Also, while I'm not sure how many smart people it takes to come up with inventions (although certainly having more smart people around will increase the odds of inventions being made), you certainly do need an awful lot of smart people for technological progress to press on across the board, with "break through inventions" being just one aspect, and "continuous improvement on existing technologies" (e.g. improving the performance and efficiency of computers) being the more pervasive one.
From what I know, the vast majority of tax income is paid by people in the top income brackets, not by poor people. Do you disagree with this?
It makes a lot of sense to me that high IQ people would want more high IQ people around; other high IQ people are an extremely valuable resource to them, and the cases in which they are competitors to them are actually exceptional. I agree that low IQ people are also a valuable resource and are generally more content in lower skill jobs.
@Mozzzoo You mean like Warren Buffet and his secretary? I would disagree, if you just look at the taxes paid, they pay the lump sum, but like WB, they do this for a reason, they get to write the legislation that pumps money from the under classes into their wallet. Their taxes are visible, their benefits invisible.
Note that I consider high IQ people an asset in a free society,
@viviane5572 explain, what does it mean. Do you have any proof that people with a high IQ, in the current system, are not living of the stolen tax money from common laborers?
@viviane5572 How would you define the concept 'stolen' . I define it at the involuntary transfer of property.
That means that the government is a criminal organisation, because the property exchange you have with them is not voluntary. They just put a funny costume on and give it a different name:tax. Did that trick fool you?
@modelmark Transfering involuntarily is not having something TAKEN from you by someone without your consent. If I'm sending money somewhere without knowing it, nobody is extorting me. If someone takes something from me without my knowing then there is a usurper, and you have being stolen. Thanfering property involutarily is not synonymous with being stolen. I'm from Brazil and I pay an extremely expensive tax in about everything, they're stealing from me because the money is suposed to develop.
@viviane5572 if you are sending money without knowing it? How does that work? Is it voluntary or under coercion. If it is voluntary I'd call it a gift/donation/purchase. If it is under coercion, I'd call it theft.
The final destination of the money is not relevant for calling it theft. If the maffia takes your money at gunpoint and donates it to the red cross afterwards, it is still theft.
@modelmark Lets supose you tell me to donate money for an institution, you tell me to give it in your hands because you're responsable for the finacial part of it, I gave you the money, but you keep it for you. I gave you money involuntarily, you didn't need to coerce me. I didn't have the intention to give it to you but to the institution. But technically I gave it to you. I gave without knowing, in this case.
@viviane5572 I think you mix up the words voluntary and involuntary as well as the concepts. If something is given involuntary it means 'under coercion'. Although I would also call it theft if the following happens: You and me agree to exchange your radio for my 20 euros. Both voluntary (no coercion). Then you send me the radio, but I do not send the 20 euros. In this case the giving becomes involuntary (theft) once I decided not to send the 20 euros.You only agreed voluntary because of the 20 e
@modelmark You can give something involuntarily in situations other than coercion. For example, when I don't know I'm sending money because I forgot, for example, to delete an account in a site of a magazine where through my account I'd pay 10,00 by month, it's not coercion, but I didn't want to pay, I paid because I forgot canceling my account. Was not voluntary. Coercion is ONE of the situations of "giving involuntarily".
@viviane5572 technically you are correct, although this situation does not occur to often. Lets agree on the defenition: theft is property taken from you involuntary
@howitzer24 do you mean to say that the intelligent having jobs paid with tax money of the poor is a natural state? Of course every state of nature is a natural state, but I do not think it will remain that way. Collateral damage of having a state is too high.
@modelmark My response was directed at your question of why high iq people would want to keep out low iq people posed towards the end of the video. The obvious answer is people tend to want to be around people who are like them.
@howitzer24 That might be true. There is indeed evidence that people like other people that are like them. Even the same birthday makes them give higher ratings. I would however think that this is not ideal for survival.
@myfletcher I try not to use notes, but my presentation skills can definitely improve. My IQ is probably above average, but that is not relevant for the argument I think. I do not mean to say that high IQ people necessarily are a burden to the poor (in a free world, they would be a blessing), just that they mostly in the current situation are.
I currently design Wifi chips, so this is a product people voluntarily buy and will make them more happy.
@Nosiluminadimenso comes in many forms and shapes, but I's say (improvising): the ability to make correct assessments of cause and effect relations in reality. But I'm open to correction.
I always thought that IQ simply determined a level of thinking. I'm supposed to be somewhere in the mid 130s and I sometimes overlook something that someone lower has seen. Vice versa with a person who is higher. Can't help but to feel stumped by geniuses and average thinkers alike.
First, every country has plenty of low IQ people - half of the population of any country has low IQ by definition, so why take in more? Second, high IQ people have better jobs, make more money and therefore *pay more taxes." Third, you want to be technologically ahead of other countries both for defense purposes and for economical purposes. I hope I don't have to explain why. You will only stay ahead if you have intelligent people working for you and very few are truly intelligent.
@luiza2166 I do not dispute every country has many low IQ people. My main argument was that a country with just high IQ people in the current statist paradigm, is a disaster. They will soon all die. If someone has a high income and high IQ, but works for NASA, I hope I do not have to explain that this person is a net tax burden, the higher his income, the higher the burden on the tax payer. The tax payer on average is a low IQ person. Although high incomes seem to pay most taxes, they benefit
@modelmark through legislation that drive tax cattle their way even more. Defense would hardly be needed if high IQ people in the military industrial complex did not enable meddling in foreign countries and skilled sofists did not make the new born into fearful tax cattle, sacrificing their lives to their masters. The only high IQ people that are useful under statism are those in the high tech (consumer, medical) sector and some random ones here and there.
@luiza2166 Ummm ha! High IQ does not guarantee anything. Many High IQ people have been infamous criminals, pedophiles, serial killers, homeless, and socially challenged. I work with two high IQ people One is a cashier (Mensa) and one is a bagger. He collects shopping carts...lol...no offense on him because he does own a home and have a nice car. So I guess his High IQ became a burden to him and now he bag groceries. seriously!
@soundclik43030 Well, the minimum that a high IQ guarantees is a high IQ. But I tried to make further generalizations. You name 2 exceptions 2 my rule, but my claim is only statistical in nature, so mentioning an exception to my rule, would not really break it. You's have to show that most high IQ people have jobs with voluntary customers. I claim most of them finance their jobs by extortion by the state.
From my perception of history in all societies, it is the suppression of people in the form of "mind control" or a mental dumbing down, that leads to a prolonged "Dark age" that is only slightly beneficial to a select few, and detrimental to the vast majority. Yet all humans contain a potential, that if tapped can lead to further enlightenments in the future.
My take on this is to nurture intelligence to see if a new better type of "society" can be created beyond what is know in present time
@Braintrain123 What is not so clear from the video, is that it was a response to a vlog pleading for a society in which brute thugs only open the borders for enlightened immigrants in order to gain more freedom.
I have nothing against intelligence, but have to conclude currently many intelligent people live of the earnings of people eking out a living selling shoes. Just something I think many intelligent people working at say Nasa or Cern do not realize.
@modelmark Ah I see, I would have to agree with you that there is a divide between the "haves" and "have nots" that is detrimental to both sides, but more so for those barely eking out living. It seems there are many factors at play on both sides of the fence that make this topic somewhat controversial.
This is a very though provoking vlog, in which I would have to disagree with some of the comments. I think the general idea is coming from a place of good intentions, in protecting a people, but this same idea is supposedly being thrown around by a group proposing a "New world Order". The idea is to dumb down the vast majority of people while maintaining their own genetic intelligence, thus having a small group having a vastly superior mental capacity to control those with a lesser capacity.
@Braintrain123 If such a plan exists, I think it will fail. Genetic contamination will occur as the powerful men will not be able to resist having sex with just about everyone they can have their hands on.
I think with compulsory 'education' the plan is to make the sheeple stupid enough to fork over their money to their rulers, but smart enough to make a lot of money. Or like it was said in a Dilbert strip:Smart but clueless. I think this succeeded to an amazing degree, but will fail in the end
High IQ people know high IQ isn't enough (not all high iq people of course), high IQ people are just as diverse as any other group of people. Many high IQ people do not agree with other high IQ's peoples views on many things... You can tell a good person by their wisdom of their words and their demanor.
Consider Marilyn vos Savant, you can tell she genuinely cares about people. Don't paint everyone with the same brush.
@TimothyBragan Sounds a contradiction and a good catch. Only in the unnatural situation they get all hoarded together. In the same way an island with farmers would starve at the first outbreak of a contagious disease or all tractors have broken down. Devision off labor is really powerful stuff. Marx can probably count as a high IQ person, yet he cooked something up that devastated millions. Morality is more important for basic survival than high IQ.
The answer to your final point is miseducation. Even so-called smart economists often do not understand it; and even if they do they are hired by large corporations to serve their interests in the big offensive/defensive lobby game vis-a-vis government.
I think qua general effect on society and the economy your train of thought is definitely true; high IQ/smart people are a burden! On the other hand, I think you are also merely describing govt. messing up with the division of labor. Plumbers in the Netherlands are scarce and even with the Polish immigration of low-skilled (I cannot do their jobs, but that seems to be the common term) workers, starting salaries of plumbers who graduate at 18 years old is higher than for most academic graduates;
@wreagfe starting plumbers start as high as 2500 euro's a month. A perfect example of the market trying to solve a govt. run education system which enticed an anti-culture of manual labor. Without govt. intervention, academics would be much smaller a sector. Maybe this is also true for high thingy colliders and space exploration. The thing we know for sure is that the private sector could provide it much cheaper. I'm now learning to grow crops on the inet to disprove your point by the way. :-)
Interesting view, but disagree with smart folks that I have known. I think there are plenty of high IQ folks who actually would do the labor that you mention. Lots of smart ladies choosing to be Moms vs having a career. Many folks do not get an opportunity for a high education, but quite smart. If have your own company, then you maybe taking out your own trash. I knew PhD Engineer who built his own roof & fence by choice. Smart isn't only research physicists. Too simplistic view of people, IMO.
@MegF142857 I am not saying there is something wrong with smart people (although I could understand how you come to that conclusion from the title), the claims are:
-Currently, under the statist system, on average the smart, as a group, are paid for by taxing the poor as a group. Net extorted money is flowing from poor to rich.
-If you select a society just on high IQ (with the aid of armed thugs), you will have a sub optimal society, since more qualities are important(morals,health,empathy)
Dutch soldiers (as claimed in a Stef Mol. video) displayed a higher IQ than a set of soldiers of 20 years previously, (and incidentally he attributed the rise in IQ to better nutrition and greater mental stimulation caused by more advanced technology). Maybe a community "grows" its' IQ and then might have a changed relationship to others about IQ. Do high IQ people need to support each other deliberately when there is already a natural trend helping their prevalence?
@Sliptodance It could be that IQ goes up naturally, although I am open to IQ measurements not being objective (you can train for them and your score will go up).
But I am not even sure if closing borders and letting only high IQ people is 'helping' anyone. IQ is not the one tell tale that breeds success. If you read Gladwell's Outliers you can see a comparison between Chris Langan and Oppenheimer which sheds an interesting light on IQ and other factors. Many millionaires are dyslectic.
@modelmark A nation state might clumsily engineer it's population by closing borders, but I think the real interesting analysis would focus on the counter-currents to the original act. Intelligent people could become imperious, supercilious and complacent because of their seniority of rights. The denied people could become hardened and driven to succeed, or even moved to hostility. Cherry picking a biological value like intelligence would be fun to watch if it went south instead of north.
@Sliptodance hard to tell how it will play out, but these interferences in distribution of talents, make me think of the doctors who thought that every organ in the human body they did not understand, could be tossed out. I suspect that especially if a group of thugs make the selection, the result won't be pretty, very fad sensitive (suddenly global warming scientist are welcomed in) and very conformist intellectuals will be favoured. A problem discussed by Smolin in "the trouble with physics"
@modelmark The vetting process might disregard loyalties to do with politics, class, income and so on. Instead we could be graded according to our possession of clinically observable neural transmitters. Person X of modest numbers of verifiable "brain cells" would always be less intelligent (and worthy) than person Y with abundant such cells. No appeals, no second opinions. Personal judgements would not count, (like measuring a computer chips speed factor to determine it's quality.)
@Sliptodance theoretically possible, like it is theoretically possible that the government can run welfare well and operate a good justice system. Still not sure it would generate more production. For some things you need empathic people, for some physically beautiful or healthy, get a good virus and a strong immune system might be more useful than a high IQ.
@modelmark The advanced evolution of high IQ people into a separate human species is not yet due, and from your comment I'm sure that there's plenty more to appreciate about h.sapiens. But if high IQ folk did fundamentally segregate themselves off, I might not miss them much.
@Sliptodance if you realistically try to imagine what would happen, you run into countless problems. In high IQ land, a toilet cleaner would earn astronomical wages, sucking low IQ fortune seekers through whatever barrier they would put up, because it would benefit all.
@modelmark Rigid prevention of high IQ folk doing common work is called for, but the range of duties which fall into the class of normality would exclude the higher end IQ lot and are so wide that they'd be a freak show (if I'm following correctly.)
Indeed menial work has to be compulsory dished out, those with connections benefit with think vouchers.
Rembember that all this was sparked off by spawktalk's video to bring about a more free society by refusing low IQ people by a coercive monopoly called the state.
Some people have a huge IQ and fill regular positions. It's not sexy. It doesn't really get you anywhere. There's no point really haha. People expect things. Where's the fun in that?
This really is one of the worst 'intellectual' videos I have ever seen. I don't know what your level of education is, but something must be really frustrating you in order for you to make such a ridiculous video. Try talking to a shrink about your feelings of inadequacy instead! (en er zijn grenzen aan de stupiditeit die ik van een inhoudelijke reactie wel voorzien)
@micromilesaway it was not my claim that high IQ people make the most money, just that as a group they have the highest net tax inflow. It's like unemployment benefit for smart people (e.g. the 1.5 million study I mentioned).
Who would do the menial crap (in a sufficiently large and sustained society to allow optimal procedures to to come into play)? Marginal utility, comparative advantage, blah blah blah...
Division of labor is more effected by the differences between people in a given society. Today Rush Limbaugh can serve as a social critic. In my ideal world he would be a technician or laborer. In a world of greater lack of intelligence he may be the chief incantator of the God King.
@blackacidlizzard if the average IQ went up, there would always be those who do the menial stuff on the margin, if you put a whole bunch of academia on an island, they would not adapt fast enough is my guess. But the main claim is that many smart people are on highly paid unemployment benefits at the moment. More taxes probably go to them than go to welfare immigrants.
@TheHeather1985 they just got the money last week, I doubt if they have already spent it and made a report. Most likely it will have a recommendation that more research is required to give a definitive answer.
@TheHeather1985 While I was trying to find something in english on the subsidy, I ran into a news message (in dutch) about the university of Amsterdam receiving 2.3 million euros in 2008 for this research. The conclusion was that free will did not exist. That grant however was for neuroscientists and this one is for philosophers.
Also, while I'm not sure how many smart people it takes to come up with inventions (although certainly having more smart people around will increase the odds of inventions being made), you certainly do need an awful lot of smart people for technological progress to press on across the board, with "break through inventions" being just one aspect, and "continuous improvement on existing technologies" (e.g. improving the performance and efficiency of computers) being the more pervasive one.
Mozzzoo 5 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
From what I know, the vast majority of tax income is paid by people in the top income brackets, not by poor people. Do you disagree with this?
It makes a lot of sense to me that high IQ people would want more high IQ people around; other high IQ people are an extremely valuable resource to them, and the cases in which they are competitors to them are actually exceptional. I agree that low IQ people are also a valuable resource and are generally more content in lower skill jobs.
Mozzzoo 5 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Mozzzoo You mean like Warren Buffet and his secretary? I would disagree, if you just look at the taxes paid, they pay the lump sum, but like WB, they do this for a reason, they get to write the legislation that pumps money from the under classes into their wallet. Their taxes are visible, their benefits invisible.
Note that I consider high IQ people an asset in a free society,
modelmark 5 days ago
O_O geez
don't touch your computer and don't think about a reason to exist or a meaning to the existence it self.....
you should understand what intelligence means, you don't know it.
viviane5572 1 month ago
@viviane5572 explain, what does it mean. Do you have any proof that people with a high IQ, in the current system, are not living of the stolen tax money from common laborers?
modelmark 1 month ago
@modelmark If they are, I wouldn't call it "stolen....
viviane5572 1 month ago
@viviane5572 How would you define the concept 'stolen' . I define it at the involuntary transfer of property.
That means that the government is a criminal organisation, because the property exchange you have with them is not voluntary. They just put a funny costume on and give it a different name:tax. Did that trick fool you?
modelmark 1 month ago
@modelmark Transfering involuntarily is not having something TAKEN from you by someone without your consent. If I'm sending money somewhere without knowing it, nobody is extorting me. If someone takes something from me without my knowing then there is a usurper, and you have being stolen. Thanfering property involutarily is not synonymous with being stolen. I'm from Brazil and I pay an extremely expensive tax in about everything, they're stealing from me because the money is suposed to develop.
viviane5572 1 month ago
@viviane5572 if you are sending money without knowing it? How does that work? Is it voluntary or under coercion. If it is voluntary I'd call it a gift/donation/purchase. If it is under coercion, I'd call it theft.
The final destination of the money is not relevant for calling it theft. If the maffia takes your money at gunpoint and donates it to the red cross afterwards, it is still theft.
modelmark 1 month ago
@modelmark Lets supose you tell me to donate money for an institution, you tell me to give it in your hands because you're responsable for the finacial part of it, I gave you the money, but you keep it for you. I gave you money involuntarily, you didn't need to coerce me. I didn't have the intention to give it to you but to the institution. But technically I gave it to you. I gave without knowing, in this case.
viviane5572 1 month ago
@viviane5572 I think you mix up the words voluntary and involuntary as well as the concepts. If something is given involuntary it means 'under coercion'. Although I would also call it theft if the following happens: You and me agree to exchange your radio for my 20 euros. Both voluntary (no coercion). Then you send me the radio, but I do not send the 20 euros. In this case the giving becomes involuntary (theft) once I decided not to send the 20 euros.You only agreed voluntary because of the 20 e
modelmark 1 month ago
@modelmark You can give something involuntarily in situations other than coercion. For example, when I don't know I'm sending money because I forgot, for example, to delete an account in a site of a magazine where through my account I'd pay 10,00 by month, it's not coercion, but I didn't want to pay, I paid because I forgot canceling my account. Was not voluntary. Coercion is ONE of the situations of "giving involuntarily".
viviane5572 1 month ago
@viviane5572 technically you are correct, although this situation does not occur to often. Lets agree on the defenition: theft is property taken from you involuntary
Taken indicates it is not a forgotten transfer
modelmark 1 month ago
@modelmark High IQ people are not a waste of time, lol
viviane5572 1 month ago
People naturally flow to where they fit in. That is all.
howitzer24 4 months ago
@howitzer24 do you mean to say that the intelligent having jobs paid with tax money of the poor is a natural state? Of course every state of nature is a natural state, but I do not think it will remain that way. Collateral damage of having a state is too high.
modelmark 4 months ago
@modelmark My response was directed at your question of why high iq people would want to keep out low iq people posed towards the end of the video. The obvious answer is people tend to want to be around people who are like them.
howitzer24 4 months ago
@howitzer24 That might be true. There is indeed evidence that people like other people that are like them. Even the same birthday makes them give higher ratings. I would however think that this is not ideal for survival.
modelmark 4 months ago
nice reading your notes from a q card. what is your IQ ??
myfletcher 4 months ago
@myfletcher I try not to use notes, but my presentation skills can definitely improve. My IQ is probably above average, but that is not relevant for the argument I think. I do not mean to say that high IQ people necessarily are a burden to the poor (in a free world, they would be a blessing), just that they mostly in the current situation are.
I currently design Wifi chips, so this is a product people voluntarily buy and will make them more happy.
modelmark 4 months ago
It's good to be wary of the intelligentsia, they might subvert your masters and then you'd really be confused.
grejustin 6 months ago
@grejustin I think currently they are bankrupting the masters
modelmark 6 months ago
modelmark what is, according to you, intelligence? (Other questions to follow.)
Nosiluminadimenso 6 months ago
@Nosiluminadimenso comes in many forms and shapes, but I's say (improvising): the ability to make correct assessments of cause and effect relations in reality. But I'm open to correction.
modelmark 6 months ago
I always thought that IQ simply determined a level of thinking. I'm supposed to be somewhere in the mid 130s and I sometimes overlook something that someone lower has seen. Vice versa with a person who is higher. Can't help but to feel stumped by geniuses and average thinkers alike.
Agent1W 7 months ago
That's for sure. No questions about that.
Higher IQ people hate the poor and niggers.
bamboostinger 9 months ago
@bamboostinger I don't think you can say that. It is just that more often than realized, their salary depends on them.
modelmark 9 months ago
First, every country has plenty of low IQ people - half of the population of any country has low IQ by definition, so why take in more? Second, high IQ people have better jobs, make more money and therefore *pay more taxes." Third, you want to be technologically ahead of other countries both for defense purposes and for economical purposes. I hope I don't have to explain why. You will only stay ahead if you have intelligent people working for you and very few are truly intelligent.
luiza2166 1 year ago
@luiza2166 I do not dispute every country has many low IQ people. My main argument was that a country with just high IQ people in the current statist paradigm, is a disaster. They will soon all die. If someone has a high income and high IQ, but works for NASA, I hope I do not have to explain that this person is a net tax burden, the higher his income, the higher the burden on the tax payer. The tax payer on average is a low IQ person. Although high incomes seem to pay most taxes, they benefit
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark through legislation that drive tax cattle their way even more. Defense would hardly be needed if high IQ people in the military industrial complex did not enable meddling in foreign countries and skilled sofists did not make the new born into fearful tax cattle, sacrificing their lives to their masters. The only high IQ people that are useful under statism are those in the high tech (consumer, medical) sector and some random ones here and there.
modelmark 1 year ago
@luiza2166 Ummm ha! High IQ does not guarantee anything. Many High IQ people have been infamous criminals, pedophiles, serial killers, homeless, and socially challenged. I work with two high IQ people One is a cashier (Mensa) and one is a bagger. He collects shopping carts...lol...no offense on him because he does own a home and have a nice car. So I guess his High IQ became a burden to him and now he bag groceries. seriously!
soundclik43030 9 months ago
@soundclik43030 Well, the minimum that a high IQ guarantees is a high IQ. But I tried to make further generalizations. You name 2 exceptions 2 my rule, but my claim is only statistical in nature, so mentioning an exception to my rule, would not really break it. You's have to show that most high IQ people have jobs with voluntary customers. I claim most of them finance their jobs by extortion by the state.
modelmark 9 months ago
@modelmark Just thot I'd thro a comment in. Not really knocking your comment in the least bit.
soundclik43030 9 months ago
From my perception of history in all societies, it is the suppression of people in the form of "mind control" or a mental dumbing down, that leads to a prolonged "Dark age" that is only slightly beneficial to a select few, and detrimental to the vast majority. Yet all humans contain a potential, that if tapped can lead to further enlightenments in the future.
My take on this is to nurture intelligence to see if a new better type of "society" can be created beyond what is know in present time
Braintrain123 1 year ago
@Braintrain123 What is not so clear from the video, is that it was a response to a vlog pleading for a society in which brute thugs only open the borders for enlightened immigrants in order to gain more freedom.
I have nothing against intelligence, but have to conclude currently many intelligent people live of the earnings of people eking out a living selling shoes. Just something I think many intelligent people working at say Nasa or Cern do not realize.
modelmark 1 year ago 2
@modelmark Ah I see, I would have to agree with you that there is a divide between the "haves" and "have nots" that is detrimental to both sides, but more so for those barely eking out living. It seems there are many factors at play on both sides of the fence that make this topic somewhat controversial.
Braintrain123 1 year ago
This is a very though provoking vlog, in which I would have to disagree with some of the comments. I think the general idea is coming from a place of good intentions, in protecting a people, but this same idea is supposedly being thrown around by a group proposing a "New world Order". The idea is to dumb down the vast majority of people while maintaining their own genetic intelligence, thus having a small group having a vastly superior mental capacity to control those with a lesser capacity.
Braintrain123 1 year ago
@Braintrain123 If such a plan exists, I think it will fail. Genetic contamination will occur as the powerful men will not be able to resist having sex with just about everyone they can have their hands on.
I think with compulsory 'education' the plan is to make the sheeple stupid enough to fork over their money to their rulers, but smart enough to make a lot of money. Or like it was said in a Dilbert strip:Smart but clueless. I think this succeeded to an amazing degree, but will fail in the end
modelmark 1 year ago
Recherchez Christopher Langan. Il a un QI de 180 + encore des œuvres comme videur. IQ n'a pas le même succès.
madamereinejoli 1 year ago
@madamereinejoli I know and that was not my argument, where did you get that idea from?
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark Où ai-je eu l'idée de? Votre visage laid.
madamereinejoli 1 year ago
Comment removed
madamereinejoli 1 year ago
High IQ people know high IQ isn't enough (not all high iq people of course), high IQ people are just as diverse as any other group of people. Many high IQ people do not agree with other high IQ's peoples views on many things... You can tell a good person by their wisdom of their words and their demanor.
Consider Marilyn vos Savant, you can tell she genuinely cares about people. Don't paint everyone with the same brush.
rTests334 1 year ago
@rTests334 I know high IQ people differ in opinion with each other. What brush stroke are you referring to?
modelmark 1 year ago
"Smart people are too stupid for basic survival"
-modelmark
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
@TimothyBragan Sounds a contradiction and a good catch. Only in the unnatural situation they get all hoarded together. In the same way an island with farmers would starve at the first outbreak of a contagious disease or all tractors have broken down. Devision off labor is really powerful stuff. Marx can probably count as a high IQ person, yet he cooked something up that devastated millions. Morality is more important for basic survival than high IQ.
modelmark 1 year ago
The answer to your final point is miseducation. Even so-called smart economists often do not understand it; and even if they do they are hired by large corporations to serve their interests in the big offensive/defensive lobby game vis-a-vis government.
wreagfe 1 year ago
I think qua general effect on society and the economy your train of thought is definitely true; high IQ/smart people are a burden! On the other hand, I think you are also merely describing govt. messing up with the division of labor. Plumbers in the Netherlands are scarce and even with the Polish immigration of low-skilled (I cannot do their jobs, but that seems to be the common term) workers, starting salaries of plumbers who graduate at 18 years old is higher than for most academic graduates;
wreagfe 1 year ago
@wreagfe starting plumbers start as high as 2500 euro's a month. A perfect example of the market trying to solve a govt. run education system which enticed an anti-culture of manual labor. Without govt. intervention, academics would be much smaller a sector. Maybe this is also true for high thingy colliders and space exploration. The thing we know for sure is that the private sector could provide it much cheaper. I'm now learning to grow crops on the inet to disprove your point by the way. :-)
wreagfe 1 year ago
@wreagfe agree, no messing with people and there would be no problem.
modelmark 1 year ago
Interesting view, but disagree with smart folks that I have known. I think there are plenty of high IQ folks who actually would do the labor that you mention. Lots of smart ladies choosing to be Moms vs having a career. Many folks do not get an opportunity for a high education, but quite smart. If have your own company, then you maybe taking out your own trash. I knew PhD Engineer who built his own roof & fence by choice. Smart isn't only research physicists. Too simplistic view of people, IMO.
MegF142857 1 year ago
@MegF142857 I am not saying there is something wrong with smart people (although I could understand how you come to that conclusion from the title), the claims are:
-Currently, under the statist system, on average the smart, as a group, are paid for by taxing the poor as a group. Net extorted money is flowing from poor to rich.
-If you select a society just on high IQ (with the aid of armed thugs), you will have a sub optimal society, since more qualities are important(morals,health,empathy)
modelmark 1 year ago
Dutch soldiers (as claimed in a Stef Mol. video) displayed a higher IQ than a set of soldiers of 20 years previously, (and incidentally he attributed the rise in IQ to better nutrition and greater mental stimulation caused by more advanced technology). Maybe a community "grows" its' IQ and then might have a changed relationship to others about IQ. Do high IQ people need to support each other deliberately when there is already a natural trend helping their prevalence?
Sliptodance 1 year ago
@Sliptodance It could be that IQ goes up naturally, although I am open to IQ measurements not being objective (you can train for them and your score will go up).
But I am not even sure if closing borders and letting only high IQ people is 'helping' anyone. IQ is not the one tell tale that breeds success. If you read Gladwell's Outliers you can see a comparison between Chris Langan and Oppenheimer which sheds an interesting light on IQ and other factors. Many millionaires are dyslectic.
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark A nation state might clumsily engineer it's population by closing borders, but I think the real interesting analysis would focus on the counter-currents to the original act. Intelligent people could become imperious, supercilious and complacent because of their seniority of rights. The denied people could become hardened and driven to succeed, or even moved to hostility. Cherry picking a biological value like intelligence would be fun to watch if it went south instead of north.
Sliptodance 1 year ago
@Sliptodance hard to tell how it will play out, but these interferences in distribution of talents, make me think of the doctors who thought that every organ in the human body they did not understand, could be tossed out. I suspect that especially if a group of thugs make the selection, the result won't be pretty, very fad sensitive (suddenly global warming scientist are welcomed in) and very conformist intellectuals will be favoured. A problem discussed by Smolin in "the trouble with physics"
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark The vetting process might disregard loyalties to do with politics, class, income and so on. Instead we could be graded according to our possession of clinically observable neural transmitters. Person X of modest numbers of verifiable "brain cells" would always be less intelligent (and worthy) than person Y with abundant such cells. No appeals, no second opinions. Personal judgements would not count, (like measuring a computer chips speed factor to determine it's quality.)
Sliptodance 1 year ago
@Sliptodance theoretically possible, like it is theoretically possible that the government can run welfare well and operate a good justice system. Still not sure it would generate more production. For some things you need empathic people, for some physically beautiful or healthy, get a good virus and a strong immune system might be more useful than a high IQ.
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark The advanced evolution of high IQ people into a separate human species is not yet due, and from your comment I'm sure that there's plenty more to appreciate about h.sapiens. But if high IQ folk did fundamentally segregate themselves off, I might not miss them much.
Sliptodance 1 year ago
@Sliptodance if you realistically try to imagine what would happen, you run into countless problems. In high IQ land, a toilet cleaner would earn astronomical wages, sucking low IQ fortune seekers through whatever barrier they would put up, because it would benefit all.
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark Rigid prevention of high IQ folk doing common work is called for, but the range of duties which fall into the class of normality would exclude the higher end IQ lot and are so wide that they'd be a freak show (if I'm following correctly.)
Sliptodance 1 year ago
@Sliptodance you are.
Indeed menial work has to be compulsory dished out, those with connections benefit with think vouchers.
Rembember that all this was sparked off by spawktalk's video to bring about a more free society by refusing low IQ people by a coercive monopoly called the state.
modelmark 1 year ago
Some people have a huge IQ and fill regular positions. It's not sexy. It doesn't really get you anywhere. There's no point really haha. People expect things. Where's the fun in that?
thegumbootsgirl 1 year ago
This really is one of the worst 'intellectual' videos I have ever seen. I don't know what your level of education is, but something must be really frustrating you in order for you to make such a ridiculous video. Try talking to a shrink about your feelings of inadequacy instead! (en er zijn grenzen aan de stupiditeit die ik van een inhoudelijke reactie wel voorzien)
RoyvanKeulen 1 year ago
2:47 hehe.
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
@micromilesaway it was not my claim that high IQ people make the most money, just that as a group they have the highest net tax inflow. It's like unemployment benefit for smart people (e.g. the 1.5 million study I mentioned).
modelmark 1 year ago
@micromilesaway I guess the really big gvt money for high IQ's is made in military industrial complex, patent lawyers, space agencies etc.
modelmark 1 year ago
Who would do the menial crap (in a sufficiently large and sustained society to allow optimal procedures to to come into play)? Marginal utility, comparative advantage, blah blah blah...
Division of labor is more effected by the differences between people in a given society. Today Rush Limbaugh can serve as a social critic. In my ideal world he would be a technician or laborer. In a world of greater lack of intelligence he may be the chief incantator of the God King.
blackacidlizzard 1 year ago
@blackacidlizzard if the average IQ went up, there would always be those who do the menial stuff on the margin, if you put a whole bunch of academia on an island, they would not adapt fast enough is my guess. But the main claim is that many smart people are on highly paid unemployment benefits at the moment. More taxes probably go to them than go to welfare immigrants.
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark
You're going to make me do a rambling video response, huh?
;)
blackacidlizzard 1 year ago
@blackacidlizzard if you want me to I might ;-), but then you have to clarify your point a little better.
modelmark 1 year ago
Can you give me a link to the freewill study?
TheHeather1985 1 year ago
@TheHeather1985 they just got the money last week, I doubt if they have already spent it and made a report. Most likely it will have a recommendation that more research is required to give a definitive answer.
modelmark 1 year ago
@TheHeather1985 While I was trying to find something in english on the subsidy, I ran into a news message (in dutch) about the university of Amsterdam receiving 2.3 million euros in 2008 for this research. The conclusion was that free will did not exist. That grant however was for neuroscientists and this one is for philosophers.
modelmark 1 year ago
"I could have done that for a whole lot less" haha! Yes, but you wouldn't have lied, which is probably what the money was really for :-p
Stargazer5781 1 year ago
@Stargazer5781 hehe spot on, Stargazer :D
MaikUniversum 1 year ago