All you need to do to completely destroy any IQ disbelievers who think IQ is irrelivant is ask them one single question:

"Would you rather have a child with an IQ of 200, or 50?"

They either completely deflect the question and say "neither" or just change the topic out of fear of the truth, or play smartass and say 50 arbitrarily because "It doesn't matter" even though they have clear sentiment to pick the mentally retarded child over the genius child.

I have met people far smarter and more capable than me who could not for the life of them seriously answer the question because of some spinelessness disguised as righteousness that comes from being scared to recognize any inherent intellectual superiority of a subgroup of the population over another.

If you refuse to answer the question with a 200 or 50, you are spineless and unprincipled. If you answer 50, you are evil.

So, /sci/, what's your answer to the question?

>>16701204 (OP)
I want twins, one with 50 (male, eventual conservative) and one with 200 (female, eventual liberal), and I want the male to rape the female.

>>16701204 (OP)
Do you need an IQ test to tell if someone has an IQ of 50 or 200? If so, you have an IQ of under 50 and should probably be locked away somewhere where you can't hurt yourself or others. If not, IQ is irrelevant to your question.

My answer is that this question is a form of IQ test
Since if you think that IQ goes up to 200 you have a low IQ
Strange that it's always low IQ subtards that love IQ tests

>>16701212
IQ only really matters near the tail ends. The difference between 99 and 100, or 100 and 101 is near zero. However, the test is useful for gaguing mental acumen of those further from the average, which itself is useful because it helps us understand what the general mental capabilities of people accross various mental strata are on average. This itself is useful in helping kids and young individuals be placed where they can most realize their potential, or help them where they need it more than others.

It can also be useful when applied to societies such as MENSA which, for as snobby as they are, can help you generally find extremely intelligent people for whatever purpose you have. Admittedly this faculty is aged, since we have the internet so it's not really neded anymore, but it's valuable to have these meeting places for those capable of more intellectually on average, even if they're legacy groups (also MENSA, etc. has online forums so that's not really an issue).

>>16701217
It's a hypothetical, I understand IQ can't really be reliably measured above around 160.

>>16701217
>>16701218
Btw here's possible use cases. Again, this is all hypothetical. IQ tests generally serve as the most broad relfection of theoretical mental ability, and so this blurred blob of potential doesn't really matter in terms of 100 vs 101, but obviously it's worth investigating extremes for the reasons in the reply I linked.

You can either agree or disagree, doesn't change the value these tools have to begin with for those with IQ's far higher and lower than yours

>>16701204 (OP)
Meaningless quibble but the smartest human on Earth can only have an IQ of 196

>>16701224
This claim interests me, can I see the source or this? I would like to investigate further.

>>16701218
No, you don't need an IQ test to tell if a kid is smart, average, or stupid. The only value to any of these general aptitude tests is as a legal impartiality construct, to prevent lawyers from preying on retards in order to sue employers for discrimination. Like the ASVAB for military eligibility (or whatever they're using at the moment).

>>16701225
IQ measures the rarity of a particular level on intelligence, not total intelligence. To give you an idea, an IQ of 200 is a 1 in 76 billion, but someone like that could be 0.1% or 500% smarter than someone with an IQ of 195.
Here's a calculator you can play with to determine the rarity of any particular IQ: https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/iq-percentile-calculator.php

>>16701230
Thank you, very much appreciated

>>16701224
The smartest human on earth is Elon and he only has an IQ of 180.

>>16701204 (OP)
>"Would you rather have a child with an IQ of 200, or 50?"
50 for sure.

I don't want my bloodline to end on a stuttering mouth-breather obsessed with sudoku and hooked on SSRIs. The 50 IQ one would also be a mouth-breather, but the kind to actually pull some bitches.

>>16703188
nah he'd have to be in the ~70 to be able to do that, with an iq of 50 he would be lucky if he could feed himself and not shit his pants

>>16701204 (OP)
>"with an IQ of x"
That doesn't mean anything since iq isn't a real thing which can be measured. There, I demolished your dumb thread.

>>16703190
>with an iq of 50 he would be lucky if he could feed himself and not shit his pants
Yes and?

>>16701204 (OP)
Would you rather your child be happy or tormented?

>>16701208
THIS, but female raping the male.

>>16701230
Unfortunately you have failed to control for lifetimes and for future humans.

>>16701204 (OP)
>Debunking Anti-IQ Sentiments

IQ was developed to allow the military to quickly asses howto categorize recruits into various roles.
It is good at doing that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk

>>16701204 (OP)
Both are bad but 200 is less bad and I would chose that.
The obvious downside is that the child will be very, very lonely.

>>16701217
>Since if you think that IQ goes up to 200 you have a low IQ
Do you think the problem is that IQ cannot reach 200 or that the problem is that you cannot reliably measure IQ around 200?

>>16701218
>MENSA
>snobby
TFW the midwit meme predates the midwit meme.

>>16701204 (OP)
so the question has iq being necessary as a qualifier of its importance

>>16703593
It may have been used that way because it was found to be effective but that doesn't it's the origin.

>whites invent an autism test to declare themselves the superior race and justify colonialism and genocide
>years later they are surpassed on their own test
>uh sweetie in fact iq is useless and just show how good you are at solving math problems

>>16701204 (OP)
It doesn’t matter. Proof is never enough proof to these people. They. Don’t. Care.

What I don't get about IQ is what it is actually measuring: the g-factor. What is that? Does it have any physical interpretation? If it's a cluster of genes I have a g-factor even if my head is blown off by a shotgun right? I mean all you need then is one live cell with intact DNA, right?
Or is the speed of electrical signals from first to last in some isolated brain activity?
What the fuck is it?

>>16701204 (OP)
>ask them one single question:

"Can you tell us about all the Nobel laureates among sub-Saharan Africans?"

>>16706379
This. If its genes just do a genetic test. If its not merely genes then the progressive leftists are right and you are just measuring socioeconomic factors in a terribly inefficient manner.

>>16706382
>Israel and Ukraine
>roughly the same IQ
>in fact Israel is more than half Ukrainian/Polish repatriates
>Israel: 13
>Ukraine: 0

>>16706385
See that's the issue, once you try comparing genes with IQ then nearly the entire scientific community has a meltdown becase >muh racism lol

>>16705984
OP here, yeah that's what I've gathered from this thread and other people lol

>>16706401
This is also me

Btw thanks for keeping this thread alive and having good discussion fellas, I very much appreciate it

>>16703713
Finally, someone honest. Thank you (desu I think you might be being overly-pessimistic about the negative qualities of supergenius but I'm glad you made the right decision in the end. Good on you)

>>16706401
>See that's the issue, once you try comparing genes with IQ then nearly the entire scientific community has a meltdown becase >muh racism lol
Just find the gene, don't involve race in it. Dozens of eugenics schizos are actively doing it right now. The academia treats them like schizos because their GWAS because they either have results point at more than half the genome (useless) or their methods are pure gobbledygook with a predetermined answer. Nobody is having a meltdown about it. Your problem is that you don't want to find out what makes people have high IQ, you want hecking scoience to give you a Reddit-approved validation for hating niggers.

>>16706405
See now you're thinking logically, but unfortunately people are still gonna see inherent genetic tendencies across ethnicities that causes (aside fron gene editing) immutable inferiorities and superiorities, and that's where they jump ship because they don't want to lose their careers (or they are thoroughly brainwashed)

But don't worry, this will (hopefully) all be solved soon enough with gene editing, and as such this will largely be an issue of the past which we can finally speak honestly about

>>16701204 (OP)
>clear sentiment to pick the mentally retarded child over the genius child.
You cant measure genius. You recognize it, but cant measure it

>>16706407
>people are still gonna see inherent genetic tendencies across ethnicities
You don't have to present, consider or even collect ethnicity data for your study.

>>16706401
So in other words you have NO experimentally verifiable physical interpretation of what IQ measures. It's an immaterial sòyscience

>>16706407
>people are still gonna see inherent genetic tendencies
How? How do you see any inherit genetic anything?

>>16701204 (OP)
When people say that IQ isn't real they mean that it's a made up unscientific concept with nothing to actually back it up.
I have received scores from 110 to 140, there is a huge difference between them, and yet they couldn't come even close.

>>16706413
>>16706405
How are you going to control for systematic racism skewing the results if you don't collect race data?

>child
exposing iqtards as natalist shills

>>16701204 (OP)
Assuming mental health isn't an issue, 200 any day. IQ is correlated with intelligence somewhat, but using it as a complete metric for intelligence is horrible. Also intellectual superiority shouldn't mean very much outside of suggesting careers or predicting class/test scores

>>16701204 (OP)
>Would you rather have a child receive a happy meal or not?
>aha i have tricked you into assuming the value of a happy meal!
You are legit stupid

>>16708194
>Anti-natalist eugenics retard

>>16701204 (OP)
While I disagree with anti-IQ sentiments I also believe OP is clearly one of the reasons WHY IQ is an important metric:
>ask question
>if they provide one answer I don't like they're clearly wrong
>if they provide another answer I do not approve of they are wrong also
>QED

I don't think IQ is all that reliable at measuring intelligence, all it does is ask questions of things you learned in school. Or in other words it's a test of memory

>>16709013
LMAO what?!

>>16709019
Go look at an IQ test

>>16706403
>Finally, someone honest.
I am not claiming to be at 200 but I am not too bad off and I was rather alone in school. And whatever it is that women want, it was not something I had, so I don't have children, so it is a bit hypothetical.

>>16701204 (OP)
True and real. Anyone who doesn't picking 200 is a complete idiot. Still the kid will need special needs education because no one with a working brain would let such a blessed kid get tainted by growing among animals who are only good to be used as disposable beasts of burden.

IQ is an ok proxy for intelligence but its not really that useful, differences is individual motivation or personality probably make you more or less suited for difficult tasks as long as your IQ isn't retard tier.

>>16709339
*differences in

>>16701204 (OP)
Welp poop!

>Anons thinks IQ doesn't go up to 200
>Can't into sd 24

it's another iq == intelligence mistake from pseuds

>>16701204 (OP)
IQ is a strong predictor of academic attainment and job performance

>>16709971
True, but it's worth noting this only starts to apply the further you go out from the average

>>16701204 (OP)
Oh poop!

>>16703200
thats not even true lmao the average nigger in a 3rd world country like india is 50 FSIQ they have horrible hygiene but they can do basic shit 50 FSIQ isnt what its made out to be anon

>>16712070
they can do basic construction, when i was in pakistan (forget india theyre dysgenic faggots omg i cant believe in mentioned them how can jesus have a humiliation ritual lmfao) they can do basic stuff like drill and pour concrete but they forget every hour or some shit its quite hilarious

IQ is astrology for incels

>>16703593
So was GPS and internet

>>16712099
[Thing I don't like] is astrology for [people I don't like]

>>16712178
You didn't even deny it

>>16709013
>>16709019
>>16709023

There are different ones. I had to do two while in school and one was, like you stated, full with knowledge questions masked as logic. For example chess logic question and some even showing the pov approach of the jupiter/saturn probe where you were supposed to choose the logical 5th picture.

The other one only had neutral question you could solve without prior knowledge and I did much better on it.

the Knowledge one had me at 100-111 and the other one at 135+-3. I had to do them due to my teacher claiming I was to retarded for the school form. Turned out it was just the teachers as I changed the school and my grades jumped up from not passing to top of the class.

>>16709971
depends on the type of field. I would say in some fields its easier to succeed with an average IQ

>>16712099
lmfao

>>16706395
You spelled Palestine wrong.

>>16712181
Analogies are astrology for smart people.

>>16714293
Metaphors? Metaphors are astrology for smart folks.

>>16701228
Giving a personal interview to everyone is far more logistically challenging than an IQ test. Hence the use for IQ tests.
I can organize people by height without a tape measure by getting them to stand in a lineup, but if I want to compare people on the other side of the country, I need a metric. Don’t be thick.

>>16701218
MENSA self selects for losers

>>16701220
Testes IQs are given in a confidence interval. A small difference indicates literally nothing about intelligence

>>16709336
To play devils advocate, you could say that IQ tests only test IQ test performance, any additional skill is a net positive, and thus favor the 200IQ while maintaining that that there is no correlation with intelligence.

>>16701204 (OP)
Of course everyone wants the 200 IQ child but the problem is if your test that is supposed to be like 99% or 100% accurate to someone's innate intelligence is literally only useful for telling if someone's a retard or a Feynman-level genius, shit that anyone with two eyes can see right away, then it's totally useless, specially for making predictions.

Debunking Anti-Superpower Sentiments

Would you rather have a child who could fly and shoot laser beams and were indestructible?

They either completely deflect the question and say "neither" or just change the topic out of fear of the truth, or play smartass and say 50 arbitrarily because "It doesn't matter" even though they have clear sentiment to pick the mortally retarded child over the superpower child.

>>16706379
You're looking for a physics based answer to a bio-psycho-social question. You're not going to get an answer. Not everything is clearly a result of some linear combination of wiggling marbles.

>>16706422
Potential energy is entirely immaterial and very poorly understood on a fundamental level, and yet it is one of the most ubiquitous concepts in all of physics (the supposedly hardest science of all hard sciences). Potential is literally the metaphysical "capacity for energy to be realized," and cannot be measured directly in any capacity without realizing the energy and destroying the potential in the process. We pretend it is material because it makes our equations easier.

>>16715773
Isn't energy defined as the capacity to do work? Isn't then its very definition already potential in this sense?

it would be bad if say a nation of 5 million was all 130 iq. they would kill themselves or something.

>>16701204 (OP)
Im very high IQ and I think that average and low IQ people are stupid, but also the very highest of IQs are stupid in their own ways. On the very highest of IQs I have a sampling bias tho, because theres only 2 people. I think the real 160+ IQ chads probably stay low profile excelling in their fields without talking much about their IQ. Problem solving? World average IQ falls, so in the current environment high IQ can actually be a disadvantage.

So many people are so fucking dumb surviving by sheer tencity of will or ignorance. It feels like my mind is imprisoned. Everybody seems to want to take a bite.

Im dave in that picture, but instead of digging it is about thinking properly. Everybody seems to think he knows to tell me how to think, what to do. And they are lying, they are also lying to themselves.

>>16715811
>im very high iq
Let's put that to the test. What does mental hygiene mean to you?

>>16715847
It sounds gay lame and pozzed. Im not on a dry spell if you think that

>>16715742
this is true, mensa is fake as fuck they make certain people praffe their test for a fee and they let you in like an autist loser to boost your confidence lmfaoooooo

>>16715811
pretty real, everyone wants to be the smartest person in the room, but they dont understand what that entails. Being the smartest person in the room surrounded by morons is no "gift," it is more like a nightmare you cant escape. The only hing you can do is to try to stay as far away from the retarded apes as much as possible, but they just follow you, screeching retarded nonsense, everywhere you go, there is no escape

>>16701204 (OP)
>have met people far smarter and more capable than me who could not for the life of them seriously answer the question
Anyone who actually believes IQ doesn't matter is a coping midwit. If they have credentials then they either cheesed the process and got lucky like Nassim Taleb or they studied like crazy. Smart people just say IQ doesn't matter because that's the socially acceptable thing to say. I suppose if you were completely sheltered from niggers and somehow brainwashed and gaslit to an extreme degree it's possible you might not think much about IQ, but you'd also have to ignore retarded people.

>>16715760
>your test that is supposed to be like 99% or 100% accurate to someone's innate intelligence
This was never claimed
>only useful for telling if someone's a retard or a Feynman-level genius
Source: King midwit Nassim Taleb. And not even he claimed this btw. He just claims it's conveniently not accurate above his own IQ of 120.
>then it's totally useless
This doesn't even follow from your ridiculous statements
>specially for
IQ: 98

>>16716940
>This was never claimed
A lot of you make policy proposals and suggest society should be reorganized based on the IQ hierarchy you see in studies so you take the tests and available data seriously enough to make these proposals in the first place. Coping about Taleb isn't a good look btw

>>16701204 (OP)
Not if you phrase it like
>would you rather have a white child or a black child?
Checkmate

>>16716978
Are you even attempting to make a point anymore or are you having an emotional brown person moment?

>>16709971
>someone that did good on a test is good at tests (academic attainment)
a look inside the mind of iqtards

>>16717033
I'm saying IQ isn't useful for making predictions and testing for it is a waste of time, but you treat the test as some kind of perfect or close to perfect reflection of intelligence. If you take two individuals with IQ differences of 1 or 3 points between them you can't make reliable, precise predictions of their life outcomes. It has nothing to do with race, I've seen way too many people who are white, high IQ and don't make the contributions to science and society you'd expect they would to care.

50.

Evil is good.

>>16701204 (OP)
What if they say "I would be fine with either"?

>>16701208
Why do you want that?

>>16701204 (OP)
>would you rather have a child with an IQ of 200, or 50?
It depends. How would be the character of this child?

>>16718626
>They either completely deflect the question and say "neither" or just change the topic out of fear of the truth, or play smartass and say 50 arbitrarily because "It doesn't matter" even though they have clear sentiment to pick the mentally retarded child over the genius child.
You have chosen
>play smartass and say 50 arbitrarily because "It doesn't matter" even though they have clear sentiment to pick the mentally retarded child over the genius child.

>>16718057
OP told you in OP see >>16720763

>>16716978
Consider how many wrongful convictions our justice system makes, and how most people are accepting of this. What you’re saying isn’t an issue.

>>16717471
On nation scale populations, it’s plenty accurate. State led eugenics will probably fail for similar reasons that it can’t run a budget without a deficit.

Bump

>>16701204 (OP)
The problem with IQ is not that is irrelevant, is that the testing method is highly flawed.
IQ tests are primarily based on pattern recognition. Pattern recognition can be trained and improved.
Example of this: chess and chess tactics. It's pattern recognition and it can be easily trained and improved, even by literal retards. An absolute retard who trained his pattern recognition will absolutely crush any genius who never trained it.
That means that just doing IQ tests will absolutely boost your score. A retard who practices will absolutely get a bigger score than some smart guy who just sees a test and the type of problems iq tests have for the first time. And I know for a fact that people do study for them, especially when they're required at some colleges.
A better indicator of intelligence would be skill ceiling after a particular amount of training time(if everyone is trained for x hours on iq test type of pattern recognition problems, what's the highest score they can get) or time required to grasp and master or decode a pattern they are initially unable to solve.

>>16706410
You can measure aptitude

guys please help me out

how to incerasee iQ
i don't want to be stupid anymore
I want 200 IQ

>>16722825
Generally speaking you can only increase the amount of your present capabilities that you access, but I get what you're saying. I don't know much of how to do this other than just live an optimized life, getting good sleep ,eating healthy, having good spiritual connection and a great social life, not doing drugs or eating unhealthy, doing fulfilling work, etc. Just look up "How to increase IQ/ how to increase intelligence" on YouTube, Google, Grok etc.
Best of luck fren

>>16701204 (OP)
Hey guys, OP here. I initially started this thread as kind of a bait thread just to see what you guys would do with this question, but it's actually become a pretty fruitful discussion. Thanks for keeping the thread alive for so long and having a good discussion.
Much love friends

The brain -- is wider than the sky

>>16701204 (OP)
I want them smart enough to have a good life, and live better than I did, but that's assuming I got the smarts to even get a gf and have a kid, but it's nice thinking
I'd love them just the same no matter the number, but I'd raise them to the best of my ability that their IQ is perceived to be decently well
In a perfect world, I'd want their IQ to be 7x the amount of mine, or if we goin for a specific number, 7x the amount of 160, when goin by other posts here, might be downright wacky, but who knows what the future may hold, and what biotechnology has in store for the human future,
Would you guys support biotechnology that boosts the intelligence of the human brain/mind? Or boosts the physique and ability of the human body?

>>16701208
fpbp

>>16723249
>Would you guys support biotechnology that boosts the intelligence of the human brain/mind? Or boosts the physique and ability of the human body?
This will be the standard in the future for all humans. They will look back on this long era of human history of near pure genetic chance as so chaotic and uncontrolled as to be barbaric. We al ready see genetic engineering sprouting and taking hold in recent years, and once the levy breaks (people see children born with no illness, extended life and 200 IQ), it will become a trillion dollar industry over night.

Trust me on this, Anon. We're all gonna make it. We just have to try.

>>16723290
*already

>>16723290
That is my biggest hope for the future, and something I'd be willing to do anything for, God bless you and thank you for the affirmation, and your supportive reply, I feel we've taken the right steps towards this, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future we lab-grow limbs for those who want to replace missing limbs naturally or entirely without using prosthetics,

>>16703593
no; IQ was developed in order to provide a successful, scafffolded learning experience for children depending on their existing level of ability

it's proven by statements of Binet, by the work of William Stern who was the originator of IQ formula in the first place, and by the purpose of OG Carroll metaanalysis during which the fluid and crystallized intelligence were established as a subtypes of general intelligence factor

>>16723216
I am not gonna waste my time on youtube
I don't like elon, so I don't use Grok.
but GPT gave me some pointers

thank you my brother

>>16723337
>I don't like elon, so I don't use Grok.

1916: I do not like Ford, so I don't use an automobile.

>>16723337
>I am not gonna wate my time on YouTube
Your algorithm is just garbage if you disgregard YouTube as a whole
>I don't like elon, so I don't use Grok.
And I suppose you don't power your hourse because your local energy provider is ran by a megalomaniac psychopath?
>but GPT gave me some pointers
Decent start but don't limit yourself from other sources because you don't lke the meanie weenie powering the technology
This is YOUR life. Own it.
Best of luck, brother.

>>16701204 (OP)
Easily countered: imagine I made an arbitrary test and claimed it measured intelligence. Would you rather have a kid that scores well on it or not?

IQ is a component occuring naturally on the upper echelons of intellect. Most, have not scored IQ. Natural IQ is difficult to score. I have the most IQ in the multiverse.

>>16723630
Grok is twisted by it's programmer's. It's not pure AI. It's heavily biased and thus useless. It's like talking to someone else. Though, it may help produce something, it doesn't know shit.

>>16722825
if you are really desperate sell your soul for iq points its quite easy just $1600 and some brazilian guy on facebook then you're good in 4 months lmao

>>16722628
lmfao, pattern recognition in its raw form cannot be improved at all. once you score on an official test once thats your g nothing else will change itll only go down. training for g is retarded and a strawman to iq tests itself because you presume that the raw ability isnt there and simply "improving" your g is the presuppositional move because you can be clever and shieet but its all bullshit training for iq tests is what inbred mensa faggots do lmao

>>16701217
both. there's obviously an upper limit to intelligence just like height for humans
as it is, IQ tests become imprecise past about 3SD (145) and are basically guesswork past 4SD (160)

>>16724530
>pattern recognition in its raw form cannot be improved at all
Every single facet of your mind can be improved through training, from visualization to memory. Why would pattern recognition be any different?

>>16701204 (OP)
>"Would you rather have a child with an IQ of 200, or 50?"
IQ below 85 is abnormally stupid and suggests that the person has something wrong with them.
IQ above 115 means the person is normal, but good at IQ tests.

>>16724290
Dodging the question
>>16724586
Yes, so I take it your answer is 200?

>>16701204 (OP)
The answer to your question is easier: For a woman, 50IQ. For a man, 200. The world will tolerate a retarded woman. A retarded man will be killed.

>>16701275
Elon's IQ is over 200, retard.

>>16724677
It's probably closer to 160 desu

>>16724677
>>16725372
lmfao

>>16724586
the average college graduate is 85 nigga are you fucking dumb? how can niggers in africa be 60s and africans here are 80s?

>>16706405
This. The thread should have just ended here. Any detractor of this post is just fucking coping at this point.

>>16701204 (OP)
The truth is neither will have a meaningful existence. One will be oblivious to it and the other will be drowning in the absurdity of it.