[debeguiled]

(03-09-2018 04:30 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Even if you are high-IQ - all your emotions that make you human are still the same, also you can easily become a dogmatic thinker just as well or even a true believing SJW.

This dude is exhibit A. Rick Rosner. IQ 150.

Felt like a loser in high school, so instead of graduating and moving on, he kept going back to high school by falsifying identity and records for ten years till he got to have the high school experience he wanted.

Podcast interview with a friend of his who knew him in high school in 1978.

https://soundcloud.com/boing-boing/gweek...r-10-yearsMy Genius Friend Rick Rosner Went to High School for Ten Years

This guy may be smart, but what a nut! Putting all of that intellectual firepower into the most trivial and superficial things. He also went on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, got a question wrong, and tried to sue them.

Everything he does seems to be some sort of life hack to get around doing things in an honest way.

Imagine squandering an intellect like that.

[CynicalContrarian]

^
I've said it often in the past.

Intelligence & wisdom are not one & the same...

[debeguiled]

(03-09-2018 03:20 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

^
I've said it often in the past.

Intelligence & wisdom are not one & the same...

And Vox Day would tell you and me that we are too low IQ to get it.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Get what?

[debeguiled]

(03-09-2018 03:52 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Get what?

Anything a super duper hi IQ person does.

[Aurini]

(03-09-2018 01:07 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

I don't have time right now to read more books, but I did a quick Google search about Hitler and bankers. Found this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/s...ndworldwar

It's the Guardian, perhaps not the best website considering its leftist bend. But:

Quote:

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Quote:

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

I stand by what I said - out there somewhere is a Millennial with a terrifying ability to inspire people. Also, I didn't say ANYONE can become Hitler - only guys with a very unique ability to hypnotize crowds. There aren't that many people out with an innate ability like that.

Hitler might've been funded by bankers, but that doesn't change the fact Hitler had the ability to mesmerize people. And it's exactly his ability that got him funded. Bankers/Jews/the elite are still human and as such still possess the ability to get swayed by a charismatic man.

Quote:

We don't even know whether humanity cannot have averages pushed to 120/130/140 + with positive eugenics.

Yes we do. The fact that mankind has never had societies with 120+ average IQ should tell you it's not going to happen. One could make a similar argument about societies where women work side-by-side with men - and the counter argument is we know that doesn't work long-term because no society has ever made it work long-term, no matter how much social engineering you do. Positive eugenics for groups with IQs above 100 is nothing more than social engineering and will fail eventually.

That we see some groups go near 110 should tell you those societies are hitting their peak (and there's only one way down from a peak), same as a society embracing feminism tells you it's in its decay phase.

A good analogy is height. There's a reason why no large scale society averages 7ft for men. At some point, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Same goes for IQ.

The White IQ has been dropping substantially over the past couple centuries. Reaction-studies suggest that the IQ circa 1800 was about 115-120.

We're letting too many retards survive and breed.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(03-09-2018 03:56 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 03:52 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Get what?

Anything a super duper hi IQ person does.

The joke, actually.

[Bigmac4u]

Quote:

Yes we do. The fact that mankind has never had societies with 120+ average IQ should tell you it's not going to happen. One could make a similar argument about societies where women work side-by-side with men - and the counter argument is we know that doesn't work long-term because no society has ever made it work long-term, no matter how much social engineering you do. Positive eugenics for groups with IQs above 100 is nothing more than social engineering and will fail eventually.

That we see some groups go near 110 should tell you those societies are hitting their peak (and there's only one way down from a peak), same as a society embracing feminism tells you it's in its decay phase.

A good analogy is height. There's a reason why no large scale society averages 7ft for men. At some point, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Same goes for IQ.

Bingo! We have never had societies with 120+ average IQ because as this absolutely brilliant link points out... and connects with Einstein genius: Extreme intelligence is mental illness related to autism

Also, the human brain is NOT intelligence. Another post that blows everything away. That's what a true 180 IQ looks like. These people talking about IQ should come back when they can explain shit like that... using SCIENCE. Seriously, you can increase your IQ score with training.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-10-2018 06:10 AM)Bigmac4u Wrote:  

Quote:

Yes we do. The fact that mankind has never had societies with 120+ average IQ should tell you it's not going to happen. One could make a similar argument about societies where women work side-by-side with men - and the counter argument is we know that doesn't work long-term because no society has ever made it work long-term, no matter how much social engineering you do. Positive eugenics for groups with IQs above 100 is nothing more than social engineering and will fail eventually.

That we see some groups go near 110 should tell you those societies are hitting their peak (and there's only one way down from a peak), same as a society embracing feminism tells you it's in its decay phase.

A good analogy is height. There's a reason why no large scale society averages 7ft for men. At some point, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Same goes for IQ.

Bingo! We have never had societies with 120+ average IQ because as this absolutely brilliant link points out... and connects with Einstein genius: Extreme intelligence is mental illness related to autism

Also, the human brain is NOT intelligence. Another post that blows everything away. That's what a true 180 IQ looks like. These people talking about IQ should come back when they can explain shit like that using SCIENCE

No, we don't. Most of history is mired in terrible mating patterns of no positive eugenics applied.

The reason why some societies have even 100-106 IQs is based in Christian and Asian marriage behavior. The only society which pushed their IQs to 114 with some lackluster positive eugenics behavior were the Ashkenazi Jews. And they certainly were no intellectual geniuses 2000 years ago or even 1000 years ago. Most of it has been attained within a few centuries.

Nowadays you can do much more than that - and easy as well.

Currently we know that IQs have been improving for 2 points per decade in the West from the 1940s onward. There seems to have been a reversal or stop from the 1990s due to rising autism rates and diversity enrichments.

Anyone who argues for non-flexibility of IQ instantly argues for eternal supremacy of Ashkenazis as well as eternal bottom-state of blacks on Earth. There are limits to IQ in humans, but I seriously doubt that current-day 120 or 140 is that level. Seriously - gender studies shitheads have IQs of 110-120.

And comparing it with height is also not fitting, since height has also a basis in simple gravity of the planet. If humans settled on a planet with the moon's gravity, then we might grow to 15 feet easy. Intelligence is more related to inter-connectivity of neurons and the limits of that are still unknown.

But whatever - think whatever you want. And go venerate the Israel 24/7, because ultimately that is what you are left with if you believe in crap like that.

Oh - soooo smart for having let their smartest people have the most children. That was such an incredible achievement of intellectual fucking power.

[Bigmac4u]

Quote:

Extreme intelligence (the type you see in geniuses) is the result of immune system issues related to viruses embedded in our genome that express themselves if the immune system gets weak. A weaken immune system early in life leads to neurodevelopmental disorders classified as Autism. Mostly it is the severity of the brain alterations that cause the “disorder” to be diagnosed. The viruses induce hyperactive brain disorders due to how they have to manipulate the immune system to replicate. The viruses specifically target the PKR pathway to increase their replication rates and the byproduct of this dysregulation of the protein replication rates effect the neural transmitters and synapse formation rates (why memories encode too many details and trigger too easily, creating repeating behaviors (same thing shows up in PTSD patients). This leads to OCD and anxiety traits (something is wrong mindset) as the immune system upregulates. It also creates photographic memory in the host, photographic memory makes it possible to make novel connections since creativity is the associations between existing ideas and concepts. Genius is mostly connecting dots which many people can spot but can't connect. Innovation is more of a problem solving technique applied to available resources and usually that is just time and energy. You can create anything with time and energy.

In general the virus hosting gene for autism failures in healthy individuals result in more inhuman aggression (detached, no empathy) and genocide. When the virus switches the brain to become OCD/autistic, there’s no way to disengage the resulting “will to reproduce” and the brain becomes a slave to go after wealth and power and is pushed into wanting more and more power, whatever that is to the person (learning ever more, getting famous, political power, becoming rich, etc). So in other words, you have the activation of “genome” code that is normally suppressed but is more than likely being blocked by an active virus that is attempting to block how the immune system is attacking it but it is helping out one of the most ancient viruses that effected our human ancestors. Again, the genome mutations can alter how the immune system suppresses parts of the genome from generation to generation resulting in this embedded virus being more active in some people as soon as their immune system is slightly compromised vs others require multiple compromising viruses/health issues.

The long term impact of how the viruses alter the brain can be huge, i.e. sensory level delusional activation due to regional overactivation and none coherent patterns across the cerebral cortex, which show up when too many different regions of the brain activation simultaneously. You don’t feel sick and BUT YOUR body is over reacting to everything so you don’t get sick but you’re burning through nutrients too fast. If you're wealthy enough to eat super healthy/nutrient rich foods, the body is happy to handle the virus… It’ll eventually lead to a cancer (Steve Jobs) or increase the risk for cancer. The higher you go in the ranks or the hyper intelligent people, those are the ones you see it in most often.

Quote:

The human brain is not intelligence, it’s a survival mechanism optimized for selecting immune and other compatibilities. In other words, cognition is an illusion.. the human brain is just a feedback algorithm, simulator based on the feedback. It’s quite eloquent if you understand feedback loops. Even better if understand the algorithmic pattern programming from the genetic levels, biological differential stability network.

Nothing humans do is complicated or very complex, at least in terms of systems... lots of refinements and integrated ideas, but nothing is truly complex, all by itself. Nobody just invented the fission or other types of devices, it was a simply refinement of knowledge that lead to the discovery and further refinement that lead to the devices being usable.

Same goes for everything else. Time and refinement is all the inventions in this world. Building on other people's time and refinements. People for the most part act the same way they did millennia ago, they can't organize more than 200 people at a time-place, without breaking apart into subunits. If not organized by a "master" respected by the workers, they aren't productive and fail to be productive.

We grow into a context of demands that then causes the growth of the required level of complexity to manage the knowledge and acquisition of details to fill in the domains. For the most part, this means that the “lazy intelligence” only executes when it is necessary for survival.

There are just 2 areas where superior intelligence is potentially enabling:

1. In (partially) understanding certain useful hypercomplex things like health and physics - that first awaited modern tools like microscopes to observe them, and
2. Competing with others for procreation, wealth, power, etc. HOWEVER, Game Theory dictates that most decisions in "games" be made on a weighted random basis, and further, Nash's famous equilibrium theorem tells us that if the other guy has selected his weights correctly - that it doesn't make any difference if you get them right or wrong. As a result, limitless "intelligence" provides little if any competitive advantage, beyond the low threshold of simply understanding what the game is all about.

I once sat down with a winning high-school football coach, and we looked at various common situations that would seem to benefit from game theory computation. Amazingly, his off-the-top-his-head weights were spot-on to my carefully computed weights. We only looked at 2x2 zero-sum situations. This demonstrated that there would be NO advantage in having computer assistance. A better random number generator might have helped - but seeing the coach throw dice before deciding each play would have been pretty demoralizing to the players. As in spread spectrum communication, weighted random is as good as limitless intelligence can even approach.

I have already written an online book that explains how people with barely genius IQs can efficiently engineer true cures for most seemingly incurable health conditions - as I have done for various "incurable" conditions that friends and members of my family have contracted. The secret therein is the careful application of an advanced form of the Scientific Method. Sure, it took a really smart guy to figure this out, but now pretty much anyone can read it and learn to do just as well with it as any prospective artificial general intelligence (AGI) could ever do.

Quote:

Heritability of IQ. Although the word “intelligence” has no single definition, it is universally associated with terms such as knowledge, mental capability, reasoning, judgment, imagination, cognitive function, and occasionally, adaptation. Over the years, the most common notion with regard to “intelligence” is that it simply is a desirable, advantageous, and sought-after attribute.

Studies on the heritability of intelligence started over a century ago can be dismissed with new research in Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Neuroscience connecting the brain to the immune system. Immune molecules are actually defining how the brain is functioning. So, what is the overall impact of the immune system on our brain development and function?

The truth is that if you get a particularly nasty virus when you are young, then you are a prime suspect for developing the overactive brain that is edging towards the schizophrenia brain patterns depending on which proteins are over or under produced once the virus starts operating it’s control functions.

After digging through the research on various "geniuses" throughout history, I learned a higher percentage of them had childhoods that more than likely resulted in a similar over expressed memory encoding activity in their brain due to viruses and the resulting anxiety of the heightened immune system pushed them to solve problems they had in front of them, any and all problems!!! they could think about because that is how the brain works when it is stressed - it tries to solve problems. However, the amount of energy required to maintain that excessive brain activity and immune system will likely kill you. I don’t think humans were meant to ponder the whole universe their entire lives, aka philosophize and grandiosize their own take on what it means to be alive… they are meant to learn new things and how to survive but the brain isn’t supposed to be on all the time.

The hereditarian theory of IQ is basically a math equation based on conjecture from old sociological and psychological papers. Heritability is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genetic variation within a defined population in a specific environment. What we immediately notice is a long list of enormous variations in the tested IQs of genetically indistinguishable European peoples across temporal, geographical, and political lines, variations so large as to raise severe doubts about the strongly genetic-deterministic model of IQ favored by white spermicide and perhaps also quietly held by many others.

Consider, for example, the results from Germany obtained prior to its 1991 reunification. Lynn and Vanhanen present four separate IQ studies from the former West Germany, all quite sizable, which indicate mean IQs in the range 99–107, with the oldest 1970 sample providing the low end of that range. Meanwhile, a 1967 sample of East German children produced a score of just 90, while two later East German studies in 1978 and 1984 came in at 97–99, much closer to the West German numbers.

These results seem anomalous from the perspective of strong genetic determinism for IQ. To a very good approximation, East Germans and West Germans are genetically indistinguishable, and an IQ gap as wide as 17 points between the two groups seems inexplicable, while the recorded rise in East German scores of 7–9 points in just half a generation seems even more difficult to explain.

Can we really increase our intelligence? The answer is yes. It's basically adjusting our thought-flow to work millions of times more efficiently. A renowned article published in the journal Nature by Price and her colleagues challenged this immutable view of intelligence. The study had 33 adolescents, who were 12 to 16-years-old when the study initiated. Price and her team gave them IQ tests, tracked them for four years, and then tested them again with the same measurement tools. The fluctuations in IQ were outstanding: not about a couple points, but 20-plus IQ points. These changes in IQ scores, according to the researchers, were not random — they tracked elegantly with structural and functional brain imaging. Thus, there is also an important group of scientists that maintain that many of the changes in IQ are correlated to changes in the environment, particularly schooling.

To sum up, the old paradigms are crumbling under the onslaught of new research. Neuroscientists have, in a sense, simply taken over the elite, almost clerical office once held by analysts. It is not fully clear what intelligence is, and hence how to directly increase it. Nonetheless, we can consider intelligence, for practical purposes, as a starting point in life. I tend to use the term "smart" for people who are quick witted and use what they know with high accuracy - smart enough to pass tests that require quick and correct answers. Remember "computer" was a term originally applied to human workers doing math work. Smart or knowledgeable or intelligent all just apply to utilizing what is learned to some set of problems.. Knowledgeable is just how much one learns and can reference, not necessarily useable level of knowledge though as so many college students seem to demonstrate. And intelligence, without a qualifier, is just a term applied to knowing enough to survive in an environment; any agent that doesn't make the cut isn't very intelligent.

Quote:

Europe’s rise to prominence can be best understood as emerging from the need to survive. As ineffective geographical boundaries and closeness in proximity brought various subgroups in the region into contact with one another, the drive for resources created extensive conflict and bloodshed among regional factions. As these battles became the litmus test for who would ultimately survive, and who would die off, innovations in military equipment and warfare played a primary role. The discovery of gunpowder from the Chinese introduced more efficient means of warfare, such as explosives and firearms. With new forms of production being uncovered, such as smelting to derive metals for weaponry, it became clear that those who controlled these natural resources would have a far greater likelihood of survival. This resulted in both the expansion of well-organized European groups into broader civilizations, as well as providing insight into the need to control the means of production to emerge successful.

The population of Europe also played an immense role in the continuity of advancement and expansion. Growing from 200 million in the 1800s, to roughly 500 million by the 1900s (more than half the world's population at the time), this rapid increase led to the development of cohesive civilizations, which consequently raised the likelihood of survival for those operating in a group mentality. The ability to band together towards a common goal ultimately became the differentiating factor in the region. Those who developed the most advanced societies reaped the benefits of military innovations, strength in numbers, and social and scientific progress, while those who did not were unable to survive against the more sophisticated powers. Similar to the concept of nest building employed by ants, early Europeans quickly discovered that cooperation and collective empowerment, would be critical to further expanding and advancing their societies. With these civilizations forming and growing immensely, the communal setting promoted the concepts of specialization and task delegation to specific members of the society, so as to increase their chances of survival, as well as making their social, political, and economic systems more efficient.

Collective farming and domestication of animals led to increases in survival rates among groups that implemented a shared system. This behavior led to an array of advancements among communal societies, some of which expanded into the establishment of marketplaces, artistic expression, and an expansion of education through school systems. At the onset, integrating these communal concepts was a challenge, but as they began to understand how to navigate new innovations, it allowed for a more effective assimilation of social institutions.

As the modern world provides insight into the significance of the European continent in creating the frameworks for future civilizations, the one thing that has remained constant throughout history is the struggle to resist and survive any external threats. This idea ultimately allowed the European continent, and the groups which inhabited it, to overcome the challenges they faced, and establish solutions that would better help them ensure the longevity of their society.

Sorry, his http://culturewhiz.org/users/culturewhiz explanations work a lot better for me.

[CynicalContrarian]

Ever since I first read it, I've found AB's analysis rather insightful.
Quibble about the small details if one must, yet the overall idea I find rather apt. Although one probably still needs to couple it with a left wing, r-select / right wing, K-select distinction. :


thread-49633...pid1085914

(08-10-2015 04:31 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:

Quote:

I wrote up a post yesterday answering Glaucon's question of average intelligence, but it ended up too long and I didn't want to derail the thread.

Briefly:

I was theorising to myself and based on my interactions with friends on various tiers of intelligence that you'd need a certain type of midwitted intelligence to create the perfect Marxist Drones. Specifically, 95-115.

Under 90 and the mind can't process abstract concepts easily, so reality remains objective.

Over 120 and independent thought kicks in. Things aren't taken on faith, and observable facts and evidence influence thought. Reality remains objective.

Between 95-115 and you have a type of intelligence that I think of as being 'University Dumb'. It's a desperately-insecure type of intelligence, so needs to 'prove' it is intelligent at every opportunity. I'm sure you've experienced this. This is the Speaking-In-Buzzwords / Correcting Other's Spelling Mistakes set. Thy r th srt wh thnk rmvng vwls mks txt mpssbl t ndrstn rthr thn bcmng mldly-ncnvnnt t rd.

These midwitted minds can be manipulated to believe reality is subjective, not objective. This is why their reporting always lacks accuracy and verisimilitude, and why, by their forties and fifties, feminists are the most miserable creatures alive, when objective reality finally starts to sink in and they realise that everything they were promised by feminism was false and that high-value men aren't attracted to aggressive, masculinised women who don't want children.

It works like this:

85 IQ - 'A man is looking at a woman'. Objective reality.

110 IQ - 'That man is objectifying that woman without her consent and is therefore raping her and should be jailed'. Subjective reality.

135 IQ - 'A man is looking at a woman'. Objective reality.

This is why all my solid, reliable friends fall into either extreme. You can't manipulate the outliers, which is why Fourth Wave Feminists have abandoned and now demonise the working class: their objective reality means they're not good useful idiots. I'm been observing they're beginning to throw Asians (high average IQ) and gay men (self-interested narcissists) under the bus as well.

If these midwits can create a subjective reality where Roosh's speech didn't happen, to the extent of falsifying evidence of failure, then these midwit minds will readily-accept it, and, as such, it's pointless to try to 'prove' anything to them. Complacency over a 'victory' will make them fight less hard next time.

Instead, I believe their Subjective Reality should always be encouraged to be captured and broadcast as their delusional beliefs are the most effective PR we have to sway moderates. To that end, when infiltrating, it's always worth seeding even more extreme subjective beliefs. Don't broadcast your end belief: the trick to subversion is to drop logic breadcrumbs and let them follow and discover the next one through their own free will, so they believe the eventual idea you wanted them to arrive at was their own. This way they'll fight for it harder. The 'Progressive Stack' concept introduced by subversives to destabilise Occupy Wall Street is one of the best examples I've ever seen of this.

If working in tandem or groups, the polarising effect of groupthink will easily pull them in your direction: note the recent woman 'free bleeding' during a marathon, a Four Chan prank that became reality and has repulsed more moderates than any facts and logic presentation that I ever could have given them.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Sorry, his http://culturewhiz.org/users/culturewhiz explanations work a lot better for me.


Indeed - and I would have zero reason to assume that his slanted idiotic reporting were not somehow biased for a certain reason:


We waz - kangz - virus edition.

High-IQ people are abnormalities of viral infections!

Seldom read similar bullshit.

Ever heard of the so-called genius sperm bank where over 200 babies were spawned - each equipped with an IQ of 130-160+ ?
No - of course, because your bias is more important.

But here are the realities:

1) Intelligence centric breeding matters and that is why certain dog breeds are x-times smarter than others, because they have been bred to be smarter - just selected and selected and again selected

2) Genetics is only a baseline that can increase, decrease or stay the same with each generation - around the base you will have variations - this graph will do for comparison:


(the climate change bullshit trend graph is fake, but it does not matter, because I am referring to something else here)

You have the hereditary baseline over generations, and the shorter-term baseline can be mostly decreased or slightly increased via:

a) inbreeding - marry cousins or sisters for generations and your IQ tanks up to 15 points - that is what is seen in US Appalachia or all Muslim countries around the world at varying degrees. I would call this factor only mid-term, because a country that drops that shit rolls back those 10-15 minus points relatively quickly.

b) Correct nutrients during pregnancy and early childhood - here multiple factors are at play and are certainly seen in those 2 Germans - one rich and well-fed, the other malnourished and laden with more toxins. Breast feeding up to age 2 adds 2-4 points, full high-dosage supplements during pregnancy starting 2 months before conception adds another few points (for the mother), lack of vitmin D during pregnancy decreases IQ, Ramadan fasting during pregnancy or most fasting during that time decreases IQ.

c) The optimal health of the baby is created by clean water, super-heavy nutrient dense food of all vitamins and minerals (much higher than assumed by current-day-for-profit medicine) and essential fats.. But it also means that EVERY TOXIN that has any neurotoxic effect can decrease IQ. We have studies out there from China where one village drank fluoride laden water while the other was not and the difference in IQ of those children were 6 FUCKING POINTS! That is only for fluoride - you also have lead, arsenic, aluminum, numbers of vaccines (we can argue about those, but doing them past the age of 2 was standard practice in many countries up to the 1970s - the shitheads ditched that rule, but we got better prenatal care, so it probably balanced that out, but my point remains)

Just as height of communist East-Germans was 3 inches! shorter than West-Germans, that does not mean that the East-Germans were having a worse k-selected baseline. Just their short- and mid-term food and toxicity levels were worse and it all balanced out within one generation. East-Germans' height went up 3 inches within one generation after reunification.

So in short - the baseline of IQ mostly gets improved via hereditary measures and the short-term fluctuations resulting from natural variation, food, pre-natal care, breast feeding, lack of inbreeding, breast-feeding, clean water and air - all influence the baseline in the short-term. However if you do all the optimal things, then that gets raised to the baseline. Maybe over generations that gets raised by 2 points per decade and that has happened in Europe.

Also when you meet entire families who have quite similar IQ levels you know that this thing is highly hereditary - also the average IQ difference between siblings can be quite high - from 5-25 points. But that is also easily explained.


Now - that said - everything can go up. Let us take for example the Somalis with an IQ of 69. Inbreeding, lack of nutrients, lack of vitamin D for women, lack of prenatal care, general lack of sanitary conditions and clean water - all of that probably lowers their IQ from 80 to 69. If they stop all that shit, then they raise their intelligence within 2 generations to their baseline. Afterwards they could do positive eugenics and have their smartest 1% men have 20 babies each, their less smartest 10% 5 babies and the remaining 89% have 1-2 babies. After multiple generations you would certainly be able to raise the IQ from 80-85 to 100+.

The Genius Sperm Bank above was highly contested and later closed. The reasons for this is not that it was not successful. It was contested because eugenics was soooooooo bad. It was non-PC, despite most geneticists and biologists know that this is true.

So yeah - believe whatever you want, but my explanation is far more logical as you can observe also in history some tribes getting quick 10-15 jumps in IQ while others have had fantastic food and pre-natal care with little inbreeding and no meaningful improvements in IQ. Here I refer to American blacks with little improvement and for example Eastern European immigrants in the 1920s who had an IQ of 89 on average back then, but whose intelligence quickly jumped some 10 points due to far better food intake (rural EE was pretty backwards back then - probably some minor inbreeding also went on and that stopped as well in the US).

So again IQ = genetic k-selected baseline + variation caused by nutrients, toxins and behavior modification.

And that Shawn Blade should rather look reality in the eye instead of coming for bullshit reasons of why Africa is so backwards and how Whites are oppressing his tribe. He should get his high IQ ass in line and have 20 baby-mommas. That would change things more than finding bullshit excuses.

[debeguiled]

(03-10-2018 01:43 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 03:56 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 03:52 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Get what?

Anything a super duper hi IQ person does.

The joke, actually.

Low comedy IQ? This is even worse news.

[MMX2010]

Genghis Khan Wrote:

don't really understand why guys are so defensive about Vox Day.

Vox Day has earned the right to be taken seriously, because he has made enough difficult predictions that have come true, often years in advance. His current Voxiversity videos also deserve to be taken seriously, given his predictions of civil war and massive unrest. And RexImperator began this thread with the sole intention of inviting us to take those videos seriously.


Instead, around 50% of this thread is full of speculative bullshit regarding Vox's character and inner motives, with my personal favorite being Matt Forney's post here, part of which is quoted below.

Mind Reading Matt Forney Wrote:

He jumped on the manosphere bandwagon back in 2011, starting up his dumb Alpha Game blog with his retarded "expanded sociosexual hierarchy," which was one of the worst things to ever happen to the 'sphere. And of course, he had to create the "sigma" category for himself, because he's too much of a special little snowflake to fit into the regular "alpha" category. (The irony is that he's clearly a gamma male by his own definition, as shown by his snarky writing, his feminine outbursts, and his constant feuding.)

If Vox Day created a category called "Sigma", solely to create a special category for himself, then why do the majority of RVF members view themselves as Sigma?

And why did none of the Sigmas who posted in this excellent thread suspect that the Sigma category was made up solely to shield Vox Day from introspection?

And why did a man who is no longer allowed to be mentioned on this forum assert that learning game is essentially turning yourself from a Gamma to a Sigma?

Funnier, how DID Matt Forney gather his information about Vox Day: through extensive interviews with Vox, his family, and his associates? Of course not; that shit is for little people who aren't nearly as talented as Matt Forney.

Funniest of all, what is Matt Forney? Matt Forney is an internet blogger and writer, who intends to make money via his blogposts and writings. What is Vox Day? Vox Day is an internet blogger and writer, who intends to make money via his blogposts and writings.



I get that you're supposed to read everything posted in this forum with an open mind, and I hope you did this with Matt Forney's post. But I want you to read it again, knowing that Vox Day and Matt are essentially competitors, with Vox Day making at least twenty times more money, with twenty times the audience of Matt. Matt's post becomes funnier and more illuminating the second time, right?

You asked, "Why are some people defensive over Vox Day?" I'm defensive over Vox Day, because he's a better thinker than 95% of his critics - half of whom engage in bullshit speculation.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(03-10-2018 12:36 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Genghis Khan Wrote:

don't really understand why guys are so defensive about Vox Day.

Instead, around 50% of this thread is full of speculative bullshit regarding Vox's character and inner motives, with my personal favorite being Matt Forney's post here, part of which is quoted below.

Mind Reading Matt Forney Wrote:

He jumped on the manosphere bandwagon back in 2011, starting up his dumb Alpha Game blog with his retarded "expanded sociosexual hierarchy," which was one of the worst things to ever happen to the 'sphere. And of course, he had to create the "sigma" category for himself, because he's too much of a special little snowflake to fit into the regular "alpha" category. (The irony is that he's clearly a gamma male by his own definition, as shown by his snarky writing, his feminine outbursts, and his constant feuding.)

If Vox Day created a category called "Sigma", solely to create a special category for himself, then why do the majority of RVF members view themselves as Sigma?

MMX that's a great post, but this part is, to put it mildly, reaching.

First of all, that poll had a total of 114 votes (not a typo for 1140 or 11400 but actually 114), which even if we're quite pessimistic about the forum size still represents just a few percent of its members.

Secondly, the ranking itself is called "Vox Day's scale" and the evaluation criteria have been defined by Vox Day himself. Would you expect anyone who does not already strongly identify with his work to pick any other answer, or even to participate in the poll? For example, I am not a fan of Vox Day, so unsurprisingly I didn't bother even reading the thread.

Taking the Sigmas and the socio-sexual scale thing seriously reminds me of that occasion when Alfred Kinsey interviewed his liberal colleagues, prisoners and prostitutes to invent a hip new sexuality scale in 1948, resulting in a large part of the population magically becoming classified as "gay or bisexual". But they weren't really gay or bisexual, they were just misclassified by a ridiculously biased scale, and by making it Kinsey made no big contributions to science, only to himself.

Personally, I have always found the endless division of socio-sexual rank into a billion circumstancial labels to be boring and amounting to mental masturbation, similar to how aspie PUAs argue over whether a woman is a HB 7.62 or a HB 7.77, D&D players argue about whether their character is Lawful Neutral Good or Chaotic Good or SJWs argue about whether they're bigender, genderfluid or two-spirit. Our favorite politician's quote certainly applies to all of these cases:



I don't know if an annoying narcissistic loser should be called a "Gamma" or just an "annoying narcissistic loser", but dwelling on it too much certainly doesn't help me become more Sigma.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Who would have thought that when faced with a scale for which there are no hard and fast tests or even criteria that people would assign themselves the most favourable outcome they could feasibly get away with?

Antisocial and incapable "can't be bothered" to demonstrate alpha qualities?

"That's because I'm a sigma!"

The reality is that virtually everyone one the forum falls under the classification of beta, but we can't very well lay claim to it because it conflicts with a pre-existing code that infers beta behaviour is unacceptable. Most high (but not ultra high) achievers are betas by the Vox standard. That's most of us here. The rest are on a lower rung, owing currently to extreme soy consumption.

When Voxspeak clashes with common forum linguistics it's akin to trying to measure temperature without being allowed to say whether you're talking in Celsius or Fahrenheit.

[debeguiled]

(03-11-2018 02:43 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Personally, I have always found the endless division of socio-sexual rank into a billion circumstancial labels to be boring and amounting to mental masturbation, similar to how aspie PUAs argue over whether a woman is a HB 7.62 or a HB 7.77, D&D players argue about whether their character is Lawful Neutral Good or Chaotic Good or SJWs argue about whether they're bigender, genderfluid or two-spirit. Our favorite politician's quote certainly applies to all of these cases:



I don't know if an annoying narcissistic loser should be called a "Gamma" or just an "annoying narcissistic loser", but dwelling on it too much certainly doesn't help me become more Sigma.

Great post Mr. Eel. Jordan Peterson would say, you can keep slicing these distinctions thinner and thinner until you get down to the individual, so why not just deal with people as individuals from the start?

As much fun as I have had in the Gamma thread, there is a part of me that thinks, despite some excellent defense of these concepts by AB and others, that, as you indicate, Vox Day is just coming up with new labels for old concepts, reinventing the wheel pretty much, which is okay if you know you are doing it.

There is nothing wrong with coining a term like gamma for a concept like the covert/introverted narcissist. The only problem is when you act like you have discovered something new and you try to get a lot of people on board with yet another permutation of your personal genius.

I think you are also right in saying that these terms can be useful as long as we don't turn into fanboys and continually obsess over labels and argue about them on the internet.

Too gamma.

[Thersites]

(03-10-2018 12:36 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Genghis Khan Wrote:

don't really understand why guys are so defensive about Vox Day.

Vox Day has earned the right to be taken seriously, because he has made enough difficult predictions that have come true, often years in advance. His current Voxiversity videos also deserve to be taken seriously, given his predictions of civil war and massive unrest. And RexImperator began this thread with the sole intention of inviting us to take those videos seriously.

This is the key issue many members should remember about Vox Day. He see where the trends of out current political and social climate is leading to. We should take heed on his warnings, but his words are not gospel. I listen to what Vox says, but I do not agree with everything he states. Forney is right to a degree to be wary of Vox, but this applies to everyone in the sphere. Vox is doing good work in Scifi publishing and Comics, and the creation of Infogalactic. Give the man his due on that fronts.

[MMX2010]

Matt Forney isn't "wary of Vox". He is triggered by Vox into making ridiculously stupid accusations about Vox's character and inner motives.

Stop trying to label Matt Forney's post as anything other than unhinged, illegitimate bullshit.

[MMX2010]

@Leonard

Please browse this thread, and tell us whether you think Anonymous Bosch, Comte de Saint Germain, and Veloce are appropriately described as, "Antisocial and incapable "can't be bothered" to demonstrate alpha qualities - and are therefore mis-using the Sigma label to cover up their anti-social behavior and chronic incapability."

[MMX2010]

@Handsome Creepy Eel,

A similarity between you and Matt Forney is that you both immediately rejected Vox Day's Socio-sexual hierarchies list. From there, you both didn't think about it for quite some time - so you never followed up your rejection by reading even more of Vox Day's articles on the subject.

But the major difference between you two is that you know that your behavior "logically" means that you shouldn't have any strong opinions on the subject. And so your questions are well-formed and literally just questions, whereas Matt Forney's questions are non-existent - because he's noisily giving strong opinions based on (almost) no research.

You = Delta in this thread.

Matt = Gamma in this thread.

-----

Your questions make sense if you assume that RVF draws from a random sample of internet users, but I don't think it does. Nor do I think the board randomly retains users.

(1) Deltas (the vast majority of people) largely don't read message boards to get better with women. They're too stuck in the Just Be Yourself myth, and would largely find Roosh's teachings uncomfortable.

(2) Gammas would find Roosh's teachings offensive, and Gammas get banned pretty quickly here.

(3) Alphas do not exists on this board.

I believe this for two reasons, one of which is AnonymousBosch's funny line, "Alphas don't need to come to a message board to learn how to be better with women."

The second is because I understand the difference between Alpha and Sigma very well. Alpha and Sigma are very similar in their stubbornness, confident attitude, and successful achievement - but Alphas feel compelled to help people, while Sigmas absolutely do not.

I'm only posting this Trump video to highlight a specific part, so if you're in a hurry, move to 10:20.

The summary is that Candidate Trump is watching a brawl between some of his audience members and a physically strong protestor. He watches someone whom he describes as "I don't think he's ever been in a fight before". Trump notices this particular man in the brawl and thinks, "Get that guy out of there; he's going to get killed!"

That's Alpha behavior. I might have noticed that man in the crowd, but I certainly wouldn't think "Get him out of there; he's going to get killed" - because I don't have the moral compulsion to help people that most Alphas do.

----------

I couldn't find it, but Bosch told a story about his friend (who may be very muscular like Bosch - but I forget that detail) playing a joke on a woman acting Gamma. The woman was a schoolteacher, complaining that the friend and Bosch weren't very bright. So the friend played into her stereotype by mis-using words like "edu-ma-cated". Bosch immediately knew what was happening, and started playing along - while a guy in earshot was trying very hard not to laugh.

An Alpha would do the same thing as Bosch's friend, but would take pleasure in teaching the guy in earshot a valuable life lesson. Bosch's friend, who is probably Sigma, almost certainly didn't notice the guy in earshot - and he certainly wouldn't play such a game for that guy's benefit.

----------

This Jordan Peterson video came out less than four hours ago.

I don't think the host was "baiting"; I think she was clueless - which is rather sad.

What I'm talking about is when she brings out a picture of Jordan Peterson standing behind a Kekistan-flag, next to a guy making an "alt-right hand gesture". She may have been baiting him by trying to make him look like a supporter of the alt-right - but he immediately asked, "What do you think should happen to these people, in this polarized and chaotic world?"

He immediately pointed out that he was trying to help them - and that he has successfully helped many of these types of people in the past. But she really didn't get it, because it didn't dawn on her that someone would try to help them.

Long story short, if someone were really an Alpha on this message board, they wouldn't be on this message board. They'd be out in the world helping people - somehow.

---------

(4) Same thing with Betas. Betas also have a genuine desire to help people, and would find this message board boring. Cernovich strikes me as Beta - which isn't an insult. He's got the passion, loyalty, and drive of an Alpha - without the exceptional level of success. (This isn't an insult, either. Betas are highly successful compared to Gammas, Deltas, and Omegas - but they're less successful than Alphas and Sigmas (provided you measure Sigma success solely by material goods, and not relationships).)

---------

(5) Omegas by and large don't post here, because they're too focused on their inner pain. Omegas don't really say "I need to get good with women to cure my internal pain." - they usually just check out of relationships altogether, because relationships require at least some focus on another person.

So, in my opinion, this board has unique barriers to entry and unique selection pressures that assure Sigmas will be over-represented.


----------

My personal experience with Vox's Hierarchies has been very positive. I was pre-med in college, and I've always been interested in evolution, so a Taxomony chart is highly interesting to me. I also was lucky enough to have regular weekly meetings with a Film Maker who also liked Vox's Hierarchies; we would watch movies and declare which characters were which category, because these reasons.

I don't think Sigmas can read the Hierarchies without getting annoyed, because they don't like to be "analyzed". (AnonymousBosch is literally the Epitome of Sigma, and he explained that he resisted the revelation for a very long time. kaotic is also highly sigma, and has expressed deep annoyance at the Hierarchies.)

Gammas are even worse, because there aren't many good things to say about Gammas. The nicest thing I can say is that they can change into Deltas if they repent - but it has to be true repentance that results in permanent life-style changes and at least one very fucking scary, "I'm so sorry when I did X to you." So Gammas read the Hierarchies, become triggered, and attack.

I hope this post was useful to you, even though you don't find the Hierarchies very useful.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I'm not reading the thread. I never said there are zero people who fit the sigma archetype. You can build ANY archetype and there will be some people who randomly fall within it.

I'm saying the majority of people who claim to be sigmas are simply people who are somehow damaged and have not found their place in the world. I would class them more as Ronin Betas than Sigmas. I myself fall into that category.

And for the record, a Sigma wouldn't have threatened Gab.ai with a lawsuit over some stormfag's hurtful comments "because the authorities might take the accusations seriously". Do you seriously see Anonymous Bosch, Comte de Saint Germain, or Veloce doing something like that?

Vox built an entire system of cataloguing men and indeed made a special little spot for himself even though he doesn't barely fit the criteria. If anything he is an exceptionally high functioning Gamma but a gamma all the same. He is perhaps king of the Gammas.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

Vox built an entire system of cataloguing men and indeed made a special little spot for himself even though he doesn't barely fit the criteria.

"Sigma" is just the same thing that Chateau Heartiste that calls a "renegade Alpha" by a different name.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Jeez - MMX - this expansion of the already conceptual Alpha-Beta mindset is only partly useful.

Alphas only help people? Are you completely meshugge? Most prisoners and psychopaths fit the Alpha state that appeals to female Dark Triad fascionations. They are not helping anyone jack shit.

Also most classifications are not self-qualifying. You are what you are more or less based on your market value, behavior with women, internal mindset and assessment by folk who are not you! Anything that you can say is that you became more Alpha - whether the majority of attractive women-kind sees you that way is another matter.

Anything else is mental masturbation to the x-degree. Alphas are helping people.... jeez - sure - the brutal natural selective God of Biomechanics was St. Francis of Assissi and that is why the humanity got propagated mostly by saints and not by rape, collection of most female by Dark Triad men and other such "helping" deeds.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Was gonna post more but it feels kinda beta to just be endlessly defending another guy.