Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill [Serious][Theory]Normies: A Primer on the Theory of the Average Normalfag

What I was essentially trying to verify is that the individual scores corresponding to each type of intelligence can indeed be used to estimate g. However, after combining them into one number (one's IQ) this is no longer indicative of g. By (say) averaging the individual scores, you've lost any correlative information.
The scores on intelligence tasks in a test aren't averaged. The g-factor itself is what pops out when you do a factor analysis on all of the results of the different intelligence tasks. The tests for estimating g, like most standardized IQ tests, are quite valid and they're extremely reliable (correlation coefficient of 0.9, if I recall correctly).

The way I see it, .1 dm is indeed more precise than 1 cm, but a measurement of .1 dm is still not very precise. Something like 1.02 dm is already a bit preciser. But let's just agree to disagree at this point. We're just using the word differently.
I think this entry should clear up the difference.


Technically grouping by cognitive complexity is grouping by similarity (of conginitve complexity) but I understand why you interpreted "similarity" differently when I first mentioned it. So did I. What I'm worried about tho is that you'll potentially group very outwardly dissimilar motivators into the same group because they of could be of similar cognitive complexity.

Another thing I'd like you to elaborate on is what exactly you mean by "cognitive complexity". Which part of the brain is used? How much time it took the brain to decide?
The amount of effort, processing power, and energy spent when reasoning is far greater than responding to a fear stimulus. I'm not using it here as a strictly defined term, but more of a rough guideline. I think you can intuitively see that the two are not similar.
 
The scores on intelligence tasks in a test aren't averaged.
Then how do you end up with one IQ score from the several individual scores?
I think this entry should clear up the difference.

I understood what you meant. I guess I just don't like that they use "precision" instead of, say, "consistency". This makes the word "precision" quite ambivalent. And while ambivalence is fine for everyday speech, for more technical terms like "precision" I can't say I'm a fan.
The amount of effort, processing power, and energy spent when reasoning is far greater than responding to a fear stimulus. I'm not using it here as a strictly defined term, but more of a rough guideline. I think you can intuitively see that the two are not similar.
I get that. I just don't like how you use such a nebulous guideline to reduce the intricacies of human decision-making down to just five motivators. It makes the whole endeavor too arbitrary for my taste.
 
Then how do you end up with one IQ score from the several individual scores?
Using factor analysis or related statistical methods, it is possible to identify a single common factor that can be regarded as a summary variable characterizing the correlations between all the different tests in a test battery. Spearman referred to this common factor as the general factor, or simply g. (By convention, g is always printed as a lower case italic.) Mathematically, the g factor is a source of variance among individuals, which means that one cannot meaningfully speak of any one individual's mental abilities consisting of g or other factors to any specified degree. One can only speak of an individual's standing on g (or other factors) compared to other individuals in a relevant population.[13][14][15]

Different tests in a test battery may correlate with (or "load onto") the g factor of the battery to different degrees. These correlations are known as g loadings. An individual test taker's g factor score, representing their relative standing on the g factor in the total group of individuals, can be estimated using the g loadings. Full-scale IQ scores from a test battery will usually be highly correlated with g factor scores, and they are often regarded as estimates of g. For example, the correlations between g factor scores and full-scale IQ scores from David Wechsler's tests have been found to be greater than .95.[1][13][16] The terms IQ, general intelligence, general cognitive ability, general mental ability, or simply intelligence are frequently used interchangeably to refer to the common core shared by cognitive tests.[2]

I understood what you meant. I guess I just don't like that they use "precision" instead of, say, "consistency". This makes the word "precision" quite ambivalent. And while ambivalence is fine for everyday speech, for more technical terms like "precision" I can't say I'm a fan.

I get that. I just don't like how you use such a nebulous guideline to reduce the intricacies of human decision-making down to just five motivators. It makes the whole endeavor too arbitrary for my taste.
If it's not to your tastes and you don't like it, then OK I guess. Not much to do about that.
 
This thread will be a bit of a rough introductory analysis, as well as somewhat of a theoretical primer, on normies in an effort to try and better understand them, their motivations, and *how to efficiently navigate them in our daily lives. We all loosely know what they are. We see and deal with them practically everyday (full-time, LDARing NEETs excepted).
Apologies for the later response, but I have been busy.
But we generally don't think about normies and what makes them tick. Tbf, there isn't much to think about, so if this thread generally seems lacking, it's mostly by consequence, not by design. Mostly. I had originally intended this thread to be much more in-depth, but between water, dnr, and the subject matter itself, who here honestly gives that much of an intellectual fuck about normies? They are, by default, common and uninteresting, and so you wouldn't expect much attention on the subject.
They are both interesting, yet so boring

I think what I am trying to get at with that statement, is that whilst they generally live a life which consists of hedonism, degeneracy, selfishness, and general obliviousness and/or nonchalant reactions towards the various "happenings" of the world, we still wish we could be one of them: Normies are socially accepted, receive sex, and also validation from others which no matter how blackpilled and/or whitepilled we get will always be something we want due to our innate desire as humans.
*Thread may or may not include instructions.

Let's start with a definition.




This is a definition of normie, and though it's informal and slang (no shit), it's sufficiently comprehensive with which to construct a tentative operational definition.

A normie is a person who adopts the dominant cultural norms, values, ethics, and ideology of a given society. Each of norms, values, ethics, and ideology constitute a weighted variable (ranging from 0<=1). The mean of the sum is then taken and used to compute a person's normie index. A normie is then defined as a person having a normie index of at least 0.3.
Anymore on this? Sounds interesting, and it would be kind of funny to use it to calculate the "normie index" of my family & some acquaintances irl kek.

Could also help with catching some infiltrators also. :feelshehe:
I'm not going to delve any deeper into this and do the work, because A) this would be a full-blown paper, which I'm not incentivized to pursue, nor do I have any real reason to, B) I'm lazy, and C) fuck you, this is an internet forum, not a social science journal. My get-out-jail-free card is set to go.

I want to note here that, while there is some overlap between NPCs and normies, they're not the same.
:yes:

Most NPCs tend to be normies, but not all normies are NPCs, hence why we have terms such as "blackpilled normie" even though imo, a normie never can truly be blackpilled.

Simply, they will never undergo the experiences which we have due to our appearance & non-NT behavior, which will eventually push us to the blackpill.
An NPC is a person - lacking in individuality, yet ironically believing to be in possession of said attribute - who is preloaded with a set of thoughts and beliefs vis-à-vis cultural or systematic indoctrination.
Accurately summarizes 99% of the people at my College. :feelskek:

The ultimate way for NPCs to function how (((they))) want them to, is via installing within them the idea that they are intelligent individuals whom have a conscious of free-will, thus making them "free"

However, this could not be further from the truth, and many NPCs can never even begin to realize this due to just how "strong" the indoctrination has been upon them, combined with the fact that they were genetically pre-disposed to think this way.
Such thoughts and beliefs effectively serve as subroutines which direct their daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly lives. Normies differ in that their programming is not native and has degrees of latitude (though not much) that perturb, and allow deviation from, the bounds of what's considered "normal," hence the root. The difference is analogous to the distinction between psychopaths and sociopaths - similar, but different.
Effectively, this allows for a strong correlation between the two & allows for them to manifest itself: Yes, they do have a various difference in programming & think in different manners, yet they also tend to eventually arrive at a similar point in terms of their outlook on life, the world, etc.


Now I'm going to do something that some would consider to be extremely offensive, sophomoric, pedestrian, and possibly even profane ("the sacred and the propane"). I'm going to simplify all of human behavior and reduce it to a crudely distilled handful of motivations and drives. If you don't like that, I don't care, go fuck yourself (some of you are probably doing that right now as you're reading this... fucking degenerates).

Every single human being on earth is fundamentally motivated to do any given thing by one or more of the following things - five to be exact:

1. Reason.
2. Ideology.
3. Ego.
4. Sex.
5. Fear.

The astute amongst you have indubitably noticed the pattern contrived in this list. (I can feel your eyes rolling from reading that sentence. KEK) As the list ascends in number, it descends from the higher self to the lower self (it gets more and more debased - less prefrontal cortex and more limbic system, if you're so inclined)
This is true: The ones you stated at the top are only possible to attain via a higher conscious, level of thinking, etc. effectively, only whose who truly are "non-normie(doesn't mean an Incel or even blackpilled individual)" can ever truly have a motivation for it & actually amount to achieving it.

Think of all the great individuals throughout history whom we know today, do you think that they were actually normies? No, and they in some way were probably "blackpilled" and/or "pre-blackpilled" since in order for them to truly achieve any kind of these things we remember them for, they had to have the ability to think outside of the box & pursue something new, innovative, etc.
. You will also note the glaring ommission of wealth from this list. Why? Because wealth is a tool that always serves another purpose in the end. No one truly seeks to accrue wealth for its own sake, as this is illogical even in the most irrationally selfish of frameworks that would exemplify the spirit of Scrooge himself. Even the most insipid, idiotic, and juvenile of reasons ("I want to get rich so my neighbor stays poor") has at least ego and some kind of logic attached to it - however fucked up it may be.
:bigbrain::blackpill:

The material of wealth only exists in order to supplement the means which we
Another entry that is absent from this list is status. Like wealth, status is objective-oriented. That is, people want status because it feeds their ego and allows them access to sex through the perceived or actual access to resources.
Normies desire status in order to feel the warmth of acceptance, those whom are mentally "free" from the gripes of being an NPC & have been "enlightened" about the nature of humanity in someway will wish to attain it for reasons to advance that of their main goals, which ofc pertain to ego.
You may also have noticed (stop noticing things, goy) that ideology is listed as both a variable in the normie index and as a fundamental motivator. What gives? In the former case it's a measurement of the degree of alignment towards one specific ideology i.e., the dominant one in society, whereas in the latter case ideology is a category and not a variable.
Normies will merely adhere towards ideologies in order for it to offer them something: Be it the illusions of wealth, attainment of greater status, or anything which is able to guide them towards the illusions of attaining whatever they have been programmed to desire.
Normies are predominantly motivated by fear, sex, and ego. In uncommon cases they are motivated by ideology. Their normie index may be towards the lower bound, since the ideology that drives them may not be the dominant one e.g., a group of fervent communists that exist in a capitalist society is not unheard of, if your birth year doesn't start with a 2. And in outlying cases, they are motivated by reason, in which case they have a higher likelihood of diverging from "normalcy" altogether.
As I discerned above, normies are just guided by whatever appeals to their needs of adhering towards normalcy, and whatever can provide them with cheap & simple mental comfort.
How do we put all of this into practice? I have no fucking idea, mang, get off my nuts. The easist thing to do would probably be to decontexualize any of their behaviors that you would naturally dislike e.g., always finding some way to interject a conversation with the phrase, "my girlfriend/my boyfriend." It's to weasel in the status signal for the ego boost, in addition to the usual shit you'll have evo psych explain to you. "Look at me, I'm sexually desired and I get regular sex. That makes me better than you on some level." Of course, they never verbalize such an absurdly arrogant and cringey statement, but it's what they're subconciously communicating. They're not necessarily saying that kind of shit because you're around (though that might make it more convenient), but because someone is around.

So there you go, buddy boyos. The next time you think to yourself, "God, I fucking hate normies," you'll now understand why.
I think that I was aware of this on a subconscious level: However, as with most blackpilled things, we need to hear it for the pieces to fall into place.

Good read, will perhaps respond to what other said here.
 

Similar threads

Moroccancel2-
Replies
36
Views
484
lifesucksandyoudie
lifesucksandyoudie
L
Replies
5
Views
141
looksmaxxertheguy
L
P
Replies
3
Views
158
Logic55
Logic55
Cobscell
Replies
3
Views
205
NiggerSlayer
NiggerSlayer
R
Replies
6
Views
225
Regressive
Regressive

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top