IQ Differences and Genetic Rot

[Deleted member 17791]

"just genocide people theory"

if your gonna use eugenics based off lookism and IQ that ultimately brings up race and ethnicity.
and what race and ethnicity is the ugliest and has the lowest IQ? eugenics is outdated, archaic and wrong, we have tried eugenics before for hundreds of years and it doesn't work and never will work. genuinely deformed people will never have kids anyway.

plus, we live in the day and age of plastic surgery, this is not the Middle Ages, if you have a recessed jaw, too short, balding, acne, crooked nose, you can fix that. And the scientific consensus regarding IQ has shown by a multitude of studies that IQ is more determined by your environment and epigenetic expressions and prenatal development, than it has to do with just genetics

everybody has good genetics for something, if they didn't then their ancestors would have been removed from the gene pool from natural selection millions of years ago

throughout history Hitler tried to genocide the jews, the European colonizers tried to genocide the native Americans for hundreds of years, America has a long history of eugenics and sterilization, people tried genocide autistic people and mentally ill people, now we are going to genocide uggos?

your idea of eugenics is archaic, wrong and immoral. you cannot sterilize or kill someone based off their looks the same way its wrong to sterilize or kill someone based on their race.

killing people is wrong?

@StrangerDanger explain.

 

[StrangerDanger]

killing people is wrong?

@StrangerDanger explain.

tldr

 

[Deleted member 17791]

tldr

Who knows. He made a claim without proving it

 

[𝔻𝔸𝕎ℕ 𝕆𝔽 𝕂ℍ𝔸L]

The difference between the average person and a mentally retarded person is about 20 IQ points. Anything less than 83 IQ is considered too low for even the military to accept you. So if the average is 105, then the difference between a genius and yourself is roughly 2 mentally retarded people away. Genius is considered 160 roughly speaking. Some men and women have had IQ's higher, but they have a hard time measuring IQ after 160. This isnt a real thought out post, I just can't stop thinking about that fact.

The US military uses IQ testing to determine potential recruits' cognitive abilities. the military forbids anyone with an IQ under 83 from joining. because their experience has shown that anyone with an IQ under 83 will be more of a liability than an asset to the military.

Smart people according to this system should have a bigger gap between you and them than you do to a mentally retarded individual. At least point-wise.

If it is true that high IQ people struggle more in society it may be a lonely feeling at the top in a sense, and they also tend to be hypersensitive to information and share autistic traits. I don't consider myself to have a high IQ, but stupid people do tend to be incredibly isolating. Its very hard to communicate effectively with a legitimately stupid person. And some stupid people are obviously liabilities.



8:55 Mark on the video

In this video I think Mr. Hyde highlights the insanity of stupid individuals being allowed to roam around in the same environment as genuinely intelligent people, midwits, and above average intelligence individuals. You could be having a conversation with somebody only to realize that the person you are talking to is absurdly slower than you in their processing. Imagine hiring someone only to realize that they are absurdly slow when you lose a day, maybe a week's profits because of an incompetent mistake. Its insanity.

What is even more terrifying to me is that overall IQ scores are going down. If I recall correctly the G-Factors are going down relating to IQ. G-Factors are basically the most signifigant representative of fluid intelligence if I correctly recall. This is likely due to natural selection being essentially removed from humans and allowing for people high in mutational load to reproduce when they otherwise should face harsher selection pressures.

Mutational load is going up in humans, and that literally means the number of genetic mutations in human beings. This is likely due to the industrial revolution because humans now have the ability to subsist off society. 82-84% of the genome goes towards the brain. However, the brain is a black box, and it's infinitely more complex than anything we have yet to study as far as I am aware. The genes that have specific tasks in the brain that become mutated are not getting washed out by natural selection, and therefore we are likely concurrently witnessing the genetic rotting of our species.

The solution to this is obviously:

Spoiler: Solution

Artificial Selection. By doing this we would hypothetically be able to improve the human species magnitudes faster than natural selection. It would be significantly less painful as well. Infinitely less death and suffering would be required to get to an ideal state of civilization. If everyone was walking around with highly conscientious and compassionate personalities, with high intelligence and obviously physically attractive features, everything would improve on a scale that has not been seen before.

Genetic Refinement on a massive scale would improve the quality of life for all future human beings. To get there, however, we collectively must admit that objectively good genes and objectively bad ones exist and that some people need to be prevented from reproducing legally or up the social stigma. Otherwise, we will end up in a worse situation than we are in now. The more intelligent and attractive members of the species will become more attractive and intelligent/genetically superior compared to the ever-increasing genetically inferior "caste" of individuals who are only becoming more spiteful by the day. It is most likely possible to get there as well. Most people agree that genetically deformed people and extreme narcissists should not have kids. Therefore the foot is already in the door. If a country decided to eliminate all genetically ill from their population, they could start implementing newer additions to the list of "You can't reproduce". Especially as the scientists start understanding more deeply how genetics work. Imagine if only people who were one standard deviation higher in IQ could reproduce tomorrow. You would have significantly less waste produced, your population would go down, and you have an excess in infrastructure and facilities left over from the "ghost generation". On top of that, the average individual who makes up the bulk of civilization would die out. Start throwing out unattractive traits like acne, recessed jawlines, balding genes, short stature, bad muscle insertions, and start overly expressing longevity/attractive genes. In 300 years your civilization would be exponentially farther than where it would have been. Even if law can't be passed due to corruption, then we should continue to elevate the difference on a social level. A breaking point must be reached in which only the most genetically fit reproduce and the genetically unfit just live out their lives until death in my opinion. Its not meant to be personal, I just think that only the top percent of people should reproduce honestly. If that means some of my good genes aren't passed on that is fine. I think the future of human experience is worth a lot more than my selfish motivations.

The ironic thing is that those types of people who will take the idea "you shouldn't be able to reproduce" offensively can't rationalize why that is offensive without admitting to the fact that it is their limbic system talking, not their rational mind. They want to reproduce because its a primitive drive that is ancient, not typically because they dream of parenthood.

Hmm Nice thread! Saved!

 

[Deleted member 12248]

killing people is wrong?

@StrangerDanger explain.

wrong in a sense. i think it makes sense to get rid of the criminal element in society to an extent. they are largely unrecoverable

 

[Deleted member 17791]

wrong in a sense. i think it makes sense to get rid of the criminal element in society to an extent. they are largely unrecoverable

Just sterilise tbh. No need in killing people.

You could even give them a tax incentive to do it.

Give ugly and dumb people lower taxes if they get sterilised.

Give pretty and smart people lower taxes if they have more kids.

 

[Deleted member 12248]

Some good points but I lots of low iq shit at the end. There is no "narrow jaw" gene. Yes there are lots of bad genes around from the last 10.000 years of society suppressing natural and sexual selection but a big problem is also modern diet/lifestyle. Most people arent ugly because they have "bad genes" but because they ate the wrong diets for their facial development. Tongue-tie and small factors like this also lead to ugliness. Society is just badly educated.

Also eugenics won't work even if it would objectively a good choice. Everyone sees things subjectively and the reason we are here is to spread our genes - anything that would stop that gives us nothing but dread. Masses would reject eugenics if it wouldn't benefit them.
It's necessary to filter out bad genes ofc but only through really liberal societies (we mostly live in socialism rn) where not everyone is a slave to the state. Putting a healthy competition on everyone and not distributing the wealth of the skilled to the unskilled.

High IQ is also related to bad genetics bad- its literally the reason why some humans develop high asf IQs in the first place and why there are male geniuses but no female ones. The genetic pressure sexuality puts on us leads people to cope in some beautiful ways. If Mozart was a chad he would have never needed to make his music and this goes for lots of the people who brought society/humanity forward.

Also it's human nature wanting to feel superior/dominant to others. Not everyone can be on top. There is no utopia. There always need to be winners and losers. Back in 1800s a rich person had less than a poor person has now but the poor person still feels miserable because he knows he is at the bottom of society.
I agree that if everyone was beautiful and smart etc life would be a lot better and most people could flourish and be happy in a family but human nature still puts limits on us. Like there is literally no purpose to life other than out-competing others. Life is meaningless that way.

there is no single narrow jaw gene i literally dont care. just because there is no single gene responsible does not mean artificial selection would not result in the desired outcome. there is no single gene for turning a fucking wolf into a chihuahua. masses would reject eugenics if it doesn't benefit them. which is why we should talk about how it does benefit them. because it actually does. when only the best genes propagate into the future only the best aspects survive and the bad ones get washed out that are selected against. if you have a hot and intelligent sibling but you happen to be stupid and unattractive, only they get to reproduce. and only their optimal children reproduce. and so on. over time the negative genetic information is washed out and only the best aspects of your genetic information move forward. having more intelligent and healthy humans results in higher levels of technology being created at a faster progression. having more compassionate and hard working and intelligent and attractive and healthy people making up the next generation will mean less odds of spending time in a nursing home on pain killers. it does benefit people to give to the next generation. its just not immediately obvious why.

 

[Deleted member 12248]

Oh and ig there IQ is related to genetics but we arent sure about everything yet. It's also bad diets that affect it and for example language. If children grow up with unga bunga language they will be way less intelligent than some1 with well educated parents. That way intelligence is also inherited but not through genetics but through the environment.

genetics has a 0.8 correlate with genes last time i checked. its entirely genetic practically speaking. there is a 20% of genetic potential that can be achieved environmentally. poverty decreaes iq by roughly 15 points, assuming that population is roughly average intelligence optimally the average iq of a poverty stricken population will be roughly 90 or less

 

[Deleted member 12248]

Just sterilise tbh. No need in killing people.

You could even give them a tax incentive to do it.

Give ugly and dumb people lower taxes if they get sterilised.

Give pretty and smart people lower taxes if they have more kids.

yeah economic incentives make sense methinks, gigabrain over hear

 

[Deleted member 17791]

yeah economic incentives make sense methinks, gigabrain over hear

Thank you.

 

[anticel]

there is no single narrow jaw gene i literally dont care. just because there is no single gene responsible does not mean artificial selection would not result in the desired outcome. there is no single gene for turning a fucking wolf into a chihuahua. masses would reject eugenics if it doesn't benefit them. which is why we should talk about how it does benefit them. because it actually does. when only the best genes propagate into the future only the best aspects survive and the bad ones get washed out that are selected against. if you have a hot and intelligent sibling but you happen to be stupid and unattractive, only they get to reproduce. and only their optimal children reproduce. and so on. over time the negative genetic information is washed out and only the best aspects of your genetic information move forward. having more intelligent and healthy humans results in higher levels of technology being created at a faster progression. having more compassionate and hard working and intelligent and attractive and healthy people making up the next generation will mean less odds of spending time in a nursing home on pain killers. it does benefit people to give to the next generation. its just not immediately obvious why.

u dont understand what I said. I said that 90% of ugly people arent ugly because of their genetics. Well they are but only because of modern lifestyle/diet. If we fed our children properly and cut tongue ties etc. made sure their facial development grows naturally then most ppl would be attractive.

 

[Deleted member 12248]

u dont understand what I said. I said that 90% of ugly people arent ugly because of their genetics. Well they are but only because of modern lifestyle/diet. If we fed our children properly and cut tongue ties etc. made sure their facial development grows naturally then most ppl would be attractive.

i know what you said, you don't understand what I know to be true. the environment does play a role but it isn't the majority reason for why people are ugly. twins seperated at birth that live under different environmental pressures look the same, marry the same named woman, divorce that woman around the same time, remarry a woman of the same name, and name their dog the same name. they have the same habits/facial structure despite different lifestyles and developing in poverty stricken environments and rich environments. most people aren't ugly because of environment. genetics obviously play the largest role in everything about who you are. even your personality is genetic. conscientiousness is also genetic. intelligence is genetic. almost everything about anyone is genetic.

i only just discovered this youtuber tails. i think that a small percentage of what he says is useful.


Their faces look identical, despite different environments. therefore it can be deduced within reason that naturally some people mew and some don't. however using technology to expand the jaw (not even just mewing can get the results of technology) gives a mediocre result. its not wrong to say that proper posture would result in a more attractive face, but you can still be ugly and mew even from a young age.

 

[Deleted member 12248]

u dont understand what I said. I said that 90% of ugly people arent ugly because of their genetics. Well they are but only because of modern lifestyle/diet. If we fed our children properly and cut tongue ties etc. made sure their facial development grows naturally then most ppl would be attractive.

even if you do everything right the majority of people would not be attractive. genetics of facial attractiveness isn't only related to bite force, it is related to immune system functionality, mutational load, balance of sex hormones and growth hormones and generally just representative of optimal development. most people are being deteriorated by mutational load because there are no selective pressures on human beings anymore.

 

[Deleted member 12248]

u dont understand what I said. I said that 90% of ugly people arent ugly because of their genetics. Well they are but only because of modern lifestyle/diet. If we fed our children properly and cut tongue ties etc. made sure their facial development grows naturally then most ppl would be attractive.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4678922

The reason there was a study on this in the first place is because many babies are ugly. they are already unattractive at birth. they can mew and be a more attractive version of their future self, but they are still ugly and genetically signaling an inferiority or issue. every attractive trait is directly or indirectly associated with health or ability to do something valuable.

 

[anticel]

even if you do everything right the majority of people would not be attractive. genetics of facial attractiveness isn't only related to bite force, it is related to immune system functionality, mutational load, balance of sex hormones and growth hormones and generally just representative of optimal development. most people are being deteriorated by mutational load because there are no selective pressures on human beings anymore.

yes and guess what. this shit is all linked to gut health. most of are genes arent bad but just not adapted to our lifestyles. I agree that there are some genes that got hard mixed into society by civilization removing sexual/natural selection. look at how hard the environment plays into facial development / into gut health / etc. and how 1 small thing can offset everything. ofc genes are super important and without good genes u are basically fucked. but u can have good genes and they get expressed in a bad way.

ik a guy who is 1.75, htn, small peen. his older twin is 1.80, chad, probably big dick. the younger twin is gay probably related to a big trauma from some inferiority complex which impacted his t and all of his development. also for the people with "bad genes". it might literally be 1 small gene lacking that turns them from chad to ogre. (good looking people will naturally reject this as this makes them lose their thought of being geneticaly superior which gives them big inner relief). look at siblings who have pretty similar genes but they turn out different asf.

another point is genetic engineering which will probably happen at some point. 1st to remove diseases, 2nd for beauty and then at some point maybe even for more... shit might even exist already lmao. like it would be in any1s interest to keep it only for their own genes. so yeah no need for eugenics.

also if you argue for eugenics - you cant just genocide ppl once - it would have to be done every few generations lmao. also as i said everything in life is about competition to pass on your genes - if you predetermine this you remove literally all purpose in life.

 

[szolliontaraelis]

just do genetic engineering and breed space marines theory

 

[lil truecel]

The difference between the average person and a mentally retarded person is about 20 IQ points. Anything less than 83 IQ is considered too low for even the military to accept you. So if the average is 105, then the difference between a genius and yourself is roughly 2 mentally retarded people away. Genius is considered 160 roughly speaking. Some men and women have had IQ's higher, but they have a hard time measuring IQ after 160. This isnt a real thought out post, I just can't stop thinking about that fact.

The US military uses IQ testing to determine potential recruits' cognitive abilities. the military forbids anyone with an IQ under 83 from joining. because their experience has shown that anyone with an IQ under 83 will be more of a liability than an asset to the military.

Smart people according to this system should have a bigger gap between you and them than you do to a mentally retarded individual. At least point-wise.

If it is true that high IQ people struggle more in society it may be a lonely feeling at the top in a sense, and they also tend to be hypersensitive to information and share autistic traits. I don't consider myself to have a high IQ, but stupid people do tend to be incredibly isolating. Its very hard to communicate effectively with a legitimately stupid person. And some stupid people are obviously liabilities.



8:55 Mark on the video

In this video I think Mr. Hyde highlights the insanity of stupid individuals being allowed to roam around in the same environment as genuinely intelligent people, midwits, and above average intelligence individuals. You could be having a conversation with somebody only to realize that the person you are talking to is absurdly slower than you in their processing. Imagine hiring someone only to realize that they are absurdly slow when you lose a day, maybe a week's profits because of an incompetent mistake. Its insanity.

What is even more terrifying to me is that overall IQ scores are going down. If I recall correctly the G-Factors are going down relating to IQ. G-Factors are basically the most signifigant representative of fluid intelligence if I correctly recall. This is likely due to natural selection being essentially removed from humans and allowing for people high in mutational load to reproduce when they otherwise should face harsher selection pressures.

Mutational load is going up in humans, and that literally means the number of genetic mutations in human beings. This is likely due to the industrial revolution because humans now have the ability to subsist off society. 82-84% of the genome goes towards the brain. However, the brain is a black box, and it's infinitely more complex than anything we have yet to study as far as I am aware. The genes that have specific tasks in the brain that become mutated are not getting washed out by natural selection, and therefore we are likely concurrently witnessing the genetic rotting of our species.

The solution to this is obviously:

Spoiler: Solution

Artificial Selection. By doing this we would hypothetically be able to improve the human species magnitudes faster than natural selection. It would be significantly less painful as well. Infinitely less death and suffering would be required to get to an ideal state of civilization. If everyone was walking around with highly conscientious and compassionate personalities, with high intelligence and obviously physically attractive features, everything would improve on a scale that has not been seen before.

Genetic Refinement on a massive scale would improve the quality of life for all future human beings. To get there, however, we collectively must admit that objectively good genes and objectively bad ones exist and that some people need to be prevented from reproducing legally or up the social stigma. Otherwise, we will end up in a worse situation than we are in now. The more intelligent and attractive members of the species will become more attractive and intelligent/genetically superior compared to the ever-increasing genetically inferior "caste" of individuals who are only becoming more spiteful by the day. It is most likely possible to get there as well. Most people agree that genetically deformed people and extreme narcissists should not have kids. Therefore the foot is already in the door. If a country decided to eliminate all genetically ill from their population, they could start implementing newer additions to the list of "You can't reproduce". Especially as the scientists start understanding more deeply how genetics work. Imagine if only people who were one standard deviation higher in IQ could reproduce tomorrow. You would have significantly less waste produced, your population would go down, and you have an excess in infrastructure and facilities left over from the "ghost generation". On top of that, the average individual who makes up the bulk of civilization would die out. Start throwing out unattractive traits like acne, recessed jawlines, balding genes, short stature, bad muscle insertions, and start overly expressing longevity/attractive genes. In 300 years your civilization would be exponentially farther than where it would have been. Even if law can't be passed due to corruption, then we should continue to elevate the difference on a social level. A breaking point must be reached in which only the most genetically fit reproduce and the genetically unfit just live out their lives until death in my opinion. Its not meant to be personal, I just think that only the top percent of people should reproduce honestly. If that means some of my good genes aren't passed on that is fine. I think the future of human experience is worth a lot more than my selfish motivations.

The ironic thing is that those types of people who will take the idea "you shouldn't be able to reproduce" offensively can't rationalize why that is offensive without admitting to the fact that it is their limbic system talking, not their rational mind. They want to reproduce because its a primitive drive that is ancient, not typically because they dream of parenthood.

didnt read

 

[noodlelover]

Eugenics will never again become politically possible.

Smart people aren't going to have more kids because you "encourage" them to do so.

The trait you most value, general intelligence, is not the trait others most value, and most people have values much higher, such as freedom, than optimizing general IQ, which again makes it politically impossible.

 

[MiroslavBulldosex]

And the scientific consensus regarding IQ has shown by a multitude of studies that IQ is more determined by your environment and epigenetic expressions and prenatal development, than it has to do with just genetics

That's wrong, IQ is mostly genetics.

 

[jaw_is_law]

That's wrong, IQ is mostly genetics.

your not understanding, and im not going to try to explain it to you because your a dumbfuck.

 

[Crusile]

@blackpilled_bloomer "g" is a false variable that doesn't exist in the brain

The Myth of “General Intelligence”

5000 words Introduction “General Intelligence” or g is championed as the hallmark “discovery” of psychology. First “discovered” by Charles Spearman in 1904, noti…

notpoliticallycorrect.me

The false variable of IQ should have an assumed heritability of 0%

The Concept of Genotypic IQ is False and Socially Destructive

2050 words Introduction The concept of “genotypic IQ” (GIQ) refers to a theoretical genetic potential of IQ. Basically, GIQ is one’s IQ without any corresponding environmental ins…

notpoliticallycorrect.me

The Answer to Hereditarianism is Developmental Systems Theory

4150 words Introduction It is claimed that genes (DNA sequences) have a special, privileged role in the development of all traits. But once we understand what genes do and their role in development…

notpoliticallycorrect.me

 

[brucel]

Shit post op

 

[Crusile]

The difference between the average person and a mentally retarded person is about 20 IQ points. Anything less than 83 IQ is considered too low for even the military to accept you. So if the average is 105, then the difference between a genius and yourself is roughly 2 mentally retarded people away. Genius is considered 160 roughly speaking. Some men and women have had IQ's higher, but they have a hard time measuring IQ after 160. This isnt a real thought out post, I just can't stop thinking about that fact.

IQ fails to detect mental retardation in like 90% of all people who have an estimated IQ of <70.

How useful are national IQs?

NOTE: I now write for Aporia Magazine. Please sign up there! National IQs – estimates of the average IQ in different countries – were first compiled by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen for their 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations. They have since been updated a number of times, most recently...

noahcarl.substack.com

"What this means is that most black people who score below 70 on IQ tests do not have any kind of mental disability."

Psychologist moment/logic

Epic predictor: IQ, invented for identifying mental retardation, fails at detecting mental retardation.

The US military uses IQ testing to determine potential recruits' cognitive abilities. the military forbids anyone with an IQ under 83 from joining. because their experience has shown that anyone with an IQ under 83 will be more of a liability than an asset to the military.

Wrong, they arent testing IQ. If all knowledge tests are IQ tests, why do IQ tests exist? All tests must correlate with IQ tests but they dont linearly correlate and cant be "converted to iq"

Smart people according to this system should have a bigger gap between you and them than you do to a mentally retarded individual. At least point-wise.

Not true, the "gap" gets smaller the higher you go up and "IQ points" arent a measurement.

If it is true that high IQ people struggle more in society it may be a lonely feeling at the top in a sense, and they also tend to be hypersensitive to information and share autistic traits. I don't consider myself to have a high IQ, but stupid people do tend to be incredibly isolating. Its very hard to communicate effectively with a legitimately stupid person. And some stupid people are obviously liabilities.

G doesnt exist, but still, mentally ill people have inflated IQ scores which overestimate their "innate intelligence". People who are socially withdrawn (so-called autism) spend more time absorbing "knowledge" that is used on IQ test questions

What is even more terrifying to me is that overall IQ scores are going down. If I recall correctly the G-Factors are going down relating to IQ. G-Factors are basically the most signifigant representative of fluid intelligence if I correctly recall. This is likely due to natural selection being essentially removed from humans and allowing for people high in mutational load to reproduce when they otherwise should face harsher selection pressures.

Modern people score higher on decade-century old IQ test, though. The "g factor" doesnt exist and natural selection of behavioural traits is false/impossible https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/20...editarianism-is-developmental-systems-theory/

Mutational load is going up in humans, and that literally means the number of genetic mutations in human beings. This is likely due to the industrial revolution because humans now have the ability to subsist off society. 82-84% of the genome goes towards the brain. However, the brain is a black box, and it's infinitely more complex than anything we have yet to study as far as I am aware. The genes that have specific tasks in the brain that become mutated are not getting washed out by natural selection, and therefore we are likely concurrently witnessing the genetic rotting of our species.

Mutational load theory is false https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/03/08/directed-mutations-epigenetics-and-evolution/

Spoiler: Solution

Artificial Selection. By doing this we would hypothetically be able to improve the human species magnitudes faster than natural selection. It would be significantly less painful as well. Infinitely less death and suffering would be required to get to an ideal state of civilization. If everyone was walking around with highly conscientious and compassionate personalities, with high intelligence and obviously physically attractive features, everything would improve on a scale that has not been seen before.

Behavioural traits like personality and intelligence aren't genetically heritable. "physically attractive features" don't exist because looks are subjective. What if so-called physically attractive traits only seem attractive to you because "ugly" traits exist?

Genetic Refinement on a massive scale would improve the quality of life for all future human beings. To get there, however, we collectively must admit that objectively good genes and objectively bad ones exist and that some people need to be prevented from reproducing legally or up the social stigma. Otherwise, we will end up in a worse situation than we are in now. The more intelligent and attractive members of the species will become more attractive and intelligent/genetically superior compared to the ever-increasing genetically inferior "caste" of individuals who are only becoming more spiteful by the day. It is most likely possible to get there as well. Most people agree that genetically deformed people and extreme narcissists should not have kids. Therefore the foot is already in the door. If a country decided to eliminate all genetically ill from their population, they could start implementing newer additions to the list of "You can't reproduce". Especially as the scientists start understanding more deeply how genetics work. Imagine if only people who were one standard deviation higher in IQ could reproduce tomorrow. You would have significantly less waste produced, your population would go down, and you have an excess in infrastructure and facilities left over from the "ghost generation". On top of that, the average individual who makes up the bulk of civilization would die out. Start throwing out unattractive traits like acne, recessed jawlines, balding genes, short stature, bad muscle insertions, and start overly expressing longevity/attractive genes. In 300 years your civilization would be exponentially farther than where it would have been. Even if law can't be passed due to corruption, then we should continue to elevate the difference on a social level. A breaking point must be reached in which only the most genetically fit reproduce and the genetically unfit just live out their lives until death in my opinion. Its not meant to be personal, I just think that only the top percent of people should reproduce honestly. If that means some of my good genes aren't passed on that is fine. I think the future of human experience is worth a lot more than my selfish motivations.

acne, small jaw, balding, short stature, bad muscle insertions, signals of longevity

None of these are bad/good traits, lol at your brain

The clinical definition of mental retardation is 70 IQ, not 83 IQ.

In 1959, the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) set the IQ threshold for retardation at 85. The civil rights movement of the next decade forced psychologists to rethink this boundary, because half of the Black population fell below it. In 1973, responding to this concern, AAMD (by then AAMR) changed the threshold from IQ 85 to IQ 70, a reduction of one standard deviation. The proportion of Blacks below the threshold instantly dropped from 50 percent to 12 percent.

according to lynn, Black people who score <70 on IQ tests dont have a mental disability or "seem" retarded. If most sub 70 IQ people live in africa, IQ completely fails at measuring mental retardations. another iq fail

i know what you said, you don't understand what I know to be true. the environment does play a role but it isn't the majority reason for why people are ugly. twins seperated at birth that live under different environmental pressures look the same, marry the same named woman, divorce that woman around the same time, remarry a woman of the same name, and name their dog the same name. they have the same habits/facial structure despite different lifestyles and developing in poverty stricken environments and rich environments. most people aren't ugly because of environment. genetics obviously play the largest role in everything about who you are. even your personality is genetic. conscientiousness is also genetic. intelligence is genetic. almost everything about anyone is genetic.

i only just discovered this youtuber tails. i think that a small percentage of what he says is useful.


Their faces look identical, despite different environments. therefore it can be deduced within reason that naturally some people mew and some don't. however using technology to expand the jaw (not even just mewing can get the results of technology) gives a mediocre result. its not wrong to say that proper posture would result in a more attractive face, but you can still be ugly and mew even from a young age.

Twins share fetal environments and "reared apart twins" are commonly raised in separate households, but with regular interaction with each other where they can copy each others behaviour and "environment"

To be clear however, this all talking in terms of averages. There are exceptions. Sometimes unattractive people carry high intelligence. Sometimes Attractive people carry low intelligence. The general idea is to only throw good genes into the random gene RNG selector so only better and better results occur. This should easily be possible. It took very little time to convert wolves to dogs after all.

Retarded

incoherent response. IQ is undeniably influenced mostly by genetics. poverty causes a difference of roughly 15 iq points on average. So you are wrong and stupid for saying that "IQ is determined more by environment". I didn't have to mention race, it's irrelevant. there is not enough evidence to suggest any one "race" is inferior to another. Ideal phenotypes are achievable by any racial group. Those ideal phenotypes are representative of the ideal for those individual groups obviously. Eastern models have a different appeal compared to western ones. An AI can determine if a person is attractive or not based on the ethnic group they belong to and if enough data is provided.

The most GWAS can predict is around +2.5 iq points.
AIs can falsely determine someones attractiveness based on what false data is inputed, yea

unbelievably wrong. I think of countless examples of people that exist that have no useful genes and it is because of mutational load. mutational load is determined by selective processes. HUMANS NO LONGER HAVE A SELECTIVE PROCESS. anytime that selective process dissolves, less capable animals are permitted to exist. genetics have been chiseled away by death for millions of years. it is undeniable. now we don't let death take the people who are genetically unfit. And they reproduce with one another. Only the most genetically fit people should reproduce. Its not meant to be mean. We can do it nicely. We don't have to kill anybody, you said that not me. Every ugly ass mofo should enjoy their life to the best of their ability. Same with stupid or ill people. I have known genetically ill people that I love dearly. Dont think they should pass on their genes though.

Eugenics would reduce genetic diversity which is literally dysgenic

You clearly do not have a good grasp of how evolution works. The saying "life finds a way" is true in this sense: IF ONLY A CERTAIN TRAIT IS SELECTED FOR, THE SPECIES UNDER THAT SELECTIVE PRESSURE WILL OVER GENERATIONS ADAPT TO SHARE THAT TRAIT

Look man, I hate to break it to you, but most people already believe in eugenics and genocide. It's not meant to be evil or mean. Eugenics happens when organisms don't want to reproduce with another organism. 1 out of 2 of your ancestors were men, the rest obviously women. The reason it is not an equal ratio is that a lot of men did not reproduce and had to die to have those shitty traits eliminated from the gene pool. Men are mainly the ones being selected for by evolution, and that is ok.

Hereditarianism has never and will never be proven to be real. Its literally impossible so youll always be running on unprovable assumptions as proof to genocide groups of people

Conceptual Arguments Against Heredetarianism

3300 words Introduction Hereditarianism is the theory that differences in psychology between individuals and groups have a ‘genetic’ or ‘innate’ (to capture the thought befo…

notpoliticallycorrect.me

 

[Deleted member 16369]

IQ fails to detect mental retardation in like 90% of all people who have an estimated IQ of <70.

How useful are national IQs?

NOTE: I now write for Aporia Magazine. Please sign up there! National IQs – estimates of the average IQ in different countries – were first compiled by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen for their 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations. They have since been updated a number of times, most recently...

noahcarl.substack.com

"What this means is that most black people who score below 70 on IQ tests do not have any kind of mental disability."

Psychologist moment/logic

Epic predictor: IQ, invented for identifying mental retardation, fails at detecting mental retardation.


Wrong, they arent testing IQ. If all knowledge tests are IQ tests, why do IQ tests exist? All tests must correlate with IQ tests but they dont linearly correlate and cant be "converted to iq"


Not true, the "gap" gets smaller the higher you go up and "IQ points" arent a measurement.


G doesnt exist, but still, mentally ill people have inflated IQ scores which overestimate their "innate intelligence". People who are socially withdrawn (so-called autism) spend more time absorbing "knowledge" that is used on IQ test questions


Modern people score higher on decade-century old IQ test, though. The "g factor" doesnt exist and natural selection of behavioural traits is false/impossible https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/20...editarianism-is-developmental-systems-theory/


Mutational load theory is false https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/03/08/directed-mutations-epigenetics-and-evolution/


Behavioural traits like personality and intelligence aren't genetically heritable. "physically attractive features" don't exist because looks are subjective. What if so-called physically attractive traits only seem attractive to you because "ugly" traits exist?


acne, small jaw, balding, short stature, bad muscle insertions, signals of longevity

None of these are bad/good traits, lol at your brain


according to lynn, Black people who score <70 on IQ tests dont have a mental disability or "seem" retarded. If most sub 70 IQ people live in africa, IQ completely fails at measuring mental retardations. another iq fail

Twins share fetal environments and "reared apart twins" are commonly raised in separate households, but with regular interaction with each other where they can copy each others behaviour and "environment"

Retarded


The most GWAS can predict is around +2.5 iq points.
AIs can falsely determine someones attractiveness based on what false data is inputed, yea

Eugenics would reduce genetic diversity which is literally dysgenic

Hereditarianism has never and will never be proven to be real. Its literally impossible so youll always be running on unprovable assumptions as proof to genocide groups of people

Conceptual Arguments Against Heredetarianism

3300 words Introduction Hereditarianism is the theory that differences in psychology between individuals and groups have a ‘genetic’ or ‘innate’ (to capture the thought befo…

notpoliticallycorrect.me

Keep coping

 

[Skywalker]

i agree please dont reproduce OP as you have obviously a low IQ
to everyone that understands how genetics works it can only work if you medically intervene and remove the bad genes, in a very advanced civilization ofc, not in the primitive state, due to the regression to the mean and other things, so technically foids were wrong all along

and also basically ONLY the super IQ ppl should reproduce....and why? because thats how you potentially advance the civ in 100 years like some advance in 10.000- "beautiful/sexy sons" is not practical, only for inflating foids ego's

theres a reason why we view extraterestrials as 300 iq species with huge heads and tiny bodies......everything happens in the brain...and everything else CAN be modified if you have the technology AND the IQ....but...if you have 80 IQ ,yet a good looking face, once again the only thing youll get is "sexy sons" competing and killing each other off at 20, like it was in Pre-history