/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2169964]

See the pic? She looks reasonably normal, right?

Her IQ is 71.

You probably even realize it immediately. There is absolutely no doubt that low IQ individuals are disadvantaged in society. They learn at a slower rate and are incapable of understanding higher level concepts. In an increasingly complex society, a high IQ is critical to wellbeing. I believe that such low intelligence individuals should be ethically eliminated from the gene pool through social policies.

[Anonymous No.2169971]

This is what I propose, /sci/:

Liberal Eugenics Policy
=====
1. 2 child policy for all. This will stabilize the population and prevent the less intelligent from multiplying like rabbits.
2. Exceptions can be made with IQ testing. If the IQ of each parent is at least 105 (this number will be continually bumped up over time), they may have unlimited children. In fact, they will be given financial incentives to do so via taxes and rebates.
3. Exceptions can also be made if requirement #2 is not met by paying a fee of some sort.
4. Low income individuals still receive financial support under this system, but it too will be limited to a maximum of 4 people.

[Anonymous No.2169977]

Why Is This Policy Beneficial?
=====
Everything is becoming more mechanized. Machines are becoming more intelligent and capable of replacing humans and outperforming them at menial jobs. The price of technology continually decreases. Thus the need for less educated, entry level workers decreases. At the same time, there will be a larger number of jobs requiring high levels of intelligence, such as research. Low intelligence people are generally incapable of adequately performing such tasks. The result will be a large number of unintelligent people without jobs. They will need money, and taxpayers would be forced to support them. Liberal eugenics solves this problem and creates a society of healthy, happy individuals.


tl;dr liberal eugenics


What do you think of this, /sci/? Good idea?

Semi Related: A reasonably legit visuospatial IQ test. iqtest.dk

[Anonymous No.2169982]

>>2169964
Hello Socrates.

[Anonymous No.2169984]

Not Science. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.2169985]

>>2169984
wat

[Anonymous No.2169988]

>Implying IQ is hereditary and not largely environmental.
>Implying eugenics is ever a good idea.

Also, sound familiar?
Due to a combination of intelligent people not having children and excessive breeding by less intelligent people, the world is full of morons, with the exception of an elite few who work slavishly to keep order.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2169989]

>>2169971
> implying controlling who can have sex and how often is at all possible.

[Anonymous No.2169990]

Let's be reasonable. People are incapable of having reasoned debates in public regarding eugenics because it has been tainted due to reduction ad hitlerum. But it doesn't have to be like this.

[Anonymous No.2169993]

I will embrace Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour before I found a eugenics policy on a pseudoscientific metric.

[Anonymous No.2169994]

>>2169988

You're probably thinking, "this sounds like Idiocracy."

[Anonymous No.2169998]

I like eugenics as an ideal, but your plan needs a lot less breeding and a lot more killing.

[OP No.2170013]

>>2169982
I wish. I'm not as intelligent as Socrates. If everyone was, wouldn't that be the perfect society?

>>2169988
It can be environmental, but for the sake of debate, let's assume all else is equal. I did mention that low income individuals receive financial support in this system. Nature has a lot more to do with it than nurture does.

>>2169989
That's not how it works. It's a 2 child policy. Obviously if a family has more children, the government will know and deal out appropriate fines.

[Anonymous No.2170019]

You can still have a low IQ and become a productive member of society.

The ones who should be gutted are those niggers who choose not to understand the technologies they depend on on a daily basis.

[Anonymous No.2170023]

>>2169994

And if you are thinking that, you would be wrong.
That is a brief synopsis of the world in the Science Fiction story "The Marching Morons" by Cyril M. Kornbluth published in 1951.

Additionally, aside from IQ testing being all kinds of biased, it is also normalized to 100. So, the population in 1900 may have known many fewer things, the average IQ was still 100. But it is not the same 100 as the today's IQ score of 100.

In fact, the IQ scores of the past few years are actually higher than the ones from 30 years ago, adjusting for this normalizing.

Eugenics based on IQ, bad idea.

[OP No.2170025]

>>2169998
Murder is unethical, even of mentally retarded individuals. Ethics are of great importance, so this system is ethically sound, albeit slower than killing. (I'm okay with suicide though.)

[Anonymous No.2170027]

>troll thread detected
>not even science

sage

reported

[Anonymous No.2170029]

>>2169964
> low intelligence individuals should be ethically eliminated from the gene pool through social policies
> mfw 95% of all niggers are sterilized

[Anonymous No.2170034]

Well MAYBE IF YOU FAGGOTS STOP BEING FLUORIDE INTO THE WATER THERE WOULDN'T BE LOW IQ PEOPLE!

AND IQ IS BULLSHIT ANYWAYS! YOU CAN'T MEASURE INTELLIGENCE.

ALSO ATHEISM IS WRONG.

DEAL WITH IT

[Anonymous No.2170035]

>>2170013
No, but Socrates felt that we should kill all the mentally handicap children so their genes couldn't be recycled back into society. There's some logic there, but it wouldn't work since genes don't work like that.

[Anonymous No.2170037]

>>2170013

>implying that people who score low on IQ tests come from low-income families

Even assuming that was the case, throwing money at the problem of "low-income" would not actually do very much to change the environment. It might increase their nutrition at critical points of development, and thus enable them slightly higher IQ scores, but it will not change the culture in the home.

[OP No.2170043]

>>2170019
I do not disagree with this at all. However, they have a much harder time of achieving this. The greater amount of struggle they have in achieving such a goal is suffering. This system is in part utilitarian, and maximize pleasure and minimizes suffering.

>>2170023
Definitely. I am throwing this out there as a rough concept, one of intelligence testing. I do not imply that it will definitely be based on an IQ test. It will definitely be much more rigorous and "holistic" of an intelligence test. Obviously when IQ is used, cutoff scores will be adjusted to the times.

[Anonymous No.2170046]

>Suddenly people who should be in high paying jobs and appreciated (as everyone is highly intelligent) are doing your garbage because we need those people to do those jobs.

[Anonymous No.2170048]

You don't need a policy to stop child birth

You need a good education system then the problem solves itself.

[Anonymous No.2170051]

>>2170035
Yeah, Socrates definitely understood genetics.

[Anonymous No.2170053]

My IQ is 134 which is better than average by far and I conclude that without retards there wont be any smart people... think about it!

[Anonymous No.2170055]

>>2169964
>>2169964

Source on image, OP?

I have a passion for learning about cognitive functioning and the behavioral implications of it.

It is so saddening that a young, emotionally stable, good-hearted white woman should be so shackled.

Many people of such low cognitive capacity have specific abnormalities that hinder them. Neurofeedback has been shown to ameliorate low IQ. In fact, many of those suffering were a bit to significantly above average after treatment. Some were a tad below average. It seemed that the population that got treated (the study group) was a small bit above average if you created a mean.

[Anonymous No.2170062]

>>2170053
Awesome troll skills. If not you truly are retarded.

[OP No.2170069]

>>2170029
This system does not aim to discriminate, and I am not a racist.

>>2170027
Go fuck yourself.
"Eugenics is the "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations."

>>2170035
I didn't know that, but it is unethical, so I do not approve.

>>2170037
On average, this is true. Lower income families tend to be slightly less intelligent.

Liberal eugenics. Can you go for that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccenFp_3kq8

[Anonymous No.2170070]

Get out, Langan.

[Anonymous No.2170082]

>>2170034

Could someone refresh my mind as to what policy this is? Ie packing two notions commonly accepted as absurd with the one you're trying to discredit? Appeal to ridicule, maybe?

[Anonymous No.2170087]

>>2170069
Lol? What does 'unethical' mean? It's a subjective matter you fuck.

[Anonymous No.2170088]

My IQ is 184 and it's really not all that fun because of expectations and stupid fucking documentaries about "super-Intelligent" adults and whatnot.

I DON'T CARE.

Mathematics and physics bore me, all I want to do is to read without people yapping in my ear.

[Anonymous No.2170089]

If you are a productive member of society then your IQ does not matter. Eugenics is generally slow and no matter how 'liberal', it's evil.

What we should do is kill off the homeless and mentally ill. Save a lot of goddamned money

[Anonymous No.2170090]

>mfw OP's suggestion to only have high-IQ individuals in society neglects to cover who will take menial or blue collar jobs when they're fucking intelligent

[Anonymous No.2170093]

>>2170062
has a point kinda... there will all way be under achievers if we got rid of idiots then smarter people (by our standards) would be idiots compared to the people smarter than them

[Anonymous No.2170100]

>implying life needs to be complex to be fulfilling

Most of the world still lives in mud houses ans less than 30% of the population has ever been on the internet.

I would even argue that life in a modern society is becoming TOO complex. People don't even have a chance to enjoy life anymore.

[Anonymous No.2170102]

>She looks reasonably normal
>I believe that such low intelligence individuals should be ethically eliminated from the gene pool

>implying there are intelligent women

[Anonymous No.2170112]

>>2170069

No, they tend to score lower on IQ tests. And after 4th grade, their children start to do worse in reading and other school subjects than their non low-income counterparts. This is not simply a problem of money; it is also a problem of culture within the home. Do the parents value learning? reading? and other school subjects? Do the parents supplement their child(ren)s school experiences in any way? Do the parents ever read to their children? Do the parents ever ask their child to explain what they've learned in school? Do the parents have the time to do this between jobs?

You cannot solve those problems simply by throwing money at them.

[Anonymous No.2170115]

How about instead of pretending there is a "high IQ" gene we just put all this money into improved education like people who aren't retarded. That sounds good to me

[OP No.2170116]

>>2170055
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189836/They-stole-little-girl-says-mother-judged-stupid-car
e-baby.html
That was the source article. I also feel really bad for her.

>>2170062
>>2170053
Oh shit. Are descriptions relative or absolute? Dundundun... In this instance, I would say relative, so >>2170053, you'd be wrong.

>>2170048
Not stopping childbirth, merely limiting it and guiding it in appropriate directions through numbers.

>>2170046
Did you even read my post? Based on existing trends, low skill jobs will be replaced by machines. Why should any human be forced to clean a sewer or slice meat in a factory for hours on end? They should be maximizing their existence through pursuit of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.2170124]

>>2170055
>>2170055

Now that I have attained your attention:

OP, you stupid cunt. Respond to me.

[Anonymous No.2170132]

>>2170089
>What we should do is kill off the homeless and mentally ill. Save a lot of goddamned money
And the terminally ill. And the not-terminally-ill-but-too-expemsive-to-keep-alive. And the elderly. And the orphans.

It's a slippery slope, sir.

[Anonymous No.2170133]

To quote Bob Dylan: I got nothing, ma, to live up to.

Fuck your IQ. If you go around thinking that the worth of a person can be measured by their potential to serve society than you aren't all that smart.

[Anonymous No.2170164]

>>2170116

>The adoption is going ahead despite a recent psychiatrist's report which declared that the 24-year-old has 'good literacy and numeracy and that her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range'.

What? IQ testing does have it's inaccuracies...maybe she scored a dead on 90 on another test?

That's strange, maybe they're exaggerating her abilities, or flat out lying in attempt to win her case.

[OP No.2170169]

>>2170082
>>2170034
Actually, there are studies that show fluoride decreases IQ by a few points. Personally, I carbon filter and then distill my water.

>>2170087
The majority of societies had philosophers who came up with some form of the "Golden Rule". Human rights are essentially based on this concept, and I think it is safe to say that this is a reasonable guideline.

>>2170090
I did. Did you read my second post? It extrapolates existing trends of increasing mechanization. There will be fewer and fewer blue collar jobs. Robotic factories, robotic cleaners. Expect all of these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kum7BCOkE5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0DEPpFL9OY
ETC...
See those? They're already here. Infinite endurance. Doesn't need rest. Doesn't get sick. Doesn't get hurt. Always working. Compare that to a human meat slicer?

There was also a video from Engadget of a entire cookie factory or something with only about 5 or so workers. Everything else was completely robotic.

[Anonymous No.2170184]

>>2170089
good point ... brain dead people, homeless (ones that arent helping themselves), old people using nhs money to stay alive, obese people (its not an illness) and mentally ill should be euthanized theres no need for them beside having tax payers care for them ... people on benifits (the ones that no lives just take free money..... this includes women that have kids for the sole purpose of getting a house) their counting on us guys!. they need our money so they can dose around for free kill them all ffs their making our lives shit cause none of the money is going anywhere but to them... obese people cost the nhs litterally billions its sick kill them all

[Anonymous No.2170199]

>>2170069
>go fuck yourself
>op has IQ below 60

reported

[Anonymous No.2170202]

Luna has traits of Autism, putting her IQ a little lower than average. Are we going to stop her from mating?

[OP No.2170210]

>>2170100
I agree. This is just one part of my idea of creating a better society.

>>2170089
Killing is unethical. What I am proposing is a form of family planning. Much more ethical.

>>2170088
You must learn very quickly.

>>2170112
I agree. But in some sense, their poor parenting is a reflection of their level of intelligence. Of course, this liberal eugenics plan also incorporates better health education in schools.

[Anonymous No.2170211]

>>2169964
wtf am i reading?

Most retarded thing ive ever witnessed on /sci/, even the troll physics surpasses this.

IQ tests are 2 Dimentional, they leave alot of factors out, and judging people from an IQ test is just retarded in general also.

Op must have taken an online IQ test, sit around thinking all day about fixing the flaws in society and conclude that people with the same online IQ as him are worthy to live.

What makes you think that a bunch of lazy high IQ domains will build your perfect society? il leave you with a quote:
"isnt it fortunate for leaders that men do not think" - Adolf hitler

If men DID think, then your society would fall apart under 200 different rulers. Have Fun :)

[Anonymous No.2170217]

>1. 2 child policy for all. This will stabilize the population and prevent the less intelligent from multiplying like rabbits.

Lol, you lost me on step one.

It's not possible to enforce this rule without a pretty brutal and illiberal totalitarian system. Same idea as China's one child policy. The shit that goes down in China enforcing this policy is not very nice.

[OP No.2170233]

>>2170115
There is no high IQ gene, but there is definitely the characteristic of intelligence which can be graded, which is what this plan does.

>>2170184
This ain't Action T4, bro. Ethical eugenics.

>>2170202
Jesus Christ do you people not read? People are not PROHIBITED from reproducing. They are simply LIMITED to 2 CHILDREN, unless they can be classified as higher than average in intelligence.

[Anonymous No.2170235]

>>2170211
read the thread. OP said that IQ was just an example. in actuality there would be a much better way to test inteligence

[Anonymous No.2170248]

>>2170210

You must not have read the part where I mention whether or not the parent has TIME to include those enrichment activities.
If you're working 2-3 jobs, (because let's face it, the government does not have the money to bring everyone well enough above the poverty line to where people would only need to work 1 minimum wage job), and are also a single parent, then you really do not have the time to spend on enriching your students education outside of school.

[Anonymous No.2170253]

>>2169988
please tell me your first name, i'll take your post as a quote

[Anonymous No.2170255]

>>2169964
you are trolling right? this was already attempted. learn2history

[Anonymous No.2170259]

>>2170093
No shit

[Anonymous No.2170268]

>>2170184

I think we should add people who struggle with grammar to that list.

[Anonymous No.2170269]

>>2170233
IQ isn't hereditary fucking retard, two retarded parents could have a few averages and an Einstein genius child that could change the world. Limiting child birth like in china is like preventing genius. Europe has invented the best, 54% of world changing inventions (study taken from japan) come from England alone. Maybe you should research their methods. and perhaps that its culture and religion that fortifies imaginative thinking and innovation. Do some research instead of embarrassing your ass on the wrong board

[Anonymous No.2170270]

>>2170053
it is true, like if there were no light there wouldnt be nothing to compare and say something is brighter

[Anonymous No.2170272]

>>2170253

Rachel.

But I have to be honest, I got that quote off wikipedia as the description for the setting of "The Marching Morons" which is a science fiction story from 1951 written by Cyril M. Kornbluth.
What I was going for was, with the movie Idiocracy fairly popular and with a fairly similar storyline, that people always seem to think that stupid people are "breeding" too quickly and are going to lead to societies collapse by outpacing the "breeding" of more intelligent people.

[Anonymous No.2170273]

>>2170116
>Did you even read my post? Based on existing trends, low skill jobs will be replaced by machines.

Thats fucking adorable. And generalizing.

[Anonymous No.2170277]

>>2170273

Everything OP is suggesting has been the topic for a cold war era science fiction novel.

[OP No.2170287]

>>2170273
Oh really? I think you are shortsighted. Tell a guy 30 years ago he'd have all the information in the world at his fingertips without leaving his house, and he'd say the same. I suppose all the billions invested in robotics is for nothing.

>>2170269
>>IQ isn't hereditary
Ummm... I would have to disagree.

>>2170255
And? Think about why it ended? Did it ever "fail"? Wasn't it simply because Nazi Germany lost WWII and everything they did was blacklisted as unethical?

[Anonymous No.2170288]

Well MY IQ is 187, so you can all just shut up

BAZINGA!

[Anonymous No.2170289]

>>2170268
we should add people who question the truth

[Anonymous No.2170295]

>>2170270
Are you really that dumb? I don't think you are, I think you're trolling, but I'll be trolled because yeah, I'm mad.

THERE WOULD STILL BE PEOPLE WHO WERE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, DUMBER THAN OTHERS. EVEN IF THOSE PEOPLE WERE SMARTER THAN TODAYS AVERAGE, THE ENTIRETY OF THE POPULATION WOULD SHIFT TOWARD HIGHER IQS AND THUS THEY WOULD BE ON THE LOWER END OF THE SPECTRUM, AGAIN, EVEN IF THEY WOULD BE SMART COMPARED TO TODAYS PEOPLE.

Fuck.

[OP No.2170300]

>>2170272
This is not my line of thinking at all. But if you want to think that, that's fine. I haven't even watched Idiocracy yet, and it's still on my to do list.

[Anonymous No.2170303]

>>2170268
so most scientists then

i think we should add bullshitter spagtards who think they own language

[Anonymous No.2170314]

>>2170303

Good luck finding a scientist that confuses their and they're.

[OP No.2170316]

>>2170269
I can assure you that of those amazing 54%, fewer are likely to have been developed by people with low intelligence. I think you are embarrassing yourself by suggesting that intelligence is not hereditary. I don't think evolution would be possible if traits were not hereditary.

[Anonymous No.2170317]

>>2170303
>>2170289
LOL

[Anonymous No.2170320]

IQ is environmental not hereditary.

Instead of killing off stupid children, you should just abduct them and educate them properly.

[Anonymous No.2170330]

Genetic engineering is the on way to go. It eases both parties. Solve problems don't kill them.

[OP No.2170336]

ITT: Trolling faggots saying that intelligence is not hereditary.

[Anonymous No.2170353]

>>2170320
>IQ is environmental not hereditary.

Most studies indicate that IQ is around 50-80% inherited.

[Anonymous No.2170360]

>>2170336
In terms of intelligence, nurture>nature.

Out of all the idiots I've met in my life, half of them are not stupid but just lazy.

[Anonymous No.2170364]

>>2170300

Well, when you do watch it, keep in mind that it's not the first time people have thought this way, and it has an inherent flaw.

>>2170316
Also, intelligence isn't 100% hereditary, and probably isn't even more than 50% hereditary. It has to be at least partly hereditary, but there are a vast number of things that go into being intelligent.
For example, it depends on how you define intelligence. "Book-learnin"? applications of what you learned in school? Problem solving? Ability to solve extraordinarily complex math problems without a calculator or computer?
It depends somewhat on "brain power" capacity, which may be fairly hereditary. But likewise, this can also be heavily affected by diet in the womb, and diet as a child.
It also depends on how much of that capacity is actually being utilized by the person.

What I say is that, so long as you're actively trying to better yourself or the situation for your children and their children and their children etc., IQ is fairly irrelevant. You don't need a high IQ to be able to try. You don't need a high IQ to be able to contribute.

[OP No.2170365]

Why does everyone think eugenics means killing living people?

Unrelated, but GATTACA is a superb film dealing with liberal eugenics.

[Anonymous No.2170373]

>>2170330

Yeah, until you genetically engineer out a portion of the human population with a rare mutation which would allow them to survive a future rediculously fast-evolving and strong virus that wipes out everyone without that mutation.
Sounds like a pretty good idea right up until then.
And that is the same problem eugenics has.

[Anonymous No.2170375]

>>2170353
Thats because they are raised in a different environment than people who's parents have higher I.Q.

Take siblings of both intelligent and stupid parents and raise them together in a environment away from there family. And you will get a lesser percentage.

[Anonymous No.2170380]

>most Anon actively participating in this thread believe IQ to be mostly environmental

I wish mods would temporarily ban people for being flat out wrong and habitually projecting their stupid fucking thoughts as some strange social mechanism. Do you guys argue out of ignorance because you're so used to asserting social dominance with your world view that you're willing be be really fucking wrong over and over again?

IQ is estimated to be around 50-80% heritable within the general population. If you say otherwise without a sound argument, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I'm sick of the pseudo-intellectual waffling that I see so oft on this board. Learn to shut up and educate yourself on some relatively simple shit before babbling on.

[Anonymous No.2170390]

>>2170365

It also deals with how liberal eugenics are a false way to go.
Clearly, the non-engineered child was driven, and regardless of his IQ being lower and his body being less "healthy", he still proved to be a very intelligent person who was capable of going to space.

[Anonymous No.2170404]

>>2170380
See
>>2170375

[Anonymous No.2170405]

>>2170380

>sick of the pseudo-intellectual waffling
>psychology

[Anonymous No.2170411]

>>2170390
IRL they don't let people with heart conditions become astronauts anyway.

[OP No.2170412]

>>2170360
I'm pretty lazy myself, though I wouldn't call myself intelligent. Better lazy but intelligent than lazy and dumb.

>>2170364
I will keep that in mind when I watch it.

[Anonymous No.2170414]

>>2170404
>>2170404

Read my fucking post again. I said "within the general population".

Why are you guys so vigilant in defending an argument that has no evidence? Are you black or something?

[Anonymous No.2170419]

>>2170373
wat.

As I understand it, organisms evolve to cope with their surroundings, so I don't really see how so incredibly potent new super virus of the future could have been prevented by genes we have had for millions of years.

[Anonymous No.2170427]

>>2170375
>Take siblings of both intelligent and stupid parents and raise them together in a environment away from there family. And you will get a lesser percentage.

I'm pretty sure most twin studies also indicate a high degree of inheritability for IQ.

[Anonymous No.2170432]

>>2170411
He didn't have a heart condition.
He had the potential to have a heart condition.
Didn't you watch the movie?

[Anonymous No.2170440]

>>2170414
That is because EVERY SINGLE PERSON within a population is raised in a different environment than another (unless they are siblings). Not everyone has the same parents, not everyone has the same standard of education.

Lower class people don't have the same level of Social support as the Upper Class, they don't have the same learning equipment, accessibilty to education, ect. I'm not saying that Intelligence is entirely determent by the Environment the individual was raised in. I'm saying that the percentage given is wrong because it doesn't take the Environmental effect into account.

[Anonymous No.2170444]

Just kill everyone who do a IQ test and kill who refuse to do too. No society, no problem.

[Anonymous No.2170447]

I have 134 IQ, but I feel sufficiently dumb to die. Can you please kill me?

[Anonymous No.2170450]

>>2170419

Well, for example, HIV. There is evidence that some people more immune to being able to contract it, and they have a particular gene mutation which does not exist in anyone else. (Look it up.) In a world without condoms, this would be a gigantic bonus.

[Anonymous No.2170452]

>>2170427
>>2170427

He's referring to polar opposite environment.

You know, crack-head niggers fighting and beating on their "white ass bitch nigguh child" in contrast to a 200k annual income family with gifted-intellect parents.

[Anonymous No.2170456]

>>2170444

I like the way this man thinks.

[Anonymous No.2170461]

ah I see. cool stuff. I'll look that up.

[Anonymous No.2170473]

>1. 2 child policy for all. This will stabilize the population and prevent the less intelligent from multiplying like rabbits.

I want to have three children.

[Anonymous No.2170482]

>>2170287
wasnt talkin about nazi germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

scroll down to United States

[Anonymous No.2170484]

>>2170473

And I want a human habitat on Mars. Your point?

[OP No.2170499]

>>2170473
If you and your partner's intelligence is above average, go for it. You'll get paid to have more kids than 2 as well.

>>2170482
Nobody would be sterilized. If they break the law, they will only suffer financial penalties, and maybe be forced to attend a family planning course.

[OP No.2170501]

>>2170499
*are above average

[Anonymous No.2170503]

Let's pretend, for a moment, that IQ is 80% hereditary, the maximum found limit in studies.
That still leaves 20% to the environment.
So, how does this translate directly into IQ points? 20% can potentially hold a lot of sway.

[Anonymous No.2170508]

>>2170503

Let's pretend for a moment that IQ is meaningful.

...

Okay, now let's go back to being rational men.

[Anonymous No.2170513]

>>2170508

Reasons I love /sci/.

[Anonymous No.2170514]

>>2170508
>IQ is not meaningful

[Anonymous No.2170526]

It's the future, we cheaply cybernetically enhance the brain power of the populace. DUH.

[Anonymous No.2170537]

>>2170514
You're just looking at an abstraction, which is the correlation between a series of tests that have not been demonstrated to mean anything.

[Anonymous No.2170538]

>>2170514
Uh-oh.
Social sciences rated just as high as natural sciences.

inb4 shitstorm.

[Anonymous No.2170547]

>>2170514

Correlations are fun. But you'll excuse me if I ask for something stronger from an alleged science.

[Anonymous No.2170557]

>>2170508
>>2170508

The intercorrelations between the tests and subtests are strong enough to assume IQ tests are measuring something relevant and effectively measure intellectual capacity in a large population.

Though, the correlations are weak enough for there to certainly be very relevant score disparity. They also aren't very accurate in diagnosing learning disorders and low-tier mental retardation.

I've said this multiple times and I'll reiterate once again. IQ tests are valid statistical tools, but not accurate for self assessment. You're an ignorant imbecile if you view them as "meaningless".

[Anonymous No.2170563]

>>2170547

Clearly, we need more people to be pirates.

[Anonymous No.2170589]

>>2170547

[OP No.2170592]

>>2170547
Exaggerating an example does not make a point. Pirates cannot be logically correlated with temperature. IQ and occupation can be reasonably correlated because occupations require varying levels of skill, which require varying levels of intelligence to master.

[Anonymous No.2170607]

>>2170592
Currently my penis size is experiencing a positive correlation with my age.

[Anonymous No.2170615]

>>2170592

> Pirates cannot be logically correlated with temperature

That's EXACTLY the point. An IQ test is in no way meaningful. Hell, it doesn't even require you to show your working.

[Anonymous No.2170626]

>>2169964
>Implying IQ tests are objective.
>Implying IQ is hereditary and not largely environmental.
>Implying IQ is a quantitative measure of success and well being.

[Anonymous No.2170630]

>>2170615
>Pirates cannot be logically correlated with temperature

Notwithstanding the stupid data points if you looked at the x-axis, it certainly can. This is what's wrong with IQ's g: correlation itself is not evidence of a "something" behind the correlation.

[Anonymous No.2170636]

>>2170547
>>2170547

>priatesarecool.jpg

Lol, nice graph.

The issue with your logic is that the cause of the correlations are self-evident.

It's like correlating anger levels to violence.

Rainfall to grass growth.

They may not be correlated, but a rational mind wouldn't assume otherwise. Perhaps some further investigation would reinforce the predicated causation, but you can't be indifferent towards obvious trends.

IQ is also correlated with measures of executive functions and neurological assessments of predicted brain functionality (the correlations aren't huge, but nonetheless, are statistically relevant).

[OP No.2170639]

>>2170615
How is it not? Higher IQ individuals are indeed more talented in certain respects? While IQ does not MEASURE INTELLIGENCE, there is no doubt that it is strongly correlated with intelligence.

[Anonymous No.2170645]

>>2170636
>>2170636

>They may not be correlated

I meant "there may not be a direct cause and effect relationship".

Sorry if that was confusing.

[Anonymous No.2170653]

Does her tshirt say "sinful kitten"? If you couldn't tell she was a dumb bitch looking at the picture you might be one yourself.

[Anonymous No.2170670]

Is it bad that I want to make low-IQ babies with the girl in OP's pic?

[Anonymous No.2170674]

>>2170626
>>2170626

Leave /sci/ until you gain a habit of knowing things before you produce a hollow argument.

[OP No.2170684]

Let's look at this thread.

>>2166971

The characteristics of higher IQ individuals is clearly described. Note the descriptions of "faster processing". These people may understand concepts faster, may develop new concepts faster and may be more creative.

How are these not things that society should strive to bring to each individual?

[OP No.2170693]

>>2170670
No, it's not as long as you keep it to 2 kids. Otherwise, hope you've got a good job. You're gonna need to pay up.

[Anonymous No.2170703]

>>2170684
>>2170684

That thread was a terrible.

Nobody in the entire thing knew anything about psychometric intelligence tests.

[OP No.2170713]

>>2170703
Was one of my points wrong?

[Anonymous No.2170715]

>>2170639

Again, correlation. Where is the logical connection? We have a test written by a psychologist (which in itself is damning enough) asking pretty meaningless questions that can at times be interpreted in more than one way. It so happens that people who you deem successful (and a fair portion of people whom you do not) get good grades on this test.

Well, it so happens that pirate numbers decreased just as global warming took off.

[Anonymous No.2170731]

Why /sci/ gets its daily IQ/race/eugenics thread, and also why it will always be a nauseating shithole:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f72/

[Anonymous No.2170734]

>>2170715
>>2170715

Way to coincidently divert your attention from an argument that has already refuted your vacuous bullshit. >>2170636


Also, you don't understand what IQ tests are composed of and how they assess cognitive function.

[Anonymous No.2170741]

Intelligence can't be fully represented by IQ.

[Anonymous No.2170749]

>>2170731
>>2170731

You do realize there are obvious innate intelligence differences between human populations?

A professor of genetics at the University of Chicago was attacked by the media for unveiling evidence in his research that various human populations had potential disparity in brain evolution.

[OP No.2170755]

>>2170731
This thread was nothing like that (luckily). And I explicitly said that I do not approve of racially oriented eugenics.

[Anonymous No.2170758]

>>2169964
I think my IQ dropped just from reading something so retarded.

Your entire claim rests on the validity of the IQ test, which is neither a very reliable or consistent measurement tool.

[Anonymous No.2170770]

>>2170674
>I know I'm wrong, but leave me alone.