Everyone with an IQ Under 110 Should be Sterilized

[try2beme]

...


Valuing IQ to this extent is how you know the difference between "euthanasia" and 'sterilization'





Speak for yourself.

You can't even tell who's more autistic for having such a shit take yourself...


Jfl is that really all you value them for?

Imagine pretending to give [so little of] a shit about low IQ people that the best argument you can bother coming up with for why they ought to exist is just so they can clean the shit from your toilet.

Bruh this shit writes itself holy fuck.

Bro wants a world full of high iq sigma entrepreneurs with bateman pfps

 

[chaddyboi66]

I thought its synonym

It isn't.

Im arguing for low iq people cuz iq doesnt matter unless youre mentally crippled

What exactly are you arguing for them?

I'm not necessarily arguing anything against them myself, only that they shouldn't be allowed to have children so that the next generation is high IQ.

The real word is too practical for this incel cope and mental masturbation

I'm arguing for a [we] should rather than a could [do this].

It's perfectly feasible the same way certain groups were able to increase their average height in the last century, especially if enough public support is garnered for it.

Bro wants a world full of high iq sigma entrepreneurs with bateman pfps

It's not Bateman.

 

[chaddyboi66]

Cope short and ugly people should be ... instead

You need to think further ahead.

If the next generation was high IQ they'd figure that out themselves, but the current low IQ sheeple normie-pleb masses would never get on board with the sterilization/"etc..." of short and ugly people.

This idea should have enough support to get some normies on board first as it'd be for the net benefit of society, and it'd also ensure the next generation that comes as a result of it will be able to make it happen.

 

[Aspiemogger]

Anybody got free IQ test?

 

[Deleted member 31497]

You need to think further ahead.

If the next generation was high IQ they'd figure that out themselves, but the current low IQ sheeple normie-pleb masses would never get on board with the sterilization/"etc..." of short and ugly people.

This idea should have enough support to get some normies on board first as it'd be for the net benefit of society, and it'd also ensure the next generation that comes as a result of it will be able to make it happen.

no iq for ur face

 

[Stackz]

All niggers would suffice

Bro I have an iq of 163 and I'm a math genius and know two programming languages what are you talking about niggas are not dumb were the same as whites it's just most of us don't get proper nutrition

 

[reptiles]

It'd be for the benefit of Humanity.

East Asians are incredibly smart as a whole due to having a large amount of people with an IQ of over 120-130; this larger number of high IQ people is easy to find in a population when your average IQ is around 110.

Pushing the average IQ of the global population to above the same figure [110] would also lead to an increase in the amount of very high [120-130] IQ people within a generation or two, as the only people who will breed are those passing on the genes for high intelligence.

The next generation's society would look so much better being full of so many smart people.

@chaddyboi66 very based and accurate take the elites don't want eugenics as it places us in there level hence they go full soy

 

[reptiles]

no iq for ur face

It would be both all it would take is 2 to 3 gens

 

[chaddyboi66]

All niggers would suffice

Bro I have an iq of 163 and I'm a math genius and know two programming languages what are you talking about [*most] niggas are not dumb

You do know by using yourself as an [anecdotal] example he can always just say you're cherrypickinig right?

He'll then probably bring up studies testing for the difference in IQ between whites and blacks, and then two of you will go back and forth over whether education and/or other environmental factors play into the discrepancy.

From there debate will shift toward using studies specifically looking for how educated blacks perform vs uneducated whites and vice versa, and then you both will probably continue scouring research databases for studies proving both your respective points again etc. etc...

I've seen this same debate go down this very same path over and over again more times than I bother to remember counting at this point, so at least make it interesting once he sees your reply and you both finally go at it.

 

[Deleted member 25056]

I believe the approach to eugenics should be far less confrontational when considering a very vast portion of the population. We should focus instead on developing crispr to the point where it’s cheap and accessible for people to have “designer” babies. Abortion will be made mandatory for congenital defects such as downs. Then we could potentially create incredible incentives for having kids, especially financial. At last after both of these conditions are met the third world and ethnic nations will be sterilized through secretive means which could be chalked up to pollution. At the end the most populated countries will be the white ones, beginning a new age where man will be thrust into the cosmos.

 

[chaddyboi66]

I believe the approach to eugenics should be far less confrontational when considering a very vast portion of the population. We should focus instead on developing crispr to the point where it’s cheap and accessible for people to have “designer” babies. Abortion will be made mandatory for congenital defects such as downs. Then we could potentially create incredible incentives for having kids, especially financial. At last after both of these conditions are met the third world and ethnic nations will be sterilized through secretive means which could be chalked up to pollution.

I like this approach and also thought about using gene editing myself, though I'd still caution against it until it's mostly safe for the population it'll be used on. I intend for the next generation of high IQ people to lead Humanity into prosperity and it's first true golden age, so there mustn't be any complications in regard to potential defects from procedure in order to ensure this.

Sterilization of the low IQ also wouldn't go unnoticed by the public [at least for long anyway]; that's why I planned on using an effective propaganda campaign centered around apologetics for positive eugenics in order to convince the public it was ultimately for the greater good.

Most support will probably stem from the desire to eradicate congenital defects, and of course to prevent suffering of the children born with horrible genetic conditions. We could also even throw in a few more [new] cases of children suing their parents for still choosing to procreate all the while knowing their child would probably end up being born with a severe heritable genetic disorder.

Once enough public support had been garnered we could then move on to the next stage, which would probably involve what you mentioned in that last part only this time the public would actively be in favour of it themselves.

I honestly don't think this is that unrealistic considering how easily so many were already on board with lockdowns and mandates during the pandemic. The elites can convince the feeble minded masses of almost anything so long as they're willing to throw enough [worthless fiat] money at trying to convince them, which they ultimately can considering how virtually all money comes from them.

Incentives for having more [high IQ] children would need to be state sponsored in high IQ nations currently experiencing population decline, and proper [or really just "regular"] birth control measures would need to be put in place for any low IQ nations that are breeding too much not that unlike what you said.

All in all though, I'd say both of our plans seem quite similar and could maybe actually work hand in hand behind the scenes.

Granted, most of this of course rely on the elites being okay with it, or at the very least not giving enough of a shit about it to get in the way.

 

[Stackz]

You do know by using yourself as an [anecdotal] example he can always just say you're cherrypickinig right?

He'll then probably bring up studies testing for the difference in IQ between whites and blacks, and then two of you will go back and forth over whether education and/or other environmental factors play into the discrepancy.

From there debate will shift toward using studies specifically looking for how educated blacks perform vs uneducated whites and vice versa, and then you both will probably continue scouring research databases for studies proving both your respective points again etc. etc...

I've seen this same debate go down this very same path over and over again more times than I bother to remember counting at this point, so at least make it interesting once he sees your reply and you both finally go at it.

I know and predicted it would go down that path

 

[Part-Time Chad]

We need people with lower I.Q.'s to serve those with higher ones. In other words, society needs stratification.

 

[chaddyboi66]

A bunch of midwits won't solve anything. Plus, 110 isn't that high. There's a negligible difference between 100 and 110. You couldn't even notice it during a conversation, for example. There's also something called regression to the mean. Each generation tends to resemble the previous ones. That's why genius people have children that are slightly above the average but below their parents in IQ. So generation after generation IQ would decrease until it reached that of the average (100).

Make no mistake I have no regard for people with an IQ of 100 any more or less than I do of anyone else below them.

I seek to set the new baseline minimum for IQ to start at 110, and the only purpose of this is to "wipe the slate clean" so to speak. This means there won't be anyone with an IQ below this point to bring down the IQ of children born in the next generation.

This alone would be good enough as it removes most of the troublesome parts of Humanity [sub 110 IQ "people"] from its gene pool that only tend to bring down the rest. That said, by no means do I intend to stop there at all.

Assuming potential parents aren't forced to only pair up with partners of a roughly equal IQ [at least not yet anyway], at most this regression in IQ would only fall back to the new minimum set of the population all partners are now selected from [110]. This is of course only assuming if IQs tend to continue regressing uninterrupted as you suggest, or if a higher IQ parent [above 110] pairs up with a partner that has an IQ beneath them [at 110 minimum]. Even with that said it isn't a given in and of itself, and not all children of high IQ parents will have an IQ lower than them.

However, with enough breeding of the initial "pure" minimum 110 IQ generation a sizable amount of higher IQ individuals [above 110] can be born for the next generation. Thus the 110 IQ midwits will become the new "low IQ" populace of this generation.

From there the remaining higher IQ populace [above 110] will repeat the process in the next generation with a new baseline being set at 10 points higher [120] from the last. Rinse and repeat [at least until this can be done with gene editing assuming it proves viable].

The initial process of setting a baseline at 110 is only meant to eradicate IQs beneath 110 from the Human race. This way the minimum IQ can continue to be pushed further without interruption from IQs beneath the baseline of the last generation before it.

There's more to life than IQ, by the way.

IQ is everything.

The people who deny the validity of IQ are (SURPRISE) within the same 110-130 range you mentioned. These are the midwits ruining everything. We don't need more of them.

View attachment 2549403

View attachment 2549404



This is you, OP.

I'd rather have a society of 110-130 midwits than one of sub 110 ethnics/retards, though I'll admit it'd be a difficult choice if said midwits were all normies.

Midwit [110-130] normies denying the validity of IQ has no bearing on other people of the same IQ.

It makes no difference if the ones complaining about muh "IQ bad tho" are midwit normies with 110-130 IQs or even Africans/ethnics with IQs below 85; neither's ignorance is reflected onto anyone else but themselves.

Regardless, what you're describing really just sounds like normie problem more than anything else.

 

[NotAMogger]

99% of users here would have their genes end with them.

 

[chaddyboi66]

Well put, not gonna lie. How are we going to do this?

Still working on it but what I was discussing with @lightskinbengali seemed like a decent place to start.


I'll get back to you after I've finished my snus and am done masturbating though [no porn since NNN 2021 tho Srs]


Also...

What anime is this from?

 

[i hear voices]

It'd be for the benefit of Humanity.

East Asians are incredibly smart as a whole due to having a large amount of people with an IQ of over 120-130; this larger number of high IQ people is easy to find in a population when your average IQ is around 110.

Pushing the average IQ of the global population to above the same figure [110] would also lead to an increase in the amount of very high [120-130] IQ people within a generation or two, as the only people who will breed are those passing on the genes for high intelligence.

The next generation's society would look so much better being full of so many smart people.

hope your puzzle solving skills helps you to stop getting cucked by other men

 

[Deleted member 46941]

100 % agree

 

[chaddyboi66]

hope your puzzle solving skills helps you to stop getting cucked by other men

Take off your headphones and you'll probably stop @hearing [the schizo] voices.

Puzzle solved.

 

[ordinarypsycho]

Bro I have an iq of 163 and I'm a math genius and know two programming languages what are you talking about niggas are not dumb were the same as whites it's just most of us don't get proper nutrition

I can assure you, niggers are very dumb.

 

[chaddyboi66]

I know and predicted it would go down that path

Sure you did.

 

[chaddyboi66]

I can assure you, niggers are very dumb.
View attachment 2554023View attachment 2554026View attachment 2554031View attachment 2554032

 

[i hear voices]

Take off your headphones and you'll probably stop @hearing [the schizo] voices.

Puzzle solved.

thats bladee you fucking nigger

 

[mecha72]

It'd be for the benefit of Humanity.

East Asians are incredibly smart as a whole due to having a large amount of people with an IQ of over 120-130; this larger number of high IQ people is easy to find in a population when your average IQ is around 110.

Pushing the average IQ of the global population to above the same figure [110] would also lead to an increase in the amount of very high [120-130] IQ people within a generation or two, as the only people who will breed are those passing on the genes for high intelligence.

The next generation's society would look so much better being full of so many smart people.

Under 100 would be more reasonable a very large chunk of the population falls under 110 something like 70 percent would be absurd

 

[chaddyboi66]

Under 100 would be more reasonable a very large chunk of the population falls under 110 something like 70 percent would be absurd

We could maybe do it in two phases.

Initial phase 1 will sterilize those with an IQ under 100 getting rid of the bulk low IQ, and phase 2 will get rid of remaining the midwits under 110 in the next generation.

The remaining populace with the genes for IQs at 110 will breed as will the overall population of people born with IQs well above 110 in the next generation.

 

[thecel]

I voted no because it’d drastically change the world’s distribution of ethnicities and thus looks.

Ethnicities have different IQ distributions, so setting a cutoff at 110 would make the world population substantially more Asian-dominated. The average maxilla would be flatter as a result of this. The average penis size would be smaller.

I think your IQ eugenic plan would be a good idea if every ethnicity has the same IQs. Then humanity would get more intelligent without looks going down the drain.

 

[chaddyboi66]

I voted no because it’d drastically change the world’s distribution of ethnicities and thus looks.

Ethnicities have different IQ distributions, so setting a cutoff at 110 would make the world population substantially more Asian-dominated. The average maxilla would be flatter as a result of this.

I think your IQ eugenic plan would be a good idea if every ethnicity has the same IQs. Then humanity would get more intelligent without looks going down the drain.

Tough choice ngl

My hope is that the generation of high IQ people would be both blackpilled enough about the importance of looks, and skilled enough to be able to improve said through medicine or tech.

Current generations full of feeble minded low IQ sheeple would never jump on board with any blackpilled ideas related to looks, since they'd buy into and/or virtue signal for the idea of "looks not mattering". They'd only see it from a more basic emotional perspective and immediately reject the idea on its face because they're afraid of it.

 

[mecha72]

We could maybe do it in two phases.

Initial phase 1 will sterilize those with an IQ under 100 getting rid of the bulk low IQ, and phase 2 will get rid of remaining the midwits under 110 in the next generation.

The remaining populace with the genes for IQs at 110 will breed as will the overall population of people born with IQs well above 110 in the next generation.

Would still devestate the human population and I don’t think selecting for only a singular trait is a good thing at all letting Eugene breed because he has muh iq over let’s say john passing on his autism genes

 

[scrunchables]

Hmm, so eliminate anyone with an IQ below 110... 76% of the human population is now gone. Now, 76% of those who remain are below the threshold, since the bell curve adjusted. Rinse and then repeat the process until there is only 1 human left. Then leave them to die, and with them the last of this monkey society.

I'm on board with this

 

[chaddyboi66]

Hmm, so eliminate anyone with an IQ below 110... 76% of the human population is now gone. Now, 76% of those who remain are below the threshold, since the bell curve adjusted. Rinse and then repeat the process until there is only 1 human left. Then leave them to die, and with them the last of this monkey society.

I'm on board with this

No, I said sterilize not euthanize we're not "eliminating" anyone.


The population would be replenished from the remainder of the previous generation(s) each time the process is repeated.

 

[chaddyboi66]

Would still devestate the human population and I don’t think selecting for only a singular trait is a good thing at all letting Eugene breed because he has muh iq over let’s say john passing on his autism genes

In initial numbers sure perhaps, but my intent is that the remaining population [with the genes for an IQ at or above 110] would be heavily incentivized to repopulate.

However, the true goal of this endeavour is simply meant to ensure the genes for low IQ are removed from the rest of the gene pool so that next generation can start off from a "clean slate" baseline of at least 110.

The risk of muh "high IQ = autism" is severely overstated, and I think the number associated with that risk is only 25-30% if I'm not mistaken, not to mention it's typically associated with people that have very high IQs [140+ IQ] which well above 110 IQ threshold I'm initially aiming for.

We can consider selecting for other traits such as good mental/physical health, height, looks, etc. once [as in only after] this next generation of high IQ people are born first.

I only say this [implementing the idea after the next generation of high IQ people are born first] because they'd probably be more inclined to agree with such an idea due to their higher IQs, which would drive them to think further ahead and/or really just more with their heads in general.

The current generation(s) of feeble minded lower IQ sheeple would only look at such ideas from a more basic [primitive] emotional perspective only to reject them on their face out of ignorance and fear like they already [and always] do, and this probably no more apparent than with how already vehemently normies reject the notion of "looks mattering" in any way in its entirety.

 

[chaddyboi66]

We can consider selecting for other traits such as good mental/physical health, height, looks, etc. once [as in only after] this next generation of high IQ people are born first.

This is also without even considering the idea of applying some form of gene editing first, as I'm only referring to regular selective breeding.


Gene editing technology could be used in later generations once we can ensure it's completely safe to implement.

 

[thecel]

In initial numbers sure perhaps, but my intent is that the remaining population [with the genes for an IQ at or above 110] would be heavily incentivized to repopulate.

Then you must select for altruism not only IQ. Selfish high-IQ people would make a shit society.

 

[autistic_tendencies]

Cope high IQs are social retards
Maybe if you want to depopulate the planet hahaha can’t even talk to the opposite sex lmfao

 

[chaddyboi66]

Cope high IQs are social retards
Maybe if you want to depopulate the planet hahaha can’t even talk to the opposite sex lmfao

Cope? Speak for yourself cause that's a pretty broad generalization. The risk of muh "high IQ = aspie" is typically only associated with very high IQ people [140 IQ and above].

The population will be replenished in the next generation with the remainder of what's left from the previous one.

We're only getting rid of the low IQ in the next generation.

 

[thecel]

Cope high IQs are social retards

Idiotic take. They struggle socially because most people have lower IQs than theirs.

Think about it this way: Are we more socially retarded than Homo Erectus? Was Homo Erectus more socially retarded than Homo Habilis? Nope, and their IQs kept on getting higher. If anything, we got socially smarter as we evolved.

 

[autistic_tendencies]

Idiotic take. They struggle socially because most people have lower IQs than theirs.

Think about it this way: Are we more socially retarded than Homo Erectus? Was Homo Erectus more socially retarded than Homo Habilis? Nope, and their IQs kept on getting higher. If anything, we got socially smarter as we evolved.

IQ has no utility outside academia or if you’re trying to rule the world
Better off being a normie

 

[autistic_tendencies]

Cope? Speak for yourself cause that's a pretty broad generalization. The risk of muh "high IQ = aspie" is typically only associated with very high IQ people [140 IQ and above].

The population will be replenished in the next generation with the remainder of what's left from the previous one.

We're only getting rid of the low IQ in the next generation.

High IQs have zero utility , who’s gonna build the roads buildings and infrastructure

 

[chaddyboi66]

IQ has no utility outside academia or if you’re trying to rule the world
Better off being a normie

It affects almost every aspect of your life and determines how successful you'll probably be in said life.

Normies are ultimately left forgotten by the rest of the world and history because they never really amount to anything in their lives.

High IQs have zero utility , who’s gonna build the roads buildings and infrastructure

You need IQ people to design said infrastructure in the first place.

"Menial"/physical labour jobs are only thought of as being "low class" because they don't pay well and people are just lazy now.

Assuming automation doesn't take over most of said menial/low class jobs in the next generation, hard work and contributions to society will be greatly rewarded no matter how menial in nature they may be.

That way no job is undervalued and no one thinks of him or herself as above said job(s). Besides, the "lowest class" jobs could always go to the "lowest IQ" in the next generation too who'd be either at or barely above 110 IQ.

 

[alpha_provider]

All niggers would suffice

 

[autistic_tendencies]

It affects almost every aspect of your life and determines how successful you'll probably be in said life.

Normies are ultimately left forgotten by the rest of the world and history because they never really amount to anything in their lives.


You need IQ people to design said infrastructure in the first place.

"Menial"/physical labour jobs are only thought of as being "low class" because they don't pay well and people are just lazy now.

Assuming automation doesn't take over most of said menial/low class jobs in the next generation, hard work and contributions to society will be greatly rewarded no matter how menial in nature they may be.

That way no job is undervalued and no one thinks of him or herself as above said job(s). Besides, the "lowest class" jobs could always go to the "lowest IQ" in the next generation too who'd be either at or barely above 110 IQ.

I’d say cunning behaviour is more potent than high IQ. The elite today aren’t really that smart just cunning and resourceful . Dark triad matrix

 

[chaddyboi66]

I’d say cunning behaviour is more potent than high IQ. The elite today aren’t really that smart just cunning and resourceful . Dark triad matrix

They often go hand in hand.

Cunning/dark triad mentality combined with a low IQ just leads to crime and jail time, but when combined with a high IQ it usually equals success and/or crime that simply goes unnoticed.

Sure, the elites aren't particularly intelligent but they're not low IQ either or else they'd be too incompetent and their actions would be obvious enough for even normies to start noticing [a lot of normies actually are low IQ compared to them tbh].

Most of their success comes from wealth, power, and connections established long before the current generation of elites ever came into being and they just piggyback off of what was established by their ancestors.

 

[chaddyboi66]

.

 

[chaddyboi66]

When did this even become a react?

 

[chaddyboi66]

Mods, this is in fact a good reason to bump this thread as I've both added new answers to questions raised by users.

I also added a new continuation to this thread via:

Ethnics/Brown People Haven't Really Contributed Much to Humanity - Giga [Racepill] - *Eugenicsmaxxing* {Mass Sterilizations}

The White and Yellow man have propelled mankind forward, while the other races [Ethnics] seem to just leech off them and their technology. I say this as someone who's half "ethnic" himself, though that itself shouldn't even matter in the first place if what I'm saying is true. I don't...

looksmax.org

I just believe everyone should have the right to produce offspring, regardless of their IQ, race etc.

Would you also say that right also applies to parents who willingly choose to have children all the while knowing that said child will be burdened with some genetic deformity?

There is no obligation for anyone to produce let alone those who will only burden society as a whole with a low IQ and the genes to spread it.

---

it is far better to have more low iq people, so you can easily outperform,

Putting aside the fact that you already think so low enough of them as to reduce them to being no more than a self-congratulatory trophy for yourself...

...They serve no benefit to society and having them around only to "outperform" them serves no purpose in and of itself other than to just pat yourself on the back for not being stupid [like them].

The only argument I could ever see you making like this is for the low IQ to somehow do menial jobs, but even then you're only using them just to simply 'have them around' in the first place; it's pointless

This type of thinking only leads to laziness, which itself brings complacency and ultimately stagnation for a society's advancement.

This is how you ensure a society never amounts to greatness.

bro you post on looksmax about sterilizing people , what greatness are you talking about

I see you didn't read past the title when you made your first post and only just now bothered reading the rest.

Sterilization of the low IQ will leave society with only the brightest, most capable, and well-natured people Humanity has to offer.

This will then enable them to flourish and thrive in a society composed of other intelligent people just like them.

The "greatness" I refer to is how a society advances both scientifically and technologically [I say both because they go hand in hand] which comes from high IQ people pioneering it.

---

as someone who is 109 iq i feel like a detriment to society, it would be better for me to marry a down syndrome autist, at least then i would have my iq match.

You shouldn't feel as bad tbh since there are plenty of others far below you, and you probably have the potential to contribute more than they ever will.

However, even with that said you still shouldn't procreate as doing so runs the risk of spreading you genetics, which in turn may cause your descendants in the next generation to also be low IQ.

---

Nope. More like uncivilized people who cannot adapt to modern society and mindless consumers who should be.

Sure, temperament is also important to a society as is critical thinking which itself ties into IQ.

IQ does not mean sane.

IQ means intelligence; that affects how well a person is able to learn.

Many low IQ but sane people and many high iq but insane people.

Anecdotes aside being "sane" isn't inherently tied to being high or low IQ, and whether a low IQ person is "sane" doesn't matter when they're only able contribute very little to civilization's advancement if any at all even.

"Sanity" has very little to do with that.

Sure, temperament is also important to a society as is critical thinking which itself ties into IQ.

Yep but hard working ppl like my parents would be punished. If they have to be "sterilized" for betterment of society. Not every high iq person is cold and willing to sacrifice everything for "society". ...

By "sterilization" I only mean birth control [as in a vasectomy or tubal ligation/salpingectomy] for the next generation of breedable aged people with an IQ of under 110.

I'm not referring to the euthanizing or removal of any people from society at all in case that wasn't already clear enough.

Your parents would already be too old and wouldn't qualify, but even if they were [and did qualify] they'd only be prevented from having children.

It's not "cold-hearted" so much as it is simply pragmatic and ultimately coming from a place of good.

... Maybe if you said high iq ppl are able to keep their "low iq" family members, then sure.

What I offer here is similar in that your family members will be exempt from whatever you think is going to happen to them simply because they're either too old to breed and/or just prevented from having children if they're low IQ.

I haven't referred to the euthanasia of low IQ people in anything I've said.

IQ means intelligence; that affects how well a person is able to learn.

IQ alone means problem solving and pattern recognition which is part of intelligence. ...

IQ involves a lot more than just that.

The reason why it's such a good indicator of someone's intelligence is simply due to being so well rounded in its approach...

First and most important of all perhaps- critical thinking and reasoning ability are both directly accounted for when measuring IQ. These two are probably the best overall measure of one's intelligence.

IQ also involves verbal fluency which itself is an indicator of your communication skills and ability to articulate complex concepts.

Yes, it also involves basic math abilities which itself does play a role in your analytical, reasoning, pattern recognition, and predictive abilities like you mentioned.

Not to mention, it also measures basic memory and visual-spatial processing speed(s) as well which measure your brains "raw power" so to speak, which is important as it's the foundation for how you both retain and recall information. I don't think I need to mention how having a poor memory would be detrimental to one's overall abilities.

IQ is everything.

... There can be low iq creative ppl.

Look, I get where you're coming from, and I also don't deny that [there are creative low IQ people too], but IQ itself is directly related to creativity.

Anecdotes aside being "sane" isn't inherently tied to being high or low IQ, and whether a low IQ person is "sane" doesn't matter when they're only able contribute very little to civilization's advancement if any at all even.

"Sanity" has very little to do with that.

Why not just kill humanity and replace it all with self learning AI machines?

1. I unironically can't even tell if you're only saying that because you genuinely think it fits into this conversation, or if you're just saying that to purposefully make me out to be some rambling "cold-hearted" technocratic/transhumanist psychopath.


2. Regardless, you sound like some normie complaining with another typical regurgitated strawman response of muh "but that's like eugenics n shit bro!" as if to try to say muh "bu- but like you want to genocide all the stupid people?!?!"


3. I never mentioned anything of the sort and you're going off on a very distant and unrelated topic.

In what way does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about?


4. That wouldn't even be Humanity anymore and I only seek to help our species become the best version of itself possible to achieve greatness.

By "sterilization" I only mean birth control [as in a vasectomy or tubal ligation/salpingectomy] for the next generation of breedable aged people with an IQ of under 110. I'm not referring to the euthanizing or removal of any people from society at all in case that wasn't already clear enough. Your parents would already be too old and wouldn't qualify, but even if they were [and did qualify] they'd only be prevented from having children. It's not "cold-hearted" so much as it is simply pragmatic and ultimately coming from a place of good.

Yep, then agreed.

I thought as much.

IQ involves a lot more than just that. ... IQ is everything.

That is different type of IQ.
[ATTACH=full]2549069[/ATTACH] ...

I'm aware of that.

I listed out multiple types in my reply to your post:

IQ involves a lot more than just that.

The reason why it's such a good indicator of someone's intelligence is simply due to being so well rounded in its approach...

First and most important of all perhaps- critical thinking and reasoning ability are both directly accounted for when measuring IQ. These two are probably the best overall measure of one's intelligence.

IQ also involves verbal fluency which itself is an indicator of your communication skills and ability to articulate complex concepts.

Yes, it also involves basic math abilities which itself does play a role in your analytical, reasoning, pattern recognition, and predictive abilities like you mentioned.

Not to mention, it also measures basic memory and visual-spatial processing speed(s) as well which measure your brains "raw power" so to speak, which is important as it's the foundation for how you both retain and recall information. I don't think I need to mention how having a poor memory would be detrimental to one's overall abilities.

IQ is everything.

You were the only one trying to reduce it to just two types [of IQ] in your post:

IQ alone means problem solving and pattern recognition which is part of intelligence. There can be low iq creative ppl.

Which means you're essentially restating my point [as your own].

...Are you saying 110+ on ALL?

That's how it's generally measured to begin with anyway: cumulatively.

So in a matter of speaking, yes; there wouldn't be much of a point if I wasn't.

I disagree that critical thinking is accounted for when measuring IQ.

Okay, disagree then cause...

1. It is [accounted for].

I know have seen way too many gooks (i live in east asia),

2. Anecdotal^

they are high IQ but definitely in learning capability n being able to copy. They lack critical thinking and creativity.

3. I get where you're coming from with this but your point is still rendered moot ['moot' in the US sense as opposed to the standard UK one, since this isn't really up for debate anymore] when considering how applying learned information in-field directly draws upon one's critical thinking ability; also, again anecdotal.

Same with verbal IQ.

4. Speaking thereof...

No offence, but would this be an example of said high verbal IQ: ??

Its mostly low IQ ppl i have seen that have v v good verbal iq.

5.
>Low IQ
>High Verbal IQ

Pick one.

There are cases of high iq ppl with high verbal iq but this has not been the norm in my experience. I know many intelligent ppl but their verbal iq is low but they are deffo high iq because of things they can fix/learn fast/have good thought process, just not v good at presenting it.

6. anecdotes. me

I never mentioned anything of the sort and you're going off on a very distant and unrelated topic. In what way does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about?

I thought u meant to kill off ppl under 110 but that has been cleared so np. I support eugenics, just not killing ppl. I have seen many hard working well-meaning ppl but they are not bright. That is why it triggered me because i thought u meant genocide. But you didn't so nvm the post.

Anyway, moving on...

---

IQ is not a fixed number. It can change throughout someone's life. Also, IQ can be affected by stuff like nutrition in the formative years, and pollution. For example, exposure to lead pollution has been proven to lower people's IQ. To really increase the intelligence of humanity, all these factors have to be taken into account.

Sure, IQ isn't necessarily completely "set in stone" but that "change" you refer to won't actually shift [or rather increase as you're suggesting] by that much.

All the factors you listed would be taken into account eventually, but I'm primarily referring to a population free of said factors [like the West or East Asia for example] as any difference in IQ would just be genetic.

---

I think its more like anyone under 90 IQ. Also IQ is only one metric there are plenty of people with low inhibition that are still not low IQ.

That would be a good start but I want the next generation to start off where East Asian countries already do by default. Think 100 million people where the lowest IQ among all of them would just be 110 and plenty would well past it.

It'd be like building a civilization and already starting out as smart as the Japanese/Koreans or something having intelligence maxxed out by default, but even the IQ of the least intelligent among the flock would never dip under 110 and everyone from simple labourers to businessmen would be intelligent.

IQ is probably the most important metric; "inhibition" matters very little compared to it as intelligence is what drives a society forward.

---

I think the issue isn't low IQ people its our current parastic elite. They would rather turn the world into a brown 80 IQ mess and rule over a broken destroyed people then have a decent society where their rule would be threatened.

A stupid society is easier to manipulate and control after all.

---

Imagine valuing iq to this extent

...

This is severe autism to link such meaningless cope to euthanizing humans

Valuing IQ to this extent is how you know the difference between "euthanasia" and 'sterilization'

Eu·tha·na·sia

---

The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The practice is illegal in most countries.
"she wants the laws around euthanasia to be changed"

Ster·i·li·za·tion

---

Surgery to make a person or animal unable to produce offspring.
"she had three children and had undergone sterilization"

You should be the one killed for such a take

Careful; you [only] speak for yourself here.

You can't even tell who's more autistic for having such a shit take yourself...

Who will even do the low class jobs .

Jfl is that really all you value them for?

Imagine pretending to give [so little of] a shit about low IQ people that the best argument you can bother coming up with for why they ought to exist is just so they can clean the shit from your toilet.

Bruh this shit writes itself holy fuck.

Valuing IQ to this extent is how you know the difference between "euthanasia" and 'sterilization'

I thought its synonym

It isn't; you thought wrong.

Speak for yourself.

Im arguing for low iq people cuz iq doesnt matter unless youre mentally crippled

What exactly are you arguing for them?

I'm not necessarily arguing anything against them myself, only that they shouldn't be allowed to have children so that the next generation is high IQ.

Bruh this shit writes itself holy fuck.

The real word is too practical for this incel cope and mental masturbation

You only call it that simply because you lack the capability to properly grasp the concept yourself.

I'm arguing for a [we] should rather than a could [do this].

It's perfectly feasible the same way certain groups were able to increase their average height in the last century, especially if enough public support is garnered for it.

Bro wants a world full of high iq sigma entrepreneurs with bateman pfps

It's not Bateman.

---

no iq for ur face

Oh but there will be...

Cope short and ugly people should be gassed and exterminated instead

...
You need to think further ahead.

If the next generation was high IQ they'd figure that out themselves, but the current low IQ sheeple normie-pleb masses would never get on board with the sterilization/"etc..." of short and ugly people.

This idea should have enough support to get some normies on board first as it'd be for the net benefit of society, and it'd also ensure the next generation that comes as a result of it will be able to make it happen.

---

I believe the approach to eugenics should be far less confrontational when considering a very vast portion of the population. We should focus instead on developing crispr to the point where it’s cheap and accessible for people to have “designer” babies. Abortion will be made mandatory for congenital defects such as downs. Then we could potentially create incredible incentives for having kids, especially financial. At last after both of these conditions are met the third world and ethnic nations will be sterilized through secretive means which could be chalked up to pollution. At the end the most populated countries will be the white ones, beginning a new age where man will be thrust into the cosmos.

I like this approach and also thought about using gene editing myself, though I'd still caution against it until it's mostly safe for the population it'll be used on. I intend for the next generation of high IQ people to lead Humanity into prosperity and it's first true golden age, so there mustn't be any complications in regard to potential defects from procedure in order to ensure this.

Sterilization of the low IQ also wouldn't go unnoticed by the public [at least for long anyway]; that's why I planned on using an effective propaganda campaign centered around apologetics for positive eugenics in order to convince the public it was ultimately for the greater good.

Most support will probably stem from the desire to eradicate congenital defects, and of course to prevent suffering of the children born with horrible genetic conditions. We could also even throw in a few more [new] cases of children suing their parents for still choosing to procreate all the while knowing their child would probably end up being born with a severe heritable genetic disorder.

Once enough public support had been garnered we could then move on to the next stage, which would probably involve what you mentioned in that last part only this time the public would actively be in favour of it themselves.

I honestly don't think this is that unrealistic considering how easily so many were already on board with mandates during the pandemic. The elites can convince the feeble minded masses of almost anything so long as they're willing to throw enough [worthless fiat] money at trying to convince them, which they ultimately can considering how virtually all money comes from them.

Incentives for having more [high IQ] children would need to be state sponsored in high IQ nations currently experiencing population decline, and proper [or really just "regular"] birth control measures would need to be put in place for any low IQ nations that are breeding too much not that unlike what you said.
All in all though, I'd say both of our plans seem quite similar and could maybe actually work hand in hand behind the scenes.

Granted, most of this of course rely on the elites being okay with it, or at the very least not giving enough of a shit about it to get in the way.

---

All niggers would suffice

Bro I have an iq of 163 and I'm a math genius and know two programming languages what are you talking about niggas are not dumb were the same as whites it's just most of us don't get proper nutrition

Sure, "bro"

You do know by using yourself as an [anecdotal] example he can always just say you're cherrypickinig right?

He'll then probably bring up studies testing for the difference in IQ between whites and blacks, and then two of you will go back and forth over whether education and/or other environmental factors play into the discrepancy.

From there debate will shift toward using studies specifically looking for how educated blacks perform vs uneducated whites and vice versa, and then you both will probably continue scouring research databases for studies proving both your respective points again etc. etc...

I've seen this same debate go down this very same path over and over again more times than I bother to remember counting at this point, so at least make it interesting once he sees your reply and you both finally go at it.

I know and predicted it would go down that path

Sure you did,

"bro".

A bunch of midwits won't solve anything. Plus, 110 isn't that high. There's a negligible difference between 100 and 110. You couldn't even notice it during a conversation, for example. There's also something called regression to the mean. Each generation tends to resemble the previous ones. That's why genius people have children that are slightly above the average but below their parents in IQ. So generation after generation IQ would decrease until it reached that of the average (100).

Make no mistake I have no regard for people with an IQ of 100 any more or less than I do of anyone else below them.

I seek to set the new baseline minimum for IQ to start at 110, and the only purpose of this is to "wipe the slate clean" so to speak. This means there won't be anyone with an IQ below this point to bring down the IQ of children born in the next generation.

This alone would be good enough as it removes most of the troublesome parts of Humanity [sub 110 IQ "people"] from its gene pool that only tend to bring down the rest. That said, by no means do I intend to stop there at all.

Assuming potential parents aren't forced to only pair up with partners of a roughly equal IQ [at least not yet anyway], at most this regression in IQ would only fall back to the new minimum set of the population all partners are now selected from [110]. This is of course is only assuming if IQs tend to continue regressing uninterrupted as you suggest, or if a higher IQ parent [above 110] pairs up with a partner that has an IQ beneath them [at 110 minimum]. Even with that said it isn't a given in and of itself, and not all children of high IQ parents will have an IQ lower than them.

However, with enough breeding of the initial "pure" minimum 110 IQ generation a sizable amount of higher IQ individuals [above 110] can be born for the next generation. Thus the 110 IQ midwits will become the new "low IQ" populace of this generation.

From there the remaining higher IQ populace [above 110] will repeat the process in the next generation with a new baseline being set at 10 points higher [120] from the last. Rinse and repeat [at least until this can be done with gene editing assuming it proves viable].

The initial process of setting a baseline at 110 is only meant to eradicate IQs beneath 110 from the Human race. This way the minimum IQ can continue to be pushed further without interruption from IQs beneath the baseline of the last generation before it.

There's more to life than IQ, by the way.

IQ is everything.

The people who deny the validity of IQ are (SURPRISE) within the same 110-130 range you mentioned. These are the midwits ruining everything. We don't need more of them.

View attachment 2549403

View attachment 2549404



This is you, OP.

I'd rather have a society of 110-130 midwits than one of sub 110 ethnics/retards, though I'll admit it'd be a difficult choice if said midwits were all normies.

Midwit [110-130] normies denying the validity of IQ has no bearing on other people of the same IQ.

It makes no difference if the ones complaining about muh "IQ bad tho" are midwit normies with 110-130 IQs or even Africans/ethnics with IQs below 85; neither's ignorance is reflected onto anyone else but themselves.

Regardless, what you're describing really just sounds like normie problem more than anything else.

Well put, not gonna lie. How are we going to do this?

Still working on it but what I was discussing with @ ... seemed like a decent place to start.


I'll get back to you after I've finished my snus and am done masturbating though [no porn since NNN 2021 tho Srs]


Also...

What anime is this from?

---

hope your puzzle solving skills helps you to stop getting cucked by other men

Take off your headphones and you'll probably stop @hearing [the schizo] voices.

Puzzle solved.

---

Bro I have an iq of 163 and I'm a math genius and know two programming languages what are you talking about niggas are not dumb were the same as whites it's just most of us don't get proper nutrition

I can assure you, niggers are very dumb.
[ATTACH=full]2554023[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]2554026[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]2554031[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]2554032[/ATTACH]

---

Under 100 would be more reasonable a very large chunk of the population falls under 110 something like 70 percent would be absurd

We could maybe do it in two phases.

Initial phase 1 will sterilize those with an IQ under 100 getting rid of the bulk low IQ, and phase 2 will get rid of remaining the midwits under 110 in the next generation.

The remaining populace with the genes for IQs at 110 will breed as will the overall population of people born with IQs well above 110 in the next generation.

Would still devestate the human population and I don’t think selecting for only a singular trait is a good thing at all letting Eugene breed because he has muh iq over let’s say john passing on his autism genes

In initial numbers sure perhaps, but my intent is that the remaining population [with the genes for an IQ at or above 110] would be heavily incentivized to repopulate.

However, the true goal of this endeavour is simply meant to ensure the genes for low IQ are removed from the rest of the gene pool so that next generation can start off from a "clean slate" baseline of at least 110.

The risk of muh "high IQ = autism" is severely overstated, and I think the number associated with that risk is only 25-30% if I'm not mistaken, not to mention it's typically associated with people that have very high IQs [140+ IQ] which well above 110 IQ threshold I'm initially aiming for.

We can consider selecting for other traits such as good mental/physical health, height, looks, etc. once [as in only after] this next generation of high IQ people are born first.

I only say this [implementing the idea after the next generation of high IQ people are born first] because they'd probably be more inclined to agree with such an idea due to their higher IQs, which would drive them to think further ahead and/or really just more with their heads in general.

The current generation(s) of feeble minded lower IQ sheeple would only look at such ideas from a more basic [primitive] emotional perspective only to reject them on their face out of ignorance and fear like they already [and always] do, and this probably no more apparent than with how already vehemently normies reject the notion of "looks mattering" in any way in its entirety.

We can consider selecting for other traits such as good mental/physical health, height, looks, etc. once [as in only after] this next generation of high IQ people are born first.

This is also without even considering the idea of applying some form of gene editing first, as I'm only referring to regular selective breeding.

Gene editing technology could be used in later generations once we can ensure it's completely safe to implement.

---

I voted no because it’d drastically change the world’s distribution of ethnicities and thus looks.

Ethnicities have different IQ distributions, so setting a cutoff at 110 would make the world population substantially more Asian-dominated. The average maxilla would be flatter as a result of this. The average penis size would be smaller.

I think your IQ eugenic plan would be a good idea if every ethnicity has the same IQs. Then humanity would get more intelligent without looks going down the drain.

Tough choice ngl

My hope is that the generation of high IQ people would be both blackpilled enough about the importance of looks, and skilled enough to be able to improve said through medicine or tech.

Current generations full of feeble minded low IQ sheeple would never jump on board with any blackpilled ideas related to looks, since they'd buy into and/or virtue signal for the idea of "looks not mattering". They'd only see it from a more basic emotional perspective and immediately reject the idea on its face because they're afraid of it.

---

Hmm, so eliminate anyone with an IQ below 110... 76% of the human population is now gone. Now, 76% of those who remain are below the threshold, since the bell curve adjusted. Rinse and then repeat the process until there is only 1 human left. Then leave them to die, and with them the last of this monkey society.

I'm on board with this

No, I said sterilize not euthanize we're not "eliminating" anyone.

The population would be replenished from the remainder of the previous generation(s) each time the process is repeated.

I appreciate the sentiment though,

and your enthusiasm.

It's almost reminiscent of this...

"I'm in."

---

Cope high IQs are social retards
Maybe if you want to depopulate the planet hahaha can’t even talk to the opposite sex lmfao

Cope? Speak for yourself cause that's a pretty broad generalization. The risk of muh "high IQ = aspie" is typically only associated with very high IQ people [140 IQ and above].

The population will be replenished in the next generation with the remainder of what's left from the previous one.

We're only getting rid of the low IQ in the next generation.

High IQs have zero utility , who’s gonna build the roads buildings and infrastructure

It affects almost every aspect of your life and determines how successful you'll probably be in said life.

Normies are ultimately left forgotten by the rest of the world and history because they never really amount to anything in their lives.

Cope high IQs are social retards
Maybe if you want to depopulate the planet hahaha can’t even talk to the opposite sex lmfao

Idiotic take. They struggle socially because most people have lower IQs than theirs.

Think about it this way: Are we more socially retarded than Homo Erectus? Was Homo Erectus more socially retarded than Homo Habilis? Nope, and their IQs kept on getting higher. If anything, we got socially smarter as we evolved.

Idiotic take. They struggle socially because most people have lower IQs than theirs.
Think about it this way: Are we more socially retarded than Homo Erectus? Was Homo Erectus more socially retarded than Homo Habilis? Nope, and their IQs kept on getting higher. If anything, we got socially smarter as we evolved.

IQ has no utility outside academia or if you’re trying to rule the world
Better off being a normie

You need IQ people to design said infrastructure in the first place.

"Menial"/physical labour jobs are only thought of as being "low class" because they don't pay well and people are just lazy now.

Assuming automation doesn't take over most of said menial/low class jobs in the next generation, hard work and contributions to society will be greatly rewarded no matter how menial in nature they may be.

That way no job is undervalued and no one thinks of him or herself as above said job(s). Besides, the "lowest class" jobs could always go to the "lowest IQ" in the next generation too who'd be either at or barely above 110 IQ.

I’d say cunning behaviour is more potent than high IQ. The elite today aren’t really that smart just cunning and resourceful . Dark triad matrix

They often go hand in hand.

Cunning/dark triad mentality combined with a low IQ just leads to crime and jail time, but when combined with a high IQ it usually equals success and/or crime that simply goes unnoticed.

Sure, the elites aren't particularly intelligent but they're not low IQ either or else they'd be too incompetent and their actions would be obvious enough for even normies to start noticing [a lot of normies actually are low IQ compared to them tbh].

Most of their success comes from wealth, power, and connections established long before the current generation of elites ever came into being and they just piggyback off of what was established by their ancestors.

Spoiler: BB Codex

[QUOTE="Fiqh, post: 13351037, member: 49262"]
I just believe everyone should have the right to produce offspring, regardless of their IQ, race etc.
[/QUOTE]
Would you also say that right also applies to parents who willingly choose to have children all the while knowing that said child will be burdened with some genetic deformity?

There is no obligation for anyone to produce let alone those who will only burden society as a whole with a low IQ and the genes to spread it.



[QUOTE="SeiGun, post: 13351167, member: 847"]
it is far better to have more low iq people, so you can easily outperform,
[/QUOTE]
[I]Putting aside the fact that you already think so low enough of them as to reduce them to being no more than a self-congratulatory trophy for yourself[/I]...

...They serve no benefit to society and having them around only to "outperform" them serves no purpose in and of itself other than to just pat yourself on the back for not being stupid [[SIZE=12px]like them[/SIZE]].

The only argument I could ever see you making like this is for the low IQ to somehow do menial jobs, but even then you're only using them just to simply 'have them around' in the first place; it's pointless

This type of thinking only leads to laziness, which itself brings complacency and ultimately stagnation for a society's advancement.

This is how you ensure a society never amounts to greatness.
[QUOTE="SeiGun, post: 13351290, member: 847"]
bro you post on looksmax about sterilizing people , what greatness are you talking about
[/QUOTE]
I see you didn't read past the title when you made your first post and only just now bothered reading the rest.

Sterilization of the low IQ will leave society with only the brightest, most capable, and well-natured people Humanity has to offer.

This will then enable them to flourish and thrive in a society composed of other intelligent people just like them.

The "greatness" I refer to is how a society advances both scientifically and technologically [[SIZE=12px]I say [I][B]both[/B][/I] because they go hand in hand[/SIZE]] which comes from high IQ people pioneering it.



[QUOTE="Okulunkulu, post: 13351315, member: 30239"]
as someone who is 109 iq i feel like a detriment to society, it would be better for me to marry a down syndrome autist, at least then i would have my iq match.
[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't feel as bad tbh since there are plenty of others far below you, and you probably have the potential to contribute more than they ever will.

However, even with that said you still shouldn't procreate as doing so runs the risk of spreading you genetics, which in turn may cause your descendants in the next generation to also be low IQ.



[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351176, member: 72"]
Nope. More like uncivilized people who cannot adapt to modern society and mindless consumers who should be.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, temperament is also important to a society as is critical thinking which itself ties into IQ.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351176, member: 72"]
IQ does not mean sane.
[/QUOTE]
IQ means intelligence; that affects how well a person is able to learn.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351176, member: 72"]
Many low IQ but sane people and many high iq but insane people.
[/QUOTE]
Anecdotes aside being "sane" isn't inherently tied to being high or low IQ, and whether a low IQ person is "sane" doesn't matter when they're only able contribute very little to civilization's advancement if any at all even.

"Sanity" has very little to do with that.


[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351304, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Sure, temperament is also important to a society as is critical thinking which itself ties into IQ.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Yep but hard working ppl like my parents would be punished. If they have to be "sterilized" for betterment of society. Not every high iq person is cold and willing to sacrifice everything for "society". [COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)][B]...[/B][/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]
By "sterilization" I only mean birth control [[SIZE=12px]as in a vasectomy or tubal ligation/salpingectomy[/SIZE]] for the next generation of breedable aged people with an IQ of under 110.

I'm [B][U][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]not[/COLOR][/U][/B] referring to the euthanizing or removal of any people from society at all in case that wasn't already clear enough.

Your parents would already be too old and wouldn't qualify, but even if they were [[SIZE=12px]and did qualify[/SIZE]] they'd only be prevented from having children.

It's not "cold-hearted" so much as it is simply pragmatic and ultimately coming from a place of good.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[B][COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)]...[/COLOR][/B] Maybe if you said high iq ppl are able to keep their "low iq" family members, then sure.
[/QUOTE]
What I offer here is similar in that your family members will be exempt from whatever you think is going to happen to them simply because they're either too old to breed and/or just prevented from having children if they're low IQ.

I haven't referred to the euthanasia of low IQ people in anything I've said.

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351304, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]IQ means intelligence; that affects how well a person is able to learn.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
IQ alone means problem solving and pattern recognition which is part of intelligence. [B][COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)]...[/COLOR][/B]
[/QUOTE]
IQ involves a lot more than just that.

The reason why it's such a good indicator of someone's intelligence is simply due to being so well rounded in its approach...

First and most important of all perhaps- critical thinking and reasoning ability are both directly accounted for when measuring IQ. These two are probably the best overall measure of one's intelligence.

IQ also involves verbal fluency which itself is an indicator of your communication skills and ability to articulate complex concepts.

Yes, it also involves basic math abilities which itself [I]does[/I] play a role in your analytical, reasoning, pattern recognition, and predictive abilities like you mentioned.

Not to mention, it also measures basic memory and visual-spatial processing speed(s) as well which measure your brains "raw power" so to speak, which is important as it's the foundation for how you both retain and recall information. I don't think I need to mention how having a poor memory would be detrimental to one's overall abilities.

IQ is everything.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[B][COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)]...[/COLOR][/B] There can be low iq creative ppl.
[/QUOTE]
Look, I get where you're coming from, and I also don't deny that [[SIZE=12px]there are creative low IQ people too[/SIZE]], but [B]IQ itself is directly related to creativity[/B].

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351304, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Anecdotes aside being "sane" isn't inherently tied to being high or low IQ, and whether a low IQ person is "sane" doesn't matter when they're only able contribute very little to civilization's advancement if any at all even.

"Sanity" has very little to do with that.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Why not just kill humanity and replace it all with self learning AI machines?
[/QUOTE]
1. I unironically can't even tell if you're only saying that because you genuinely think it fits into this conversation, or if you're just saying that to purposefully make me out to be some rambling "cold-hearted" technocratic/transhumanist psychopath.


2. Regardless, you sound like some normie complaining with another typical regurgitated strawman response of muh "[I][B]but that's like eugenics n shit bro![/B][/I]" as if to try to say muh "[I][B]bu- but like you want to genocide all the stupid people?!?![/B][/I]"


3. I never mentioned anything of the sort and you're going off on a very distant and unrelated topic.

In what way does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about?


4. That wouldn't even be Humanity anymore and I only seek to help our species become the best version of itself possible to achieve greatness.


[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
[QUOTE]
[SIZE=9px]By "sterilization" I only mean birth control [as in a vasectomy or tubal ligation/salpingectomy] for the next generation of breedable aged people with an IQ of under 110. I'm [B][U][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]not[/COLOR][/U][/B] referring to the euthanizing or removal of any people from society at all in case that wasn't already clear enough. Your parents would already be too old and wouldn't qualify, but even if they were [and did qualify] they'd only be prevented from having children. It's not "cold-hearted" so much as it is simply pragmatic and ultimately coming from a place of good.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Yep, then agreed.
[/QUOTE]
I thought as much.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351701, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=9px]IQ involves a lot more than just that. [/SIZE][SIZE=12px][B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]...[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][SIZE=9px] IQ is everything.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
That is different type of IQ.
[ATTACH=full]2549069[/ATTACH] [COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)][B]...[/B][/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of that.

I listed out multiple types in [URL='https://looksmax.org/threads/everyone-with-an-iq-under-110-should-be-sterilized.873991/post-13351701']my reply[/URL] to [URL='https://looksmax.org/goto/post?id=13351381']your post[/URL]:
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351701, member: 6757"]
IQ involves a lot more than just that.

The reason why it's such a good indicator of someone's intelligence is simply due to being so well rounded in its approach...

First and most important of all perhaps- critical thinking and reasoning ability are both directly accounted for when measuring IQ. These two are probably the best overall measure of one's intelligence.

IQ also involves verbal fluency which itself is an indicator of your communication skills and ability to articulate complex concepts.

Yes, it also involves basic math abilities which itself [I]does[/I] play a role in your analytical, reasoning, pattern recognition, and predictive abilities like you mentioned.

Not to mention, it also measures basic memory and visual-spatial processing speed(s) as well which measure your brains "raw power" so to speak, which is important as it's the foundation for how you both retain and recall information. I don't think I need to mention how having a poor memory would be detrimental to one's overall abilities.

IQ is everything.
[/QUOTE]
You were the only one trying to reduce it to just two types [[SIZE=12px]of IQ[/SIZE]] in [URL='https://looksmax.org/threads/everyone-with-an-iq-under-110-should-be-sterilized.873991/post-13351381']your post[/URL]:
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
IQ alone means problem solving and pattern recognition which is part of intelligence. There can be low iq creative ppl.
[/QUOTE]
Which means you're essentially restating my point [[SIZE=12px]as your own[/SIZE]].

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
[B][COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)]...[/COLOR][/B]Are you saying 110+ on ALL?
[/QUOTE]
That's how it's generally measured to begin with anyway: cumulatively.

So in a matter of speaking, yes; there wouldn't be much of a point if I wasn't.

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
I disagree that critical thinking is accounted for when measuring IQ.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, disagree then [I]cause[/I]...

1. It is [[SIZE=12px]accounted for[/SIZE]].

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
I know have seen way too many gooks (i live in east asia),
[/QUOTE]
2. Anecdotal^

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
they are high IQ but definitely in learning capability n being able to copy. They lack critical thinking and creativity.
[/QUOTE]
3. I get where you're coming from with this but your point is still rendered moot ['[SIZE=12px][I][B]moot[/B][/I][/SIZE]'[SIZE=12px] [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness#Moot_point']in the US sense as opposed to the standard UK one[/URL], since this isn't really up for debate anymore[/SIZE]] when considering how applying learned information in-field directly draws upon one's critical thinking ability; also, again anecdotal.

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
Same with verbal IQ.
[/QUOTE]
4. [I]Speaking thereof[/I]...

No offence, but would [B]this[/B] be an example of said high verbal IQ: ??
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
Its mostly low IQ ppl i have seen that have v v good verbal iq.
[/QUOTE]
5.
>Low IQ
>High Verbal IQ

Pick one.

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
There are cases of high iq ppl with high verbal iq but this has not been the norm in my experience. I know many intelligent ppl but their verbal iq is low but they are deffo high iq because of things they can fix/learn fast/have good thought process, just not v good at presenting it.
[/QUOTE]
6. anecdotes. me

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351701, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=9px]Look, I get where you're coming from, and I also don't deny that [there are creative low IQ people too], but [B]IQ itself is directly related to creativity[/B]. 1. I unironically can't even tell if you're only saying that because you genuinely think it fits into this conversation, or if you're just saying that to purposefully make me out to be some rambling "cold-hearted" technocratic/transhumanist psychopath. 2. Regardless, you sound like some normie complaining with another typical regurgitated strawman response of muh "[I][B]but that's like eugenics n shit bro![/B][/I]" as if to try to say muh "[I][B]bu- but like you want to genocide all the stupid people?!?![/B][/I]" 3. I never mentioned anything of the sort and you're going off on a very distant and unrelated topic.
In what way does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about? 4. That wouldn't even be Humanity anymore and I only seek to help our species become the best version of itself possible to achieve greatness.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
I thought u meant to kill off ppl under 110 but that has been cleared so np. I support eugenics, just not killing ppl. I have seen many hard working well-meaning ppl but they are not bright. That is why it triggered me because i thought u meant genocide. But you didn't so nvm the post.
[/QUOTE]
Anyway, [I]moving on[/I]...



[QUOTE="Deleted member 27674, post: 13351235, member: 27674"]
IQ is not a fixed number. It can change throughout someone's life. Also, IQ can be affected by stuff like nutrition in the formative years, and pollution. For example, exposure to lead pollution has been proven to lower people's IQ. To really increase the intelligence of humanity, all these factors have to be taken into account.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, IQ isn't necessarily completely "set in stone" but that "change" you refer to won't actually shift [[SIZE=12px]or rather increase as you're suggesting[/SIZE]] by that much.

All the factors you listed would be taken into account eventually, but I'm primarily referring to a population free of said factors [[SIZE=12px]like the West or East Asia for example[/SIZE]] as any difference in IQ would just be genetic.



[QUOTE="Deleted member 11126, post: 13351024, member: 11126"]
I think its more like anyone under 90 IQ. Also IQ is only one metric there are plenty of people with low inhibition that are still not low IQ.
[/QUOTE]
That would be a good start but I want the next generation to start off where East Asian countries already do by default. Think 100 million people where the lowest IQ among all of them would just be 110 and plenty would well past it.

It'd be like building a civilization and already [S][SIZE=12px]starting out as smart as the Japanese/Koreans or something[/SIZE][/S] [B][I]having [U]intelligence maxxed out[/U] by default[/I][/B], but even the IQ of the least intelligent among the flock would never dip under 110 and everyone from simple labourers to businessmen would be intelligent.

IQ is probably the most important metric; "inhibition" matters very little compared to it as intelligence is what drives a society forward.



[QUOTE="Deleted member 11126, post: 13351042, member: 11126"]
I think the issue isn't low IQ people its our current parastic elite. They would rather turn the world into a brown 80 IQ mess and rule over a broken destroyed people then have a decent society where their rule would be threatened.
[/QUOTE]
A stupid society is easier to manipulate and control after all.













[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351823, member: 27641"]
Imagine valuing iq to this extent
[/QUOTE]
[IMG alt="Idi Amin Laugh GIF - Idi Amin Laugh Lol - Discover & Share GIFs"]https://media.tenor.com/_RXvBoRx9xkAAAAd/idi-amin-laugh.gif[/IMG]...
[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351823, member: 27641"]
This is severe autism to link such meaningless cope to [SIZE=26px][I][B]euthanizing humans[/B][/I][/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
:feelsuhh:
Valuing IQ to this extent is how you know the difference between "[I]euthanasia[/I]" and '[B]sterilization[/B]'
[QUOTE]
Eu·tha·na·sia
[HR][/HR]
The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The practice is illegal in most countries.
"she wants the laws around euthanasia to be changed"
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Ster·i·li·za·tion
[HR][/HR]
Surgery to make a person or animal unable to produce offspring.
"she had three children and had undergone sterilization"
[/QUOTE]
📚📘📖🤓

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351823, member: 27641"]
You should be the one killed for such a take
[/QUOTE]
:soy::feelswah::feelswhy:
Careful; [I]you [/I][[SIZE=12px][I]only[/I][/SIZE]][I] speak for yourself here[/I].

You can't even tell who's more autistic for having such a shit take yourself...

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351823, member: 27641"]
Who will even do the low class jobs .
[/QUOTE]
Jfl is that really all you value them for?

Imagine pretending to give [[SIZE=12px]so little of[/SIZE]] a shit about low IQ people that the best argument you can bother coming up with for why they ought to exist is just so they can clean the shit from your toilet.

Bruh this shit writes itself holy fuck. :lul:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n5lPMGaijmY


[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351997, member: 27641"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351890, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Valuing IQ to this extent is how you know the difference between "[I]euthanasia[/I]" and '[B]sterilization[/B]'[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
I thought its synonym
[/QUOTE]
It isn't; you thought wrong.

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351997, member: 27641"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351890, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Speak for yourself.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Im arguing for low iq people cuz iq doesnt matter unless youre mentally crippled
[/QUOTE]
What exactly are you arguing for them?

I'm not necessarily arguing anything against them myself, only that they shouldn't be allowed to have children so that the next generation is high IQ.

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351997, member: 27641"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351890, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Bruh this shit writes itself holy fuck.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
The real word is too practical for this incel cope and mental masturbation
[/QUOTE]
[I]You only call it that simply because you lack the capability to properly grasp the concept yourself[/I].

I'm arguing for a [[B][SIZE=12px]we[/SIZE][/B]] [B]should[/B] rather than a [I]could[/I] [[I][SIZE=12px]do this[/SIZE][/I]].

It's perfectly feasible the same way certain groups were able to increase their average height in the last century, especially if enough public support is garnered for it.

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13352016, member: 27641"]
Bro wants a world full of high iq sigma entrepreneurs with bateman pfps
[/QUOTE]
It's not Bateman.
[IMG alt="MaximilianMus Oh Yeah Yeah | Know Your Meme"]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2LxO8B8lYvo/hqdefault.jpg[/IMG][IMG alt="Deus Ex Deus GIF - Deus Ex Deus Ex - Discover & Share GIFs"]https://media.tenor.com/20wdowVmrfIAAAAC/deus-ex-deus.gif[/IMG]





[QUOTE="Deleted member 31497, post: 13352432, member: 31497"]
no iq for ur face
[/QUOTE]
[I]Oh but there will be[/I]...

[QUOTE="Deleted member 31497, post: 13351893, member: 31497"]
Cope short and ugly people should be gassed and exterminated instead
[/QUOTE]
...
You need to think further ahead.

If the next generation was high IQ they'd figure that out themselves, but the current low IQ sheeple normie-pleb masses would never get on board with the sterilization/"etc..." of short and ugly people.

This idea should have enough support to get some normies on board first as it'd be for the net benefit of society, and it'd also ensure the next generation that comes as a result of it will be able to make it happen.



[QUOTE="lightskinbengali, post: 13352817, member: 25056"]
I believe the approach to eugenics should be far less confrontational when considering a very vast portion of the population. We should focus instead on developing crispr to the point where it’s cheap and accessible for people to have “designer” babies. Abortion will be made mandatory for congenital defects such as downs. Then we could potentially create incredible incentives for having kids, especially financial. At last after both of these conditions are met the third world and ethnic nations will be sterilized through secretive means which could be chalked up to pollution. At the end the most populated countries will be the white ones, beginning a new age where man will be thrust into the cosmos.
[/QUOTE]
I like this approach and also thought about using gene editing myself, though I'd still caution against it until it's mostly safe for the population it'll be used on. I intend for the next generation of high IQ people to lead Humanity into prosperity and it's first true golden age, so there mustn't be any complications in regard to potential defects from procedure in order to ensure this.

Sterilization of the low IQ also wouldn't go unnoticed by the public [[SIZE=12px]at least for long anyway[/SIZE]]; that's why I planned on using an effective propaganda campaign centered around apologetics for positive eugenics in order to convince the public it was ultimately for the greater good.

Most support will probably stem from the desire to eradicate congenital defects, and of course to prevent suffering of the children born with horrible genetic conditions. We could also even throw in a few more [[SIZE=12px]new[/SIZE]] cases of children suing their parents for still choosing to procreate all the while knowing their child would probably end up being born with a severe heritable genetic disorder.

Once enough public support had been garnered we could then move on to the next stage, which would probably involve what you mentioned in that last part only this time the public would actively be in favour of it themselves.

[QUOTE]
[S][B][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]I honestly don't think this is [I]that[/I] unrealistic considering how easily so many were already on board with mandates during the pandemic. The elites can convince the feeble minded masses of almost anything so long as they're willing to throw enough[/COLOR][/B] [worthless fiat] [B][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]money at trying to convince them, which they ultimately can considering how virtually all money comes from them.[/COLOR][/B][/S]
[/QUOTE]

Incentives for having more [[SIZE=12px]high IQ[/SIZE]] children would need to be state sponsored in high IQ nations currently experiencing population decline, and proper [[SIZE=12px]or really just "regular"[/SIZE]] birth control measures would need to be put in place for any low IQ nations that are breeding too much not that unlike what you said.
All in all though, I'd say both of our plans seem quite similar and could maybe actually work hand in hand behind the scenes.

[QUOTE]
[S][B][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]Granted, most of this of course rely on the elites being okay with it, or at the very least not giving enough of a shit about it to get in the way.[/COLOR][/B][/S]
[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE="Stackz, post: 13352522, member: 25791"]
[QUOTE="_MVP_, post: 13350989, member: 20774"]
All niggers would suffice
[/QUOTE]
Bro I have an iq of 163 and I'm a math genius and know two programming languages what are you talking about niggas are not dumb were the same as whites it's just most of us don't get proper nutrition
[/QUOTE]
[I]Sure[/I], "[I]bro[/I]"

You do know by using yourself as an [[SIZE=12px]anecdotal[/SIZE]] example he can always just say you're cherrypickinig right?

He'll then probably bring up studies testing for the difference in IQ between whites and blacks, and then two of you will go back and forth over whether education and/or other environmental factors play into the discrepancy.

From there debate will shift toward using studies specifically looking for how educated blacks perform vs uneducated whites and vice versa, and then you both will probably continue scouring research databases for studies proving both your respective points again etc. etc...

I've seen this same debate go down this very same path over and over again more times than I bother to remember counting at this point, so at least make it interesting once he sees your reply and you both finally go at it.

[IMG alt="Deer Popcorn GIF"]https://media1.giphy.com/media/NipFetnQOuKhW/200.gif[/IMG][IMG alt="Pop Corn GIF by WWE"]https://media2.giphy.com/media/3xkNUy3Vh8QbPmJZjK/200.gif[/IMG][IMG alt="Fox Tv Popcorn GIF by The Four"]https://media3.giphy.com/media/uWzS6ZLs0AaVOJlgRd/200.gif[/IMG][IMG alt="the joker popcorn GIF"]https://media0.giphy.com/media/iaBiPW3vAOi0E/200.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE="Stackz, post: 13353436, member: 25791"]
I know and predicted it would go down that path
[/QUOTE]
[I]Sure you did[/I],[I]
[IMG alt="Stackz"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/25/25791.jpg?1707672872[/IMG]
"bro".[/I]
[QUOTE="iamgirlcrazy, post: 13353552, member: 40788"]
A bunch of midwits won't solve anything. Plus, 110 isn't that high. There's a negligible difference between 100 and 110. You couldn't even notice it during a conversation, for example. There's also something called regression to the mean. Each generation tends to resemble the previous ones. That's why genius people have children that are slightly above the average but below their parents in IQ. So generation after generation IQ would decrease until it reached that of the average (100).
[/QUOTE]
Make no mistake I have no regard for people with an IQ of 100 any more or less than I do of anyone else below them.

I seek to set the new baseline [B]minimum[/B] for IQ to start at 110, and the only purpose of this is to "wipe the slate clean" so to speak. This means there won't be anyone with an IQ below this point to bring down the IQ of children born in the next generation.

This alone would be good enough as it removes most of the troublesome parts of Humanity [[SIZE=12px]sub 110 IQ "people"[/SIZE]] from its gene pool that only tend to bring down the rest. That said, by no means do I intend to stop there at all.

Assuming potential parents [I]aren't[/I] forced to only pair up with partners of a roughly equal IQ [[SIZE=12px]at least not yet anyway[/SIZE]], [B]at most[/B] this regression in IQ would only fall back to the new minimum set of the population all partners are now selected from [[SIZE=12px]110[/SIZE]]. This is of course is only assuming if IQs [B][I]tend[/I][/B] to continue regressing uninterrupted as you suggest, or if a higher IQ parent [[SIZE=12px]above 110[/SIZE]] pairs up with a partner that has an IQ beneath them [[SIZE=12px]at 110 minimum[/SIZE]]. Even with that said it isn't a given in and of itself, and not all children of high IQ parents will have an IQ lower than them.

However, with enough breeding of the initial "pure" minimum 110 IQ generation a sizable amount of higher IQ individuals [[SIZE=12px]above 110[/SIZE]] can be born for the next generation. Thus the 110 IQ midwits will become the new "low IQ" populace of this generation.

From there the remaining higher IQ populace [[SIZE=12px]above 110[/SIZE]] will repeat the process in the next generation with a new baseline being set at 10 points higher [[SIZE=12px]120[/SIZE]] from the last. Rinse and repeat [[SIZE=12px]at least until this can be done with gene editing assuming it proves viable[/SIZE]].

The initial process of setting a baseline at 110 is only meant to eradicate IQs beneath 110 from the Human race. This way the minimum IQ can continue to be pushed further without interruption from IQs beneath the baseline of the last generation before it.

[QUOTE="iamgirlcrazy, post: 13353552, member: 40788"]
There's more to life than IQ, by the way.
[/QUOTE]
IQ is everything.

[QUOTE="iamgirlcrazy, post: 13353552, member: 40788"]
The people who deny the validity of IQ are (SURPRISE) within the same 110-130 range you mentioned. These are the midwits ruining everything. We don't need more of them.

View attachment 2549403

View attachment 2549404

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9agM261CSJU

This is you, OP.
[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have a society of 110-130 midwits than one of sub 110 ethnics/retards, though I'll admit it'd be a difficult choice if said midwits were all normies.

Midwit [[SIZE=12px]110-130[/SIZE]] normies denying the validity of IQ has no bearing on other people of the same IQ.

It makes no difference if the ones complaining about muh "IQ bad tho" are midwit normies with 110-130 IQs or even Africans/ethnics with IQs below 85; neither's ignorance is reflected onto anyone else but themselves.

Regardless, what you're describing really just sounds like normie problem more than anything else.
[QUOTE="iamgirlcrazy, post: 13355421, member: 40788"]
Well put, not gonna lie. How are we going to do this?
[/QUOTE]
Still working on it but what I was discussing with [PLAIN]@ ... seemed like a decent place to start.


I'll get back to you after I've finished my snus and am done masturbating though [no porn since NNN 2021 tho Srs]


Also...

What anime is this from?

hope your puzzle solving skills helps you to stop getting cucked by other men

Take off your headphones and you'll probably stop @hearing [the schizo] voices.

Puzzle solved.

Bro I have an iq of 163 and I'm a math genius and know two programming languages what are you talking about niggas are not dumb were the same as whites it's just most of us don't get proper nutrition

I can assure you, niggers are very dumb.
View attachment 2554023View attachment 2554026View attachment 2554031View attachment 2554032

Under 100 would be more reasonable a very large chunk of the population falls under 110 something like 70 percent would be absurd

We could maybe do it in two phases.

Initial phase 1 will sterilize those with an IQ under 100 getting rid of the bulk low IQ, and phase 2 will get rid of remaining the midwits under 110 in the next generation.

The remaining populace with the genes for IQs at 110 will breed as will the overall population of people born with IQs well above 110 in the next generation.

Would still devestate the human population and I don’t think selecting for only a singular trait is a good thing at all letting Eugene breed because he has muh iq over let’s say john passing on his autism genes

In initial numbers sure perhaps, but my intent is that the remaining population [with the genes for an IQ at or above 110] would be heavily incentivized to repopulate.

However, the true goal of this endeavour is simply meant to ensure the genes for low IQ are removed from the rest of the gene pool so that next generation can start off from a "clean slate" baseline of at least 110.

The risk of muh "high IQ = autism" is severely overstated, and I think the number associated with that risk is only 25-30% if I'm not mistaken, not to mention it's typically associated with people that have very high IQs [140+ IQ] which well above 110 IQ threshold I'm initially aiming for.

We can consider selecting for other traits such as good mental/physical health, height, looks, etc. once [as in only after] this next generation of high IQ people are born first.

I only say this [implementing the idea after the next generation of high IQ people are born first] because they'd probably be more inclined to agree with such an idea due to their higher IQs, which would drive them to think further ahead and/or really just more with their heads in general.

The current generation(s) of feeble minded lower IQ sheeple would only look at such ideas from a more basic [primitive] emotional perspective only to reject them on their face out of ignorance and fear like they already [and always] do, and this probably no more apparent than with how already vehemently normies reject the notion of "looks mattering" in any way in its entirety.

We can consider selecting for other traits such as good mental/physical health, height, looks, etc. once [as in only after] this next generation of high IQ people are born first.

This is also without even considering the idea of applying some form of gene editing first, as I'm only referring to regular selective breeding.

Gene editing technology could be used in later generations once we can ensure it's completely safe to implement.

I voted no because it’d drastically change the world’s distribution of ethnicities and thus looks.

Ethnicities have different IQ distributions, so setting a cutoff at 110 would make the world population substantially more Asian-dominated. The average maxilla would be flatter as a result of this. The average penis size would be smaller.

I think your IQ eugenic plan would be a good idea if every ethnicity has the same IQs. Then humanity would get more intelligent without looks going down the drain.

Tough choice ngl

My hope is that the generation of high IQ people would be both blackpilled enough about the importance of looks, and skilled enough to be able to improve said through medicine or tech.

Current generations full of feeble minded low IQ sheeple would never jump on board with any blackpilled ideas related to looks, since they'd buy into and/or virtue signal for the idea of "looks not mattering". They'd only see it from a more basic emotional perspective and immediately reject the idea on its face because they're afraid of it.

Hmm, so eliminate anyone with an IQ below 110... 76% of the human population is now gone. Now, 76% of those who remain are below the threshold, since the bell curve adjusted. Rinse and then repeat the process until there is only 1 human left. Then leave them to die, and with them the last of this monkey society.

I'm on board with this

No, I said sterilize not euthanize we're not "eliminating" anyone.

The population would be replenished from the remainder of the previous generation(s) each time the process is repeated.


I appreciate the sentiment though,

and the enthusiasm.

It's almost reminiscent of this...

"I'm in."

Cope high IQs are social retards
Maybe if you want to depopulate the planet hahaha can’t even talk to the opposite sex lmfao

Cope? Speak for yourself cause that's a pretty broad generalization. The risk of muh "high IQ = aspie" is typically only associated with very high IQ people [140 IQ and above].

The population will be replenished in the next generation with the remainder of what's left from the previous one.

We're only getting rid of the low IQ in the next generation.

High IQs have zero utility , who’s gonna build the roads buildings and infrastructure

It affects almost every aspect of your life and determines how successful you'll probably be in said life.

Normies are ultimately left forgotten by the rest of the world and history because they never really amount to anything in their lives.

Cope high IQs are social retards
Maybe if you want to depopulate the planet hahaha can’t even talk to the opposite sex lmfao

Idiotic take. They struggle socially because most people have lower IQs than theirs.

Think about it this way: Are we more socially retarded than Homo Erectus? Was Homo Erectus more socially retarded than Homo Habilis? Nope, and their IQs kept on getting higher. If anything, we got socially smarter as we evolved.

Idiotic take. They struggle socially because most people have lower IQs than theirs.
Think about it this way: Are we more socially retarded than Homo Erectus? Was Homo Erectus more socially retarded than Homo Habilis? Nope, and their IQs kept on getting higher. If anything, we got socially smarter as we evolved.

IQ has no utility outside academia or if you’re trying to rule the world
Better off being a normie

You need IQ people to design said infrastructure in the first place.

"Menial"/physical labour jobs are only thought of as being "low class" because they don't pay well and people are just lazy now.

Assuming automation doesn't take over most of said menial/low class jobs in the next generation, hard work and contributions to society will be greatly rewarded no matter how menial in nature they may be.

That way no job is undervalued and no one thinks of him or herself as above said job(s). Besides, the "lowest class" jobs could always go to the "lowest IQ" in the next generation too who'd be either at or barely above 110 IQ.

I’d say cunning behaviour is more potent than high IQ. The elite today aren’t really that smart just cunning and resourceful . Dark triad matrix

They often go hand in hand.

Cunning/dark triad mentality combined with a low IQ just leads to crime and jail time, but when combined with a high IQ it usually equals success and/or crime that simply goes unnoticed.

Sure, the elites aren't particularly intelligent but they're not low IQ either or else they'd be too incompetent and their actions would be obvious enough for even normies to start noticing [a lot of normies actually are low IQ compared to them tbh].

Most of their success comes from wealth, power, and connections established long before the current generation of elites ever came into being and they just piggyback off of what was established by their ancestors.
[/PLAIN]

 

[chaddyboi66]

Mods, this is in fact a good reason to bump this thread as I've both added new answers to questions raised by users.

I also added a new continuation to this thread via:

Ethnics/Brown People Haven't Really Contributed Much to Humanity - Giga [Racepill] - *Eugenicsmaxxing* {Mass Sterilizations}

The White and Yellow man have propelled mankind forward, while the other races [Ethnics] seem to just leech off them and their technology. I say this as someone who's half "ethnic" himself, though that itself shouldn't even matter in the first place if what I'm saying is true. I don't...

looksmax.org

Would you also say that right also applies to parents who willingly choose to have children all the while knowing that said child will be burdened with some genetic deformity?

There is no obligation for anyone to produce let alone those who will only burden society as a whole with a low IQ and the genes to spread it.

---

Putting aside the fact that you already think so low enough of them as to reduce them to being no more than a self-congratulatory trophy for yourself...

...They serve no benefit to society and having them around only to "outperform" them serves no purpose in and of itself other than to just pat yourself on the back for not being stupid [like them].

The only argument I could ever see you making like this is for the low IQ to somehow do menial jobs, but even then you're only using them just to simply 'have them around' in the first place; it's pointless

This type of thinking only leads to laziness, which itself brings complacency and ultimately stagnation for a society's advancement.

This is how you ensure a society never amounts to greatness.

I see you didn't read past the title when you made your first post and only just now bothered reading the rest.

Sterilization of the low IQ will leave society with only the brightest, most capable, and well-natured people Humanity has to offer.

This will then enable them to flourish and thrive in a society composed of other intelligent people just like them.

The "greatness" I refer to is how a society advances both scientifically and technologically [I say both because they go hand in hand] which comes from high IQ people pioneering it.

---

You shouldn't feel as bad tbh since there are plenty of others far below you, and you probably have the potential to contribute more than they ever will.

However, even with that said you still shouldn't procreate as doing so runs the risk of spreading you genetics, which in turn may cause your descendants in the next generation to also be low IQ.

---

Sure, temperament is also important to a society as is critical thinking which itself ties into IQ.

IQ means intelligence; that affects how well a person is able to learn.

Anecdotes aside being "sane" isn't inherently tied to being high or low IQ, and whether a low IQ person is "sane" doesn't matter when they're only able contribute very little to civilization's advancement if any at all even.

"Sanity" has very little to do with that.



By "sterilization" I only mean birth control [as in a vasectomy or tubal ligation/salpingectomy] for the next generation of breedable aged people with an IQ of under 110.

I'm not referring to the euthanizing or removal of any people from society at all in case that wasn't already clear enough.

Your parents would already be too old and wouldn't qualify, but even if they were [and did qualify] they'd only be prevented from having children.

It's not "cold-hearted" so much as it is simply pragmatic and ultimately coming from a place of good.

What I offer here is similar in that your family members will be exempt from whatever you think is going to happen to them simply because they're either too old to breed and/or just prevented from having children if they're low IQ.

I haven't referred to the euthanasia of low IQ people in anything I've said.


IQ involves a lot more than just that.

The reason why it's such a good indicator of someone's intelligence is simply due to being so well rounded in its approach...

First and most important of all perhaps- critical thinking and reasoning ability are both directly accounted for when measuring IQ. These two are probably the best overall measure of one's intelligence.

IQ also involves verbal fluency which itself is an indicator of your communication skills and ability to articulate complex concepts.

Yes, it also involves basic math abilities which itself does play a role in your analytical, reasoning, pattern recognition, and predictive abilities like you mentioned.

Not to mention, it also measures basic memory and visual-spatial processing speed(s) as well which measure your brains "raw power" so to speak, which is important as it's the foundation for how you both retain and recall information. I don't think I need to mention how having a poor memory would be detrimental to one's overall abilities.

IQ is everything.

Look, I get where you're coming from, and I also don't deny that [there are creative low IQ people too], but IQ itself is directly related to creativity.


1. I unironically can't even tell if you're only saying that because you genuinely think it fits into this conversation, or if you're just saying that to purposefully make me out to be some rambling "cold-hearted" technocratic/transhumanist psychopath.


2. Regardless, you sound like some normie complaining with another typical regurgitated strawman response of muh "but that's like eugenics n shit bro!" as if to try to say muh "bu- but like you want to genocide all the stupid people?!?!"


3. I never mentioned anything of the sort and you're going off on a very distant and unrelated topic.

In what way does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about?


4. That wouldn't even be Humanity anymore and I only seek to help our species become the best version of itself possible to achieve greatness.



I thought as much.

I'm aware of that.

I listed out multiple types in my reply to your post:

You were the only one trying to reduce it to just two types [of IQ] in your post:

Which means you're essentially restating my point [as your own].


That's how it's generally measured to begin with anyway: cumulatively.

So in a matter of speaking, yes; there wouldn't be much of a point if I wasn't.


Okay, disagree then cause...

1. It is [accounted for].


2. Anecdotal^


3. I get where you're coming from with this but your point is still rendered moot ['moot' in the US sense as opposed to the standard UK one, since this isn't really up for debate anymore] when considering how applying learned information in-field directly draws upon one's critical thinking ability; also, again anecdotal.


4. Speaking thereof...

No offence, but would this be an example of said high verbal IQ: ??

5.
>Low IQ
>High Verbal IQ

Pick one.


6. anecdotes. me


Anyway, moving on...

---

Sure, IQ isn't necessarily completely "set in stone" but that "change" you refer to won't actually shift [or rather increase as you're suggesting] by that much.

All the factors you listed would be taken into account eventually, but I'm primarily referring to a population free of said factors [like the West or East Asia for example] as any difference in IQ would just be genetic.

---

That would be a good start but I want the next generation to start off where East Asian countries already do by default. Think 100 million people where the lowest IQ among all of them would just be 110 and plenty would well past it.

It'd be like building a civilization and already starting out as smart as the Japanese/Koreans or something having intelligence maxxed out by default, but even the IQ of the least intelligent among the flock would never dip under 110 and everyone from simple labourers to businessmen would be intelligent.

IQ is probably the most important metric; "inhibition" matters very little compared to it as intelligence is what drives a society forward.

---

A stupid society is easier to manipulate and control after all.

---

...


Valuing IQ to this extent is how you know the difference between "euthanasia" and 'sterilization'






Careful; you [only] speak for yourself here.

You can't even tell who's more autistic for having such a shit take yourself...


Jfl is that really all you value them for?

Imagine pretending to give [so little of] a shit about low IQ people that the best argument you can bother coming up with for why they ought to exist is just so they can clean the shit from your toilet.

Bruh this shit writes itself holy fuck.




It isn't; you thought wrong.


What exactly are you arguing for them?

I'm not necessarily arguing anything against them myself, only that they shouldn't be allowed to have children so that the next generation is high IQ.


You only call it that simply because you lack the capability to properly grasp the concept yourself.

I'm arguing for a [we] should rather than a could [do this].

It's perfectly feasible the same way certain groups were able to increase their average height in the last century, especially if enough public support is garnered for it.


It's not Bateman.

---

Oh but there will be...


...
You need to think further ahead.

If the next generation was high IQ they'd figure that out themselves, but the current low IQ sheeple normie-pleb masses would never get on board with the sterilization/"etc..." of short and ugly people.

This idea should have enough support to get some normies on board first as it'd be for the net benefit of society, and it'd also ensure the next generation that comes as a result of it will be able to make it happen.

---

I like this approach and also thought about using gene editing myself, though I'd still caution against it until it's mostly safe for the population it'll be used on. I intend for the next generation of high IQ people to lead Humanity into prosperity and it's first true golden age, so there mustn't be any complications in regard to potential defects from procedure in order to ensure this.

Sterilization of the low IQ also wouldn't go unnoticed by the public [at least for long anyway]; that's why I planned on using an effective propaganda campaign centered around apologetics for positive eugenics in order to convince the public it was ultimately for the greater good.

Most support will probably stem from the desire to eradicate congenital defects, and of course to prevent suffering of the children born with horrible genetic conditions. We could also even throw in a few more [new] cases of children suing their parents for still choosing to procreate all the while knowing their child would probably end up being born with a severe heritable genetic disorder.

Once enough public support had been garnered we could then move on to the next stage, which would probably involve what you mentioned in that last part only this time the public would actively be in favour of it themselves.



Incentives for having more [high IQ] children would need to be state sponsored in high IQ nations currently experiencing population decline, and proper [or really just "regular"] birth control measures would need to be put in place for any low IQ nations that are breeding too much not that unlike what you said.
All in all though, I'd say both of our plans seem quite similar and could maybe actually work hand in hand behind the scenes.

---

Sure, "bro"

You do know by using yourself as an [anecdotal] example he can always just say you're cherrypickinig right?

He'll then probably bring up studies testing for the difference in IQ between whites and blacks, and then two of you will go back and forth over whether education and/or other environmental factors play into the discrepancy.

From there debate will shift toward using studies specifically looking for how educated blacks perform vs uneducated whites and vice versa, and then you both will probably continue scouring research databases for studies proving both your respective points again etc. etc...

I've seen this same debate go down this very same path over and over again more times than I bother to remember counting at this point, so at least make it interesting once he sees your reply and you both finally go at it.

Sure you did,

"bro".

Make no mistake I have no regard for people with an IQ of 100 any more or less than I do of anyone else below them.

I seek to set the new baseline minimum for IQ to start at 110, and the only purpose of this is to "wipe the slate clean" so to speak. This means there won't be anyone with an IQ below this point to bring down the IQ of children born in the next generation.

This alone would be good enough as it removes most of the troublesome parts of Humanity [sub 110 IQ "people"] from its gene pool that only tend to bring down the rest. That said, by no means do I intend to stop there at all.

Assuming potential parents aren't forced to only pair up with partners of a roughly equal IQ [at least not yet anyway], at most this regression in IQ would only fall back to the new minimum set of the population all partners are now selected from [110]. This is of course is only assuming if IQs tend to continue regressing uninterrupted as you suggest, or if a higher IQ parent [above 110] pairs up with a partner that has an IQ beneath them [at 110 minimum]. Even with that said it isn't a given in and of itself, and not all children of high IQ parents will have an IQ lower than them.

However, with enough breeding of the initial "pure" minimum 110 IQ generation a sizable amount of higher IQ individuals [above 110] can be born for the next generation. Thus the 110 IQ midwits will become the new "low IQ" populace of this generation.

From there the remaining higher IQ populace [above 110] will repeat the process in the next generation with a new baseline being set at 10 points higher [120] from the last. Rinse and repeat [at least until this can be done with gene editing assuming it proves viable].

The initial process of setting a baseline at 110 is only meant to eradicate IQs beneath 110 from the Human race. This way the minimum IQ can continue to be pushed further without interruption from IQs beneath the baseline of the last generation before it.


IQ is everything.


I'd rather have a society of 110-130 midwits than one of sub 110 ethnics/retards, though I'll admit it'd be a difficult choice if said midwits were all normies.

Midwit [110-130] normies denying the validity of IQ has no bearing on other people of the same IQ.

It makes no difference if the ones complaining about muh "IQ bad tho" are midwit normies with 110-130 IQs or even Africans/ethnics with IQs below 85; neither's ignorance is reflected onto anyone else but themselves.

Regardless, what you're describing really just sounds like normie problem more than anything else.

Still working on it but what I was discussing with @ ... seemed like a decent place to start.


I'll get back to you after I've finished my snus and am done masturbating though [no porn since NNN 2021 tho Srs]


Also...

What anime is this from?

---

Take off your headphones and you'll probably stop @hearing [the schizo] voices.

Puzzle solved.

---

---

We could maybe do it in two phases.

Initial phase 1 will sterilize those with an IQ under 100 getting rid of the bulk low IQ, and phase 2 will get rid of remaining the midwits under 110 in the next generation.

The remaining populace with the genes for IQs at 110 will breed as will the overall population of people born with IQs well above 110 in the next generation.


In initial numbers sure perhaps, but my intent is that the remaining population [with the genes for an IQ at or above 110] would be heavily incentivized to repopulate.

However, the true goal of this endeavour is simply meant to ensure the genes for low IQ are removed from the rest of the gene pool so that next generation can start off from a "clean slate" baseline of at least 110.

The risk of muh "high IQ = autism" is severely overstated, and I think the number associated with that risk is only 25-30% if I'm not mistaken, not to mention it's typically associated with people that have very high IQs [140+ IQ] which well above 110 IQ threshold I'm initially aiming for.

We can consider selecting for other traits such as good mental/physical health, height, looks, etc. once [as in only after] this next generation of high IQ people are born first.

I only say this [implementing the idea after the next generation of high IQ people are born first] because they'd probably be more inclined to agree with such an idea due to their higher IQs, which would drive them to think further ahead and/or really just more with their heads in general.

The current generation(s) of feeble minded lower IQ sheeple would only look at such ideas from a more basic [primitive] emotional perspective only to reject them on their face out of ignorance and fear like they already [and always] do, and this probably no more apparent than with how already vehemently normies reject the notion of "looks mattering" in any way in its entirety.


This is also without even considering the idea of applying some form of gene editing first, as I'm only referring to regular selective breeding.

Gene editing technology could be used in later generations once we can ensure it's completely safe to implement.

---

Tough choice ngl

My hope is that the generation of high IQ people would be both blackpilled enough about the importance of looks, and skilled enough to be able to improve said through medicine or tech.

Current generations full of feeble minded low IQ sheeple would never jump on board with any blackpilled ideas related to looks, since they'd buy into and/or virtue signal for the idea of "looks not mattering". They'd only see it from a more basic emotional perspective and immediately reject the idea on its face because they're afraid of it.

---

No, I said sterilize not euthanize we're not "eliminating" anyone.

The population would be replenished from the remainder of the previous generation(s) each time the process is repeated.

I appreciate the sentiment though,

and your enthusiasm.

It's almost reminiscent of this...

"I'm in."

---

Cope? Speak for yourself cause that's a pretty broad generalization. The risk of muh "high IQ = aspie" is typically only associated with very high IQ people [140 IQ and above].

The population will be replenished in the next generation with the remainder of what's left from the previous one.

We're only getting rid of the low IQ in the next generation.


It affects almost every aspect of your life and determines how successful you'll probably be in said life.

Normies are ultimately left forgotten by the rest of the world and history because they never really amount to anything in their lives.



You need IQ people to design said infrastructure in the first place.

"Menial"/physical labour jobs are only thought of as being "low class" because they don't pay well and people are just lazy now.

Assuming automation doesn't take over most of said menial/low class jobs in the next generation, hard work and contributions to society will be greatly rewarded no matter how menial in nature they may be.

That way no job is undervalued and no one thinks of him or herself as above said job(s). Besides, the "lowest class" jobs could always go to the "lowest IQ" in the next generation too who'd be either at or barely above 110 IQ.


They often go hand in hand.

Cunning/dark triad mentality combined with a low IQ just leads to crime and jail time, but when combined with a high IQ it usually equals success and/or crime that simply goes unnoticed.

Sure, the elites aren't particularly intelligent but they're not low IQ either or else they'd be too incompetent and their actions would be obvious enough for even normies to start noticing [a lot of normies actually are low IQ compared to them tbh].

Most of their success comes from wealth, power, and connections established long before the current generation of elites ever came into being and they just piggyback off of what was established by their ancestors.

Spoiler: BB Codex

[QUOTE="Fiqh, post: 13351037, member: 49262"]
I just believe everyone should have the right to produce offspring, regardless of their IQ, race etc.
[/QUOTE]
Would you also say that right also applies to parents who willingly choose to have children all the while knowing that said child will be burdened with some genetic deformity?

There is no obligation for anyone to produce let alone those who will only burden society as a whole with a low IQ and the genes to spread it.



[QUOTE="SeiGun, post: 13351167, member: 847"]
it is far better to have more low iq people, so you can easily outperform,
[/QUOTE]
[I]Putting aside the fact that you already think so low enough of them as to reduce them to being no more than a self-congratulatory trophy for yourself[/I]...

...They serve no benefit to society and having them around only to "outperform" them serves no purpose in and of itself other than to just pat yourself on the back for not being stupid [[SIZE=12px]like them[/SIZE]].

The only argument I could ever see you making like this is for the low IQ to somehow do menial jobs, but even then you're only using them just to simply 'have them around' in the first place; it's pointless

This type of thinking only leads to laziness, which itself brings complacency and ultimately stagnation for a society's advancement.

This is how you ensure a society never amounts to greatness.
[QUOTE="SeiGun, post: 13351290, member: 847"]
bro you post on looksmax about sterilizing people , what greatness are you talking about
[/QUOTE]
I see you didn't read past the title when you made your first post and only just now bothered reading the rest.

Sterilization of the low IQ will leave society with only the brightest, most capable, and well-natured people Humanity has to offer.

This will then enable them to flourish and thrive in a society composed of other intelligent people just like them.

The "greatness" I refer to is how a society advances both scientifically and technologically [[SIZE=12px]I say [I][B]both[/B][/I] because they go hand in hand[/SIZE]] which comes from high IQ people pioneering it.



[QUOTE="Okulunkulu, post: 13351315, member: 30239"]
as someone who is 109 iq i feel like a detriment to society, it would be better for me to marry a down syndrome autist, at least then i would have my iq match.
[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't feel as bad tbh since there are plenty of others far below you, and you probably have the potential to contribute more than they ever will.

However, even with that said you still shouldn't procreate as doing so runs the risk of spreading you genetics, which in turn may cause your descendants in the next generation to also be low IQ.



[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351176, member: 72"]
Nope. More like uncivilized people who cannot adapt to modern society and mindless consumers who should be.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, temperament is also important to a society as is critical thinking which itself ties into IQ.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351176, member: 72"]
IQ does not mean sane.
[/QUOTE]
IQ means intelligence; that affects how well a person is able to learn.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351176, member: 72"]
Many low IQ but sane people and many high iq but insane people.
[/QUOTE]
Anecdotes aside being "sane" isn't inherently tied to being high or low IQ, and whether a low IQ person is "sane" doesn't matter when they're only able contribute very little to civilization's advancement if any at all even.

"Sanity" has very little to do with that.


[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351304, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Sure, temperament is also important to a society as is critical thinking which itself ties into IQ.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Yep but hard working ppl like my parents would be punished. If they have to be "sterilized" for betterment of society. Not every high iq person is cold and willing to sacrifice everything for "society". [COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)][B]...[/B][/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]
By "sterilization" I only mean birth control [[SIZE=12px]as in a vasectomy or tubal ligation/salpingectomy[/SIZE]] for the next generation of breedable aged people with an IQ of under 110.

I'm [B][U][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]not[/COLOR][/U][/B] referring to the euthanizing or removal of any people from society at all in case that wasn't already clear enough.

Your parents would already be too old and wouldn't qualify, but even if they were [[SIZE=12px]and did qualify[/SIZE]] they'd only be prevented from having children.

It's not "cold-hearted" so much as it is simply pragmatic and ultimately coming from a place of good.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[B][COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)]...[/COLOR][/B] Maybe if you said high iq ppl are able to keep their "low iq" family members, then sure.
[/QUOTE]
What I offer here is similar in that your family members will be exempt from whatever you think is going to happen to them simply because they're either too old to breed and/or just prevented from having children if they're low IQ.

I haven't referred to the euthanasia of low IQ people in anything I've said.

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351304, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]IQ means intelligence; that affects how well a person is able to learn.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
IQ alone means problem solving and pattern recognition which is part of intelligence. [B][COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)]...[/COLOR][/B]
[/QUOTE]
IQ involves a lot more than just that.

The reason why it's such a good indicator of someone's intelligence is simply due to being so well rounded in its approach...

First and most important of all perhaps- critical thinking and reasoning ability are both directly accounted for when measuring IQ. These two are probably the best overall measure of one's intelligence.

IQ also involves verbal fluency which itself is an indicator of your communication skills and ability to articulate complex concepts.

Yes, it also involves basic math abilities which itself [I]does[/I] play a role in your analytical, reasoning, pattern recognition, and predictive abilities like you mentioned.

Not to mention, it also measures basic memory and visual-spatial processing speed(s) as well which measure your brains "raw power" so to speak, which is important as it's the foundation for how you both retain and recall information. I don't think I need to mention how having a poor memory would be detrimental to one's overall abilities.

IQ is everything.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[B][COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)]...[/COLOR][/B] There can be low iq creative ppl.
[/QUOTE]
Look, I get where you're coming from, and I also don't deny that [[SIZE=12px]there are creative low IQ people too[/SIZE]], but [B]IQ itself is directly related to creativity[/B].

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351304, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Anecdotes aside being "sane" isn't inherently tied to being high or low IQ, and whether a low IQ person is "sane" doesn't matter when they're only able contribute very little to civilization's advancement if any at all even.

"Sanity" has very little to do with that.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Why not just kill humanity and replace it all with self learning AI machines?
[/QUOTE]
1. I unironically can't even tell if you're only saying that because you genuinely think it fits into this conversation, or if you're just saying that to purposefully make me out to be some rambling "cold-hearted" technocratic/transhumanist psychopath.


2. Regardless, you sound like some normie complaining with another typical regurgitated strawman response of muh "[I][B]but that's like eugenics n shit bro![/B][/I]" as if to try to say muh "[I][B]bu- but like you want to genocide all the stupid people?!?![/B][/I]"


3. I never mentioned anything of the sort and you're going off on a very distant and unrelated topic.

In what way does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about?


4. That wouldn't even be Humanity anymore and I only seek to help our species become the best version of itself possible to achieve greatness.


[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
[QUOTE]
[SIZE=9px]By "sterilization" I only mean birth control [as in a vasectomy or tubal ligation/salpingectomy] for the next generation of breedable aged people with an IQ of under 110. I'm [B][U][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]not[/COLOR][/U][/B] referring to the euthanizing or removal of any people from society at all in case that wasn't already clear enough. Your parents would already be too old and wouldn't qualify, but even if they were [and did qualify] they'd only be prevented from having children. It's not "cold-hearted" so much as it is simply pragmatic and ultimately coming from a place of good.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Yep, then agreed.
[/QUOTE]
I thought as much.
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351701, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=9px]IQ involves a lot more than just that. [/SIZE][SIZE=12px][B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]...[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][SIZE=9px] IQ is everything.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
That is different type of IQ.
[ATTACH=full]2549069[/ATTACH] [COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)][B]...[/B][/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of that.

I listed out multiple types in [URL='https://looksmax.org/threads/everyone-with-an-iq-under-110-should-be-sterilized.873991/post-13351701']my reply[/URL] to [URL='https://looksmax.org/goto/post?id=13351381']your post[/URL]:
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351701, member: 6757"]
IQ involves a lot more than just that.

The reason why it's such a good indicator of someone's intelligence is simply due to being so well rounded in its approach...

First and most important of all perhaps- critical thinking and reasoning ability are both directly accounted for when measuring IQ. These two are probably the best overall measure of one's intelligence.

IQ also involves verbal fluency which itself is an indicator of your communication skills and ability to articulate complex concepts.

Yes, it also involves basic math abilities which itself [I]does[/I] play a role in your analytical, reasoning, pattern recognition, and predictive abilities like you mentioned.

Not to mention, it also measures basic memory and visual-spatial processing speed(s) as well which measure your brains "raw power" so to speak, which is important as it's the foundation for how you both retain and recall information. I don't think I need to mention how having a poor memory would be detrimental to one's overall abilities.

IQ is everything.
[/QUOTE]
You were the only one trying to reduce it to just two types [[SIZE=12px]of IQ[/SIZE]] in [URL='https://looksmax.org/threads/everyone-with-an-iq-under-110-should-be-sterilized.873991/post-13351381']your post[/URL]:
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351381, member: 72"]
IQ alone means problem solving and pattern recognition which is part of intelligence. There can be low iq creative ppl.
[/QUOTE]
Which means you're essentially restating my point [[SIZE=12px]as your own[/SIZE]].

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
[B][COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)]...[/COLOR][/B]Are you saying 110+ on ALL?
[/QUOTE]
That's how it's generally measured to begin with anyway: cumulatively.

So in a matter of speaking, yes; there wouldn't be much of a point if I wasn't.

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
I disagree that critical thinking is accounted for when measuring IQ.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, disagree then [I]cause[/I]...

1. It is [[SIZE=12px]accounted for[/SIZE]].

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
I know have seen way too many gooks (i live in east asia),
[/QUOTE]
2. Anecdotal^

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
they are high IQ but definitely in learning capability n being able to copy. They lack critical thinking and creativity.
[/QUOTE]
3. I get where you're coming from with this but your point is still rendered moot ['[SIZE=12px][I][B]moot[/B][/I][/SIZE]'[SIZE=12px] [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness#Moot_point']in the US sense as opposed to the standard UK one[/URL], since this isn't really up for debate anymore[/SIZE]] when considering how applying learned information in-field directly draws upon one's critical thinking ability; also, again anecdotal.

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
Same with verbal IQ.
[/QUOTE]
4. [I]Speaking thereof[/I]...

No offence, but would [B]this[/B] be an example of said high verbal IQ: ??
[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
Its mostly low IQ ppl i have seen that have v v good verbal iq.
[/QUOTE]
5.
>Low IQ
>High Verbal IQ

Pick one.

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
There are cases of high iq ppl with high verbal iq but this has not been the norm in my experience. I know many intelligent ppl but their verbal iq is low but they are deffo high iq because of things they can fix/learn fast/have good thought process, just not v good at presenting it.
[/QUOTE]
6. anecdotes. me

[QUOTE="robtical, post: 13351757, member: 72"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351701, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=9px]Look, I get where you're coming from, and I also don't deny that [there are creative low IQ people too], but [B]IQ itself is directly related to creativity[/B]. 1. I unironically can't even tell if you're only saying that because you genuinely think it fits into this conversation, or if you're just saying that to purposefully make me out to be some rambling "cold-hearted" technocratic/transhumanist psychopath. 2. Regardless, you sound like some normie complaining with another typical regurgitated strawman response of muh "[I][B]but that's like eugenics n shit bro![/B][/I]" as if to try to say muh "[I][B]bu- but like you want to genocide all the stupid people?!?![/B][/I]" 3. I never mentioned anything of the sort and you're going off on a very distant and unrelated topic.
In what way does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about? 4. That wouldn't even be Humanity anymore and I only seek to help our species become the best version of itself possible to achieve greatness.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
I thought u meant to kill off ppl under 110 but that has been cleared so np. I support eugenics, just not killing ppl. I have seen many hard working well-meaning ppl but they are not bright. That is why it triggered me because i thought u meant genocide. But you didn't so nvm the post.
[/QUOTE]
Anyway, [I]moving on[/I]...



[QUOTE="Deleted member 27674, post: 13351235, member: 27674"]
IQ is not a fixed number. It can change throughout someone's life. Also, IQ can be affected by stuff like nutrition in the formative years, and pollution. For example, exposure to lead pollution has been proven to lower people's IQ. To really increase the intelligence of humanity, all these factors have to be taken into account.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, IQ isn't necessarily completely "set in stone" but that "change" you refer to won't actually shift [[SIZE=12px]or rather increase as you're suggesting[/SIZE]] by that much.

All the factors you listed would be taken into account eventually, but I'm primarily referring to a population free of said factors [[SIZE=12px]like the West or East Asia for example[/SIZE]] as any difference in IQ would just be genetic.



[QUOTE="Deleted member 11126, post: 13351024, member: 11126"]
I think its more like anyone under 90 IQ. Also IQ is only one metric there are plenty of people with low inhibition that are still not low IQ.
[/QUOTE]
That would be a good start but I want the next generation to start off where East Asian countries already do by default. Think 100 million people where the lowest IQ among all of them would just be 110 and plenty would well past it.

It'd be like building a civilization and already [S][SIZE=12px]starting out as smart as the Japanese/Koreans or something[/SIZE][/S] [B][I]having [U]intelligence maxxed out[/U] by default[/I][/B], but even the IQ of the least intelligent among the flock would never dip under 110 and everyone from simple labourers to businessmen would be intelligent.

IQ is probably the most important metric; "inhibition" matters very little compared to it as intelligence is what drives a society forward.



[QUOTE="Deleted member 11126, post: 13351042, member: 11126"]
I think the issue isn't low IQ people its our current parastic elite. They would rather turn the world into a brown 80 IQ mess and rule over a broken destroyed people then have a decent society where their rule would be threatened.
[/QUOTE]
A stupid society is easier to manipulate and control after all.













[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351823, member: 27641"]
Imagine valuing iq to this extent
[/QUOTE]
[IMG alt="Idi Amin Laugh GIF - Idi Amin Laugh Lol - Discover & Share GIFs"]https://media.tenor.com/_RXvBoRx9xkAAAAd/idi-amin-laugh.gif[/IMG]...
[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351823, member: 27641"]
This is severe autism to link such meaningless cope to [SIZE=26px][I][B]euthanizing humans[/B][/I][/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
:feelsuhh:
Valuing IQ to this extent is how you know the difference between "[I]euthanasia[/I]" and '[B]sterilization[/B]'
[QUOTE]
Eu·tha·na·sia
[HR][/HR]
The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The practice is illegal in most countries.
"she wants the laws around euthanasia to be changed"
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Ster·i·li·za·tion
[HR][/HR]
Surgery to make a person or animal unable to produce offspring.
"she had three children and had undergone sterilization"
[/QUOTE]
📚📘📖🤓

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351823, member: 27641"]
You should be the one killed for such a take
[/QUOTE]
:soy::feelswah::feelswhy:
Careful; [I]you [/I][[SIZE=12px][I]only[/I][/SIZE]][I] speak for yourself here[/I].

You can't even tell who's more autistic for having such a shit take yourself...

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351823, member: 27641"]
Who will even do the low class jobs .
[/QUOTE]
Jfl is that really all you value them for?

Imagine pretending to give [[SIZE=12px]so little of[/SIZE]] a shit about low IQ people that the best argument you can bother coming up with for why they ought to exist is just so they can clean the shit from your toilet.

Bruh this shit writes itself holy fuck. :lul:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n5lPMGaijmY


[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351997, member: 27641"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351890, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Valuing IQ to this extent is how you know the difference between "[I]euthanasia[/I]" and '[B]sterilization[/B]'[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
I thought its synonym
[/QUOTE]
It isn't; you thought wrong.

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351997, member: 27641"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351890, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Speak for yourself.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Im arguing for low iq people cuz iq doesnt matter unless youre mentally crippled
[/QUOTE]
What exactly are you arguing for them?

I'm not necessarily arguing anything against them myself, only that they shouldn't be allowed to have children so that the next generation is high IQ.

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13351997, member: 27641"]
[QUOTE="chaddyboi66, post: 13351890, member: 6757"]
[SIZE=10px]Bruh this shit writes itself holy fuck.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
The real word is too practical for this incel cope and mental masturbation
[/QUOTE]
[I]You only call it that simply because you lack the capability to properly grasp the concept yourself[/I].

I'm arguing for a [[B][SIZE=12px]we[/SIZE][/B]] [B]should[/B] rather than a [I]could[/I] [[I][SIZE=12px]do this[/SIZE][/I]].

It's perfectly feasible the same way certain groups were able to increase their average height in the last century, especially if enough public support is garnered for it.

[QUOTE="try2beme, post: 13352016, member: 27641"]
Bro wants a world full of high iq sigma entrepreneurs with bateman pfps
[/QUOTE]
It's not Bateman.
[IMG alt="MaximilianMus Oh Yeah Yeah | Know Your Meme"]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2LxO8B8lYvo/hqdefault.jpg[/IMG][IMG alt="Deus Ex Deus GIF - Deus Ex Deus Ex - Discover & Share GIFs"]https://media.tenor.com/20wdowVmrfIAAAAC/deus-ex-deus.gif[/IMG]





[QUOTE="Deleted member 31497, post: 13352432, member: 31497"]
no iq for ur face
[/QUOTE]
[I]Oh but there will be[/I]...

[QUOTE="Deleted member 31497, post: 13351893, member: 31497"]
Cope short and ugly people should be gassed and exterminated instead
[/QUOTE]
...
You need to think further ahead.

If the next generation was high IQ they'd figure that out themselves, but the current low IQ sheeple normie-pleb masses would never get on board with the sterilization/"etc..." of short and ugly people.

This idea should have enough support to get some normies on board first as it'd be for the net benefit of society, and it'd also ensure the next generation that comes as a result of it will be able to make it happen.



[QUOTE="lightskinbengali, post: 13352817, member: 25056"]
I believe the approach to eugenics should be far less confrontational when considering a very vast portion of the population. We should focus instead on developing crispr to the point where it’s cheap and accessible for people to have “designer” babies. Abortion will be made mandatory for congenital defects such as downs. Then we could potentially create incredible incentives for having kids, especially financial. At last after both of these conditions are met the third world and ethnic nations will be sterilized through secretive means which could be chalked up to pollution. At the end the most populated countries will be the white ones, beginning a new age where man will be thrust into the cosmos.
[/QUOTE]
I like this approach and also thought about using gene editing myself, though I'd still caution against it until it's mostly safe for the population it'll be used on. I intend for the next generation of high IQ people to lead Humanity into prosperity and it's first true golden age, so there mustn't be any complications in regard to potential defects from procedure in order to ensure this.

Sterilization of the low IQ also wouldn't go unnoticed by the public [[SIZE=12px]at least for long anyway[/SIZE]]; that's why I planned on using an effective propaganda campaign centered around apologetics for positive eugenics in order to convince the public it was ultimately for the greater good.

Most support will probably stem from the desire to eradicate congenital defects, and of course to prevent suffering of the children born with horrible genetic conditions. We could also even throw in a few more [[SIZE=12px]new[/SIZE]] cases of children suing their parents for still choosing to procreate all the while knowing their child would probably end up being born with a severe heritable genetic disorder.

Once enough public support had been garnered we could then move on to the next stage, which would probably involve what you mentioned in that last part only this time the public would actively be in favour of it themselves.

[QUOTE]
[S][B][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]I honestly don't think this is [I]that[/I] unrealistic considering how easily so many were already on board with mandates during the pandemic. The elites can convince the feeble minded masses of almost anything so long as they're willing to throw enough[/COLOR][/B] [worthless fiat] [B][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]money at trying to convince them, which they ultimately can considering how virtually all money comes from them.[/COLOR][/B][/S]
[/QUOTE]

Incentives for having more [[SIZE=12px]high IQ[/SIZE]] children would need to be state sponsored in high IQ nations currently experiencing population decline, and proper [[SIZE=12px]or really just "regular"[/SIZE]] birth control measures would need to be put in place for any low IQ nations that are breeding too much not that unlike what you said.
All in all though, I'd say both of our plans seem quite similar and could maybe actually work hand in hand behind the scenes.

[QUOTE]
[S][B][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]Granted, most of this of course rely on the elites being okay with it, or at the very least not giving enough of a shit about it to get in the way.[/COLOR][/B][/S]
[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE="Stackz, post: 13352522, member: 25791"]
[QUOTE="_MVP_, post: 13350989, member: 20774"]
All niggers would suffice
[/QUOTE]
Bro I have an iq of 163 and I'm a math genius and know two programming languages what are you talking about niggas are not dumb were the same as whites it's just most of us don't get proper nutrition
[/QUOTE]
[I]Sure[/I], "[I]bro[/I]"

You do know by using yourself as an [[SIZE=12px]anecdotal[/SIZE]] example he can always just say you're cherrypickinig right?

He'll then probably bring up studies testing for the difference in IQ between whites and blacks, and then two of you will go back and forth over whether education and/or other environmental factors play into the discrepancy.

From there debate will shift toward using studies specifically looking for how educated blacks perform vs uneducated whites and vice versa, and then you both will probably continue scouring research databases for studies proving both your respective points again etc. etc...

I've seen this same debate go down this very same path over and over again more times than I bother to remember counting at this point, so at least make it interesting once he sees your reply and you both finally go at it.

[IMG alt="Deer Popcorn GIF"]https://media1.giphy.com/media/NipFetnQOuKhW/200.gif[/IMG][IMG alt="Pop Corn GIF by WWE"]https://media2.giphy.com/media/3xkNUy3Vh8QbPmJZjK/200.gif[/IMG][IMG alt="Fox Tv Popcorn GIF by The Four"]https://media3.giphy.com/media/uWzS6ZLs0AaVOJlgRd/200.gif[/IMG][IMG alt="the joker popcorn GIF"]https://media0.giphy.com/media/iaBiPW3vAOi0E/200.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE="Stackz, post: 13353436, member: 25791"]
I know and predicted it would go down that path
[/QUOTE]
[I]Sure you did[/I],[I]
[IMG alt="Stackz"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/l/25/25791.jpg?1707672872[/IMG]
"bro".[/I]
[QUOTE="iamgirlcrazy, post: 13353552, member: 40788"]
A bunch of midwits won't solve anything. Plus, 110 isn't that high. There's a negligible difference between 100 and 110. You couldn't even notice it during a conversation, for example. There's also something called regression to the mean. Each generation tends to resemble the previous ones. That's why genius people have children that are slightly above the average but below their parents in IQ. So generation after generation IQ would decrease until it reached that of the average (100).
[/QUOTE]
Make no mistake I have no regard for people with an IQ of 100 any more or less than I do of anyone else below them.

I seek to set the new baseline [B]minimum[/B] for IQ to start at 110, and the only purpose of this is to "wipe the slate clean" so to speak. This means there won't be anyone with an IQ below this point to bring down the IQ of children born in the next generation.

This alone would be good enough as it removes most of the troublesome parts of Humanity [[SIZE=12px]sub 110 IQ "people"[/SIZE]] from its gene pool that only tend to bring down the rest. That said, by no means do I intend to stop there at all.

Assuming potential parents [I]aren't[/I] forced to only pair up with partners of a roughly equal IQ [[SIZE=12px]at least not yet anyway[/SIZE]], [B]at most[/B] this regression in IQ would only fall back to the new minimum set of the population all partners are now selected from [[SIZE=12px]110[/SIZE]]. This is of course is only assuming if IQs [B][I]tend[/I][/B] to continue regressing uninterrupted as you suggest, or if a higher IQ parent [[SIZE=12px]above 110[/SIZE]] pairs up with a partner that has an IQ beneath them [[SIZE=12px]at 110 minimum[/SIZE]]. Even with that said it isn't a given in and of itself, and not all children of high IQ parents will have an IQ lower than them.

However, with enough breeding of the initial "pure" minimum 110 IQ generation a sizable amount of higher IQ individuals [[SIZE=12px]above 110[/SIZE]] can be born for the next generation. Thus the 110 IQ midwits will become the new "low IQ" populace of this generation.

From there the remaining higher IQ populace [[SIZE=12px]above 110[/SIZE]] will repeat the process in the next generation with a new baseline being set at 10 points higher [[SIZE=12px]120[/SIZE]] from the last. Rinse and repeat [[SIZE=12px]at least until this can be done with gene editing assuming it proves viable[/SIZE]].

The initial process of setting a baseline at 110 is only meant to eradicate IQs beneath 110 from the Human race. This way the minimum IQ can continue to be pushed further without interruption from IQs beneath the baseline of the last generation before it.

[QUOTE="iamgirlcrazy, post: 13353552, member: 40788"]
There's more to life than IQ, by the way.
[/QUOTE]
IQ is everything.

[QUOTE="iamgirlcrazy, post: 13353552, member: 40788"]
The people who deny the validity of IQ are (SURPRISE) within the same 110-130 range you mentioned. These are the midwits ruining everything. We don't need more of them.

View attachment 2549403

View attachment 2549404

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9agM261CSJU

This is you, OP.
[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have a society of 110-130 midwits than one of sub 110 ethnics/retards, though I'll admit it'd be a difficult choice if said midwits were all normies.

Midwit [[SIZE=12px]110-130[/SIZE]] normies denying the validity of IQ has no bearing on other people of the same IQ.

It makes no difference if the ones complaining about muh "IQ bad tho" are midwit normies with 110-130 IQs or even Africans/ethnics with IQs below 85; neither's ignorance is reflected onto anyone else but themselves.

Regardless, what you're describing really just sounds like normie problem more than anything else.
[QUOTE="iamgirlcrazy, post: 13355421, member: 40788"]
Well put, not gonna lie. How are we going to do this?
[/QUOTE]
Still working on it but what I was discussing with [PLAIN]@ ... seemed like a decent place to start.


I'll get back to you after I've finished my snus and am done masturbating though [no porn since NNN 2021 tho Srs]


Also...

What anime is this from?




Take off your headphones and you'll probably stop @hearing [the schizo] voices.

Puzzle solved.

We could maybe do it in two phases.

Initial phase 1 will sterilize those with an IQ under 100 getting rid of the bulk low IQ, and phase 2 will get rid of remaining the midwits under 110 in the next generation.

The remaining populace with the genes for IQs at 110 will breed as will the overall population of people born with IQs well above 110 in the next generation.


In initial numbers sure perhaps, but my intent is that the remaining population [with the genes for an IQ at or above 110] would be heavily incentivized to repopulate.

However, the true goal of this endeavour is simply meant to ensure the genes for low IQ are removed from the rest of the gene pool so that next generation can start off from a "clean slate" baseline of at least 110.

The risk of muh "high IQ = autism" is severely overstated, and I think the number associated with that risk is only 25-30% if I'm not mistaken, not to mention it's typically associated with people that have very high IQs [140+ IQ] which well above 110 IQ threshold I'm initially aiming for.

We can consider selecting for other traits such as good mental/physical health, height, looks, etc. once [as in only after] this next generation of high IQ people are born first.

I only say this [implementing the idea after the next generation of high IQ people are born first] because they'd probably be more inclined to agree with such an idea due to their higher IQs, which would drive them to think further ahead and/or really just more with their heads in general.

The current generation(s) of feeble minded lower IQ sheeple would only look at such ideas from a more basic [primitive] emotional perspective only to reject them on their face out of ignorance and fear like they already [and always] do, and this probably no more apparent than with how already vehemently normies reject the notion of "looks mattering" in any way in its entirety.


This is also without even considering the idea of applying some form of gene editing first, as I'm only referring to regular selective breeding.

Gene editing technology could be used in later generations once we can ensure it's completely safe to implement.



Tough choice ngl

My hope is that the generation of high IQ people would be both blackpilled enough about the importance of looks, and skilled enough to be able to improve said through medicine or tech.

Current generations full of feeble minded low IQ sheeple would never jump on board with any blackpilled ideas related to looks, since they'd buy into and/or virtue signal for the idea of "looks not mattering". They'd only see it from a more basic emotional perspective and immediately reject the idea on its face because they're afraid of it.




No, I said sterilize not euthanize we're not "eliminating" anyone.

The population would be replenished from the remainder of the previous generation(s) each time the process is repeated.


I appreciate the sentiment though,

and the enthusiasm.

It's almost reminiscent of this...

"I'm in."




Cope? Speak for yourself cause that's a pretty broad generalization. The risk of muh "high IQ = aspie" is typically only associated with very high IQ people [140 IQ and above].

The population will be replenished in the next generation with the remainder of what's left from the previous one.

We're only getting rid of the low IQ in the next generation.


It affects almost every aspect of your life and determines how successful you'll probably be in said life.

Normies are ultimately left forgotten by the rest of the world and history because they never really amount to anything in their lives.



You need IQ people to design said infrastructure in the first place.

"Menial"/physical labour jobs are only thought of as being "low class" because they don't pay well and people are just lazy now.

Assuming automation doesn't take over most of said menial/low class jobs in the next generation, hard work and contributions to society will be greatly rewarded no matter how menial in nature they may be.

That way no job is undervalued and no one thinks of him or herself as above said job(s). Besides, the "lowest class" jobs could always go to the "lowest IQ" in the next generation too who'd be either at or barely above 110 IQ.


They often go hand in hand.

Cunning/dark triad mentality combined with a low IQ just leads to crime and jail time, but when combined with a high IQ it usually equals success and/or crime that simply goes unnoticed.

Sure, the elites aren't particularly intelligent but they're not low IQ either or else they'd be too incompetent and their actions would be obvious enough for even normies to start noticing [a lot of normies actually are low IQ compared to them tbh].

Most of their success comes from wealth, power, and connections established long before the current generation of elites ever came into being and they just piggyback off of what was established by their ancestors.
[/PLAIN]

probably should've just masturbated tbh



instead of writing this shit ngl