Is it a coincidence that the IQ sweet spot for criminality coincides with the IQ threshold for military recruitment (approximately 80), and is it a coincidence that this mirrors the position of the sweet spot for psychologically healthy people and also midwittery (approximately 120)?
-
Recent Posts
Neandersphere
Current (2019)
- Edenism Discord server
- Koanic's forum (Neanderhall 3)
- Vault-Co backup
- Tex's new blog (now 80% less navigable!)
- Koanic's Cyberpocalypse Now
- Better backup of Koanic Soul
- Fragmented backup of Koanic Soul
- Biceblog prime
- BorgoBicenizer
- Glosoli's blog
- Fox's blog
Drop me an OT comment if I need to update this.Prerequisites
- Ethos of the blog
- Trust between neighbors is the cultural basis of civilization.
- Texas Arcane 101
- Neanderthal theory of Asperger's (Rdos)
- Adaptivity decreases in upper ranges of IQ
- Male groups rise and decline according to a very predictable pattern
- MOPs, Geeks, and Sociopaths—another description of the historical pattern
- Psychometric adaptations of these cycles suggest the West is approaching an extinction-level event
- The extraverted personality is simply dopamine addiction to extrinsic "carrot and stick" motivators
- The M0 virus: Dopamine-addicted extraverts are broken, psychopathic predators whose populations follow Malthusian boom-bust patterns
- Jews explained: Traits of cosmopolitan elites and serfs with high (India, Europe) vs. low (China) average genetic distance
- Cosmopolitan religion converges to Zodiacism over time
- The deeply held conceits of the Last Man are a rational hedge against loss in a society where trust is deteriorating
Resources
Other stuff I read
Pay me
Archives
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
Meta
Where did you get that idea?
Thought of it while I was listening to Molyneux interview one of those biosocial criminology guys.
Well…recruiting-wise, it doesn’t work that way. there are 5 (really 7) mental categories, from the armed forces point of view: I, II, IIIa, IIIb, IVa, IVb, and V. I is very bright. V is essentially retarded. Generally speaking, the cut off is IIIa, which is at or above center of mass, call it an IQ of 100 to about 115 or so. IIIbs are sometimes let in, but don’t count on it. The slots for them are very tight. IIIbs generally don’t qualify for, for example, infantry. They’ll become cooks or cannon cockers, that kind of thing. IVas – who hover around that 80-85 IQ – are almost never allowed in. Just about every recruiter has a little list of IVas who have somehow impressed them enough to make it worth while to go through the trouble on the rare occasions. They’ll be guys who seem brighter than the test scores would indicate, or are the sort of kid who will play three quarters of a football game with a broken arm or whose parents the recruiter knows raised them exceptionally well. But, again, it is rare. We never had an allocation for even one IVa while I commanded a recruiting company, and I can only ever recall one tiny one when I was on brigade staff. In looking, I saw one allocation for 200 for the year, 7 years ago. Given a recruiting mission of, oh, must be about 50k per annum or so, now, that’s what we call statistically insignificant, and also heavily massaged and refined by the natural reluctance of recruiters to put kids in boot who are too dumb to make it through basic.
I didn’t realize you meant the recruitment part. I took that from Jordan Peterson, who says it’s illegal to draft someone with an IQ below 83.
I think the legal cutoff is 80. For 83, it’s draft or accept as a volunteer (though he seems to be discounting GT in relation to IQ; an 85 GT would equal an 83 IQ, IIRC). But that’s not generally relevant, because we take so few from near that range – and those fairly carefully selected and vetted – that it’s a statistical outlier and doesn’t really support the thesis you’re trying for. And it’s not, as he thinks, because there’s nothing we can do with them at that range or slightly below. Indeed, we could do quite a bit. It’s that they’re just so much harder to work with to get a useful result from that we’d rather not bother because, ya know, company commanders already have quite a bit on their plates.
wew lad……
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2613.htm
It probably means the earth is unusually hot at the moment.
So you actually believe in the 30 IQ humor gap?
>Is it a coincidence
No it’s not, the state needs thugs that can follow orders.
>So you actually believe in the 30 IQ humor gap?
More or less. There’s a general rule where if you’re in the top 1% of some trait it makes you blind to the problems of people who are average. Wealth and attractiveness are good examples. A wealthy person has no concept of a normal person’s woes. Game and PUA culturw are probably very confusing to people like George Clooney (“you’re making it too complicated, just say ‘yes, I really am the real George Clooney’ and they’ll sleep with you”).
Likewise, I majored in math and got the best grade in my class in the hardest course offered (at a 2nd-tier state college), but I’m not particularly interested in the subject. That’s just because I have great talent for quantitative abstraction. Most people struggle with it in ways I won’t understand.
>No it’s not, the state needs thugs that can follow orders.
I don’t think you understood the question. Why would 80 and 120 be local maxima for these two different expressions of solipsism?
Can you classify this guy, Aeoli?
I grabbed a side pic from that.
Some occipital, some parietal, deepish sockets, upward nose, big eyes. receding chin, Amud-shaped orbitals, longish face, and I notice his wrists are surprisingly thick for his frame. I’d put this guy in the Amud neanderthal box, particularly in the face, even though his skull doesn’t really stand out.
The issue is a loss of faith. You can’t trust a faithless spouse, so where there is no faith there is no trust. And where there is no trust, there is no industry.
“And where there is no trust, there is no industry.” big if true also stolen
That one’s not even controversial. The only real question, empirically, is whether any effect size left over from national IQ.
Bit of a non sequitor.
One you detree it, it is.
once