Worlds smartest man, a bouncer?! IQ 210
- Thread starter TimeTraveler
- Start date
Of course not true. Remember the guy with a normal intelligence but a nutsize brain?
Or a crow is at least as intelligence as an elephant but its brain is 100th times smaller???
I can easily prove I am smarter:
That is of course not true, see my previous post.
Also, if he is so smart, how come he works as a bouncer? That means he is either not so smart so he can not find a better job, or he likes to beat people up, which concradicts his later statements about the world too violent and him wanting to solve that.
There you go... What do I get???
That is of course not true, see my previous post.
Also, if he is so smart, how come he works as a bouncer? That means he is either not so smart so he can not find a better job, or he likes to beat people up, which concradicts his later statements about the world too violent and him wanting to solve that.
There you go... What do I get???
A few counter examples can hardly be considered as evidence against a general rule. Read the thread that I have provided regarding brain size and intelligence. You'll see just how wrong you are.
It could be, you probably have some sterile image of people wearing future suits in big cold buildings, this has nothing to do with an aristocracy controlling birthrights.
Think of meerkats.
I think the ideas are good. I don't think we need anymore teenagers getting pregnant, that has to stop, period. I think implants are the wrong way to do it, but I do think birth control should be mandatory for anyone age 10 and up. When the person is over 18, then they should be able to apply for a license to have children. We then should have some sort of verification process so the community can weigh in on it and maybe even have a sort of community or neighborhood level vote on it.
By the way, chimps already have guns, the only thing you can do is give better guns. I don't like the implanting stuff, because I can understand why people may not want foreign objects in their body.
I do think we need a better system of deciding who can have kids. If you think everyone should have kids, then you don't seem to realize that our future is at stake here and these kids will grow up. I think responsible people should have kids, people who will be good parents. But regardless of what I think, the whole point of genetic engineering, or having less kids, is to slow down the destructiveness.
He is too smart for a real career?
Yes, that is strange. Certainly an intellect like that could improve upon the operations of the computer industry. Perhaps he has no social skills and would be a bad team player.
or maybe he is just another psuedo-intellect whose ideas are too extreme or too costly to have any real practical applications.
At best he probably tries to explain theory of relativity to drunks who'd give him the time of the day.
Francois I think you believe too much in "race" to actually fairly implement any sort of program of this sort. The idea may be good, we all know that gene quality is important for the human race, I say we should let the best individuals breed with whoever they want. If this means inter-racially, or within their own, as long as it's the best.
By the best, I don't mean they have to be geniuses, they just should have desireable traits. The simple fact is, so few people have desireable traits that we won't be able to restrict it to just geniuses, it's not going to work. I also don't think it would be in the best interest of our species, to prevent two individuals of different races but with desireable traits, from mating.
What are desireable traits? I think the main concern of the government should be security, so if this is a government program, the only trait that matters is what kinda person they are in relation to security. If they have the criminality genes or not. And I don't think any race has a monopoly on criminality, despite what racial supremists try to say.
In general, I think if a person has a clean record, and they stay out of trouble, and are responsible, most communities will have no problem with them mating.
The only fears with these sorts of programs are how it's implemented. I think the government should manage the security, to protect us from ourselves and protect society. I think the local community can have control over who recieves a license or not, based on the local situation.
Some communities might not have a lot of quality men or women to choose from, and it's not like you can ship people over from another state or from accross the country, so it seems obvious that the quality standards in one place will not be the same quality standards as in another place. So the only real standard, should be how much of a security risk the person is. That's my opinion.
Who said anything about race, TimeTraveler? Do you even read people's posts before you start responding? I don't think you read at all. I think you just write things that would best be ignored. And that's it.
Really? It's your opinion? You mean it's not fact? Whose opinion, if not yours, could it have been? It's a good thing you let me know that it is your opinion. Otherwise, I might have been confused.
I can easily prove I am smarter:
That is of course not true, see my previous post.
Also, if he is so smart, how come he works as a bouncer? That means he is either not so smart so he can not find a better job, or he likes to beat people up, which concradicts his later statements about the world too violent and him wanting to solve that.
There you go... What do I get???
Success has little to do with intelligence. Success comes from persistence.
Oh man, I think I'm going to have an aneurysm.
From now on, for every undesirable person you don't breed with, I'll breed with two.
Liberal Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics
Do you see the difference?
Positive eugenics is not the same as Negative eugenics. I support transhumanism, and genetic engineering because these are positive eugenic ideas. I don't promote ideas such as sterilization, or negative eugenics because we don't know enough about the human genome at this time and the only way we can learn more is through genetic engineering.
Either way, we need a form of quality control. I don't support violent means of quality control, I think the best way is to just have less kids, slow the destruction process down a bit, and then re-educate ourselves as in how to select a mate. Then we can give out licenses to the parents/mates who are most qualified and responsible. This way the amount of children you have is directly related to how responsible you are. I think people who are not as responsible, should have less kids.
I want to ask you a question in specific. Take for example, a responsible black female, she wants to have another child, she's a good parent, has no criminal record, and has her license. Should she have the right to have extra children based on her qualifications as a human, or would you say she can't have children?
The debate at some point is going to reach a level where, we will have to decide these things. My opinion is that these decisions should be race neutral.
There are qualified people of all races, you know it and I know it. The question is, when the time comes to actually implement it, will it be done in a race neutral way?
If it's done in a race neutral way, then I have no problem with the idea. If it's implemented in a racist way, then I have a problem with the idea. I do not think we need more white trash, black trash, or any of that. In fact I think each community should have some freedom as to how to implement this, in fact, I think the parents should decide, so if you for example live in a segregated all white community, it will be your responsibility to make sure that the people in your segregated community mate in the right way. I don't think people from your community should go into another communtiy to decide for them.
Last edited:
How to save the world and end the world's problem is much simpler. For one thing, we let the relatively retarded people rule us. The politicians and upper middleclass with degrees in business or pol science. What we need are world leaders who specialize in science and humanity. The reason why there are stupid people in the first place is because the low-I.Q harvard business school graduate politicians fuck up the school system and never come up with anything new or progressive. The world should be run by scientists. Business school graduates should handle the finances, and liberal arts students should free float in-between. This is the only way you can end favoritism and stupidity. Advances in genetical engineering are still far far off. However, I think everybody is unique in their own way.
I think genetic engineering will be the only answer we all can accept. I don't think sterilization is a positive answer, and as a result it will be viewed as evil. I don't think violence will be a positive answer either. The only answer I see is the trans-humanist movement, to allow parents to select their babies genes, perhaps also putting in place some government guidelines to help them do it. Such as making sure that parents scan their baby for diseases.
In the end, once parents have the ability to remove chance from the equation, the situation will improve. The whole mating license idea would only slow the process of self destruction down. I think the only way to improve anything is to go in a positive direction, and that means we have to get creative with science and biology. We should do it in the most non-violent pain free way, which means the license idea would only be useful to slow population growth down until it can be managed and until genetic engineering reaches maturity.
I think designer babies exist right now, so it's almost there, we just need another decade before it will be mainstream. Let's hope we can last a decade.
I'm confused. Why would the world be better off with more smart people? Isn't this just an assumption made by other smart people that isn't ever backed up with reasons?
All groups seem to think that the world would be better if more people like them were in charge. Plato thought philosophers should rule the world. Military men think that Might makes Right. Racists think that their "people" should be in the majority, and fear any shift away from this. Well *shocker* people with high IQ's seem to think that the world should be run by people with high IQ's.
Whoda thunk it?
Since these are people with high IQ's, lets hear from them exactly WHY the world would be better off with less stupid people. For instance, recent research has shown that large groups of people with various IQ's consistently outperform the smartest member of the group. There is a massive amount of data to back this up. Smart individuals don't seem to contribute as much to world knowledge as the supposedly "dumb" masses.
Are people with high IQ's happier? Nicer? Are these even objective standards for measuring the worth of existing? What is? There just seems to be too many questions skipped over in this eugenics plan.
This ignores two simple facts: There is not an overpopulation problem. On the contrary, as women gain choices over their lives, they are choosing less and less to have large families, such that developing countries are on the verge of falling below rates that sustain populations. With more countries developing, the population boom long predicted now looks to be a fiction. We are going to need people to reproduce, or our populations will start to shrink, which is disastrous for economies.
Second, even if you get rid of everyone of less-than-average IQ, you are just shrinking the curve. And humans do NOT notice absolute differences, but relative differences. If you want to see how this works, hold out your empty hand, close your eyes, and have someone put a salt-shaker in your hand. You will know when it happens. Now hold two textbooks in your hand, and have them place the salt-shaker on top. Good luck sensing that. The same has been found to apply to vision, sound and memory. Mice also think this way, it seems to be the way that neurons work to program behavior.
What does this mean? That the new group of "Dumbest" will seem, to this race of genius, just as "Dumb" as the current group of "Dumbest" people. People with IQ's of "only" 120 will drive trucks to move the goods purchased by the general population who average 135. And these "morons" will believe in String Theory, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, and the smarty's at 165 (sadly, this would include myself), would mock the "superstition" and "religion" of these crazy, idiot, truckers that believe in String Theory, a Steady-State Universe, an Infinite Past, and other such nonsense.
In sum... nothing would change. You would compress the curve, and find that our internal mechanisms would automatically adjust to create new relative highs and lows.
I have no doubt that this guy's IQ is over 200. And yes, that is a meaningful number, as long as you are specific regarding that meaning. His spatial awareness should be tops, his visualization of patterns, his retention of data, his ability to see the workings of new mechanisms, all of these will be many standard deviations above the norm of 100. But that doesn't make him correct about anything. The worth of his arguments must stand on their own, and be debated in a vacuum. And they aren't very good, even if solely due to my last point, which only requires knowledge of the latest discoveries of evolutionary psychology and neurology.
And hey, I'm a Roofer. Much lower than a Bouncer. And with my paltry IQ of ~165, I'm nowhere NEAR as smart as this guy. And if I can see what is wrong with his plan... then I guess IQ and profession are not what we should appeal to for our argument's worth.
-swivel
All groups seem to think that the world would be better if more people like them were in charge. Plato thought philosophers should rule the world. Military men think that Might makes Right. Racists think that their "people" should be in the majority, and fear any shift away from this. Well *shocker* people with high IQ's seem to think that the world should be run by people with high IQ's.
Whoda thunk it?
Since these are people with high IQ's, lets hear from them exactly WHY the world would be better off with less stupid people. For instance, recent research has shown that large groups of people with various IQ's consistently outperform the smartest member of the group. There is a massive amount of data to back this up. Smart individuals don't seem to contribute as much to world knowledge as the supposedly "dumb" masses.
Are people with high IQ's happier? Nicer? Are these even objective standards for measuring the worth of existing? What is? There just seems to be too many questions skipped over in this eugenics plan.
This ignores two simple facts: There is not an overpopulation problem. On the contrary, as women gain choices over their lives, they are choosing less and less to have large families, such that developing countries are on the verge of falling below rates that sustain populations. With more countries developing, the population boom long predicted now looks to be a fiction. We are going to need people to reproduce, or our populations will start to shrink, which is disastrous for economies.
Second, even if you get rid of everyone of less-than-average IQ, you are just shrinking the curve. And humans do NOT notice absolute differences, but relative differences. If you want to see how this works, hold out your empty hand, close your eyes, and have someone put a salt-shaker in your hand. You will know when it happens. Now hold two textbooks in your hand, and have them place the salt-shaker on top. Good luck sensing that. The same has been found to apply to vision, sound and memory. Mice also think this way, it seems to be the way that neurons work to program behavior.
What does this mean? That the new group of "Dumbest" will seem, to this race of genius, just as "Dumb" as the current group of "Dumbest" people. People with IQ's of "only" 120 will drive trucks to move the goods purchased by the general population who average 135. And these "morons" will believe in String Theory, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, and the smarty's at 165 (sadly, this would include myself), would mock the "superstition" and "religion" of these crazy, idiot, truckers that believe in String Theory, a Steady-State Universe, an Infinite Past, and other such nonsense.
In sum... nothing would change. You would compress the curve, and find that our internal mechanisms would automatically adjust to create new relative highs and lows.
I have no doubt that this guy's IQ is over 200. And yes, that is a meaningful number, as long as you are specific regarding that meaning. His spatial awareness should be tops, his visualization of patterns, his retention of data, his ability to see the workings of new mechanisms, all of these will be many standard deviations above the norm of 100. But that doesn't make him correct about anything. The worth of his arguments must stand on their own, and be debated in a vacuum. And they aren't very good, even if solely due to my last point, which only requires knowledge of the latest discoveries of evolutionary psychology and neurology.
And hey, I'm a Roofer. Much lower than a Bouncer. And with my paltry IQ of ~165, I'm nowhere NEAR as smart as this guy. And if I can see what is wrong with his plan... then I guess IQ and profession are not what we should appeal to for our argument's worth.
-swivel
Like I said in my previous posts. If it's race neutral, then I see no problem with it. My concern is with how it's implemented, not with the concepts or idea itself. I prefer genetic engineering and designer babies to forceful eugenics. I want to see the day where parents can select their babies eye color on a computer screen. I want to see a day where babies can be screened for diseases and cured while still a fetus, and where parents can select higher intelligence, a photographic memory, or any other trait, which could improve the production and quality of life of the child.