People with IQs lower than 140 should be removed from the gene pool

You're not fooling anyone. Go back to r/mensa and compare your brain dicks there.

oh no that sucks

I'm already a certified member. Well, I actually got banned for humiliating OkteoberStorm in a debate but whatever. I invented a new transistor for quantum computing and sold it to Shen Zhen's best tech firm who are using it for advances in AI computing. I'm no politician though.

There is already a thread about this.

And they will.

there's a thread about 110 but that's too low.

Would be for this, but of course, 140 would become the new 100…

nothing wrong with that, it'd be a giant improvement

It'd repeat itself once there was no one left to remember what it was like before.

So instead of making your argument in the already existing thread you decide to open up a new one that only differs in but the number of the IQ? A thread died for this, you dumb cuckchan nigger.

You'd have a better baseline and that's what counts.

That thread is garbage because 110 is too low. This is its rightful replacement.

>LETS GENOCIDE EVERYBODY WHO DIDN'T MASTER JEWISH PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC TEST
I mean it's nice that all goyim will be removed, but don't you think it's a bit too much, Moishe?
Now that you mentioned this so nobody would think you're kike-shill. SMART! High IQ!

Just passing by with my humble 160IQ

I'm 157 WAIS.
Looks like you accidentally put a 1 in front of 60.

Most of the problems that high iq people experience is because of having to live in a society geared towards those who are 3 standard deviations below themselves. The other main problem is that it is difficult to satisfy their mental needs in terms of study and professional capacity.
Both of these would be eliminated to a large extent if the sub-optimal of the world were purged entirely.
Your arguement is akin to pygmies saying that pgymy society would crumble if they only allowed 70+ iqs to survive. In reality, the 55 average is what is holding them back.

Why is it that everyone that has a 'high IQ' seems to act like a complete faggot? Seems to be quite prudent to me that IQ is no substitute for common sense or even self awareness, as OP and other faggots ITT clearly demonstrate by lacking any type of humility or modesty.
What? Because some pseudo-jewish test showed that you problem solve arithmetic and shapes better than most other people? If anything this just goes to show how your types would lack to function if left completely to your own devices.
is right, and I'm starting to question the validity of IQ tests; all it really seems to venture into is math and similar.

This is a complete inversion of reality, lower iq means less control over the emotions. Have you ever tried to have a reasonable discussion with someone from the dark continent? As for people to hammer nails - well Japan with its significantly higher intelligence is at the forefront of automation. Further to that, most truly intelligent people are not averse to a variety of tasks, including those involving physical skills. Perhaps you are confusing mentally ill and frail rejects in your perception of what an intelligent person should be. Thank television for that.
Note that the nordic races possess the highest intelligence in europe, and are also the strongest physically.
As for who (((intellectuals))) are in regards to depravity, that is self evident and always has been. You sound like a man desperately giving reasons why he should be left alive, when there are none that are viable.

IQ is not and has never been a measure of intellect.
It was designed to measure mental development relative to age. In children.
This is why it's so heavy on pattern recognition as human pattern recognition abilities typically improve with age.

No one on Zig Forums has an IQ that high, or the internet at large, 140+ IQ is extremely rare, it's just liars and self-hating fags. At least the 110 IQ thread was more believable.

Are you currently using a computer from 1982, because there is no difference between an old computer and a new one, apart from irrelevant numbers on a piece of paper.

Check statistics, there are more than you think there are. It might sound high, but that it is just slightly higher than the average doctor.

Even were this to be true a doctor is a much rarer profession than almost anything else. Still the fact almost everyone online claims to have genius level IQ is obviously not true.

Nice bait. Guessing you scored 160 in the IQ test, right chip?

BS, avg doc is 130. I60 is the difference between a toilet cleaner and a doctor.

Nice reading comprehension.

That becomes "160" in your reply.

They are only rare because there are so many low iq people. Kill off all the idiots and high iq people are no longer rare, that is the whole point of this thread.
Compare the technological achievements of north western europe and the congo.
Do you use the same arguement of "we need the low iq types to run society"? That's like barbara spectre the kikess saying with a smirk on its face that "europe will not survive without all the europeans being replaced by 65 iq negroids".
Use your head.

I;m Chinese. English is not my first language.

Society would elevate and adapt, as it has done with every iteration in evolution, claiming that the current norm of 100-105 is the ideal is nonsense.

He's just intimidated and threatened because he has a low IQ himself.

Numbers are the first thing you learn in a foreign language and the easiest thing to recognise in text. You just didn't read the post I had replied to and missed the context.

There's a massive difference between a violent subhuman shitskin with a classified retard IQ and the average White person and anyone below 140 IQ. You would have to edit genes to make this sustainable or you'd kill over 99.9% of people including all but like 3 women and then you go extinct.

No, you because you don't get it if someone tries to wind you up.

He is making a point, for those retards that didn't get it at the IQ110 thread.
SAGE

My IQ is lower than 140 yeah, but trust me you'd easily be killed off first before any of the masses you want to cull from the genepool. Come try it chink.

It is actually a lot less than that. The changed the 'online reporting of it' so that it wasn't that humiliating…but just like their shitskin cousins that surround their island the real accurate figures are 84 average IQ. If you look in books which are obligated to print the truth (more than an online website, anyway…I am sure they are working on revising all of this since we have all been laughing so hard about it) but the average IQ is 84, NOT MID 90's.

Do you people even know what the scale means?
In classic IQ testing and modern?

Hahaha, my great grandfather was the brother of Hjalmar Schacht who migrated to Hong Kong after the war. I also fight for white interests. You are stupid for such ideas and desires.

The point is without gene editing there is a regression to the mean hence why usually you're dumber than your father and 140+ IQ is not sustainable.

Maybe, empathy also has a part to play and conditioning. Most people don't like the idea that the majority of the world's population are useless. Government and business policy in work sectors has for example no place for anyone below around 80 iq, yet they are about 30-40% of the population. All those people living lives, consuming resources, needing all the information to be reduced to their standard just to maintain their existence is senseless.
Maybe OP's 140 is too high, but the current method of appeasing the lowest common denominator is retrogressive and suicidal for civilisation.

You only see that difference because of the comparison between the society we have and the society and behaviour they have. Can you accurately imagine a society with only people of 120+ iq for example, or as a better analogy, where 120 is the average instead of 100.
The average in africa is around 65 iq, pygmies are 55 iq and the rest of africa dominate them, they are a curiosity only, yet they have survived perfectly well by themselves.
Look at Japan and compare it with mexico, not such an enormous step between them.
The difference is quite noticeable though, no crime, people are polite, the streets are clean, technological developments are rapid and inventive, and they are almost immediately applied to the infrastructure.
Imagine if Japan had a 10 iq higher average, or 20.
They would encounter initial problems, but those would be overcome with replacement advancements, as has always been the case throughout human history.
As for the problem of killing off a lot of people, that's the point of the thread. Higher iq women would arise in sync with a higher average iq population. Realistically, you would have to do it in planned stages in order to have a generational and balanced effect.

...

Again, would you say that to the people 200,000 years ago, that 60 iq is enough and anything higher is not sustainable? That just highlights a lack of knowledge and imagination.

No, even though I'm not 140 IQ I'm all for eugenics and gene editing, the world would admittedly be a much better place without shitskins and jews. I don't believe killing off everyone or sterilizing them now is the only way to accomplish this though otherwise we'd never have evolved to this stage in the first place.

I can go for this, as a goal, but realizing the small size of population in this demographic, I propose a more societal acceptable gradual system, to achieve this goal.
Simply take everyone with 100 IQ's and up, and allow them to breed freely, and give their offspring full access to every bit of knowledge available, college for free, apprenticeships, etc. Put the power to vote, etc only in the hands of those with a high iq. Mass sterilization of any group of people with an IQ less than 90. Then, as IQ's rise, reward those with higher IQ's greater privilege and prestige in that society. Make success and wealth equate to intellect and innovation, instead of making stupid people famous. Keep doing this, until the average IQ is over 120, then level the playing field, until you hit 130, then 140.

If there weren't any jews infecting our populations with forced immigration since the 1950s especially, then our national intelligence levels would have been rising all of this time instead of falling.
France's average iq has dropped significantly within only a few years simply because of this. I agree on that part. I would use OP's idea as more of a long term aim than an immediate action. Not sure if gene editing is a wise idea, given how primitive it is, only at a very limited experimental level. Eugenics can be achieved quite well enough through social projects and rewarding quality families and sufficient guidance and support of intelligent people, instead of throwing trillions into supposedly keeping afloat those at the bottom rungs.
Sterilising sub-normals would be a useful thing though, there is no reason to allow the defective to continue their gene spread. For example, sterilise any immigrant from a third world country. If they are truly 'fleeing', they would accept the condition. If they are a parasite that wants to stay permanently and infect the once civilised society with their own failed species, then they will refuse.

I'd say keep going until the average is 160 so you have a buffer against situational decline. But I definitely agree with the approach. The title exists as it does so people click on the thread.

Sounds reasonable.

Your comment brings to mind the Russian fox breeding experiments. Intelligence is part of a matrix of genetic cofactors, some of which may be less than ideal for advancement in cooperative societies.

but if we did that then who would post on /pol?

Not you, because leftypol would already be 6 feet deep.

hahaha

...

What are the limits though? Do doctors work well together, despite them being on average 130 iq? I'd say for the most part, yes, although they function in an odd hierarchical system. How about scientific researchers? People of a similar intelligence do tend to work best when in company of their peers, and suffer when they are forced to work with those either far above or below their own. The figure usually given is 30 iq either way being detrimental to communication.
There are a great deal of cofactors, that is why I would say that genetic alterations would be an improper way to proceed, especially given the primitive level of the current understanding of that subject. It would be like a chimp editing a million line programme with no thought or vision for consequence.

So as of now we can consider the opposite of OP to be occurring.

that wouldnt leave enough people to run the vital infrastructure of the planet, like cooling nuclear reactors.

Go to the doctor and say you are depressed, they'll prescribe you medications to turn your brain into a stub of its current form and you'll find a match within weeks.

IQ test is just a way to keep Kikes in power

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (183x275, 36.36K)

You racist.

The Han chinese obliterate Jews on IQ tests.

Mate, they're also rising to (((power)))

The classic scale is what the creators considered "normal" relative to your age.
So in those tests 100 is "normal" at the age of testing.
So if you're ten and you take a test designed for ten year olds and you get 100 then you are what they deemed "normal" in terms of pattern recognition ability.
Bear in mind this was entirely their opinion on what was normal pattern recognition ability for different child age brackets.
And most importantly these tests were not designed or produced for adult use.
That was the original IQ test.
A high IQ at any point on these tests was an indicator of future intellect. Since the child would be better equipped to utilise the educational resources around them due to a superior capacity for pattern recognition.
Low IQ was was an indicator of stalled or slow development. Sustained low IQ over a number of years was a sign of retardation.
But again these were for children.

Modern tests were derived from these childrens tests because people like having a number they can point to and go "I am six points smarter than you hah!"
Because people are idiots.

Modern tests (the ones you pay for at least) work to two approaches.
Customer satisfaction in which case everyone gets a high score but not so high as to be unbelievable. This is very common in the USA and Asia.
The other is population averaging. Basically the idea that 100 should be the average of the entire population. These companies like to get the results of their tests and try to push them everywhere they can so that they can constantly tweak their tests to get that desired 100 average.
But you're still only testing pattern recognition.
These tests don't and can't measure applied knowledge, creativity or even memory.

Attached: baka1.png (718x802, 585.27K)

And high IQ people don't? I have an IQ of 142 and am an industrial electrician, for me a good day is spent outdoors running cable.

Sort of this. A high IQ does not mean you are wise or have common sense. For example among our enemies there are high IQ individuals. There needs to be a natural balance. You can't go to perverted extremes.

This.

Fair point.

Attached: deus_dance.gif (300x225, 2.98M)

Ability to apply knowledge comes for the most part from intelligence, which is in its raw form, pattern recognition. Saying that it doesn't test everything is not relevant.
That they were designed for measurement of childhood development discards any advancement made in the tests themselves. It also discards the clearly visible correllations between intelligence and achievement and professional capability. The main factor for super-145 iqs having trouble in professional fulfillment is linked to the poor quality of the society that surrounds them. That is the reason for universities having existed in the first place, they were a centralised source of well educated and intelligent people, this concentration is necessary in order to fulfill collective potentials and obtain the necessary stimulation required to do so.

How helpful. Like being put back into the matrix.
Im so far beyond "muh dick" I literally just want a wife so I have something to sleep next to, yet somehow 8-10 years difference is only okay if the woman is older…imagine that.

I fucking despise normalfags. Theyd rather let their daughters become whores and single mothers to niggerbabies than allow a consensual and productive relationship with white males who have the means, desire and ability to care for them and produce children.

Attached: ab64d795c1859ed9a40082d3f6683618030444eefb2e78efbba6269f4257ca24.png (503x628, 352.27K)

That isn't what universities were for.
They were training centres for the upper class. Intellect wasn't relevant.

Are you even close to 140 IQ?

1 in 261 people have 140+

I scored 138 on WAIS IV and 136 on WISC. Obviously not everyone here is 140+, but 140 is not THAT much. I'm sure you'll find someone here…

Attached: 4a83b93c1a22d5b76e90925cdfb4223e29c2469015734d7550e9d6838062ff06.png (227x214, 5.63K)

sage

Find an older woman with a grown daughter, two for the price of one.

Upper classes had far higher average iq, from breeding as well as the most consistent factor of consistently adequate nutrition. Thought takes a lot of energy. They also had enough time to develop their learning and use their brains.

IQ tests are broken
you need a 120 IQ or higher to get a Phd and there are people getting PhDs in "Gender studies" or "Dance theory"

The first part is a myth.
It was mostly down to better nutrition and being able to afford to dedicate time to learning.

This makes my bepis big

Dude most of Zig Forums is probably between 130 and 140, thats why were here.

Abject nonsense, as proven by today.

Most high IQ, or at least visibly intelligent people that I've ever met have found more satisfaction in performing something simple and menial but that required significant physical exertion than pretty much anything else. As much as I love philosophical debate and learning how the world works; it hasn't got anything on tearing up the garden and building a shed or combat sports.

You have a point regarding a lot of autistic and mentally damaged people exhibiting high IQs and having a whole host of issues that make them incapable of functioning in normal society; but there are an awful lot of intelligent people who can function very well. I also dislike the arbitrariness of "IQ 140", whilst IQ is a decent identifier of intelligence it is not the be-all and end-all. We should certainly engage in some eugenic practices as a society though.

...

Education is broken.

I'm okay with this idea with one modification: either your IQ is 140 or else you're super good looking. Like one-in-a-million supermodel incomprehensibly gorgeous. This will still get rid of the most undesirables without losing certain genes that are objectively desirable.

you fucking retard

Labor keeps it running. Robots do labor. High-IQs make robots.

140 is too high, though. Start at 100 or 120 and see how it goes. Even getting rid of the sub-100s (most niggers) will make an enormous difference. And there may be genetic boons attached to 'lower' IQs (120s) that could come out in breeding later. True high IQs will not have a problem with this because we understand how much there is that we don't know.

Attached: why homeschool.png (558x895, 61.1K)

1989六四事件

The nobility came to rule by virtue of a distant ancestor who was a warlord.
Or by an ancestor who made themselves useful to existing nobles and was rewarded for it.

Any education is better than none. Education allows people to fluently communicate with each other with regards to the ideas taught.
That is all education does, it allows us to learn our language and learn more ways to talk about things we all individually observe. We observe something, then use what we've been educated about to communicate what we observe to another person. Remember: no two people truly understand each other, communication is more of an arbitration of the things we observe.

Get rid of this spam.

Who suggested taking it beyond a "certain point" in the first place? Going too far with anything means you've, guess what, gone too far. So don't go too far.

Citation needed

You're a fucking retard m8

Attached: foreign aid.jpg (500x735, 83.87K)

I disagree, all you need is the "right environment" (for example a degree for stupid ignorant people) and a bit of "luck" (actually passing that stupid degree which is simple as fuck).
Phd is not relevant to IQ. It should be, but it isn't because we make Phds for subjects intended to be completed by the average chimpanzees.

Law degrees cope with this by now adding more qualification requirements post grad. Medical degrees, etc do likewise.

No, people under 200IQ are dumb animals and need to be removed. OP is probably only IQ 169 or something and a dumb faggot.

Well, here's a chart, but wikipedia doesn't tend to be the most accurate source…

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (936x535, 238.84K)

I really just can not believe the stupidity here.

(Not generally true, and where it is true, it's easily explained by smart person being stuck in an institutional environment controlled by authoritarian morons.)

Attached: its real.jpg (850x400, 54.58K)