent humans despite having an above average IQ


Definitely. And many of those are useless people. However, we face a dual problem of (a) radical overpopulation and (b) world IQ declining into the high 80s at this point. Removing the under-120s fixes that, and by removing the easily-manipulated, puts parasites under the microscope and allows us to address them more easily. With the population under control, that task is feasible; without it, unlikely. So it's a multiple-stage process.

I am less concerned with hunting down every lazy shithead than I am with ending ecocide and raising humanity a notch; right now, we're devolving toward monkeyness.



toggletoggle post by narkybark   at Mar 5,2010 5:39pm
All I know is, this forum will be a lot quieter.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 5,2010 5:52pm
lol.
Narkybark chimes in with classics.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 5,2010 6:39pm



toggletoggle post by pooooooop at Mar 6,2010 12:43am
this topic is a sack of puke. intelligence is just one of COUNTLESS parameters that drive societies in positive ways. work ethic, bravery, endurance, honesty, integrity, sense of adventure, "morality", and emotional intelligence, for example, are traits that any person (smart or dumb) can possess.

it's dumb to treat society as one linear brain-power continuum where one extreme is something like doctors, mathematicians, or programmers and the other end is full of cleaners and bus drivers and retards.

it's all the different and infinite combinations of the above-mentioned traits (being hard-working, being kind, being brave, being intelligent, being consistent, having follow-through, and the list goes on forever - you could include shit like "loves dogs", "is obsessed with telling stories to other people") which push humanity forward.

you don't need a big, pulsating brain to be the person who builds a daycare center. nor do you need a huge IQ to be the local ambulance driver, or firefighter, or even motivational speaker. conversely, an intelligent person is just as susceptible to stupid emotional problems and therefore susceptible to doing stupid shit like ANY other animal - how can you assume that mere cerebral intelligence will be able to override it more often in all circumstances? a goddamn ex-nuclear physicist is still capable of some really horrid shit if he's desperate enough.


just because you can pinpoint a gazillion examples of ghetto fights, stupid people killing each other, blah blah doesn't mean that our humanity is gonna be raised a notch without them. when we have only smart people above a certain IQ, there are still going to be stupid people at the bottom of THAT group and "smart" people at the top.



toggletoggle post by boxxy at Mar 6,2010 2:10am
narkybark said[orig][quote]
All I know is, this forum will be a lot quieter.


Yup. This forum gets dumber, and dumber, and dumber, rinse, repeat.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Mar 6,2010 10:09am edited Mar 6,2010 10:10am
This forums average IQ is 48. The only thing that brings it down that low is Pams IQ of 3.
I kid, I kid. Or do I?



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 6,2010 10:22am
pooooooop said[orig][quote]
it's dumb to treat society as one linear brain-power continuum where one extreme is something like doctors, mathematicians, or programmers and the other end is full of cleaners and bus drivers and retards.


That's the assumption that most people have. And most governments.

How well is it working?




toggletoggle post by pooooooop at Mar 6,2010 12:44pm
well, until we figure out a way to measure someone's true worth/usefulness based on an almost infinite and kaleidoscopic combination of values, we're stuck with using a very black&white linear basis ("highly skilled" vs. "unskilled", let's say), unfortunately. and yeah, it works like shit.

however, focusing on one random property like someone's IQ won't get us very far either.

if we had to pick one way and if it were up to me, i'd at least move in the direction of measuring someone's worth by their ability to "work hard" or not. that could be in any field - brain surgery, construction, being a cleaner, teaching, creative fields, being a cook, etc. etc. - i feel like that would get us a little further along. because being a "hard worker" covers so many positive and useful things.

at this point i'm just thinking out loud, but you know what i mean.



toggletoggle post by pooooooop at Mar 6,2010 12:49pm
also, at least focusing on the ability to "work hard" or not would still accommodate the fact that there are natural divisions in society and labor - those who work with their hands, those who can engage their emotional intelligence, those whose skill often relies more on physical power, those whose skill employs their ability to remember a lot of info, those whose skill employs their ability to make convincing arguments, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 6,2010 1:17pm edited Mar 6,2010 3:54pm
pooooooop said[orig][quote]
yeah, it works like shit.


I think we need to try something more effective.

IQ isn't the be-all end-all, but it's a precursor to that. First and foremost, we need competent people.

Even more, class warfare has ruined so much -- why not end it? A janitor can earn as much as a mid-level manager if there are fewer people and fewer variations in intelligence



toggletoggle post by Conservationist  at Mar 6,2010 3:54pm



toggletoggle post by sxealex   at Mar 6,2010 8:01pm
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
genus genus genus genus?
its genius genius. :P



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Mar 17,2010 4:07pm
Conservationist said[orig][quote]
And this belongs here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Oh yeah


oh hey

something you observe all the time but never knew it had been studied and had a sciency name.



toggletoggle post by Vagoo Vikernes at Mar 17,2010 4:17pm
The reason that you do not mean this is because you are a victim of normal 'nice-ism' propaganda! Both on the TV, in the newspapers and radio and.. parrents and school, The whole bunch, are running around telling you that you should care about others and that you should.. you should only care about others and you should feel sorry for the children in Africa because they are dying like flies. Why the hell should we care about them? There is no point what so ever. You gain nothing by doing that. The only thing you accomplish is to walk around caring for others and be anxious for all the skin and bone down in Africa.



toggletoggle post by ouchdrummer   at Mar 17,2010 4:39pm
sxealex said[orig][quote]
ouchdrummer said[orig][quote]
genus genus genus genus?
its genius genius. :P


did i ever claim to be? Spelling nazi.



toggletoggle post by Vagoo Vikernes at Mar 17,2010 4:46pm
Europe is not a geographical, but a biological term.



Enter a Quick Response(advanced response>>)
Username: (enter in a fake name if you want, login, or new user)SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
Message:  b i u  add: url  image  video(?)show icons
remember:sign on net, sign off brain
[default homepage] [print][2:59:05am Oct 24,2014
load time 0.34291 secs/12 queries]
[search][refresh page]