IQ

And I'm asking you to reflect on whether what the status quo has accepted as fact (despite its abstraction) is reasonable. My belief is that it isn't, and at best it's an incomplete way to represent things. I think intelligence is at least partially subjective, as it often comes down to things like judging someone by their ability to reason and think critically on a topic, and depending on your own level of intelligence, your personal biases, your knowledge of the subject and the person, and other factors, you could perceive somebody as more or less qualified. Using a scale of values doesn't allow for any way to compare people on issues without 'correct' answers, such as complex ethical problems or discussions over political values, or the ability to think about unforeseen consequences of decisions and account for them.

So I suppose, if I had to give a really concise answer… at the very least we'd need to reorganise how "IQ" is derived and scored, and separate it into different categories with different scoring systems. More practically, I think this is just an oversimplification of things. It's difficult to pin down a satisfactory and non-idealistic way to portray intelligence directly, yet, we can see this quality in people often through simple observation. You couldn't have a board of judges, though, because those judges would be likely to enforce an agenda, and how would you select who is intelligent enough to be an official judge of intelligence?

No.

IQ is just one of many attempts at quantifying positions along the very real normal distribution (i.e bell curve) of nonspecific human intelligence. Normal distributions are extremely common in biology. Just because the way we count may not be ideal does not mean that the thing we are counting is not real, especially when multiple methodologies of counting find essentially the same distribution. Another way to quantify intelligence is through SAT/GRE reading/verbal scores, since those scores when plotted also form an almost perfect normal distribution.

My IQ is over 200… thousand.

To what end? What is you're hoping to achieve by instilling a new system for measuring intellectual value or capability?

since we dont know how smart anyone really is we cant disprove iq but we cant prove it, its a religion for now.

There aren’t different types of intellect there is only one.
There are verbal “skills” and mathematical “skills” which you need a certain level of intelligence to have.
The idea that there are essentially an infinite amount of “intelligences” is absurd. If you’re good at sports you aren’t “intelligent” in sports you’re just athletic.
What kind of slide thread is this?

I suppose that's my question the the OP Here
I think first we should establish what "value" is?

If we're stating that value is a persons intelligence or vice versa, there are a lot of football players that disprove IQ being tied to compensatory value.

If we're stating that a persons value is somehow tied to their IQ, perhaps the world's military's would be a good place to support that argument?

Value is a relative term, so it should follow that IQ is relatively associated with value, not not tied to it. The OP seem to be trying to quantify and abstract concept.

Of course, the subhumans are trying everything to come up with another metric so that they won't be judged and exterminated. We could probably use anything they would field like humans with a longer index finger are superior but where would it get us in the long run since it is not Truth? This attempt to justify what is inferior in every way is humorous at best and contemptible at worst. Jews have an average IQ of 84 and not that they are being judged for that IQ relative to the Ethnic European IQ of 103-108+ they desperately want to alter the measure of value.

I think the direction of the conversation, at this point, leads to socialism, caste, capitalism, etc. However, each always leads to the same end. Extermination.
You can see it in Nietzsche's works, Early on he wrote Birth and Tragedy, Human All Too Human and ended at The Will To Power. People blame mental deterioration and what not, but realistically, he had just gotten to the end game.
That's where it always ends. Annihilation of the lesser beings.

For the purpose of scientific and ideological advancement, and a more true understanding of the factors governing society. To dispel or correct an idea that - I believe - can be seen is being used as a tool to quietly influence people in the way that they think and interact with each other. Belief in IQ at least in its current form is too easily manipulated for subversive political ends, and this is something we can observe throughout academics and in the real world.

You're going to have to try harder than that to shut down discussion, neshama.

Nobody implied anything about "sports intelligence". You haven't actually addressed the topic of the thread. Strawman harder.

but that's wrong, you uncultured pleb
IQ was invented to identify in children that late 19th century law sent to school the ones that would be sent to pasture and be farmhands because they were morons and the ones to send to another school while jumping a grade because compared to them their teachers were morons
it had nothing to do with jewry or classifying people, school grades did that
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet

Disprove my fat White uncircumcised cock, you sheeny piece of shit.

Attached: ericbirdie.gif (420x320, 1.12M)

Scientific - Manipulable
Ideological - Relative to culture
Governing - Compensatory

Since we're really discussing society and societal rule;
What draws me, personally, to National Socialism is the constraining of social class into mirror groups.
I imagine it as separate societies contained in bubbles all over the globe. We can take field trips to each others bubble, but we can't interact with the species contained within.
The reason I like this ideology so much is I would be contained with those I respect.
From what I've observed (again, this is personal perspective) intelligence doesn't necessarily govern respect, but it sure seems tied to it, at least loosely.
Gorillas in a cage have IQ's of 55 on the low end to mid 80's on a high end. They live together, but introduce an outside threat and they most probably will just kill the threat.
However, introduce a potential threat to a society where the average IQ is 100'ish and they most often feel the threat out.
Put that threat into an environment where the IQ is 120+ and it's surely "contain the threat" mode.
Put a bunch of IQ 140+ into a room and I'm inclined to think it would fall back on "eliminate the threat" but with very different motive than the 80IQ group of gorillas.

National Socialism allows the 140+ IQ to live with the necessary 100+ IQ class, but not rely on them for decision making. It allows for enough of a veil to be lifted, but not be governed by a separate people who don't have the common interest at heart.

If I lived in a society like this, I would be open to a set wage tied to time. I could look at the cashier, who is there because he/she likes people and the location serves him/her well, I could look at that person making the same hourly wage as me and not feel blighted.

As it currently stands, I'm Nietzsche'esk. I've arrived at the end game and I don't want to put my resource into this society any more. I don't respect the highest rung and I don't respect the lowest rung. They aren't serving my interest and I have no interest in serving theirs.

Thank you user, I have forgotten about this slur. I shall use it more often.

Fuck off moshe.

OY VEY DON'T LET THEM DEBUNK MY 6 GORILLION IQ GOY TELL THEM IT'S REAL DON'T DISCUSS THE FACTS

Attached: b294d69bd498e5aa2f326542d931b8a1fcc02671fb9373875769879e0b23be65.jpg (546x662, 29.28K)

No, relativity was stolen.

IQ is a simple measure of low level functions. It was created during an industrial age to test how capable someone could be at simple not-so-abstract tasks.

Who is shutting down the discussion when you refuse to give the metric of measurement for value? Right now there is no discussion as far as I can see. What I see is someone who doesn't value science who wants to just arbitrarily decide who is valuable and who is not. That is not really a discussion. If you want things to be arbitrary then you should just come out and say it, but I doubt anyone is going to think that people should be arbitrarily exterminated because people actually do have value and are valuable in cultures due to the amount of effort it takes to support them vs the amount of value they bring to the community. Your low IQ raping niggers have no value at all and deserve to be completely exterminated off the planet. And in the case of the rest of the subhumans they simply aren't as valuable as Ethnic Europeans there is no faggot homopedo culture of subhuman 1/2 niggers that can compare in productivity, culture or morals to an average Ethnic European. You want to claim that IQ is arbitrary but you refuse to set any other standard for judgement because you have nothing as far as I can see. I don't really care about 'your feefees' on the matter and right now that is all you are offering………..I don't give a shit what your feefees tell you should be an accurate measure they are as worthless as the 1/2 nigger parasites invading our nations.
Its all so tiresome.

Female autists? Odd choice to characterize that group.