/sci/ - Science & Math

Intelligence naturally selected for a lot of nonintelligent to exist to lord over and do their bidding

>>14661069
>intelligence is a genetic trait
>why there are so many non clever people?
Genetic variation, I guess. If intelligence was genetic and everyone was intelligent then the gene pool would be severely lacking in variation, and it would be uniform (not good (=_=) lol).

>>14661069
are you implying the clever ones will not make the less clever one occupied with fixing the disaster brought by the stupid ones?
This is also why scientiest are such pussies. the clever ones will simply conviced others that the smart guy is a danger. in this scenario, the smart ones will either fight back and either win or lose, or will submit to the clever ones.
after years of specialization, the competent ones will naturally follow the greed (clever) ones.
>Or am i missing something?
Yes. that the clever ones undermine each other.

>>14661069

There's always the chance, like Zapffe believed, that nature didn't want self-awareness to be as high as it is. It would make a lot of sense, in that those who overthink tend to be depressive and do not pass on genes, while those who are spontaneous are far more likely to reproduce.

https://youtu.be/Yr4ZfEf-lF0

>Whatever happened? A breach in the very unity of life, a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature. Life had overshot its target, blowing itself apart. A species had been armed too heavily – by spirit made almighty without, but equally a menace to its own well-being. Its weapon was like a sword without hilt or plate, a two-edged blade cleaving everything; but he who is to wield it must grasp the blade and turn the one edge toward himself.

>>14661069
intelligence has never been ideal, it is a massive energy sink that adds unnecessary complexity, requires drawn out youth stages, and actively reduces a species rate of reproduction. evolution will ALWAYS regress intelligence as much as is physically possible, up to and including the complete loss of the brain.
intelligence exists only because it is required to solve complex environmental problems, and when those problems are reduced (aka civilization) stupidity and mental illness proliferates.
the only way to create a brighter future for humanity and escape the regression is to actively commit to human gene editing to ensure human intelligence is safeguarded from normal evolutionary selection pressure.

>>14661069
excess of resources

>>14661069
define cleverness, without mentioning dominating a concept created less than 3k years ago
>inb4 problem solving
even dumb humans are extraordinarily good at problem solving when compared to almost every single organism on earth
also humans have a fuckton of available resources in relation to our number

>>14661069
>intellingence a naturally compet-
Who told you that? Lol. Your feminist teacher?
>let's force the smart white kids into steAm while tyrone ricardo Huang Chad and Brad spends the whole day gaining social and muscular gains
>it doesn't matter if they get injured, nerds will fix them
The nerd will have a malformed body and 0 social skills
Scientists are poorfags and are hired by companies

>>14661897
The ability to enjoy math and

>>14661069
there may be advantages to low IQ that are not often rewarded in society. Moving through ideas slowly, for instance, brings people to thoroughness and completeness. Moving through them quickly and effectively makes them more able to make use of them, but not with a deeper understanding of them.

in this way, high IQ is where cleverness, or quickness in thought and development of technology lies, but low IQ may correspond to wisdom, and therefore helpful to society as a whole through a deeper, weathered understanding.

it's worth mentioning that St. Thomas Aquinas was thought to be stupid by his classmates at school. I know people here don't respect religious thinking much, so there's some risk in losing the point due to missing ethos here, but he's understood to be one of the deepest thinkers in religious thought, being able to categorize and enumerate important and detailed arguments on hundreds of important theological questions. He may have had a low IQ, but slow thinking may have enabled him to realize when a step was skipped in thinking.

>>14661069
Because big brains waste energy. If food is scarce and you don’t need a big brain to produce it, small brain is an advantage. In fact, people got dumber by a lot since the invention of agriculture. Technological progress was only possible because maintaining a high population statistically produces a few geniuses.

>>14661069
Average IQ is roughly what is favored evolutionarily.

It is obviously possible to be very smart (since very smart people exist). The reason why it is not more common to be very smart is simply that being able average IQ is an evolutionary disadvantage.

>>14661102
>everyone was intelligent then the gene pool would be severely lacking in variation
People can have different variants that contribute to IQ.

I think intelligence is highly polygenic, meaning many many genes contribute to our intelligence. So it is entirely possible that two people with the same IQ do not have the same genes that are determining their IQ.

>>14661334
Thanks for your insightful post.

I agree. A flexible and intelligent mind is useful in a dynamic environment. But once the species settles into a static environment, static and hardcoded mental traits become favored since they are more efficient

The problem is sexual selection. Women only select for height and social status, not for intelligence. Intelligence is completely irrelevant when it comes to attractiveness and only amounts to the (negative or positive) halo effect. An unattractive man is seen as even more unattractive when he's intelligent ("ewww, a nerd"). A hot Chad is seen as even more attractive when intelligent ("omg, he's hot AND smart").

>>14662115
>>>/r9k/

>>14661069
Fuck that parasite.

https://youtu.be/3aZVgyUlSng?t=313

>>14662115
I hadn't really linked it with incel logic but this is more or less what I've neen thinking. Not only is high iq not particularly advantageous as mating strategy, it may in fact be a detriment.

Its not that a nerd can't get a girlfriend, its that a nerd will be out-produced by a risk taker, which nerds are famously not. I mean honestly, who do you think is more reproductively successful by the lifetime numbers, ivy league students or San Quentin inmates?

>>14661334
>evolution will ALWAYS regress intelligence as much as is physically possible
and it's happening

>>14661224
is fire, blood and steel the final red pill?

>>14662114
Average IQ based on the genes of the parents, you dumb burger. African pygmies and ashkenazi jews aren't magically averaging to 100 when they have children.

>>14663489
I know pygmies and jews arent averaging 100 IQ. I know there are groups differences. I think different populations have been under different evolutionary selection for different IQ levels.

Let me put it this way, if evolution selected for 150 IQ, we would have 150 IQ. The fact that IQ is around 100 for Europeans and asians means that has been close to what is optimal in Europe and Asia.

This is an easily observed fact today, because we have very smart people, and we can observe how many kids they have, and its not a lot. We can just see today that very smart people are not winning evolution.

>>14663730
sub-populations, genius. within a set population you have 90% normies, 5% retards, and 5% geniuses.

90% normie population averages 2 kids
5% retard population averages 3 kids
5% genius population averages 1 kid
this drives down the average over successive populations because the retards, while skewing to the average, also skew towards being retarded. this is how evolution works. it's death by 1000 retard babies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA

>>14662878
you wrongly connote being intelligent with being a wimpy nerd. in my high school, a large amount of the top male athletes scored above 95th percentile on ACT. I heavily drank, smoked pot, was arrested multiple times, started on varsity baseball, had unprotected sex with 15+ girl in high school, graduated with 2.1 gpa and got a 96 on the asvab not knowing what the square root of a number meant.

>>14665271
>ZOG's intelligence test says i'm qualified to be cannon for the jews
>that means i'm smart!

>>14661319
Well yes the basis of life operates on always being in pursuit of something, if you're intelligent enough to achieve everything you could want there would be no point in living anymore.

There can't exist good feelings without bad feelings, nor desirable things without undesireable things, the more you suffer, the greater your drive to change your situation will be, you have more to gain and thus more to live for.

Eventually when you're intelligent enough to have every thing and moment be something good, good now becomes the normal to you and then you're left with nothing being good or bad, thus everything is now meaningless and you resultantly lack any reason to live.

It's why the people in developing countries without safe access to basic human necessities such as clean water, etc, have more kids; with greater to gain comes a greater reason to live for.

>>14662115
No, many woman find intelligence quite attractive. The problem is that if we get any more intelligent it will start being detrimental to us as a species.

Do you really think being able to fully comprehend the pointlessness of the universe is a desirable evolutionary trait? We have more than enough intelligence to meet our basic survival needs, you really think evolution cares about us advancing further in space travel? Definitely not when achieving that results in more mental disorders and higher rates of suicide.

>>14661069
How many kids does the average mathematics professor have? How many kids does the typical normalfag, or even something like a trailer trash redneck or mexican? Then how many does a retard have?

Intelligence is genetic and not selected for unless you're below the threshold of functionality (~70-80 in agricultural society).

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/recent-evidence-on-dysgenic-trends-february-2021/

>>14661069
>Is intellingence a naturally competitive trait anymore

not directly. women want money. smart men usually have more money than stupid men. therefore by the transitive property of hoes want that cash, yes, intelligence is still positively corelated to reproductive success.

but it's not like in the preindustrial days where being smart meant youd be more likely to stay alive and therefore have more time on earth to reproduce.

>>14665442
>women find intelligence attractive
They literally don't. Every study ever shows that it's face + height/frame + status, and you get thresholded on each of these independently rather than their combination.

The only way intelligence comes into play is as a correlate of status in some social circles.

>>14665271
If you were intelligent you'd have decent grades without studying, retard. High school is piss easy.

>>14665442
>many women find intelligence quite attractive
The rest of your post says the opposite. When they say they want an intelligent man, what they really mean is they want a midwit. Someone who can string together a few grammatically correct sentence and who is a functional, successful member of midwit society. High intelligence on the other hand is again seen as unattractive, "nerdy" in a negative sense.

>>14661069
The goal of evolution isn't destruction, but equilibrium.

>>14665442
>you really think evolution cares about us advancing further in space travel?
lmao enjoy your asteroid extinction

>>14665442
>No, many woman find intelligence quite attractive
I have literally never seen this to be the case. the most sexually successful men I've known are retards who can dance.

For a science board, you dumbasses sure use a lot of common sense reasoning

>>14665454
only things that predicts grades are obedience to the teacher which is why it was so easy for you. asvab is iq test and I got 96th percentile, stay mad virgin.

>>14666389
>common sense is ... le bad

>>14661069
Intelligence was never truly competitive long term. Intelligence created the modern world, and the modern world is exerting pressures that are selecting it out. From an evolutionary perspective: It's a defect.