There’s a debate raging in the comments section about race and IQ. I’m staying out of it, but if you’re familiar with this blog, you know very well how I stand on this issue. In some ways, I feel that the less said about it the better, although it’s true I do talk about it a lot on here. That’s because I’m trying to fashion some sort of a progressive response that’s fair to all ethnic groups out of the very un-PC facts on the ground. I’m more interested in raising IQ on this blog. That’s why you see all these posts on the Flynn Effect. Anyway, enough about me.
In the debate, Tulio makes an interesting observation:
Many people feel that if you say one group is collectively less intelligent than another, that is akin to saying that group is “inferior”. After thinking about it though, I’m not sure why someone being of less intelligence makes them inferior. No matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter. Do you feel that you are inferior or less human than that person? I don’t. Do White Gentiles walk around with an inferiority complex to Jews? Or feel that they are inferior? I’ve never seen it.
Why does being smarter make someone superior per se? We don’t think that on an individual level, so why on a racial level? It just means they’re better at abstract reasoning on average. It doesn’t say whether you have common sense, whether you’re a nice person, a hard worker, a loyal friend, sociable, obey the law or gazillion other qualities we judge people on. Doesn’t say anything about them having superior humanity.
Tulio makes an excellent point. In ordinary society, the one I live in, no one cares about brains. I just went to the drug store to fill a prescription. There were mostly Hispanics in there, and I know some of them. A few poor Whites too. One thing I can tell you for sure: Not one of those people in that store gives two shits about IQ! Or even intelligence, really.
As someone with a genius IQ (over 140), I can tell you, it’s not so great.
You know how many people in Meatspace think my stratospheric IQ is cool? Just about zero! It doesn’t benefit me in life. One more thing. You know how many chicks in Meatspace think that Chicago Tower of an IQ is cool? Just about zero! It’s been this way my whole life. No one cares if you’re a brain. Definitely, no one has ever thought that that made me a superior person! I did, sure, but who cares what I think? What matters is society. Society does not treat us brains like we are superior! If anything, it’s the opposite.
So in the real world Meatspace of ordinary humans, no one gives two shits about IQ or even intelligence really. Although I have done extremely well with women in my life, nevertheless, all my life, females have been abandoning and scorning us brains in favor of blockhead dumbass hulking caveman, thug and jock types. I don’t chicks don’t even want to screw brainy guys unless they have something else going like Game or Looks! They want to screw double digit IQ caveman with a club types.
So what good is a high IQ? Sometimes I wonder. But in general, society does not treat a higher IQ group, not to mention individual, as superior to a lower IQ group or individual, assuming the low IQ folks are not so dumb that it’s obvious that something is wrong.
In Meatspace, if you bring up IQ, you get resentful stares and attempts to change the conversation. Please don’t think this is something that happens to me a lot. I don’t do this very often because I know how people think. I do bring up my IQ in Meatspace sometimes, but 90% of the time it goes ok because I know how to say it without making people mad. What’s the secret? False modesty.
However, I do bring it up on the Web, but not very often either because I know how people think. But I have brought it up a few times on this site. And why not? This is an IQ blog after all where we talk about IQ as one of our main subjects of interest. But I can’t bring this up at all on the Web. I get slammed all the time for discussing my own numbers on here. Now I don’t think discussing your own achievements is bragging – bragging is more in how you do it. What is interesting though is that I have “bragged” about quite a few other things on here, and no one cared, or I got nothing but praise. But IQ? Nope.
It’s funny a guy can go on and on about his achievements with women, in business, in sports and in building up his bank account, and the chicks will shower him with propositions and flirtations like confetti at a parade. But dare mention those two upper case letters denoting intelligence quotient, and most females will start screaming at you and calling you a braggart.
They’re lying, but women always lie. Thing is, women don’t care about braggarts; if anything, they like them. The biggest braggarts get the most and best women. It’s just that to women, they only give you pussy points for bragging about certain things, like the size of your damned wallet! The size of your IQ has no importance to a female in terms of their libido (in fact, it probably cools them down), so they raise a hissy fit if you bring it up.
Even around a bunch of White people, IQ even in general, leaving your own numbers aside, is not a popular subject. People start squirming in their chairs and trying to change the subject. Why? Because as far as IQ goes, even most Whites don’t have a very high one! So they resent the whole conversation. Even Whites with IQ’s around 115-120 or so or resent it, because they’re insecure, and they think that’s too low.
If you tell Whites that Blacks have lower IQ’s than Whites, most have never heard of it. Some are intrigued.
“Really?”, they ask, eyes twinkling with intrigue.
“Yep, it’s true.”
Then they sort of chuckle and say, “Well, that figures,” or “I always thought so.”
But then they move back into the “Yeah, but IQ means nothing” thing.
If you tell Hispanics, at first of course they don’t understand the whole subject (What do you expect?), then they mildly disagree.
“No way, it’s not true.” But they’re not agitated, just dismissive.
Then you convince them that it’s true.
Then they say, “Yeah well, so what? Who cares?”
The White nationalists and cognitive elite types have a dream. If they keep pounding away at this race-IQ thingie, at some point the evidence will become so overwhelming that Joe Sixpack White Guy will put down his beer, say, “Niggers ain’t got no brains!”, vote to rescind the Civil Rights and Fair Housing Acts, affirmative action, and all anti-discrimination laws, then I guess shave his head, and what? Move to Idaho?
Forget it! Your average White person is not that smart and resents the whole IQ subject and debate for that very reason. This issue will never resonate with average White people.
The charming folks hoping to spark the Great White Revolution would do better to focus on Black crime, an issue that resonates much better with average Whites.
26 thoughts on “Does a Higher IQ Make You Superior?”
Tulio did raise a great point. I’m sure that White racists do not walk around feeling inferior to East Asians and Jews, although I have seen some attempts to dismiss evidence about Asian or Jewish superiority to Whites.
It reminds me of attempts by some Black people to dismiss evidence of White intellectual superiority to Blacks!
So on some level, no one really likes to think that their group is less intelligent than any other.
All this talk about IQ is only useful when you are comparing groups and trying to explain group behavior. It is pretty meaningless, otherwise, it seems.
Not one of those people in that store gives two shits about IQ! Or even intelligence, really.
Thats why those poor whites are so poor.
genius IQ (over 140)
I thought that qualified as “very superior” on most scales. I only saw genius at 160 plus
Depends how you want to define it. Very superior is way lower than that. My Webster’s defines genius at 140. I like that. I think that means that 1% of the population are geniuses. Good! The more of us the better. 160 may be more accurate nowadays. I’m not sure. Trust me though. If you have an IQ over 140, most regular folks will openly tell you that you are a genius! They don’t need definitions. It doesn’t make them want to fuck you or even like you, really, but they will say it.
As somebody with IQ over 140, it’s not an easy task to live with, I can tell you coworkers won’t have problems with that, eventually they will have to face it and accept it, plain and simple. However for society normally speaking, I’m not the most popular person, I’m athletic, good looking person, work out permanently, like to dress nicely in a fashionably matter but my passion is the knowledge. As a system engineer with PHD I must say, most people avoid me all the times, especially males, they feel uncomfortable staying around me for no reason. Fortunately for me, single/divorced women are usually attracted to me and that’s the equation that balanced my life.
I’m really careful about my general behavior, I don’t talk too much, only when being asked about any specific topic and remain there. I don’t have any attitude towards people, I act always respectfully, interact with everybody regardless their socio-economic condition, race or religion but feels like people being intimidated by me always. Overall I’m not satisfied at all regarding my current situation. Maybe my self-steem is way too high or simply I’m not a regular person(minority) who can be accepted by the masses.
Yup, as someone with an IQ in the upper 140’s I’ve often been told I was “really smart” as well as an expert in a lot of things. It doesn’t bring sympathy or pussy if you mention your scores or intellectual achievements though. In general, most people resent smart people even though they have no problem in appreciating stronger people or better looking people. I guess it’s something to do with our primate ancestry. Although our high IQ would statistically give us an edge in making more money and moving up socio-economically which would give us an evolutionary edge if we chose to have (more)kids.
I’m not a genius, but I was considered “gifted” in elementary school and put in a special program. I won’t reveal my IQ because I don’t think it’s high enough to boast about even though it’s well above national average. My high school teacher thought my essays demonstrated “genius quality writing” she told my mother. Maybe I was a genius in writing, but I can tell you I might as well be a retard in math. I flunked math twice. Though I admit I hated the subject and didn’t put a lot of effort in either. It just bored me to tears and I preferred subjects like logic or science.
I tend to think that intelligence is not evenly distributed in all areas of reasoning. I wish it were or I’d have done better in math.
I’m not a genius, but I was considered “gifted” in elementary school and put in a special program.
Isn’t the cutoff for gifted programs 132 IQ and above? It was in my schools, or at least at my high school. Top 2% of the population, 132+.
Anyway, you seem like you’re smart enough, tulio. At some point, IQ is sort of like that Supreme gasoline for your car. Everyone just uses the regular, and it works just fine. People say that Supreme works better, but no one ever buys it. There seems to be a law of diminishing returns for IQ. AFAICT, if you have enough extra-IQ factors, especially creativity, anything over 117 or so, and you can just about do whatever you want to do in American society.
At some point, the higher IQ’s don’t seem to matter all that much. My Dad had a 129 IQ, and my Mom has a 150 IQ. I never noticed a lot of difference in their brains, and my Dad was one smart fucker.
Between 70 and 85, the difference is painful! Between 85 and 100, you REALLY see the difference. Between 100 and 115, it’s probably pretty noticeable – for one, the 115 person is way more intellectual, while the 100 IQ runs away when you say the word “book.”
Above 115, and you’ve just got a bunch of brainy people, some brainier than others, and the differences are not that obvious.
Some women do appreciate high intelligence. That’s why my favorite type of woman is the “sexy professor” type. Brains + beauty.
@ tulio – I doubt that any woman would want a total idiot for a boyfriend. It’s sad to say, but I usually dump my boyfriends when I realize they are not intelligent enough. Less intelligent men are intimidated by intelligent women in my experience (and the experiences of many women I have talked to, White and otherwise). I had one that would get really annoyed when I tried to help him on his math homework. I was just trying to be nice! I don’t understand why men think women want to date some kind of hulking beast made entirely of muscle, because that is a real myth. Women want to date intelligent men that don’t disrespect them, and are hopefully attractive as well. Looks is definitely not everything.
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance explains that the reason it’s necessary for the WN to talk about black IQ differences is that we live in a society in which observed disparities in socio-economic achievement are taken as prima facie evidence of societal barriers of opportunity. If there’s no (hereditary) IQ difference, then whatever disparities we see today must be the result of the legacy of slavery and oppression. Even if we blame the differences on culture, that just sets the argument back one step that differences in cultural values must be rooted in past or present actions by whites.
It would be nice not to have to talk about group differences, but silence would just leave the believers in white guilt and debt participating in a one-sided debate. Like the thread about Mrs. Custer.
What’s your opinion of the situation with Mrs. Custer?
The Mrs. Custer thread demonstrates the loss of viable, honest discourse due to etiquette.
It’s a military tradition to honor a fallen soldier by treating his widow with the respect and admiration her husband earned by dying. Since General Custer’s comrades weren’t going to contradict his widow’s story that he sas a great general, his myth was allowed to propagandize for two generations.
Our current discourses about diversity-related subjects are similarly being limited by customs, traditions, codes and sometimes even laws that limit a side from participating honestly and fully in the discussion. University professor says “blacks have low average socioeconomic status because of oppression by whites.” How many students will pipe in an argument about low average IQ, when anyone can complain that such a remark is “offensive.”
And what are supposed to be our primary outlets for honest, fact-based discourse — education and academia — have instead become the strongest bastions of enforced opinion orthodoxy.
“The charming folks hoping to spark the Great White Revolution would do better to focus on Black crime, an issue that resonates much better with average Whites.”
“In 1955, Jet magazine published photographs of the mutilated body of 14-year-old Chicago resident Emmett Till, who was brutally murdered in Mississippi. Many civil rights activists say seeing those pictures both haunted and inspired them. NPR’s Noah Adams reports on the decision to publish the photos and the wide-ranging effect they had. Mrs. Till told the media, ‘I want the whole world to see what they did to my baby.’ ”
Images Make Movements
Does a Higher IQ Make You Superior?
In a Darwinian sense with the current global society we have..? Simply put.. no. Across racial and ethnic lines, almost everywhere across the globe, people who are the left of the curve for the respective groups are out breeding those on the right hand side.
There may be a few exceptions but that seems to be the strong trend.
IQ of 85, breed early and often, I like kids.. doesn’t everybody…?…. Or what..I’m 6 months pregnant..? How did that happen..?
IQ of 145, ponder the universe at length and contemplate rigorously the concept of bringing children into this world until you make just one or often none.
“IQ of 145, ponder the universe at length and contemplate rigorously the concept of bringing children into this world until you make just one or often none.”
Lol, so true! I’m not sure I’ll ever have kids just due to analysis paralysis alone.
Let’s distinguish between specific superiority and overall superiority. Everybody recognizes that there is specific superiority. For instance, Bobby Fisher is superior to me in chess-playing, Mike Tyson is superior to me in boxing, Mark Spitz is superior to me in swimming, etc.
Things become much trickier with regard to overall superiority because people who are superior to some other people in one quality can be inferior to them in another quality. Who is superior in an overall sense, the dumb Mike Tyson with his splendid physique or the brilliant Stephen Hawking with his pathetic, disease-ridden body? It is impossible to say. The only thing that we can say is that a tribe consisting only of Mike Tysons could exist while a tribe consisting only of Stephen Hawkings could not.
I would say that IQ differences are more important for groups than for individuals. If we have a student with an IQ of 115 and another with an IQ of 100, then it isn’t at all certain that the first will get higher marks than the second. On the other hand, if we have a school with an average IQ of 100 and another school with an average IQ of 115, then it is a safe bet that the second school will have a better average performance in terms of marks, unless the quality of teaching in the first school is far, far better.
If we have two groups which are equal in every respect except in one important respect, then the group which is superior in that one respect has overall superiority. Let’s take two groups of 10,000 people. Group A has an average IQ of 100 and group B has an average IQ of 120. Both groups have exactly the same number of layabouts, drunks, pedophiles, schizophrenics, do-gooders, etc. Only in IQ do they differ. In that case, I don’t see how we can deny that group B is superior, unless we think that intelligence is not an important quality.
Consider two armies. They have the same numerical strength, same weaponry, same training, same age distribution, same ratio of officers to men, etc. The only variable in which differ is IQ. Army A has an average IQ which is 15 points above the average of army B. Let’s further assume that each soldier and each officer in army A has 15 IQ points more than his counterpart in army B. Does anyone then seriously doubt that army A will perform better than army B?
But what is “overall superiority”? It makes little sense to speak of superiority within a context. Superior in what? Nature only defines superior as that which is best equipped for survival and continuing the genetic line to posterity. Inferior species become extinct and superior species thrive. In that sense, all people seem to be equal in that all the major races were able to adapt to their respective environments and survive for 10s of thousands of years on their own. The Neanderthals clearly could not.
So defining “superior” anywhere outside of it’s strict meaning in the natural world is subject to human cultural values. Values that vary widely across humanity. What a Masai values or Native American values as superior is going to be different from what a German values as superior. Some cultures choose to be hunters and gatherers even to this day even though they know about the outside high-tech world. There are Amerindians still walking around naked in the jungles of Panama and Brazil. If they felt the western way was superior, then they’d have moved to the cities long ago.
You are confusing survival with superiority. Who says that the superior will survive? Survival depends on the ability to survive and on luck. Darwinists use a tautology. They say that only the fittest survive, but when we ask them how they determine fitness, then they say that the fit are those that survive. In other words, the fittest survive and those that survive are the fittest, which amounts to saying that those who survive are those who have survival ability. We may as well say that those who win are those who have winning ability, and those who succeed are those who have a capacity for success.
Let’s take two tribes. They both live on a small island, each on a different one. One of the two islands is washed away by a tsunami and the whole tribe perishes while the other one is spared by the tsunami. By Darwinist criteria, the extinct tribe was unfit. It didn’t survive, did it?
Let’s take a country that has a Jewish minority and a Gentile majority. The Gentile majority exterminates the Jewish minority. Ergo the Jewish minority was inferior in a Darwinist sense. The Jews didn’t survive, did they?
If a totally useless bully kills an excellent student and exemplary human being, then the bully is superior in a Darwinist sense because he survived while the model student did not.
Nowadays, the Darwinists talk about greater reproductive success. This means that when hillbillies have more children than urban sophisticates, then they are ultimately fitter, superior in a Darwinist sense, than the sophisticates. Here again we don’t have a testable theory. It amounts to saying that the fittest leave the most offspring and those who leave the most offspring are the fittest.
Let’s take two couples: Peter and Paula and Jack and Jill. Peter and Paula are sane and quite healthy, have very high IQs, are responsible, addiction-free, law-abiding, highly productive and civic-minded, but they don’t have children because they are two involved in their careers.
Jack and Jill, by contrast, have a long psychiatric and criminal record. They are drug-addicts with very low IQs. If they aren’t in jail, they are on welfare, and they complement their income with drug-dealing and prostitution. Together they produced 6 children, all of who were taken away from them and are being raised by adoptive couples.
By strict Darwinist criteria, Jack and Jill are superior because they left more offspring, didn’t they.
A comical example of Darwinst illogicality were the eugenicists, nearly all of whom were Darwinists. As Darwinists, they firmly believed that only the fittest survive, but as eugenicists, they were convinced that too many unfit human beings were surviving and that therefore the state had to intervene and sterilize some of these unfit persons, who according to Darwinist theory should already have perished long ago.
It is a law of nature that only the fittest survive, but we have to help nature to insure that that is what will indeed happen. Darwinists are like people who say that God will protect them but who buy a gun anyway.
If you are drawing the conclusion that I have no use for Darwinists, then you are absolutely right. Darwinists have contributed nothing to human progress and not solved one human problem. All that they have done is to give a good conscience to those who are willing to trample on the weak.
Humans should stop breeding. Over population if humans will kill the planet.
Your post, I’m sorry to say, is inherently sick. Very sick. It undermines the value of intelligence so thoroughly and at the same time succumbs to what the majority of people think about you and people of high intelligence. Not only does it openly gnash its teeth at the very octane that drives human civilization and excellence, it also leaks of cowardice by showing compassion and subservience to the opinions of mediocre minds. How appalling! Go spread your toxic nonsense elsewhere. I’m starting to wonder if you actually have a 140 IQ. Seriously.
140 IQ ?
You are just a lying cheat.
Actually, it’s 147. Your IQ is banned so I can’t read it.
I think a lot of people get off on being superior to others. For instance, your typical lower IQ white racist might like the fact his IQ of 100 is higher than someone in Africa. However, this same white person would resent anyone with a higher IQ, labeling him an elitist.