You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
8
TakenusernameA on scored.co
1 year ago8 points(+0/-0/+8Score on mirror)4 children
pretty sure theyve been fudging the IQ numbers for the past 100 years, theres no way the average normie "100 IQ" today is the same as the average 100IQ 100 years ago. Back on topic, I think (((social media))) is enough evidence that normies should be restricted to phone calls and letters, those are much more difficult for jews to bot consensus on. Normies are simply too trusting to realize everything they see online isnt always true.
1 year ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)2 children
> theres no way the average normie "100 IQ" today is the same as the average 100IQ 100 years ago
Changes in intelligence can only be caused via genetic shifts, and changes in general behavior like incest, severe malnourishment, domestic violence.
The latter two were way more prevalent in the past, so that increased average intelligence somewhat. For a genetic shift it requires people with higher intelligence to reproduce more than those with lower, or for women to prefer more intelligent men over less intelligent men. A change like this can span thousands of years or even orders of magnitude more. Note that intelligence correlates very highly with skin color, which in turn correlates with the environment inhabited by populations across large spans of times. So it suggests that a population's intelligence can change roughly as fast as skin color would.
But we are not talking about massive changes. In IQ, the difference is probably around ~5. People were simply less educated and more busy working and living hard.
If I'd live somewhere around 500-1000 years ago, I'd probably be a common peasant with no way to channel my potential. Drawing? No paper. Reading? Not much to read, although I'd pursue it as well as I can. Writing? A hobby at best, almost impossible to make a living out of it. With luck I could get into a city and do some "higher level" job, become a priest or a craftsman.
I would argue changes ineffective intelligence can also change do to societal pressure, IE as people act stupider, they *become* stupider, but this is probably reversable whereas genetic changes wouldnt be.
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)2 children
Ah yes, these are new phenomena, but I'd categorize them as plain brain damage. Domestic violence is different because it lowers intelligence and increases aggression and grit - which *can* be useful depending on situations.
That's not relevant. Severe malnourishment is however. And food consumption wasn't really bad back then. You don't need a princesses' meal, you just need *enough food* and an absence of harmful chemicals which are more prevalent today.
How smart are we, actually, without our techno-crutches?
If someone tells you the name of a person and their description in a city 20 miles away and asks you to deliver a message, could you remember it? Can you ascertain another persons motives and likely actions while in a conversation with them and change your words to modify them? Can you figure out how to feed yourself without someone to help you?
I really don't know how I compare to someone 100 years ago in these regards.
IQ is explicitly different every year. The idea of it is to adjust the numbers to make 100 IQ an exact average of the population. You would need to use the exact IQ tests and response weights from 100 years ago to compare generations. Otherwise the IQ thing is just about comparing yourself to the general population of today.
Changes in intelligence can only be caused via genetic shifts, and changes in general behavior like incest, severe malnourishment, domestic violence.
The latter two were way more prevalent in the past, so that increased average intelligence somewhat. For a genetic shift it requires people with higher intelligence to reproduce more than those with lower, or for women to prefer more intelligent men over less intelligent men. A change like this can span thousands of years or even orders of magnitude more. Note that intelligence correlates very highly with skin color, which in turn correlates with the environment inhabited by populations across large spans of times. So it suggests that a population's intelligence can change roughly as fast as skin color would.
But we are not talking about massive changes. In IQ, the difference is probably around ~5. People were simply less educated and more busy working and living hard.
If I'd live somewhere around 500-1000 years ago, I'd probably be a common peasant with no way to channel my potential. Drawing? No paper. Reading? Not much to read, although I'd pursue it as well as I can. Writing? A hobby at best, almost impossible to make a living out of it. With luck I could get into a city and do some "higher level" job, become a priest or a craftsman.
If someone tells you the name of a person and their description in a city 20 miles away and asks you to deliver a message, could you remember it? Can you ascertain another persons motives and likely actions while in a conversation with them and change your words to modify them? Can you figure out how to feed yourself without someone to help you?
I really don't know how I compare to someone 100 years ago in these regards.