1 month ago8 points(+0/-0/+8Score on mirror)2 children
> The average IQ of a human is around 90 to 110.
Wrong. The average IQ sure always has the average 100, but it is compared based on populations. For Whites it is ~102, so when it was tested, it was always tested with some portion of shitskins, for niggers it is ~60-70, for pajeets it is ~77, for gypsies it is ~71.
The world average IQ - assuming White countries have 100 - is ~89 and decreasing. Why? Not because everyone just gets stupider, but because low-IQ populations are increasing more than high-IQ populations. Why? Because we are feeding the niggers and our reproduction rate is decreasing.
Also if that guy has an IQ of ~200, he should have known how to communicate best, and how he will get banned for saying this, even if it is logical and obvious. Things appeal to certain audiences more or less, and you have to find a way to bypass censorship, which obviously exists and is powerful, and still reaches normies.
Someone with an IQ of ~200 should have found a way to do exactly that. Instead he chose to go down in a "blazing glory", which isn't even much impactful. That was not smart, unless he wanted to get banned, as to not be tempted to post on Facebook anymore.
And what use is a ~200 IQ if some random person like me could (and did) come up with a better plan to reach normies and bypass censorship? Sure, it took me more tries, more trial and error, more time overall, but I still figured it out. And it's not like you could correctly guess YouTube censorship algorithm easily - you have to operate on the edge, because you need to use the right words as much as possible, but not too much as it causes the entire comment to get censored. You cannot limit yourself to a degree a comment gets incomprehensible.
That Langen also looks like some Oriental, so I wouldn't be so sure about the quality of the assessment of his intellect anyway. But to be fair, it happened many years ago. Maybe he didn't expect it, however today the level of difficulty is much higher than back then.
1 month ago12 points(+0/-0/+12Score on mirror)3 children
IQ is important but it is only one factor. it measures puzzle solving and abstract thinking.
it doesn't measure ability to regulate emotions and make good, day to day decisions. it doesn't measure long-term planning and strategic thinking and ability to execute strategy. it doesn't measure to think deeply over the long term on complex subjects. so, in fact, it doesn't actually measure how intelligent you are and how intelligent you act in the real world. IQ is important, but it is not the entire 'picture' of intelligence.
1 month ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)1 child
Yes, and even more importantly, IQ has nothing to do with culture.
White people have empathy and solidarity to strangers because we were evolved in a specific environment. Having to deal with harsh winters where the danger was to run out of food or dying of cold, we've evolved over thousands of years to see other humans as potential allies and help, and not as potential competitors.
Populations that evolved in warmer climates, like niggers and semites, had as their primary threat other competing hominids. This is why niggers are tribal. It's not low IQ. They evolved under the *stranger danger* mentality.
Therefore even if niggers all had 140 IQ, they would be a massive danger because they would still hate us and want to dominate over us.
In truth it's a good thing that niggers have a low IQ, and that's why bug people are more dangerous to us than niggers.
1 month ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
I live on a farm. I go outside and i am top of food chain. I only have to look out for other humans. The farm animals are constantly getting picked off by a variety of predators that I try to protect them against. But if a huge eagle flies by and one of the animals is poking along in a clearing, the eagle is going to swoop down and rip them to pieces.
You live on a farm thanks to the tools that other humans have built for you.
Humans are at the top of the food chain only due to our collective effort. If you went naked in the wilderness without tools you would survive for less than 3 days.
1 month ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
Arguable, but the tendency is that IQ correlates with all of its expressions.
If you are better at solving puzzles, it means you are better at talking, better at reading situations, do math better, can adapt better to situations, etc. Those who deviate from this pattern are known as autistic, and that doesn't mean someone is automatically smart.
I for one have my strengths and weaknesses, but it's more focused on interest and what I practice and avoid. I noticed for example that there is a certain cognitive capacity I have at any time, and if I am in a social situation, it requires a lot of it to maintain it. For example to appear properly, while continually considering the views of others, and thinking about the potential consequences of saying something, or slipping up. And it depends on the person how much you have to dedicate focus on that - ideally it's someone who knows you, and knows this. Due to this, my overall charisma is lower than it could be. If I'd simply stop thinking about what other people would think in a societal environment, I would perform much better. Simply not giving a fuck.
Look at niggers as an example - they are bad at everything at once, because their IQ is low. None of them are exceptional at math, but terrible at everything else. On the other hand, an average White person is decent in all expressions of intelligence - they can communicate well, think properly, do work properly, take regard of societal dynamics, etc. What, is everyone born special compared to niggers? No.
The reason Langan has these deficits I mentioned must be because he is not as smart as he is portrayed to be. But let's see in the [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan) article: (btw, he is not a gook, the photo deceived me)
> Langan has spent many years working on a hypothesis that reality is a self-simulation. He calls the theory the "cognitive-theoretic model of the universe." The thesis is self-published. He has been interviewed and has self-published his views on various matters, including his belief in eugenics to prevent genetic degradation in a technological world, opposition to interracial relationships, the 9/11 Truth movement, and other conspiracy theories that have gained him a following amongst the alt-right.
The simulation theory doesn't sound too demanding, I personally have some theories and world views that are more complicated. The rest is on point. But a 200 IQ turbo-racist who knows the truth and has all the time in the world to perfect his ability to communicate, even if in writing? Doesn't sound like that.
> Langan attended high school, but spent his last years engaged mostly in independent study. He did so after his teachers denied his request for more challenging material. According to Langan, he began teaching himself "advanced math, physics, philosophy, Latin, and Greek"
That's a good sign of higher intellect, especially at younger ages. He had some feats that speak for a high intellect, but his accomplishments are negligible. Maybe he chose to not give a fuck and live on the land, which I understand, but that's wasted potential. He has (or had) so much potential to be useful for our cause, especially if he actually has an IQ of 200, but even without that he could have been so much more. To me it rather seems like ~140-160.
1 month ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)1 child
No, sorry but you're totally off here. 100 is the average IQ always because the system was built to always keep 100 as the average. Its relative. Langan is correct despite you basically calling him a retard
1 month ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
Sure. The average IQ of Western/European countries is ~100, and for us the interesting part is the individual deviation. It is also normalized for age, which is why it stabilizes around age 25. The reason the standard is the West/Europe, is because "we" invented it. Not the Japanese, not the Chinese, not Indians, not Brazilians.
By using the same tests (translated), how would other countries perform? The reason India gets ~77 is because on average they score on tests as well as those with 77 IQ over here. Internally they sure normalize it to 100.
If you'd run this comparison for every country on the entire planet, you'd get [varying average IQs for each country](https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php). Using that, considering population sizes, you get a world average. And it's ~90 and falling.
The normalization process isn't automatic either - you need to apply it properly - to do the math right.
> Langan is correct despite you basically calling him a retard
He is wasted potential, and his alleged IQ appears to be overblown. Smart, sure, but not even close to the likes of Newton, Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Michelangelo, etc. He is correct about his views, but what did he actually accomplish? What is his magnum opus? That's my point.
Wrong. The average IQ sure always has the average 100, but it is compared based on populations. For Whites it is ~102, so when it was tested, it was always tested with some portion of shitskins, for niggers it is ~60-70, for pajeets it is ~77, for gypsies it is ~71.
The world average IQ - assuming White countries have 100 - is ~89 and decreasing. Why? Not because everyone just gets stupider, but because low-IQ populations are increasing more than high-IQ populations. Why? Because we are feeding the niggers and our reproduction rate is decreasing.
Also if that guy has an IQ of ~200, he should have known how to communicate best, and how he will get banned for saying this, even if it is logical and obvious. Things appeal to certain audiences more or less, and you have to find a way to bypass censorship, which obviously exists and is powerful, and still reaches normies.
Someone with an IQ of ~200 should have found a way to do exactly that. Instead he chose to go down in a "blazing glory", which isn't even much impactful. That was not smart, unless he wanted to get banned, as to not be tempted to post on Facebook anymore.
And what use is a ~200 IQ if some random person like me could (and did) come up with a better plan to reach normies and bypass censorship? Sure, it took me more tries, more trial and error, more time overall, but I still figured it out. And it's not like you could correctly guess YouTube censorship algorithm easily - you have to operate on the edge, because you need to use the right words as much as possible, but not too much as it causes the entire comment to get censored. You cannot limit yourself to a degree a comment gets incomprehensible.
That Langen also looks like some Oriental, so I wouldn't be so sure about the quality of the assessment of his intellect anyway. But to be fair, it happened many years ago. Maybe he didn't expect it, however today the level of difficulty is much higher than back then.
it doesn't measure ability to regulate emotions and make good, day to day decisions. it doesn't measure long-term planning and strategic thinking and ability to execute strategy. it doesn't measure to think deeply over the long term on complex subjects. so, in fact, it doesn't actually measure how intelligent you are and how intelligent you act in the real world. IQ is important, but it is not the entire 'picture' of intelligence.
White people have empathy and solidarity to strangers because we were evolved in a specific environment. Having to deal with harsh winters where the danger was to run out of food or dying of cold, we've evolved over thousands of years to see other humans as potential allies and help, and not as potential competitors.
Populations that evolved in warmer climates, like niggers and semites, had as their primary threat other competing hominids. This is why niggers are tribal. It's not low IQ. They evolved under the *stranger danger* mentality.
Therefore even if niggers all had 140 IQ, they would be a massive danger because they would still hate us and want to dominate over us.
In truth it's a good thing that niggers have a low IQ, and that's why bug people are more dangerous to us than niggers.
Humans are at the top of the food chain only due to our collective effort. If you went naked in the wilderness without tools you would survive for less than 3 days.
If you are better at solving puzzles, it means you are better at talking, better at reading situations, do math better, can adapt better to situations, etc. Those who deviate from this pattern are known as autistic, and that doesn't mean someone is automatically smart.
I for one have my strengths and weaknesses, but it's more focused on interest and what I practice and avoid. I noticed for example that there is a certain cognitive capacity I have at any time, and if I am in a social situation, it requires a lot of it to maintain it. For example to appear properly, while continually considering the views of others, and thinking about the potential consequences of saying something, or slipping up. And it depends on the person how much you have to dedicate focus on that - ideally it's someone who knows you, and knows this. Due to this, my overall charisma is lower than it could be. If I'd simply stop thinking about what other people would think in a societal environment, I would perform much better. Simply not giving a fuck.
Look at niggers as an example - they are bad at everything at once, because their IQ is low. None of them are exceptional at math, but terrible at everything else. On the other hand, an average White person is decent in all expressions of intelligence - they can communicate well, think properly, do work properly, take regard of societal dynamics, etc. What, is everyone born special compared to niggers? No.
The reason Langan has these deficits I mentioned must be because he is not as smart as he is portrayed to be. But let's see in the [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan) article: (btw, he is not a gook, the photo deceived me)
> Langan has spent many years working on a hypothesis that reality is a self-simulation. He calls the theory the "cognitive-theoretic model of the universe." The thesis is self-published. He has been interviewed and has self-published his views on various matters, including his belief in eugenics to prevent genetic degradation in a technological world, opposition to interracial relationships, the 9/11 Truth movement, and other conspiracy theories that have gained him a following amongst the alt-right.
The simulation theory doesn't sound too demanding, I personally have some theories and world views that are more complicated. The rest is on point. But a 200 IQ turbo-racist who knows the truth and has all the time in the world to perfect his ability to communicate, even if in writing? Doesn't sound like that.
> Langan attended high school, but spent his last years engaged mostly in independent study. He did so after his teachers denied his request for more challenging material. According to Langan, he began teaching himself "advanced math, physics, philosophy, Latin, and Greek"
That's a good sign of higher intellect, especially at younger ages. He had some feats that speak for a high intellect, but his accomplishments are negligible. Maybe he chose to not give a fuck and live on the land, which I understand, but that's wasted potential. He has (or had) so much potential to be useful for our cause, especially if he actually has an IQ of 200, but even without that he could have been so much more. To me it rather seems like ~140-160.
> Langan is correct despite you basically calling him a retard
To say this requires you to not have read what I write.
Why should I explain to you anything when I see you are barely literate?
I read your comment, you arent showing an understanding of how IQ actually works. Could you explain your point better to me instead of sperging out?
By using the same tests (translated), how would other countries perform? The reason India gets ~77 is because on average they score on tests as well as those with 77 IQ over here. Internally they sure normalize it to 100.
If you'd run this comparison for every country on the entire planet, you'd get [varying average IQs for each country](https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php). Using that, considering population sizes, you get a world average. And it's ~90 and falling.
The normalization process isn't automatic either - you need to apply it properly - to do the math right.
> Langan is correct despite you basically calling him a retard
He is wasted potential, and his alleged IQ appears to be overblown. Smart, sure, but not even close to the likes of Newton, Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Michelangelo, etc. He is correct about his views, but what did he actually accomplish? What is his magnum opus? That's my point.