/sci/ - Science & Math

A high IQ society already exists.
It's called MENSA.

I would condescend this thread, however, its quite apt for /sci/ which says a lot about this place.

>>9321446
>tfw to intelligent to work

>>9321446
Eugenics is a requirement because smart people don't breed and the dumb people breed a lot.

only a system oriented towards a state of anarchy would work, just like society in general
there wouldn't be any "higher positions" and no means for them to emerge. pay would be labor based, mutually shared or collectivized entirely
shit thread btw

>>9321446
It's almost like what happens in normal society but with smarter average people.

>>9321459
So you're an ancap future would be there?

>>9321446
By definition, IQ is normalized so that 100 is average. Your supposed high-IQ society would still have an average IQ of 100. A 100 in this hypothetical society would probably be way smarter than an 100 in today's society, but that is to be expected. This process has already been happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

>>9321509
But what if everyone was extremely smart and equally smart?

>>9321446
>>9321509
If you wanted as many people as possible, by percentage of total population, above 100 IQ, you would need to breed some super-retards to weigh down the average.

>>9321511
They would all be 100

>>9321521
I dare you to try and follow what you just posted. People should be ashamed to post such incoherency under the guise of humor

>>9321525
Yes but what would a society look like composed of only them?

>>9321446
a high IQ society isn't what you want. What you want is a high rationality society:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/the-difference-between-rationality-and-intelligence.html

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/rationality-quotient

if they're truly rational thinkers, they'll figure out an optimal way to collaborate amongst themselves.

>>9321530
If you had 101 people with $1 each, the average wealth would be $1.
If you had 100 people with $1.01 and 1 person with $0 the average wealth would also be $1.
In the first case, everybody is average.
In the second case, 100 people are above average and 1 person is severely below average.

I am not ashamed. I am merely speaking facts.

>>9321542
I get it. You're speaking facts.

>>9321552
Sorry it came off as blunt.
Like >>9321533 says, IQ probably isn't the correct measure to use here.

>>9321533
No I want to see if a society of identical superior elite humans can function.

>>9321446
Yes, anon. All life is, is you being taken advantage of by someone smarter than you.

>>9321450

>>9322178
He asked what I high-IQ society would be like.
MENSA is the answer.
I'm a member and I can tell you (both from personal contact and from the letters in the monthly Bulletin) that it contains fools and crackpots, people who are Libertarian and people who belong to the NRA, atheists and fundamentalists, etc.
They've all score high on IQ tests and that's about all they have in common. Oh, and they like to argue.

Would society fall apart if everyone was brilliant and no one was willing to do the scut-work? I think that's what the original questioner was actually asking.
I think there'd be janitors and fruit-pickers still. Might be harder to recruit them and you might have to pay more. Geniuses still have to eat. But there'd also be a greater incentive to automate the jobs no one wants.

>>9322178
He asked what I high-IQ society would be like.
MENSA is the answer.
I'm a member and I can tell you (both from personal contact and from the letters in the monthly Bulletin) that it contains fools and crackpots as well as rationalists, every political viewpoint you can imagine, atheists and fundamentalists, etc.
They've all score high on IQ tests and that's about all they have in common. Oh, and they like to argue.

Would society fall apart if everyone was brilliant and no one was willing to do the scut-work? I think that's what the original questioner was actually asking.
I think there'd be janitors and fruit-pickers still. Might be harder to recruit them and you might have to pay more. Geniuses still have to eat. But there'd also be a greater incentive to automate the jobs no one wants.

>>9321509
The trend is reversing and IQ is getting lower.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf

>>9323091
So you're saying it would be pretty good?

>>9321508
>Ancap
No. Capitalism is not compatible with anarchy.

>>9323215
Well, I prefer hanging around smart people
so I guess the world would be a better place.
Not "instant utopia" but better.

Reducing the number of the out-and-out stupid & credulous certainly couldn't hurt.

>>9323733
>pure capitalism
>not anarchy

>>9323733
neither is communism

>>9323750
how the fuck are sophisticated ancient civilizations considered "paranormal"?

>inb4 Gobekli Tepe was built by lizard people

>>9323750
>I prefer hanging around smart people

Then why are you on here?

>>9323768
The Prime Minister of India claimed (last year) that ancient Indians not only had aircraft but interplanetary ships. The secrets have been lost but could be rediscovered by studying ancient Vedic scrolls.

They're using the word in that sense. Beliefs which persist despite total lack of evidence.
(Yes, they could have phrased it better.)
When someone finds an electric motor (or even a plastic bottle) embedded, undisturbed, in an ancient coal seam, I'll reconsider.

>>9323783
Only been here two days.
Have answered a few questions from people who genuinely want to learn.
But I've started to ask myself that too.

>>9323788
He's a very smart guy. That's why he's president of India. His IQ is probably as high as Trumps

>>9323881
Probably much higher.
But you're setting the bar extremely low. :(
An earthworm couldn't limbo beneath it.

>>9323750
It's important here to point out that a person can believe something while knowing that they have no reason to.

>be the only plumber in the high IQ society
>charge as much as you want for your services, since you're the only one.
>those unmanly programmers and professors have no idea how to even unclog their toilets
>if they won't pay up, they'll be literally swimming in shit
>tfw earning shitload of money
>tfw working only for 8/hours per week and spending rest of the time in luxury, doing science just as a hobby, without any stress and complaining from your boss
>tfw being much happier than those bitches whining about "not being content to do brainlet work"
smirking_pepe.jpg

>>9324291
and more importantly, people can suspend disbelief and convincingly entertain an idea in order to explore it, without legitimately believing in it.

it's often taken for granted that artists who work with fiction are able to do this, but the second someone entertains an idea deemed to be "pseudoscience" (a meme phrase of it's own), they're automatically crackpots that don't deserve any attention.

>>9323751
Are you illiterate or is this bait?
>>9323753
I'm not a communist, I don't follow a doctrine. I am about a continued efforts to end hierarchy and coercion and the machinery that allows for it. (Like capital, private property, state power) and I seek to make all authority justify itself. Anarchy is an action that moves the state of a system towards this goal

>>9324322
It's OK to entertain ideas which you don't believe correspond to reality -- or, at least, there's no evidence they _do_ correspond to reality.
Mathematicians do it all the time. "How could spheres be tightly packed in 17 spatial dimensions?" The solutions sometimes turn out to be surprisingly useful, albeit in some other context. (Whether something is "useful" may not be determined for centuries.)

It's when you've convinced yourself that something is true -- DESPITE a great deal of evidence that it's not, that you become a crackpot. Just glancing through the current /sci/ topics I'd include "Electricity, not gravity, governs the universe", "Perpetual motion is possible", and "With my steam rocket I'll show everybody the Earth is flat."

>>9324526
>I am about a continued efforts to end hierarchy and coercion and the machinery that allows for it.
then what you're looking for isn't anarchy, it's world wide genocide of the entire human population, lmao.

in case you haven't noticed, there are significantly more people that *actively want* a hierarchy to bow down to and give them orders, than there are people that actually want power for themselves, much less people that aren't fans of hierarchies at all. Pic possibly related.

>>9324546
You're not wrong, but the point is that most brainlet types instantly jump the gun and try to shut down any discussion of ideas that aren't so clear cut. Second of all, it's not nearly easy as you're making it sound to conclusively disprove a lot of shit. Low hanging fruit like (((perpetual motion))) and (((flat earth))), sure, but things like the electric universe and lost ancient civilizations, not so much.

>>9324568
Yeah that's true

>>9321446
No.

>>9321446
what you described is a brainlet/rat society. High IQ people already get paid pretty low. Large majority of scientists and researchers earn average wages compared to brainlets who work for example in finance.
Saying that high IQ people cannot or will not do manual labor is retarded, One of the professors I know used to deliver pizza part time, and one other person sometimes drives a taxi.
In any case in high IQ society pay gap wouldnt really exist, pay itself would be unimportant as long as it covered expenses, living etc, high IQ people would strive for higher ideals than getting a pay rise.

A high IQ society is possible and in fact already existed 70 years ago, however that in itself was a achievement that certain group of (((people))) could not allow to continue existing.

Now you get a hint, such society would not be (((capitalist))) rat race, wouldnt even be a democracy, because intelligent people know whats needed to be done and wouldnt waste time on a democratic processes.

>>9324554
That is a very unsubstantiated claim. I couldn't disagree more.
Have a relevant interview with Noam Chomsky.
>Pic possibly related
Yeah, consciousness predates hominids.
Have a good book, pic related. Ideas in the book about work and constraint relate back to what Chomsky has to say in a deeper way.

>>9325442
https://youtu.be/5iOeyNxHHAQ

>>9325442
>I couldn't disagree more.
I'll bet. But I'm not exactly pulling this out of my ass anon, I'm a personality researcher that got into the field after being disappointed at the progress in strong AI research in CS, so it's in my interest to be realistic about how people work, without all the political/economic bs that's often attached to them.

The gist of it is, that the political beliefs of your constituency WILL have an impact on how well any given governance model will work for them, and that personality traits are highly linked with said political beliefs. If you were to somehow isolate people who thought exactly like you, your odds of running a functional society how you envision it will be substantially higher. But as things stand, a rather significant portion of the general population exhibit traits that would predispose them to be more sympathetic to authoritarian rule than not.

In particular, high Orderliness (Conscientiousness) and Volatility (Neuroticism) on the 10 aspect scales of the Big 5 model:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_Aspect_Scales

>Have a relevant interview with Noam Chomsky.
He's speaking in too overly broad terms to actually be analyzed thoroughly. It's too detached from the specific psychologies I outlined above that would be at play in real societies. This has nothing to do with the definition of "work", much less capitalism vs socialism. Apply these ideologies while studying the dynamics of the psychologies involved, then we can begin to have a productive discussion about feasibility.

>Yeah, consciousness predates hominids.
Clearly you haven't read the book then, because it's not about "consciousness" as it's often described today, it's about the (possibly) learned ability to introspect, which ties into the personality dimensions I mentioned above.

>Have a good book, pic related.
It's been on my reading list for a while, but thanks. My pic is also another book you should read along with the first one I suggested.

>>9325581
>>9325442
Another useful book to look into, although less insightful than the first two.

>>9321446
>smart people would try to work harder

haha, ohh what a retarded right wing idiot. Yeah sure little kiddy boy, society rewards work fairly?? you think a smart person thinks that?

haha

>>9325581
>, so it's in my interest to be realistic about how people work

every hack and their mother has been tryin got determine how the human mind works in a scientific way... if one had succeeded they would run the world.

im sorry little anon little boy youre not specia

>>9325442
Also, if you are interested in that type of "consciousness" (which is different from Jaynes' concept by the same name), you should check out the work of Donald Hoffman, which is closer to Deacon's ideas:

https://youtu.be/6eWG7x_6Y5U

Daniel Dennett's book on the matter (see pic) is also interesting and related to that.

>>9325719
Then you're just proving my point for me silly. I never claimed to have all the answers, that's why I don't promote silly political/economic philosophies that claim to solve the world's problems.

>>9325733
hahah the inferiorite

>>9321446
>The lower paid ones will be trying to get paid more by getting a higher position and the higher paid ones will try their best to keep their high pay and high position.
false
>That's why, as long as manual labour exists, low IQ people will be necessary.
true

Congrats, you reinvented marxism.

>What happens once manual labour is replaced by robots?
The government will restore slavery. Intellectual labour will be irrelevant because it's only needed to create technologies needed for slavery.

Congratulations OP, you just figured out what Jews have known for centuries.

>>9321533
>IQ for brainlets
kek

>>9323112
The US still shows an increase the general trend everywhere except northern and western europe was an increase.

>>9325581
Did any community of presumably smart people develop authoritarian rule?

>>9325923
What does that mean?

>>9326014
>Did any community of presumably smart people develop authoritarian rule?
how about the nazis aka modern inventors of all physics all engineerings all all

Wouldn’t everything be better if we were all smart robots would do the manual labor

>>9325887
Lol

>>9326151
wat

>>9326211
>Wouldn’t everything be better if we were all smart robots would do the manual labor
nazis = inventors of all a lot of all
their society = of smarts a lot

your intent to ridiucule me= not possible to exist wihtou you being a total idiotizer

>>9326217
>nazis = inventors of all a lot of all
>their society = of smarts a lot

A lot of smart people were in Germany during the time of their rule, but that was not their accomplishment. What it did create were attempts at creating "Deutsche Physik", which was literally a brainlet movement to ban stuff they couldn't follow (even labeling Heisenberg as a "White Jew"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

>>9326315
Yeah Einstein was German but he wasn't nazi

>>9323733
>He still believes that anarchy means having no hierarchies
Ancap is rational anarchy with the main focus being on capitalism. It's like agorism and transhumanism, some of the less retarded anarchies.

>>9323091
high-IQ != smart
i have 2 friends Mensans and we work together in my Start-Up,
they do not have a girlfriend,
i have a girlfriend instead, i play piano, footballsoccer, LoL, PingPong and i'm better than them.
I have a degree in computer science like them, but me with 91/110, they 110/110, but i'm better in BackEnd and in FrontEnd. I failed the Mensa test but i'm better in everything. with my friends we spend all day together

>>9327884
You're a chad brainlet stealing their work as usual.

>>9321446
People with low IQ would go to jail, then to mafia and rob and would kill wealthy people with high IQ. Sometimes people with low IQ have a better place in society, alike a stupid ram group in a typical school class. You now, in mine school be excellent pupil was prohibited by class society. Excellent pupils were humiliated.

>>9323112
this is one of the most retarded papers i've ever read

>>9324299
meanwhile in reality:
>nobody hires a plumber because they all have it automated somehow

>>9328217
But in reality we DON'T have it automated.

There are shitload of geniuses living right now, and not even a single one of them cares about automating manual labor. There are no robot plumbers, car mechanics, cooks, wall painters or farmers. I don't see why in high IQ society it would be different.

>>9328175
>the virgin genius vs. the chad brainlet

>>9321446
The real reason why high IQ society can't exist is because if everyone is high IQ, high IQ is no longer high

How does high IQ even manifest itself. What can high IQ people do that low IQ people can't?
Everyone can learn maths or make scientific hypotheses. It's all about expertise in a subject that you get by reading and doing a lot related to it

>>9322178
>tfw to smart not to believe astrology

Quantifying intelligence is about the most unintelligent thing you can do.

>>9328677
>Everyone can learn maths or make scientific hypotheses.
Go into teaching for a couple years, then try saying that again with a straight face.

>inb4 "but it's possible in theory!!!"

>>9328837
Kids refusing to learn that stuff is due to bad parenting and laziness, has nothing to do with intelligence

>>9328842
you're right that it has nothing to do with intelligence, but it also doesn't have to do a whole lot with nurture. There are plenty of counterexamples both of lazy kids with encouraging parents, and bright attentive learners with shit parents. The issue is mostly one of psychological makeup (i.e. personality), and how predisposed people are to craving learning and having the endurance to not give up or get frustrated easily. Neither of those traits are necessarily correlated with "intelligence".

>>9328935
Yeah exactly. So I just don't know for what intelligence is even helpful

>>9327884
Wow good job normie
Are you a bit buttblasted?
Enjoy being dumb while Im solving tripple integrals all day long

>>9321450
And that group is barely functional. Rather it seems like a collection of people dealing with depression, high stress, alcoholism, and other conditions.

>>9328677
Smart people don't do retarded shit.

>>9329728
Of course they do. They invented nukes.

>>9328211
why?

>>9328217
In reality the high IQ plumber would work with a bunch of ai dudes to build plumbing robots and then lease those robots out.

>>9325581
>Interesting points. Could high orderliness be more a result of our education system rather than something innate? Our education system has its origins in Prussia and is specifically designed to churn out drone like workers for the industrial revolution. It appears to be highly effective as most people are drone like workers.

>>9325435
70 years ago? Could you elaborate further anon?

>>9328842
Lol you don't even know what you're talking about. Below a certain IQ it becomes really hard to learn many things.

>>9321446
Actually, the truth is that intelligence doesn't exist among humans. The most "brilliant" of humans are still retards.

>>9330797
Unlikely. While it's uncertain whether or not your personality traits are set at birth, they're almost certainly set by the time kids reach schooling age, meaning that the familial environment during early development would have a much bigger impact than anything the education system does. You could argue that the parents, once having gone through the school system themselves, may then be more likely to unconsciously impose certain orderly structures that they might not have otherwise, thus impacting the child's early development, but that's pretty speculative. The second book I linked (The Master and his Emissary) goes into far more detail about the occurrence of this Orderliness in society, if you're interested in learning more about it.

That being said, personality traits have been shown to be incredibly stable in individuals over time, even from the earliest ages, making the current null hypothesis that dominant personality traits are likely as heritable as IQ, even if they can still wiggle around a bit over the course of different life experiences. And if that is really the case, that makes the political governance model problem a significantly harder problem to crack than many people may realize.

>>9324001
>An earthworm couldn't limbo beneath it

KEK

>>9331311
Kek

>>9322178

People deal with IQ like their dicks, and the gender doesn't even matter here.

>Try to make sure that everyone knows how "high" your IQ is it doesn't even matter if you measured it right
>Use it to compensate for your own insecurities, vices and lack of virtue
>Expect everyone to asume how awesome you are at certain tasks just for the measure of your IQ
>Constantly start attacking either anyone that doubts your suposed qualities/abilities or people that "managed" to be in positions suposedly reserved to you.

The difference is; when you talk about dick size it's less socially acceptable than talking about your intelectual traits, so you can talk about them a bit more until people start to notice the paralelisms.

>>9331064

>>9321542
actually in the second case the average wealth would be 0.9999$

>>9322178
That 4th paragraph explains anti semitism FYI.

Any group that has a 15 IQ point average on another group seems to contain a few supremacist members and almost all make fun off the less intelligent ones.

My family makes fun of blacks, I'm sure some Asians and Jews make fun of whites.

It's a shame we aren't all asimovs

>>9332293
Aye thats sad. Not enough tolerance

>>9321446
>they'll be too intelligent to not go on strikes all the time

Mensa is one. Japan is another

>>9333277
Japan is depressed

>>9333277
remove nogs and trailer trash and USA would be as well.

>>9333674
na, there'd still be plenty of spoiled rich and "middle class" brainlet retards left

>>9325435
As has been stated earlier in this thread (here: >>9321533) IQ isn't the be all solution, what you want is a rational civilization. IQ/Intelligence would come after that.

>>9333957
But rich people have high IQ that's why they're rich

>>9321446
In a society of high IQ people there will be some who have a low IQ relative to the others. What do?

>>9335065
so you're saying trump has a high IQ?

>>9321446
I just realised you're a brainlet who has no idea what he's talking about.

You are a nice board, /sci/.