E
I was browsing 4chan’s /his/ and this is probably one of my finer moments (though I hesitate to pat myself on the back, as this was spur of the moment) the topic at hand was why, according to the OP, why (allegedly) so many “low-IQ” people join far right organizations. So I saw something in the sea of replies that struck my eye. it was a graph detailing IQ versus ideology, and they said:
”You don't need to get hysterical about psychological research. Openness correlates with both intelligence and liberalism. This is a very consistently reproducible result”.
and I replied with:
”does it really though? one would think that something as consequential as opening your borders to the third world would lead to massive lowering of wages and whole shtick about "the rich get richer" putting the entire nation in jeopardy and turning it in to a third world shithole would logically follow that if anyone values prosperity would be inclined to do its exact opposite....from this, it seems to show that even if someone's intellectual capacity is high on the totem pole they must have had to trade that with being a generally morally upstanding person, therefore being high IQ means you're a morally reprehensible person. am I getting there, buddy? one of the primary practices of science is in the field of ethics and if this is what it produces, then I'd rather be Amish.”
they said:
Aren't people who support open borders those who benefit from migration to a rich country or cheap labor?
I replied:
“yes who are less than a fraction of the population. that still doesn't account for anything about being morally righteous or anything. its no wonder a lot of them are Hebrews.”
Someone else stated, may have been a different person:
“I've read about 300 articles, it's always like this, more or less. It makes sense. More openness means less formulaic thinking, which makes people smarter because they are capable of non-trivial associations, and less conservative because they rely less on an overly certain environment. There are many other factors, of course, and they all exist in context, but the general skeleton, so to speak, is this. So the effect is somewhat limited, but it works well to explain marginal cases where the tail of the normal distribution of people fills certain niches, such as particularly obtuse neo-Nazis or particularly hysterical SJW activists. Some sort of disorder is required of them in order to be in that position. This becomes more difficult for moderates or those who are bogged down in ideology because of political machinations, or other “larping” reasons. It's not a simple thing at all, but it's not as complicated as people who deny it imagine.”
I replied to this:
“formulaic thinking has fuck all to do with intellectual capacity though. Some of the smartest people are fucking autistic to the hilt and manage to topple the IQs of so many people. Furthermore, if IQ correlates with things such as homosexuality, you would think gay people would know better than to engage in risky behavior that kills them like trading STDs and overdosing on expensive drugs which shorten the lifespan of so many of them. but its all relative, I guess being systematic is an example of low IQ behavior and nothing is going to change your line of thinking, even if it kills you. the biggest problem with being open and accepting of everything means you have no ideas that are distinctly your own, so have no filter for separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, of what works and what doesn't, it actual impedes intellectual growth and makes you short of becoming mindless and easily affected by your peers. Which follows that, going by that, nothing actually gets done and things relatively stay the same. this can be transferred to Max Weber's idea of the firm where eventually everything just becomes bogged down in bureaucracy over time and the system becomes completely inoperable to the point where the only way to relieve the population of a given state is to either overthrow it or slowly dismantle it, like in the case of post-Cold War Russia.”
something to ponder
”You don't need to get hysterical about psychological research. Openness correlates with both intelligence and liberalism. This is a very consistently reproducible result”.
and I replied with:
”does it really though? one would think that something as consequential as opening your borders to the third world would lead to massive lowering of wages and whole shtick about "the rich get richer" putting the entire nation in jeopardy and turning it in to a third world shithole would logically follow that if anyone values prosperity would be inclined to do its exact opposite....from this, it seems to show that even if someone's intellectual capacity is high on the totem pole they must have had to trade that with being a generally morally upstanding person, therefore being high IQ means you're a morally reprehensible person. am I getting there, buddy? one of the primary practices of science is in the field of ethics and if this is what it produces, then I'd rather be Amish.”
they said:
Aren't people who support open borders those who benefit from migration to a rich country or cheap labor?
I replied:
“yes who are less than a fraction of the population. that still doesn't account for anything about being morally righteous or anything. its no wonder a lot of them are Hebrews.”
Someone else stated, may have been a different person:
“I've read about 300 articles, it's always like this, more or less. It makes sense. More openness means less formulaic thinking, which makes people smarter because they are capable of non-trivial associations, and less conservative because they rely less on an overly certain environment. There are many other factors, of course, and they all exist in context, but the general skeleton, so to speak, is this. So the effect is somewhat limited, but it works well to explain marginal cases where the tail of the normal distribution of people fills certain niches, such as particularly obtuse neo-Nazis or particularly hysterical SJW activists. Some sort of disorder is required of them in order to be in that position. This becomes more difficult for moderates or those who are bogged down in ideology because of political machinations, or other “larping” reasons. It's not a simple thing at all, but it's not as complicated as people who deny it imagine.”
I replied to this:
“formulaic thinking has fuck all to do with intellectual capacity though. Some of the smartest people are fucking autistic to the hilt and manage to topple the IQs of so many people. Furthermore, if IQ correlates with things such as homosexuality, you would think gay people would know better than to engage in risky behavior that kills them like trading STDs and overdosing on expensive drugs which shorten the lifespan of so many of them. but its all relative, I guess being systematic is an example of low IQ behavior and nothing is going to change your line of thinking, even if it kills you. the biggest problem with being open and accepting of everything means you have no ideas that are distinctly your own, so have no filter for separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, of what works and what doesn't, it actual impedes intellectual growth and makes you short of becoming mindless and easily affected by your peers. Which follows that, going by that, nothing actually gets done and things relatively stay the same. this can be transferred to Max Weber's idea of the firm where eventually everything just becomes bogged down in bureaucracy over time and the system becomes completely inoperable to the point where the only way to relieve the population of a given state is to either overthrow it or slowly dismantle it, like in the case of post-Cold War Russia.”
something to ponder
