Intelligence and IQ Levels

[Skepdick]

Moral obligation is an oxymoron.

If you don't want to be moral there's almost nothing that can oblige you; and bliging people to be moral can rapidly deteriorate into imorality.

[Atla]

Moral obligation is an oxymoron.

If you don't want to be moral there's almost nothing that can oblige you; and bliging people to be moral can rapidly deteriorate into imorality.

Imo, what truly breaks the human spirit, aren't even all the countless immoral people. We evalute some people as moral and some as immoral, okay.

Instead it's the a-moral ones (mostly the cluster-B types). It's when it really hits you that moral and immoral people at least share a moral "dimension" of life, that's there in everything we experience, mostly unnoticed, but it is completely missing from amoral people. That's when it truly hits you just what it means that the natural world is completely amoral.

[commonsense]

Already we have two small fries, who are intimidated by the notion of IQ differentials.

Why is it such a touchy, sensitive topic??

(Because it intimidates anybody who feels their IQ is average or below-average...)

Have you done any studies correlating IQism with racial intimidation?

BTW, I don’t have an average or below average IQ, and yet I don’t conform to your theories.

[Wizard22]

It is foolish to detach imagination from reality.

"Foolishness" is a good word for unconstrained imagination.

Intelligence implies that some internal system 'restricts' the imagination when concerning real consequences of actions.

Yeah. Physics. Time is a finite resource. Time to think. Time to execute. Time to reflect. Time to decide which problems are worth solving; and which are worth ignoring.

Every decision carries an opportunity cost.

The problem is, this is heavily manipulated by postmodern society. For example, Consumerism allows for commercialization and news media to pour vast amounts of dis- and mis-information into everybody's minds. It's too much. People are then unable to discern what is real, versus what is lie/false/untrue/inaccurate/misleading.

It's far easier to discern what's useful vs what's "true". For starters - is truth useful?

Most truth is absolutely useless and worthless. Most truth is a total waste of time.

Good points. Time is the critical part. The cognitive process of 'thinking', focus, meditation, etc. "takes one out of" Reality. This is why 'thinking' is an exception in Nature, and exploited by Mankind. In other words, Mankind has developed levels of safety, security, comfort, free-time, that allows most people the opportunity to Think, whereas most other animals are struggling to eat and survive on a day-to-day basis. Thus, across the history of humanity and evolution, there have been spurts of intellectual growth and "progress"—specifically in the areas of Literature and Philosophy.

Time is always a Risk, even in the safety of the postmodern standard-of-living. Thought, applied to Reality, is the Execution of these Risks. Otherwise thought is fantasy and irrelevant. Like you say, it's about what's Useful. Deluding oneself, thinking of vanities, is useless...represents a lack of mental discipline.

[Wizard22]

Give it 10 more years, by then you'll be disappointed by humans so many times (especially by highly intelligent 100% amoral ones), that any strong sense of moral obligation will break.

I was thinking about your response the other day...

There's a few options. A highly-intelligent person can be:

1. Moral
2. Immoral
3. Amoral

Intelligence doesn't seem to fall into one category only. As you implied, a highly-intelligent psychopath is very dangerous to those around him. So intelligence in-and-of-itself isn't necessarily an overall Good (for Humanity). Rather, intelligence needs moral constraints, otherwise it tends to Prey-upon or Parasitize those (humans) around it.

Therefore, Morality is type of hard-set 'Control' of Intelligence.

[Wizard22]

Have you done any studies correlating IQism with racial intimidation?

No, what do you mean?

BTW, I don’t have an average or below average IQ, and yet I don’t conform to your theories.

How do you not?

[Wizard22]

Intelligence, IQ, and Hierarchy

From the 1st Page: "It means that a large bloc of humanity needs to be led around as-if they were children. Because they physically do not have the ability to interact on a sophisticated moral level, required for Civilizations and Societies to exist. This means that a lower IQ person, needs to be Dictated to, as the basis of its Morality."

Household pets, dogs and cats, are not stressed nor feel anxiety about its human master's exceptional intelligence (by degree). The pet is comfortable and secure under the provision of its human owner. Thus Intelligence and IQ are intrinsic within social Hierarchies. People automatically presume that the smarter and more intelligent a person (or animal) is, the more Authority it has. Thus people, and animals, are both 'attracted' to very high intelligences. In the context of Philosophy, this demonstrates the phenomenon of modern humans consistently returning to the historical Greats and Geniuses. Some humans are so brilliant, that their Intelligence and IQ stand-out long after their demise. People develop a dependency upon what was left for us by our long-lost ancestors, all the greats of humanity.

So it is within the family hierarchy. Children may, or may not, rise above the level of his or her father or mother. Intelligence and IQ are not so elastic. Not everybody is destined to 'do better' than, or rise above, their parents, let alone the historic greats. Thus there is a "Greatest Hierarchy" across human history, that is eternally present, by which people 'settle' into their places. And those in the Hierarch high above, or with respect to intelligence, cannot or will not be surpassed, people resign themselves to a level by which their intuition feels and assigns its "Place and Purpose". Those with average intelligence or lower thus resign themselves to their 'paygrades'. Their minds are not concerned with the Great Mysteries directly, but instead suffice themselves with Mysticism, Religion, Conspiracies, and the like, which act as Salves for the Mundane minds.

The 'Average' of humanity need a slew of "Representational Authorities" or as they readily admit, "Trust the Experts" and "Trust the Science". Both of these are indications, evidence, and proof of admission of self-defeat. The individual, giving up his/her autonomy, also gives up his/her Intellect. She has resigned her mental faculties to a designated 'leader' within Society.

[Skepdick]

...

The 'Average' of humanity need a slew of "Representational Authorities" or as they readily admit, "Trust the Experts" and "Trust the Science". Both of these are indications, evidence, and proof of admission of self-defeat. The individual, giving up his/her autonomy, also gives up his/her Intellect. She has resigned her mental faculties to a designated 'leader' within Society.

This is all hogwash.

It's because time is a finite resource is why I can't be an expert/know-it-all about everything. A jack of all trades is a master of none.

"Trust the Experts" is just a political slogan for "delegate your decision-making to people who have spent far more time and resources thinking about this problem than you ever will.". Quite rightly so - you shouldn't trust me with flying a fucking airplane.

It's not self-defeat. It's recognition of one's own limits. The inevitable product of specialization, division of labour, segregation of duties which emerges with economies of scale.

This is why hierarchies emerge in the first place. Otherwise how do we make decisions as a collective?

Making good leadership decisions about running a country is a very different skill from making good decisions about running a familly of 5. Scale matters.

This is the usual sort of drivel from the deluded individualists suffering from a bad case of Hero syndrome - the stupid idea that individuals achieve greatness with no help from anyone else.

[Maia]

Intelligence and IQ Levels

Let's have a discussion about Intelligence and its 'IQ' measurements.

Over the recent year, I've read about the mental abilities (of the brain) of different IQ levels. They can be broken down in tens as IQ 80, 90, 100, 110, up to about 140. It seems that low IQ people, lowly intellects, are physically incapable of specific mental tasks. The most obvious ones are with imagined physical rotation of objects. A lower IQ does not have the ability to 'turn' objects in its mind using imagination. Furthermore, there is talk of "inner dialogue" where lower IQs do not have this "inner voice" or integrated Rationalization process. This means that most people are unaware of their Rationalizations, and thus, have great difficulty in understanding others' Rationalizations. This is clearer in the ability, or lack thereof, for people to empathize with one another, let alone sympathize or antipathize with one another.

It means that a large bloc of humanity needs to be led around as-if they were children. Because they physically do not have the ability to interact on a sophisticated moral level, required for Civilizations and Societies to exist. This means that a lower IQ person, needs to be Dictated to, as the basis of its Morality.

Furthermore again, the Subjective-basis of conscious existence, people have a compulsion to believe that "others are like me", and when it comes to intelligence/brain, "others think as I do". This is false. And it especially runs counter to Liberal-Lefty-Marxist indoctrination in Western Civilization. In other words, based on public education and cultural marxism, "Normies" are "not allowed to believe" that others are deviated away from "myself" and "thinking like myself" as a function of IQ. This is why, particularly, there is a huge political incorrectness around Race and IQ. Because the basis for the distinction, intelligence differentials, cannot or must not exist (if they could).

This means that, at the very least, it is "politically incorrect" to discuss intelligence differentials openly and normally. The taboo is a matter of "Supremacy", that—hypothetically, the higher the IQ, the more inclined it would be to brutalize, subjugate, "hate upon", and diminish the lower and lowest IQs. Not coincidentally, this presumption tends to come from the Liberal-Left again. It is most likely a conclusion to their presumptions about human intelligence and its differential abilities.

+++The most obvious ones are with imagined physical rotation of objects. A lower IQ does not have the ability to 'turn' objects in its mind using imagination.+++

You may find the following quite interesting.

https://www.rnib.org.uk/professionals/h ... ed-people/

+++Key findings
Tests developed for sighted individuals are not always appropriate to use with blind and partially sighted people.
Non-verbal reasoning tests are more problematic than verbal reasoning tests as they often use pictures and images which are inaccessible to blind and partially sighted people.
Psychometric tests are often used to test innate ability, but the skills being assessed for a blind or partially sighted person may differ from the skills being assessed for a sighted person.+++

Perhaps surprisingly, there is still no universally accepted IQ test to measure the intelligence of blind people, though there have been a number of partial proposals.

So, with regard to being able to imagine the physical rotation of objects in one's mind, this is something I do all the time, without thinking about it. I couldn't navigate the world if I didn't. I don't do it visually, though, and this is what standard IQ tests measure. Perhaps the same is true of a lot of other people, too.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, with regard to being able to imagine the physical rotation of objects in one's mind, this is something I do all the time, without thinking about it. I couldn't navigate the world if I didn't. I don't do it visually, though, and this is what standard IQ tests measure. Perhaps the same is true of a lot of other people, too.

Maybe stupid question, but when you're rotating an object in your mind, is it through like almost an imagined tactile feel of the object? Like you can imagine feeling it in your hands rotating it?

And if so, does it work the same way for large objects like buildings?

[Maia]

So, with regard to being able to imagine the physical rotation of objects in one's mind, this is something I do all the time, without thinking about it. I couldn't navigate the world if I didn't. I don't do it visually, though, and this is what standard IQ tests measure. Perhaps the same is true of a lot of other people, too.

Maybe stupid question, but when you're rotating an object in your mind, is it through like almost an imagined tactile feel of the object? Like you can imagine feeling it in your hands rotating it?

And if so, does it work the same way for large objects like buildings?

It doesn't have to include a tactile element, unless there's some specific reason to. It's the shape of the object that I imagine, and also the shape, and layout, of larger things like buildings, and routes between things.

[Flannel Jesus]

It doesn't have to include a tactile element, unless there's some specific reason to. It's the shape of the object that I imagine, and also the shape, and layout, of larger things like buildings, and routes between things.

So "shape" for you doesn't get represented exclusively as feeling, interesting. I was going to say that shape for me is almost always visual, but... I don't think that's true either. Which leads me to wonder if a blind person and a sighted persons idea of the 3d Shape of something may be extremely similar. I started out thinking they're drastically different, and they may still be, but I'm less sure now.

[Maia]

It doesn't have to include a tactile element, unless there's some specific reason to. It's the shape of the object that I imagine, and also the shape, and layout, of larger things like buildings, and routes between things.

So "shape" for you doesn't get represented exclusively as feeling, interesting. I was going to say that shape for me is almost always visual, but... I don't think that's true either. Which leads me to wonder if a blind person and a sighted persons idea of the 3d Shape of something may be extremely similar. I started out thinking they're drastically different, and they may still be, but I'm less sure now.

It's a fascinating question, and one I've thought about a lot. I'm not even sure, however, if it would be possible to answer it.

What I can say is that I have a very strong sense of shape and can imagine it very easily.

[Wizard22]

This is all hogwash.

It's because time is a finite resource is why I can't be an expert/know-it-all about everything. A jack of all trades is a master of none.

"Trust the Experts" is just a political slogan for "delegate your decision-making to people who have spent far more time and resources thinking about this problem than you ever will.". Quite rightly so - you shouldn't trust me with flying a fucking airplane.

It's not self-defeat. It's recognition of one's own limits. The inevitable product of specialization, division of labour, segregation of duties which emerges with economies of scale.

This is why hierarchies emerge in the first place. Otherwise how do we make decisions as a collective?

Making good leadership decisions about running a country is a very different skill from making good decisions about running a familly of 5. Scale matters.

This is the usual sort of drivel from the deluded individualists suffering from a bad case of Hero syndrome - the stupid idea that individuals achieve greatness with no help from anyone else.

You missed the point, but your defensiveness is telling about how you ought to blindly trust...an airplane pilot. Or a doctor. Or your news anchor.

You essentially reinforced my point. People innately trust Authority according to hierarchy and scale, all the way up to the 'Top' which the religious and secularists both abstract as 'God'.

[Iwannaplato]

This means that, at the very least, it is "politically incorrect" to discuss intelligence differentials openly and normally. The taboo is a matter of "Supremacy", that—hypothetically, the higher the IQ, the more inclined it would be to brutalize, subjugate, "hate upon", and diminish the lower and lowest IQs. Not coincidentally, this presumption tends to come from the Liberal-Left again. It is most likely a conclusion to their presumptions about human intelligence and its differential abilities.

Or, it could be self-knowledge: left/liberals tend to do better on IQ tests than conservatives.