7,x billion people and 50% are idiots

a reply to: Discotech

You can join Mensa if you score better than 98 percent of the population on a (Mensa) recognised IQ test. Please note that the IQ number itself is meaningless: IQ tests may have different scales and measure different aspects of IQ. So, it is possible to score say 130 on one test, 140 on the next, and 120 on yet another. So, you may or may not qualify with an IQ of 130.

Also note that IQ can be compared to the engine power of a car. We all think that's important. But a big engine is useless if you don't have sufficienty large wheels with sufficient grip. And even if you have: you should still have a notion about where you want your car to go, and if you are in the middle of a swamp, neither will help you much. Very intelligent people often don't have a clue where they want to go: they can actually achieve anything they want and almost all choices are challenging - what to choose?

Most successful people often have less impressive engines (though sufficient ones), but have large wheels with good grip and a very good notion where they want to steer their car. And they will get there.

OPs notion that you can raise the planet's "average IQ" by disallowing "dumb" people to procreate is nonsensical: it's not like very intelligent people can't have stupid kids, or stupid folks can't have very intelligent children. It's a bit like two parents, both with brown eyes, who get a child with blue eyes - because some ancestor had blue eyes. And again: we don't need more intelligence - we need a better sense of where we want to go and go there.

a reply to: Peeple

This is easily the dumbest and most ill thought out OP that I've ever read on ATS, so congratulations for that.

You think a high IQ score is some kind of marker for a decent human being? Adolf Hitler had an IQ way above 120, so this makes him worth enough to reproduce in your eyes does it? On the other hand I'm sure people like Mother Teresa would score lower down this scale, but I know who I would rather be in the company of.

Intelligence is worth very little when it's coupled with an ignorant mind. Decency, in my opinion is the most important trait to look for in a person, and since you seem to have very little of it perhaps you could do us a favour and take some of your own advice.

a reply to: Peeple

Rubbish.

Two centuries ago women were using lead based foundation as makeup and a wake was held because the physicians at the time didn't know if a person was dead or not.

IQ tests are not the period at the end of a sentence when it comes to measuring intelligence.

www.free-iqtest.net...

I didn't cheat and came up with all the questions using my brain only. However I did guess on some of the math questions - I hate math, with a passion.

Something tells me that this test isn't that accurate and I'm not nearly that smart, though.

This explains why we are collectively getting dumber:

a reply to: Gazrok

A world of Clevons....

a reply to: Peeple

Good topic however, two situational problems most forget when talking about such. Jobs today only require specific fields or needs, they do not need you to be good in all aspects and because people know this, once people begin work that is it. No longer the need to learn as most people that start work somewhere they somewhat are happy with, they stick at it and do not persue anything else. With that and that alone, people are not becoming more stupid but becoming less motivated to become more intelligent. Knowledge is power and all ...

The sad thing is, while those of us are busy with work, studies or just trying to create the next big thing there is many many in fact ( to many ) that do nothing and live of the state or just do not do anything anyway and it is those people sadly that get time to breed and then it is those wastes of time that produce the majority of endless idiotic people we see today. While those with high IQ are not producing at all.

I said that already a few pages ago, but okay for all of you again:

The IQ test was simply the first that came up when I googled it. And it is not what I was talking about.

Since nobody seems to get it, I explain what I meant:

First what term did I use, the "homo oeconomicus":wiki

In economics, homo economicus, or economic man, is the concept in many economic theories portraying humans as consistently rational and narrowly self-interested agents who usually pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally. Generally, homo economicus attempts to maximize utility as a consumer and profit as a producer.

Then I made a clear reference to the mobilephone. Why?
Because it makes you and me a package of sellable and buyable data. Think about targeting ads, face expression reading, DNA sequencing as part of "health care" and you will find yourself to be a simulated being, you are not controlling your environment, your environment is controlling you.

What does it have to do with IQ and procreation?
The only hope and the main problem you are for the system is "unexpected behaviour", contradictions to your simulated data-alter-ego. We live in a world where artificial communities are more important than natural ones like for example, you define yourself rather to be fan of XY instead of brother/sister to XY. We are split up individuals controlled by the needs we get fed from collected data about our "goals".

I am sorry if that makes me Hitler in your eyes, but humanity only has a chance if we use the power of contradictional behaviour to burst the algorithms determing our needs. And that needs smart people, people who "play the game" better than the machine. Because it knows that we know it is watching us and we want to destroy it.

Well most of you apparently not, since you seem to never have heard of the homo oeconomicus and the implications before.
So breed your future slaves, if you really didn't hear the bell.
I am sick of most of the answers which don't say anything about me, just show how ignorant, stupid and tranquilised (most of) you are!

Besides that it is not my fault I didn't write the article I referenced, it is a fact that mostly idiots get children.
Where I live now (all women) are some who got jobs, some who go to school and three with nothing going on. And now guess which of them are pregnant...

originally posted by: Peeple
I said that already a few pages ago, but okay for all of you again:

The IQ test was simply the first that came up when I googled it. And it is not what I was talking about.

Since nobody seems to get it, I explain what I meant:

First what term did I use, the "homo oeconomicus":wiki

In economics, homo economicus, or economic man, is the concept in many economic theories portraying humans as consistently rational and narrowly self-interested agents who usually pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally. Generally, homo economicus attempts to maximize utility as a consumer and profit as a producer.

Then I made a clear reference to the mobilephone. Why?
Because it makes you and me a package of sellable and buyable data. Think about targeting ads, face expression reading, DNA sequencing as part of "health care" and you will find yourself to be a simulated being, you are not controlling your environment, your environment is controlling you.

What does it have to do with IQ and procreation?
The only hope and the main problem you are for the system is "unexpected behaviour", contradictions to your simulated data-alter-ego. We live in a world where artificial communities are more important than natural ones like for example, you define yourself rather to be fan of XY instead of brother/sister to XY. We are split up individuals controlled by the needs we get fed from collected data about our "goals".

I am sorry if that makes me Hitler in your eyes, but humanity only has a chance if we use the power of contradictional behaviour to burst the algorithms determing our needs. And that needs smart people, people who "play the game" better than the machine. Because it knows that we know it is watching us and we want to destroy it.

Well most of you apparently not, since you seem to never have heard of the homo oeconomicus and the implications before.
So breed your future slaves, if you really didn't hear the bell.
I am sick of most of the answers which don't say anything about me, just show how ignorant, stupid and tranquilised (most of) you are!

Besides that it is not my fault I didn't write the article I referenced, it is a fact that mostly idiots get children.
Where I live now (all women) are some who got jobs, some who go to school and three with nothing going on. And now guess which of them are pregnant...

I have in all my days never met anyone that has the ability to come across worse than you when that it not what you intend.

Really, I kind of get where you are coming from but you have the ability to make folks angry without even trying.

Even now you did a half decent job of explaining yourself and then fluffed it by saying,

I am sick of most of the answers which don't say anything about me, just show how ignorant, stupid and tranquilised (most of) you are!

That is not going to help your argument one little bit is it?

I despair with you I really do.

a reply to: nonspecific

Oh I didn't mean you just the stupid Hitler comments are pissing me off.
I totally get your concern, with the eugenics stuff and you know I respect you, right?
Besides that it really is a rant and who feels like I am an arrogant piece of work is not that wrong...

a reply to: nonspecific

Good one! No, not a chauffeur. Despite the steep decline in the sale of physical recordings, the music business can still be pretty lucrative. Live shows and merchandising can still net a pretty good income.

I guess it doesn't really take a high IQ to do what I do, but a few families eat well because of it. I kind of contribute, despite no being intelligent enough to live and procreate.

originally posted by: AntisocialAnxiety
a reply to: nonspecific

Good one! No, not a chauffeur. Despite the steep decline in the sale of physical recordings, the music business can still be pretty lucrative. Live shows and merchandising can still net a pretty good income.

I guess it doesn't really take a high IQ to do what I do, but a few families eat well because of it. I kind of contribute, despite no being intelligent enough to live and procreate.

Glad you saw the humour in my post, I am English and we can sometimes be taken the wrong way.

On a more serious note Mercedes are ten a penny, Maserati's however are a little more refined and should never be driven off a cliff unless you want to get famous for all the wrong reasons.

a reply to: Peeple

Trump is using the same social psychology that has been used to subdue the US for decades. He is tapping into aspects of fear that have been implanted in the American psyche through means of MSM as a form of control. It i a dangerous game to play.

a reply to: Peeple

The thing is that IQ measurements have changed. Einstein used to be reported around 200, now he's around 160. The average used to be around 125, now it's closer to 100. I scored a 141 on that test you gave me, but newer and more updated tests usually put me closer to 105-110, which is on the slightly higher end of average, but still average.

a reply to: Peeple

IQ is irrelevant nowaday. Also the typical IQ test was flawed researchers have concluded. There are many types of IQ as well. So what does that even mean? Our IQ is lower than people in history.

emotional intelligence beats iq any day of the week. very intelligent people often lack common sense and people skills

a reply to: Peeple

Oh, I think 14% is lowballing it.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Did the test say anything about narcissists?

a reply to: Brainiac

Are you assuming I'm narcissistic because I gave factual statements?

"7,x billion people and 50% are idiots"

OMG 🤔 That's nearly half...

Å99