~ archived since 2018 ~

IQ test

NathanHollister

February 4, 2019

183 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the mission

TheRedArchive exists so that this writing cannot quietly disappear. Deleted accounts, banned subreddits, blogs long since offline — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

Preserving it is not free. The servers, the storage and the bandwidth come out of my own pocket, and the bill grows every month the archive does.

If you believe this record should still be here for whoever comes looking in twenty years, you can help keep it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	IQ test
Author	NathanHollister
Upvotes	183
Comments	71
Date	February 4, 2019 2:04 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/an1ycy/iq_test/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/iq-test.398609 https://theredarchive.com/post/398609

Comments

[–]Chill-BL18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chill-BL3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Vaginal_Tissue_Balls0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JustChopItOff 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chill-BL-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rooster-one416 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bubbsjdndjfifi11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]slayer_in_midst5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Asperger_Mgtow2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As much as I dislike relying on internet to gather data, I guess I'll go with what I have. Lets look at the points given by you:

"IQ generally determines success"

The obvious choice here is to go for GNI (groups financial activities of the whole citizenship, not limited to territory of the country) as an indicator of the success on national level. For reference, I'll be using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_income and https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html . The problem is that the latest study of worldwide IQ levels dates back to 2006 (by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen), so i can only fairly compare to the GNI levels of that year. Using the Top 10 GNI of 2006 table entry from Wikipedia (*sign*, not that thing again), we get this:

1 )USA - 14,345,565 GNI / 98 IQ

2) Japan - 4,931,413 GNI / 105 IQ

3) Germany - 3,160,529 GNI/ 99 IQ

4) China - 2,685,206 GNI/ 105 IQ

5) UK - 2,645,489 GNI/ 100 IQ

6) France - 2,414,820 GNI/ 98 IQ

7) Italy - 1,989,288 GNI/ 102 IQ

8) Spain - 1,241,641 GNI/ 98 IQ

9) Canada - 1,224,994 GNI/ 99 IQ

10) South Korea - 966,585 GNI/ 106 IQ

The results show us that, on macroscopic level, there is no direct correlation between IQ/GNI numbers, the average IQ of a "succesful" country's citizen is 101 - negligibly above average.

For the sake of it, lets assume that the average IQ score around the world in 2006 was relevant in 2016 (various publications do just that, anyway) and apply it to that year's "Top 10 GNI" list:

1)USA - 18,357,322 GNI / 98 IQ

2)China - 11,374,227 GNI/ 105 IQ

3)Japan - 4,816,892 GNI / 105 IQ

4)Germany - 3,624,638 GNI/ 99 IQ

5)UK - 2,778,488 GNI/ 100 IQ

6)France - 2,590,030 GNI/ 98 IQ

7)India - 2,212,306 GNI/ 82 IQ

8)Italy - 1,923,095 GNI/ 102 IQ

9)Brazil - 1,835,993 GNI/ 87 IQ

10)Canada - 1,584,177 GNI/ 99 IQ

Although China and Japan now threaten to bolster the statement, India and Brazil come to stop them. Their IQ averages drag down 2006'th average down to 97.5. Still no direct correlation between the IQ/GNI numbers.

Conclusion: IQ is but ONE of possible factors of the "success", but DEFINITELY NOT THE DETERMINANT ONE. Do NOT exaggerate its priority.

"IQ generally determines criminality"

*sigh* just read this: https://legalbeagle.com/5969328-factors-influencing-crime-rate.html

Sums up what REALLY determines the crime level really well, "low IQ" country or not.

"IQ generally determines other substantial things"

Like...?

EDIT: Damn it, forgot to check for typos. Feel free to bash me if you spot any.

[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001232 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LesterSynch1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ah! Now THAT is a great question! It depends on the upbringing, geopolitical factors, time period and political state of the society. So many factors come into hand that it is way too difficuilt for me to give a definitive answer on this matter. Well, in the class system of Middle Ages IQ level mattered little - you could be a genious, but should you happen to be born a peasant, you'd be doomed to die one. See, circumstances dictate what is an advantage and what is not. As for whether or not I would prefer Lower IQ to Higher, that sounds really bizzare to me for some reason. I cannot decide for myself, but if i ever had a child and had to assign him the IQ score, I'D, once again, look for circumstances - if the world was a harsh place ravaged by wars and disease, I'd Lower his IQ score and bring him up as a person reliant on raw skill and power. If the world was a Gaia class planet, would definitely go for higher IQ as such developed worlds tend to have more need for mental capacity. Anyway, the lower IQ one can blow himself by eating the grenade and the higher IQ one might commit suicide from boredom. You never know.

[–]LesterSynch1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]antilopes0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rochesterjones-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vegebanana5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TerraEarth3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robowriter4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SavvyMillennial1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yakatonker1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Yakatonker0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Low IQ is the strongest known hypothetical correlate for all the things we perceive as negative behavior in humans. That includes unemployment, drug abuse, violence, lack of self restraint and focus.

The other thing to recall ironically or not is correlation does not equal causal relationship. There is a ton of pseudo science in the public domain because the public is quite scientifically illiterate.

Example, why are almost 50% of Americans obese now compared to fifty years ago when the super majority were considered the text book of health? Human body did not radically change in five decades so the causal factor, the mechanistic factor can be seen to be a modifier in the environment. What precisely changed from then till now? Looking at consumption, majority of children in North America are now eating diets composed 50% of processed foods, sugar, carbs devoid in nutrition. Adults are also consuming an absurd amount of nutritionless carbs.

The government, pharmaceuticals and certain agricultural cartels have been the negative factor in this causal relationship. 50% of US agricultural production is wheat and soy and I think corn, which is not sold as is but turned a number of processed items which goes into almost all sorts of processed food stuffs as an additive filler.

Why is that important? Taking a look at the "food pyramid" it becomes clear why Americans are getting railed. Its a carb heavy base that does not emphasis protein and animal fat. They even demonized healthy cheap sources of animal fat and protien such as eggs with this pseudo science. Now they're selling Statin drugs on this premise, drugs which literally murders the people who take them, causes severe and adverse side effects in 20% of consumers.

When we ask the question again, are consumers response for the propagation of pseudo scientific fraud which disables them from making healthy choices? The answer is no. Consumers are effected by a macro economic effect perpetuated by the government itself spreading pseudo science in a concerted effort to get people to buy consumer products with processed food. This includes the government subsidizing this production of processed foods in the US as well, an extension of the monopoly over government.

For example, we could ban Narcan to help clean junkies out of the population.

We could get rid of the seatbelt law to allow morons to kill themselves in car crashes.

BMI over 30? No heart bypass for you, sorry.

I believe you are missing some key political and economic concepts in relation to these questions.

[–]BlasphemousMGTOW0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phantom0990 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterChris7250 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterChris725-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterChris7250 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

but saying we should pay for birth control is another way of saying it's society's responsibility to make sure women aren't having unplanned pregnancies, ergo, women have to rely on men to pay for their birth control to have unprotected sex with chads while you are paying for it. do you understand where I'm going with this? why should we have to pay so that women can ride the cock carousal? it should be their own responsibility if they want to make poor choices.

EDIT: also I never said I was against abortion or birth control, I meant to say that I am against being the one who has to pay for it when it's not my own responsibility. why should I pay for someone else's poor choices? Any bad choices I make in life are held accountable to me and I'm am expected to make up for those poor choices, and I don't expect people to accommodate and make sacrifices because of my ignorance. why should it be any different for pregnancy? how about instead of encouraging women to fuck every chad in a 20 mile radius, we don't help them and let nature take it's course.

[–]NathanHollister[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterChris725-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterChris725-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterChris7250 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MasterChris7251 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

well it would be impossible with women being the majority of voters.we could take their voting rights away, but many would question this.so whatever solution I give you, us bitching about how much money we spend on taxes is completely up to women because men decided to simp up and let them take control.we could also red pill more men and encourage them to vote in elections.but I guess it's a matter of which direction is more realistic and a much easier task to perform.

but I guess in the end, people would much rather take care of everyone else and not themselves, which will result in a collapse in society.the more we encourage people to have unprotected sex the more taxes increase, which means we'll have less money in our own pockets for living expenses, which will greatly increase the homeless percentage.

[–]NathanHollister1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MasterChris7251 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NathanHollister1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do your taxes yourself and be creative with your write offs. You can get away with a lot, the IRS isn't going to look closely unless you are in the bottom (unemployed) or top (200k+) income. Use tax loss harvesting in your investments.

Make money by capital gains, do as little paid work as possible. Capital gains you pay 0-20%, most people will be paying 10%. When you work, you're paying a total of 30% tax MINIMUM. Learn how to trade stocks. You get to decide when you pay tax if you keep your money in stocks, because you only get taxed when you sell them. Also, if you hold them more than a year you'll pay no tax if your income is under 38k.

Do odd jobs for cash.

Buy used vehicles from friends or family and tell the state they are a gift.

If you have a lot of money ($1 million+ in assets), create a legal entity (generally a trust) that will take possession of your assets. You will be the CEO of your "company" and it will pay you a "salary" which is whatever amount of money you need to survive. Meanwhile, your investments in the company make money, and the company pays a much lower tax rate than you because it isn't subject to FICA, and has a lower income tax rate because of the deductions it can take. For example, you can't write off depreciation on your car, but if your trust owns your car, it can deduct that. Your trust can deduct just about anything.

Remember: for a worker, taxes come out before he gets to start buying things (you get paid and then spend, but the govt takes their cut before you get paid). For a business, taxes come out AFTER the business makes its purchases. So a business gets its "paycheck", buys whatever it needs, and then pays taxes on what's left. Also, the top business tax rate is 20%, compared to 36% for workers.

Don't have children or get married. Don't buy fancy cars Don't buy a house Don't buy stupid shit that you don't need.

The less you buy, the less you have to work and the less tax you pay.

[–]BlackFire680 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link