Iq's Correlation With Religiocity, Income, And Violence

This is one of those politically incorrect topics that very few people are willing to talk about. It has the potential to bring on questions of eugenics, dysgenics, and the impending idiocracy. It remains a fact, however, that IQ is a measure of ability to think critically, reason, and manipulate abstract concepts. "g" or General Intelligence is a very real, very practical measure of the statistically accurate success of populations. There are exceptions to the rule of course but of course that just serves to prove the rule.

Here is a map of IQ distribution throughout the world.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IQ_by_Country.png
You know which countries you'd want to raise a family in. It's unfortunate that countries with the highest IQs reproduce the least. These populations are actually shrinking, while lower IQ populations are growing. This is the issue.

When this subject is broached, the response is often to project malicious intentions onto scientifically minded individuals. The vast majority of people are willing to throw honest intellectual conversation out the window if it conflicts with egalitarian principles. When it comes to questions of general intelligence and IQ, the nature vs. nurture question is overwhelmingly lopsided towards heredity and genetics, friends. The real question is, do we prioritize the scientific method and objective investigation as we do in every area where we venture to make progress? Or do we cling viligantly to our egalitarian principles and do everything we can to mold the evidence into a pill that we can comfortably swallow?

What if that pill is poison?

 

This is a false premise. Common sense or the fact that we share our thoughts abrogates much need for any individual problem solver. A single thought can change a whole mind.

 

Well that map is flawed from the outset as it is based on IQ test scores and therefore gives a very incomplete and inaccurate picture.
If you begin to develop theories based on such evidence, then your theories are not tenable.

Concerning nature vs nurture, well you have to actually inherit from your parents the basic wiring diagram, not all circuit boards are printed the same, and then from that starting point, nurture begins to play a role.

Babies are not all born with equal blank slates, there is a lot to be said for inheriting a good brain structure and chemistry.

Population growth is more a direct correlate with education than it is with IQ, and there again is where the flawed map is skewing your perspective.
The countries with better educational systems will also be much more likely to administer IQ tests to the student population, which results have provided the metric for the map you are referencing.


Putting it simply, your idea is based on flawed/incomplete data and is itself therefore flawed.


won't EVEN get into what type/which IQ test are they taking to get those numbers.........

actually without that information, that map is a joke
seriously, ALL of Africa has an average IQ of 59....LOL
I would be embarrassed to publish that unless as a joke.

what that map actually depicts is ease of access to education.

 

"When it comes to questions of general intelligence and IQ, the nature vs. nurture question is overwhelmingly lopsided towards heredity and genetics, friends."


IQ is potential. Potential for reasoning, critical thinking, and realization of the benefits of highly civilized behavior by all, for all.

It's like a 40 yard dash time for a Wide Receiver. Being able to run fast does not guarantee you a spot in the NFL, but being slow WILL preclude you from any spots in the NFL. In fact you won't be able to play for a college team and you will even suck on a high school team. Being an extremely slow Wide Receiver will cause you to be a drain on every team you ever play for. It's HIGHLY likely that your kids will be slow Wide Receivers as well, and teams all over the world will suffer in performance and team chemistry given that these slow players are having more kids than the fast players.

 

you know by using football analogies, your IQ just dropped 12 points

 

Yeah the gene pool isn't organized like a football team with players that play and players that don't. Let's use the analogy pool and knowing we are all immersed in it, ask how you are superior using a jet ski to a dog paddler if you don't know how to dog paddle? The jet ski would be a crutch you couldn't do without. Frankly I think a virus has a better chance of inheriting the earth in the long run.

 

Sir, I beg of you to answer a few questions. There is a lack of education in Africa. Why did the natives of sub saharan Africa never in the past build schools and organize lesson plans? Why did they never invent electronics? Why did they never invent the wheel or mass farming?

Those who were brought to the United States as a result of the abomination of slavery are in point of fact DRASTICALLY more wealthy, with a much higher standard of living than anyone still living in Africa. Their heredity is diluted somewhat in terms of the purity of their African genes. If you do some searching on the internet you will find that sub saharan Africans average out around an IQ of 70 due to their history of hunting and gathering and the natural selection that takes place to accomidate good hunters. American Black people average out around 85, and mixed people fall somewhere around the range of 90-95 depending on the proportion of retained sub saharan African genetics.

Brain Size and IQ do correlate quite strongly at approximately 0.3-0.4, contrary to popular belief. http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2012/08/bigger-and-smarter-brains-what-makes.html
This is largely due to the interbreeding of Eurasians with Neanderthal who had HUGE brains, although their frontal lobes were not as developed. Europeans and Asians still carry a small portion of this Neanderthal DNA to this day.

 

Lol is that really a thing or are you being a smartass?

 

I have heard mankind been called a virus on the earth, as well.....^

 

It's a damn good analogy. Please provide any actual argument that debases its legitimacy. We've seen how you respond in lieu of a good argument, now try to form an argument! =)

 

I quite agree certain areas of the globe are becoming wholly dependent on technology. It is, however, our best chance at surviving cosmological catastrophe. Two planet minimum as Carl Sagan would say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlikCebQSlY

Transhumanism is happening before our eyes. We are slowly merging with technology... or quickly merging with technology depending on your perspective. I encourage critical thinking to avoid the potential pitfalls before us, while not being resigned to the idea that our sun's existence should be the maximum time limit for our survival.

 

There seem to me to be some anomalies in the map.

Look at the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Why are the Czechs shown as having a lower IQ than the Slovakians? Especially when you consider that until relatively recent times, there was Czechoslovakia where education and so on was the same throughout the country.Not only that, but the centre of culture in the former Czechoslovakia was in Prague, now capital of the Czech republic where according to the map people have lower IQs.

Since nothing is posted along with the map to explain the methodology used to do the research it's hard to take it very seriously.

 

You brought up a potentially interesting topic, and immediately justified bringing it up by telling a stupendous lie that entirely misframes the discussion, and calling it "fact".

 

Our best chance lies in not getting hit. Nature nurturing nature is a feedback loop. Are you resigned to the fact that you will probably not live that long?

 

I'm quite aware that I might not be around to see mankind escape the confines of Earth. I meditate quite a bit and try to see the macro picture, maximize well being for all.

I think the world has been improving steadily since the dawn of man, though I see signs today which indicate that's not totally guaranteed to continue. This is demonstrable through a simple thought experiment. Would you rather be you in 2000 or 1900? You in 1900 or 1800? You in 1800 or 1700? With few exceptions, a life is always more enoyable at a later date. I'd rather be right where I am now than the King of Spain at the height of its power. My intent is to ensure this trend continues and idiocracy doesn't gain a strong foothold, because it's not an easy thing to undo. I want my children and their children to continue to take part in this amazing experiment called life. I want the universe to continue to understand itself more and more fully. There are obstacles in the way of us, which I'm highlighting at this time.

Here's more evidence to doubt the peaceful picture of peaceful hunter gatherers throughout the ages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
We are more civilized now than ever before, though it takes a keen mind to see through the bullshit propogated by questionable media sources which dominate the market today.

 

Not to be rude, but do you have a crystal ball as to who will live long and who will not? If so, may I borrow it?...unless, of course, you mean mankind as a whole, and that is a different path of of discussion, and I have grossly misunderstood then.

 

Would you please be more specific? I'd like to give a coherent response.

 

I was pretty specific, if you are not smart enough to find what I'm talking about your response won't mean anything anyway.

 

The colouring is such that the difference may be as small as a single point. Well within the margin of error. The macro picture still clearly applies.

 

I mean personally long enough to take advantage of living on another planet for one. Just for interest would your life be more valuable to you if you lived longer?