Hitler's IQ

[Anonymous No.8725818]

How high was Hitler's IQ?
Surely it must have been over 150 to accomplish as much as he did?

[Anonymous No.8725820]

>>8725818
Everyone who knew the man says he was a genius. Which makes sense considering he came from the gutter and became the leader of a nation. But since he never took a formal test, any speculation is entirely baseless. All we can say with certainty is that he was indeed intelligent.

[Anonymous No.8725880]

>>8725818
Careful, a person that smart would be subject to dismantling their own worldly ambitions. 140 is more safe.

[Anonymous No.8725889]

>>8725880
Hitler did not act on his own ambitions, though

[Anonymous No.8725897]

>>8725818
People overestimate Hitler's intelligence. He was by no means stupid, but there's literally nothing intellectually remarkable about him if you read his biography. Who says that he was a genius is just too lazy to achieve something, so they nurture in themselves the idea that to do that you definitely a genius, disregarding any other factors that might have contributed to his success.

[Anonymous No.8725925]

>>8725818
You don't have to have a high IQ to accomplish a lot. Sometimes you need the opposite.

[Anonymous No.8725932]

>>8725925
Bullshit. You might not agree with him (supposing you even know what he stood for), but there is no instance where having a lower iq puts you at an advantage. Succeeding in politics is definitely not one of those. Even the stupid sock puppets tend to be of above average intelligence.

[Anonymous No.8725938]

>>8725932
>Who was Muhammad Ali
Muhammad Ali didn't know reason and went by emotion. He suffered and hated training, but he still got sacked constantly from his early to middle years because he believed in his emotions. Intelligence would of been irrelevant and possible detrimental to his ambitions.

[Anonymous No.8725941]

>>8725932
His IQ was literally in the 70's.

[Anonymous No.8725944]

>>8725925
Not to mention the #1 problem with high intelligence and the reason we all don't have an IQ of 130+
Highly intelligent people weren't as adaptable for the living environments our ancestors lived in

[Anonymous No.8725947]

>>8725941
>>8725938
Very well. Getting repeatedly punched in the head might be one area where a high IQ would be detrimental to success. Taking over an entire nation is not.

[Anonymous No.8725949]

>>8725941
and he would have done a better job than hitler being german leader
i mean what's the worst he could do

[Anonymous No.8725953]

>>8725944
>iq is selected against
How do you know this? I would postulate the opposite, the mean IQ is only as high as necessary to survive. Things only get selected FOR so long as they provide a tangible benefit.

[Anonymous No.8725957]

>>8725953
Not him but if you look at suicide rates and birth rates among extremely high IQ populations you'll see why.

[Anonymous No.8725961]

>>8725953
Please. Evolution is so precise it pays attention to even the smallest detail. Something as huge as intelligence wouldn't get washed over.
There is a REASON we are at 100 as an average and now 130 despite Mr. Dumbass >>8725947 over here who thinks IQ is an overall contributor to success.

[Anonymous No.8725963]

>>8725957
>extremely high IQ
1.100 is not an extremely high iq
2.birth rates have 0 to do with the iq, but with education
3.the same people had high birth rates 60 years ago, incompatible with a genetic explanation

culture

[Anonymous No.8725965]

>>8725957
Birth rates are currently lower among smart people because it is expensive to raise a child in a capitalist society. In stone age it may have been advantageous to raise (or at least have) as many kids as possible.

[Anonymous No.8725966]

>>8725963
>1.100 is not an extremely high iq
anon said 130+
not all high-IQ individuals are highly educated.

[Anonymous No.8725968]

My argument stands. There is a REASON our average IQ is only 100. Anyone who debates this is just plain ignorant.

[Anonymous No.8725969]

>>8725968
>There is a REASON our average IQ is only 100
because we calibrate the scale by making the average 100.

are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.8725970]

>>8725961
>There is a REASON we are at 100 as an average and now 130
Yeah, the average gets adjusted every few years to adapt to an increasingly smarter population. A person with an IQ of 100 a century ago would be literally retarded today. If we all had what we today understand as 130 IQ, we would still be 100.

[Anonymous No.8725972]

>>8725963
>2.birth rates have 0 to do with the iq, but with education
Does IQ have anything to do with education?
If so then birth rate is related to IQ through education.
If not then why are uneducated parts of the world so low in IQ?

[Anonymous No.8725973]

>>8725968
the iq test was created to have an average of 100 and the results to be normally distributed

[Anonymous No.8725975]

Have you read the incoherent mess that is Mein Kampf? Average /pol/poster could put it together

[Anonymous No.8725976]

>>8725975
Exactly my man
Also if Hitler is so smart then howcome he's dead? Clearly not smart enough to stay alive, and my brother is literally retarded and even he's alive

[Anonymous No.8725977]

>>8725972
>Does IQ have anything to do with education?
hmm
>If not then why are uneducated parts of the world so low in IQ?
hmmm

[Anonymous No.8725978]

>>8725972
IQ is highly inheritable, but does depend on the environment and seems to depend on random variation to a large extent

>>8725973
>>8725970
This picture is for you. Obviously we chose 100. What I'm saying is evolution had million of years to make us smarter than we are. It stopped where it did and had plenty of time to make any adjustments it wanted to.

[Anonymous No.8725980]

>>8725978
>It stopped where it did and had plenty of time to make any adjustments it wanted to.
>he doesn't know about muh Flynn Effect
it's like we have morons discussing intelligence again.

[Anonymous No.8725981]

>>8725961
This is a bullshit argument. The brain consumes resources, like anything else. There is an opportunity cost to intelligence. Not being selected FOR is not the same as being selected AGAINST. In order for a trait to be selected FOR it must provide a statistically meaningful advantage to its carrier. In order for a trait to be selected AGAINST, it must provide a statistically meaningful disadvantage.

Just not being a particular advantage in reproduction is enough for a trait not to evolve, even if it offers benefits in the very long term or group scale.

[Anonymous No.8725982]

>>8725978
>IQ is highly inheritable
even if you choose to believe the (high) figure of 75%(gets thrown around here), it's still just heritability and heritability is not the same as genes

thanks for the picture

[Anonymous No.8725984]

>>8725968
>our average is 100
The global average is in the 90s, I believe. 100 is the rough average for whites.

[Anonymous No.8725986]

>>8725981
this implies a more intelligent brain consumes more resources than a less intelligent one.

assuming basic nutritional needs are met, this is known to be false. Super smart people don't burn more calories thinking than dumb ones do. In fact they often burn less.

[Anonymous No.8725987]

>>8725981
You have not provided any information that logically debunks my post. All you've done is specify what it means to be for or against a trait, which in my mind doesn't matter. What matters is that evolution will choose the optimal outcome with possible some irrelevant traits that aren't influential in reproducing. Intelligence is not one of those irrelevant traits.

[Anonymous No.8725991]

>>8725987
>evolution will choose the optimal outcome
kek

do people actually believe this shit?

[Anonymous No.8725992]

>>8725980
Now this is interesting. However other tests showed that while since the 1900's brains HAVE improved at test taking and other tasks, we've actually decreased by an almost equal amount at other tasks. Certain types of intelligence are being preferred over others in modern society. Still doesn't change the fact that it took millions of years to get to a person who could invent calculus.

[Anonymous No.8725993]

>>8725975
The only reason Mein Kampf seems like a messy cascade of baseless assertions with subsequent attempts to justify them with muh feels is because it was actually published by the Jews in order to discredit Hitler and his 200 point IQ.

[Anonymous No.8725994]

>>8725991
Yea, it's called the average height use to be 5'7'' 100 years ago

[Anonymous No.8725996]

>>8725992
>Certain types of intelligence are being preferred over others in modern society
only if stupid people breed less often than smart ones.

which is actually the opposite of what happens.

so no. The Flynn Effect is not caused by an adaptive pressure. Most likely it's a case where dealing with technology actually makes people smarter. Or maybe better childhood education. Or nutrition. Or medicine. Or all of the above.

[Anonymous No.8725998]

>>8725996
what is the genetic difference between a white worker and a white scientist

[Anonymous No.8725999]

>>8725994
holy shit you're retarded.

I mean seriously fucking stupid.

Height increased with nutrition and medicine. Better fed populations have always been taller. They just used to be less common.

[Anonymous No.8726000]

>>8725982
>heritability is not the same as genes

Can't tell if retarded or bad at communicating, would you mind expounding on this?

[Anonymous No.8726002]

>>8725996
I heard a while ago that genes will learn emphasis/suppress certain genes more than others in a person's lifetime. Moreover what the parent emphasises or suppresses is passed onto their children. If people are using their SMART genes and suppressing their STUPID genes in modern society it would potentially explain the Flynn effect.

[Anonymous No.8726004]

>>8725999
>>8726000
Godly trips

[Anonymous No.8726005]

>>8726002
yes, it could be epigenetic. But if that were the case smart people would have smarter children while people that didn't use their brains would have dumber ones.

this also isn't the case, smart people often have dumber kids and vice-versa. Meanwhile entire populations are getting smarter no matter how much thinking they do.

[Anonymous No.8726007]

>>8726000
professions are heritable for example, you can imagine tons of shit - being good at chess could be another example: "dad taught me"

just because you separate two twins at birth doesn't mean their environments are all that different in terms of school, nutrition, societal expectations
there's weird things happening, like lower ses people have lower heritability, heritability goes up and down through life of a person

[Anonymous No.8726009]

>>8726005
Okay, now this reeks of bullshit
>Meanwhile entire populations are getting smarter no matter how much thinking they do
Sauce please?

>smart people often have dumber kids and vice-versa
No shit Sherlock. Reproduction has always had a lot of variation in it.

[Anonymous No.8726011]

>>8726007
So, as an example, is faggotry heritable?

[Anonymous No.8726012]

>>8726009
>this reeks of bullshit
it is literally what we're discussing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

[Anonymous No.8726017]

>>8725818
An overall increase in intelligence is not the same as an experiment being conducted on a nationwide level stating intelligence is increasing regardless of how much thinking is done

[Anonymous No.8726018]

>>8726012
>>8726017

[Anonymous No.8726022]

>>8726017
true, but there is no metric for how much thinking is done,

and idiots such as yourself are ample evidence that modern humans don't spend more time thinking than your average American from 1917. If anything people have gotten much lazier intellectually, if school tests are any indication.

[Anonymous No.8726027]

>>8726022
Have you seen how stupid people use to act in the 1940's? Trust me, we're better than them. They were shallow as a pond

[Anonymous No.8726028]

>>8725818

I know nuzing!

[Anonymous No.8726029]

>>8725818
probably not very high, he wanted to be an artist... if you heard that from some random anon you would go on about how much of a brainlet he was but I guess you can't insult the god emperor
Hitler was good at fantasizing and convincing others to work for his fantasies, even if his fantasies were unrealistic and non nonsensical

[Anonymous No.8726030]

>>8726022
>top 25 in Putnam
>idiot
Feels good senpai

[Anonymous No.8726031]

>>8726030
idiot savants are a thing.

[Anonymous No.8726033]

>11 posters

[Anonymous No.8726036]

>>8725932

What was he about?

[Anonymous No.8726042]

>>8725818
Reminder that Germany was incredibly succesful in WW2 era DESPITE Hitler, not thanks to him
Hitler is the only reason Germany isn't the superpower in the modern world today

[Anonymous No.8726043]

>>8726036
genocide

[Anonymous No.8726049]

>>8726043

The madman, he has to be stopped!

[Anonymous No.8726051]

>>8726042
>germany wasn't a collapsing shithole before hitler took over
>stalin wasn't building his armies for an invasion of western europe

For all your posturing, you know less about history than the average /pol/ack

[Anonymous No.8726052]

Mine is over 150 and I'm lazy as fuck, though I do masked a lot of money doing fuck all, and I always get what I want without trying too hard.

[Anonymous No.8726054]

>>8726036
He states it quite clearly in his book. It does help to understand the time period, of course. And maybe have a a bit of familiarity with concepts such as group selection.

[Anonymous No.8726056]

>>8725880
I'm 150 and have no ambition at all, though I do make a lot of money doing fuck all. I knew a guy who was 180. Smartest fucking guy ever. He kept talking about killing himself and had to go on meds. It's probably better to be stupid because then you are only worried about pussy and cars.

[Anonymous No.8726059]

>>8726054

What was it really about though, I don't understand...

[Anonymous No.8726093]

>>8725818
>Getting burned in some backyard after laying waste to your country
>generally remembered as a prime example of why racism has no place in politics by non-/pol/tards.
Hm, don't see much accomplished there.