To the thread, I gift a small smattering of information I've retrieved on the subject. There are going to be discussion videos on the subject, but I don't have them handy.
Here's the original image, and some other stuff I collected by searching out the thread.
- * _ * -
IQ Posts - Conditional Hypotheticals for Sub-80's
This is some writing on things that low-iq people are likely literally unable to understand. It was drawn from
https://archive.4plebs(Please use archive.today)/pol/thread/327665089/
https://archive.4plebs(Please use archive.today)/pol/thread/327665089/#327667712
>I did IQ research as a grad student, and it involved a lot of this stuff. Did you know that most people (95%+) with less than 90 IQ can't understand conditional hypotheticals?
>For example:
>How would you have felt yesterday evening if you hadn't eaten breakfast or lunch?
>What do you mean? I did eat breakfast and lunch.
>Yes, but if you had not, how would you have felt?
>Why are you saying that I didn't eat breakfast? I just told you that I did.
>Imagine that you hadn't eaten it, though. How would you have felt?
>I don't understand the question.
>It's really fascinating. We did research on convicts in San Quentin. They're absolute fucking retards, at least 50% illiterate.
>Other interesting phenomenon around IQ involves recursion.
>For example:
>Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue.
>Most literate people can manage this, especially once you give them an example.
>Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue.
>In this story, one of the characters must be describing a story with at least two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue.
>If you have less than 90 IQ, this second exercise is basically completely impossible.
>Add a third level ('frame') to the story, and even IQ 100's start to get mixed up with the names and who's talking.
>Turns out Scheherazade was an IQ test!
>Time is practically impossible to understand for sub 80's. They exist only in the present, can barely reflect on the past and can't plan for the future at all.
>Sub 90's struggle with anachronism too. For example, I remember the 80-85's stumbling on logic problems that involved common sense anachronism stuff.
>For instance:
>Why do you think that military strategists in WWII didn't use laptop computers to help develop their strategies?
>I guess they didn't want to get hacked by Nazis?
>Admittedly you could argue that this is a history knowledge question, not quite a logic sequencing question, but you get the idea.
>Sequencing is super hard for them to track, but most 100+ have no problem with it, although I imagine that a movie like Memento strains them a little.
>Recursion was definitely the killer, though.
>Recursive thinking and recursive knowledge seems genuinely hard for people of even average intelligence (although at San Quentin there weren't too many of those!)
>It's the main reason why so many people with sub-90 IQ are sociopathic or psychopathic. They don't have the mental computing power to model other people's thoughts and feelings. I've seen it over and over with convicts.
>How do you think that man felt when you beat him?
>Dunno.
>How do you think that boy's mother felt when she heard that her son was dead? [Expand Post] >Dunno.
>It comes across as psychopathic, but these people literally don't have the brainpower to build even a crude model of someone else's mind, let alone populate it with events that are in the past.
>I forgot to mention another important part of abstract reasoning, which is 'mapping'. Basically, expressing one thing in terms of another.
>For example:
>Imagine a picture of an arrow, colored in a gradient from yellow to green, following the direction of the arrow.
>Imagine a one-way residential street, with ascending house numbers, with the lowest number being at the entrance of the street and the highest number being at the exit.
>If you mapped the arrow onto the street, what color would house number 1 be?
>This question really isn't tricky for most 100+s. It has some minor ambiguities, but anyone of normal intelligence can do the 'mapping': that is, the expression of one thing in terms of another.
>However, for sub-90's, this stuff is REALLY difficult. They struggle terribly with it. Sub 80's just can't do it at all.
>Anything under 90 will routinely make errors with even commonplace mapping (like subway maps, time schedules, etc.) Sub 85s start to get into the territory where they can't learn to read, as symbolic mapping of phonemes (or even morphemes) even with constant drilling, is just too tricky.
>Math is another area I could get into, but the long and the short of it is that it's heavily decided by IQ. That's a bit tautological, since it's a principal IQ measurement, but you know what I mean.
>As for the criminal narcissists etc: I honestly don't know. However, sufficiently high IQ autists can emulate theory of mind, and do. If you're smart enough, you can build a little simulator in your brain. You also need to be smart enough to appreciate the utility of it.
>I suspect that any autist or narcissist over 120 can do this stuff regularly without getting tired, but it's like playing a strenuous game of chess for them. They really don't have the 'hardware' for empathy.
- - - - -
Anonymous ID:WakNFvZ7 Sat 26 Jun 2021 22:38:29 No.327668535
Virility, morality, passion, resilience, creativity, work ethic, sensitivity, social skills and abstract thinking capabilities are just as important as pattern recognition
All of those tend to correlate with IQ to an extent but it’s a far from perfect correlation
Honestly a productive population with good pattern recognition skills but low capacity for original thought or desire to live and be in tune with nature seems to be the goal of the powers that be
Emphasis on IQ is creepy because you just know it’s an excuse to create midwit utopias filled with airheaded slaves for the elite. The natives here lived preferable lifestyles to most of the people who exterminated them
A member of the last hunter gatherer tribe in Tanzania is doing a lot better than a suicidal NEET in a glorified cardboard box in Japan even if he’s losing in the IQ department
- - - - -
Anonymous ID:qVmLqw7Y Sat 26 Jun 2021 22:52:40 No.327670143
>>327665089
read into this shit a while ago. extremely fascinating. basically we as top x% (lets say 3 for discussion) individuals, assume that everyone else is (very vaguely) operating with similar reasoning abilities. The fact is that the differences are way, way, way, more extreme than we assume. Even 100IQs will miss most things we would infer immediately from subtext. Sub 100s will fail on huge quantities of basic questions requiring simple reasoning abilities. This problem develops exponentially given that:
A) most of the populatio is sub 100 IQ
B) they breed the fastest
C) if their rational reasoning abilities fail to resolve a situation (as is often the case especially the lower into the double digits you get), the brain defaults to System 1 (https://en.wikipedia(Please use archive.today)/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow), and given the extremely strong correlation between weaknesses in System 2 (aka IQ) and general genetic fitness... well what happens when you get a cornered animal? let alone 5 billion of them
- - - - -
Anonymous ID:ZpuEJvbk Sat 26 Jun 2021 23:16:17 No.327672692 Report
Also this lack of understanding hypothetical scenarios is on full display with females all the time. Remember how RooshV got banned from whole countries because he said we should "legalize rape" but he never literally said that, he wrote a block post commenting on a hypothetical scenario were rape was legal on private property and asked *if* rape was legal and women knowingly walked into that situation -- does it change how we enforce rape laws and show women's attitudes towards rape etc etc...
He got literally fucking banned from countries because women and (Hello, I just arrived from Cuckchan, please bully me)s are too stupid to understand a hypothetical scenario in an argument. It doesn't matter if you don't like or like RooshV what matters here is he, like many men, get blasted over things they didn't say because (Hello, I just arrived from Cuckchan, please bully me)s and females are too stupid to get what he actually said.
Normies just emotionally respond to cue-words at this point I swear. There is no logical connection between words and contexts with them.
- - - - -
Anonymous ID:A3nOt3nc Sun 27 Jun 2021 01:25:51 No.327685429 Report
>>327668199
>>327667980
>>327667906
>>327667818
>>327667712
>>327665089
Thanks anon. This is really interesting.
I wonder when this anon was working at San Quentin? I was at Berkeley and a lot of grad students from the social sciences went to San Quentin to do teaching volunteering. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a sweetheart deal with the IRB there for research too. It would be very valuable since 95% of all research is done on college students.
One thing I'll say: this anon's transcriptions of dialogue are definitely brushed-up. He probably wrote it intelligibly on purpose to get the point across, but as someone who volunteered at an Oakland literacy program, here's what they sound like:
>How would you have felt yesterday evening if you hadn't eaten breakfast or lunch?
>Whatchu say? I done ate brickfuss.
>Yes, but if you had not, how would you have felt?
>Fuck you sayin' cracka? I done said I ATE brickfuss
>Imagine that you hadn't eaten it, though. How would you have felt?
>Fuck you honky-ass cracka fuck you axing me
Otherwise it all rings true
- - - - -
Anonymous ID:niE64UOm Sun 27 Jun 2021 01:34:48 No.327686122 Report
>>327667906
This remind me of something my Professor told me in gradschool.
He was describing the history of urban planning, up until the most recent examples like Singapore and Putrajaya.
I brought up how people back then have to be forced to relocate into such artificial cities like Chandigarh and Brasilia, and about how unhappy some Singaporeans I know personally about living there.
My Professor explanation was that there are multiple level of civilizations.
Hunter-gatherer, (caveman like nomads)
Agricultural, (farmers and cattle ranchers)
Industrial, (factory wagies, farming & cattle wagies included)
Information, (intellectual creation, adding values and opening new markets to real commodities)
Explorer (this one is unclear to me).
A friend had people who are of the first and second level in his mining exploration team.
The first level guy can't understand why we don't shoot any pigs and deers we see running in the forest. He literally live in the moment and doesn't understand saving some money/food for tomorrow, so the concept of conservation is beyond his reach. Most of his people can't cook anything.
A member of the more primordial level of civilizations can not understand the values of the newer levels.
Yet the weird thing is, the absence of the more primordial civilizations within a community will make a person of the newer level of civilizations be less happy.
Perhaps it's because the "lower" level of civilizations becomes a mirror of introspection for the civilizations "above" them.
Since we as humans all start out at zero, perhaps IQ can show who among us have the potential to elevate himself/herself and the people around him into the higher levels of civilization.