ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Global enstupidation

Forget the myth of progress. The entire world is literally getting dumber every day:
Wherever you look: junk science, universities corrupted with bogus “studies” departments, politicians peddling discredited nostrums a moment's critical thinking reveals to be folly, an economy built upon an ever-increasing tower of debt that nobody really believes is ever going to be paid off, and the dearth of major, genuine innovations (as opposed to incremental refinement of existing technologies, as has driven the computing, communications, and information technology industries) in every field: science, technology, public policy, and the arts, it often seems like the world is getting dumber. What if it really is?

That is the thesis explored by this insightful book, which is packed with enough “hate facts” to detonate the head of any bien pensant academic or politician. I define a “hate fact” as something which is indisputably true, well-documented by evidence in the literature, which has not been contradicted, but the citation of which is considered “hateful” and can unleash outrage mobs upon anyone so foolish as to utter the fact in public and be a career-limiting move for those employed in Social Justice Warrior-converged organisations. (An example of a hate fact, unrelated to the topic of this book, is the FBI violent crime statistics broken down by the race of the criminal and victim. Nobody disputes the accuracy of this information or the methodology by which it is collected, but woe betide anyone so foolish as to cite the data or draw the obvious conclusions from it.)

In April 2004 I made my own foray into the question of declining intelligence in “Global IQ: 1950–2050” in which I combined estimates of the mean IQ of countries with census data and forecasts of population growth to estimate global mean IQ for a century starting at 1950. Assuming the mean IQ of countries remains constant (which is optimistic, since part of the population growth in high IQ countries with low fertility rates is due to migration from countries with lower IQ), I found that global mean IQ, which was 91.64 for a population of 2.55 billion in 1950, declined to 89.20 for the 6.07 billion alive in 2000, and was expected to fall to 86.32 for the 9.06 billion population forecast for 2050. This is mostly due to the explosive population growth forecast for Sub-Saharan Africa, where many of the populations with low IQ reside.

This is a particularly dismaying prospect, because there is no evidence for sustained consensual self-government in nations with a mean IQ less than 90.

But while I was examining global trends assuming national IQ remains constant, in the present book the authors explore the provocative question of whether the population of today's developed nations is becoming dumber due to the inexorable action of natural selection on whatever genes determine intelligence. The argument is relatively simple, but based upon a number of pillars, each of which is a “hate fact”, although non-controversial among those who study these matters in detail.
Fourmilab's reviews are always insightful and worth reading in their entirety. And I don't just say that because he has spoken well of one or two of my books.

Labels: ,

132 Comments:

Blogger Shimshon February 27, 2019 8:44 AM  

Actually, he reviewed both SJWAL and SJWADD.

https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/?book=1021

https://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2018-10/001788.html

Blogger Shimshon February 27, 2019 8:48 AM  

"Fourmilab's reviews are always insightful and worth reading in their entirety. And I don't just say that because he has spoken well of one or two of my books."

His review was so full of his own observations and commentary on the subject that I forgot it was actually a book review well before the end. (I don't mean this negatively.)

Blogger Unknown February 27, 2019 8:52 AM  

A relatively small number of highly intelligent people is needed to drive innovation. Loom at Greece. Look at Europe from 1500-1950. The number of such people alive today is much higher globally than during all the great periods of innovation has never known, even if global IQ has been drastically declining f poo r a few decades.

Whatever is driving the decline of innovation, there is no chance that it is declining IQ.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len February 27, 2019 9:01 AM  

@3 - It would behoove you to read what Fourmilab actually wrote: "If we consider an IQ of 145 as genius level, in a population of a million with a mean IQ of 100, one in 741 people will have an IQ of 145 or above, so there will be around 1350 people with such an IQ. But if the population's mean IQ is 95, just five points lower, only one in 2331 people will have a genius level IQ, and there will be just 429 potential geniuses in the population of a million. In a population of a million with a mean IQ of 90, there will be just 123 potential geniuses."

Blogger nbfdmd February 27, 2019 9:13 AM  

Supposedly Africa is going to quadruple in population to 4 billion by the end of the century. I can't see this coming to pass. What are they going to do? Cut down the rain forest and turn the entire continent into a giant Lagos? What will they eat? Is this Malthus' revenge?

@3: I wouldn't use Greece as an example of innovation. Aside from philosophy and mathematics, they didn't accomplish much. Even the Romans didn't accomplish much outside of law and civics. You don't really see a lot of innovation in Europe until the 15th century onwards.

A statistic I would want to see is the IQ trend of high IQ populations, especially white Europeans.

Blogger VD February 27, 2019 9:19 AM  

Whatever is driving the decline of innovation, there is no chance that it is declining IQ.

You don't know what you're talking about. Stop opining in ignorance and learn to read the linked pieces before you comment.

And try to remember that most of the people here are smarter than you are. If you think you're "setting people straight", you almost certainly failed to understand something pertinent.

Blogger Servant February 27, 2019 9:22 AM  

@unknown

What len is talking about is the critical saturation levels. Basically dropping five points cuts your chances that the happy accident of a smart person identifying a problem, solving the problem, and bringingthe solution to market.

Not sure how much of this matters. We've lied to them how to make money weve lied to them how to attract a woman, leaving that in the most cynical of hands, tradcons want their little girl to ride the carosel before settling down with a husband. The culture is in such a state of decadence it's a wonder it hasn't collapsed already.

Blogger OneWingedShark February 27, 2019 9:28 AM  

Unknown wrote:Whatever is driving the decline of innovation, there is no chance that it is declining IQ.
Part of it probably is IQ, but I would wager that a far bigger part is how intellectual property is handled. Nowadays, it's standard for employment contracts to have a "we own everything you ever produce"-style clauses with the 'more generous' ones constraining it with a limitation like "on company time". These clauses are written so broadly that in my last job (Systems Analyst + some programming) if I had written a book on the weekends the company would have a claim on it.

Blogger Warunicorn February 27, 2019 9:34 AM  

This is definitely evident in the so-called "arts" of today. e.g., "Musicians" who can't read basic music notation on a piece of paper. One would think that if one is going to pursue such an art, one would try to at least bother to get the basics down, but I guess it's gangbangers all the way down nowadays.

*sigh*

This is not going to end well, that's for sure.

Blogger Nate February 27, 2019 9:43 AM  

"This is a particularly dismaying prospect, because there is no evidence for sustained consensual self-government in nations with a mean IQ less than 90."

hold on... The mean IQ of india has got to be well below 90... and has self governed since 1947. is someone playing games with the word consensual here?

Blogger Bogey February 27, 2019 9:44 AM  

The next thing I suspect they will do is remove race from FBI crime statistics.

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 9:48 AM  

Unknown wrote:Whatever is driving the decline of innovation, there is no chance that it is declining IQ.

Yes it is. It's the decline in IQ, plus the ideology (yours) that tries to pretend IQ doesn't exist and isn't an explanatory factor for any social phenomena ever.

There is a reason IQ is the epicentre for most other lies. One of the seven deadly lies. It is after all one of Jordan Peterson's primary lies accompanied by the corollary daughter lies. Because we have to pretend the mean IQ of one particular group of people is much higher then it is, that make-believe has to flow all the one down the curve. Except of course, in the middle - otherwise certain social configurations appear to be the result of chicanery not merit.

As the other posters have told you if an average declines outliers decline. There goes your innovation.

Then combine the loss in raw cognitive power with the stultifying effects of the make-believe of pretending it isn't happening. Watching society today is like watching an affirmative action NHS doctor in Surrey seeing a patient with a massive Glioblastoma blame headaches on high cholesterol and recommend eating more spicy food.

Blogger sammibandit February 27, 2019 9:49 AM  

A lot of this could be solved by doctoring aid MRE with compounds that sterilize the diner. I was reading Amren and since the 1960s America has pumped in billions into Somolia, a country with no political representation at the state level. How could they possibly redress being sterilized by aid? Any action could be met with force.

Recall that aid ought not to come without strings.

Blogger nbfdmd February 27, 2019 9:51 AM  

@10: India is only de jure "democratic". It's mostly held together by the caste system. If the lower castes actually tried to participate in politics as equals, the country would fall apart very quickly. Fortunately for them, the caste system is so deeply embedded in their cultural DNA that it will never happen.

Blogger Bogey February 27, 2019 9:52 AM  

..by the way that Darkstream was eye opening last night. The freedom of speech being more about non serviam was pretty hard hitting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKqZT8-9WUQ

Blogger Johnny February 27, 2019 9:52 AM  

The thing about innovation is that most societies don't promote it and a great many are against it because the establishment views it as a threat. And so it doesn't much matter how smart the population is, if the incentive or opportunity isn't there.

Except for a few weirdo Europeans who want to import them, the expanding sub Saharan African population isn't a threat to anybody but itself. There is a certain amount of evidence that the "Rwandan genocide" was to some extent internally generated. With the war with the Tutsi ongoing, it created an opportunity for some of the Hutu to expand there property ownership by diminishing the number of property owners. Lets call it a crude form of population control.

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 9:59 AM  

https://www.unz.com/article/perhaps-surprisingly-indians-really-arent-that-intelligent-on-average/?highlight=Indian+IQ

Here is all the latest and greatest on Indian IQ. David Becker in Chemnitz is apparently compiling current national IQ's and updating Richard Lynn's. India's division into distinct geographically segregated and clustered genetic nations means the higher IQ regions in the South and on the coast can self-govern successfully. But at a national level governance means subsistence not innovation.

Blogger Bogey February 27, 2019 10:01 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Warunicorn February 27, 2019 10:03 AM  

Speaking of low IQ: I just heard in my neck of the woods that a woman here illegally from Brazil accosted a man wearing a MAGA hat at a Mexican restaurant in Falmouth (Cape Cod). She's now being detained by ICE and faces deportation.

The kicker? She says she's sorry and that she had too much to drink and that she is the victim.

/crying with laughter

Blogger thalios February 27, 2019 10:08 AM  

Everything is a mediocracy now. To be anything more than mediocre (at work, at church, socially, etc.) eventually means you're some form of ist/ism that is to be shunned and silenced.

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 27, 2019 10:13 AM  

A lot of this could be solved by doctoring aid MRE with compounds that sterilize the diner.

Surely we can put our big brains together and come up with better solutions than treating human beings like farm animals.

Blogger sammibandit February 27, 2019 10:14 AM  

Pastoralists verses horticulturalists afaik with that conflict.

Blogger Johnny February 27, 2019 10:15 AM  

>>The mean IQ of india has got to be well below 90... and has self governed since 1947...

Self governed means only that they are not being run by a foreign power. And democracy is so easily faked that doesn't say much merely to note that the form of it is in place.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch February 27, 2019 10:19 AM  

A population with a declined IQ might fare better under a monarchy. Democracy with large unintelligent populations seems like it'd be a disaster.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch February 27, 2019 10:21 AM  

The above was in response to this quote from the article: "there is no evidence for sustained consensual self-government in nations with a mean IQ less than 90."

Blogger sammibandit February 27, 2019 10:22 AM  

>Surely we can put our big brains together and come up with better solutions than treating human beings like farm animals.

Surely we can eschew moral high ground when it's clear that the high ground isn't sought by our adversary. We would only be trying to impress ourselves. I wager that's exactly what the problem is, with mass foreign aid being a symptom.

Besides, if we can't raise uncomfortable ideas how are we supposed to innovate solutions? I notice you don't have an idea yourself.

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 10:24 AM  

I suspect that our decline when it comes to innovation can be attributed to a reduction in religious beliefs. Life becomes about the here and now for most of the population but especially so for the more intelligent types. They in turn are “smart enough” not to have kids, which will only serve to hamper their here and now fun, they only work hard enough to live comfortably, no need to get distracted with the hours and hours that greatnesses would require. The dumb ones in the population also want to live in the here and now but they fail to use contraception, have kids and end up raising them halfheartedly. The cycle repeats.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 27, 2019 10:30 AM  

@3. Unknown
A relatively small number of highly intelligent people is needed to drive innovation

1. As @4 and others pointed out, small changes in the mean make a big difference in the right tail.

2. Which matters more, absolute numbers? Or percentage of the population? It's not enough to have a few geniuses to come up with innovations -- you need people to implement them, too.
See La Griffe Du Lion's "Smart fraction" theory.

Whatever is driving the decline of innovation, there is no chance that it is declining IQ.

The form of this naked assertion -- "I don't know what's causing B, but I'm absolutely sure it's not A" -- makes it clear that it is a profession of faith, rather than an empirically-based conclusion.

@11 Bogey
The next thing I suspect they will do is remove race from FBI crime statistics

Yeah, it's the obvious next step to maintain the narrative. More efficient than banning anyone who mentions those stats from social media, which is what they do now. Many European countries don't track offenders by race.

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 10:30 AM  

Johnny wrote:The thing about innovation is that most societies don't promote it and a great many are against it because the establishment views it as a threat.

I'm not so sure. Due to fiat money expansion and consequent capital value inflation - huge amounts of mobile cash are chasing return when interest rates are often below inflation.

Raising capital today actually is easier then it's been probably since the Clinton 90's. So the fundamentals are such that regardless of establishment preferences, you should expect to see innovation. The fact we don't see it I think is because of the inhibition of lowering IQ's, post-Christianity and the Robert Putnam effect.

I also think these huge swells of mobile cash holders do want innovation, but only so they can effectively 'land-bank' it, and take-and-hold. That's another reason VD is the man - because he hasn't cashed out. A lot of people cash out man. A lot of people.

I keep a running tally of new technologies mentioned on Instapundit and Drudge Report. I have a feeling that there probably is a high degree of innovation occurring - but it's at an IQ and socio-economic level that segregates it from the general population. Which leaves us back at average IQ.

Blogger Johnny February 27, 2019 10:36 AM  

I suppose using this IQ stuff is a useful way of thinking about things, but not always. The data isn't all that accurate.

With only the rarest exception, and it is extremely rare, statistical analysis depends on a normal distribution, or what can be called the bell curve. The difficulty is that lots of things in life don't actually conform in distribution to the bell curve. And outliers are especially given to not conforming. Frequently there are "fat tails," more events at the extremes then expected. Or something cuts the tails off entirely. No tails at all, so to speak.

In human intelligence it is entirely predictable that there will be a fat tail at the stupid end. That is because things like malnutrition, disease, or injury will cause a certain number of people to under perform their native IQ ability. Thus you get a fat tail on the stupid end. Or perhaps it is the IQ of a group of students in a classroom, and the real stupid ones are off in 'special needs' and don't even get tested.

As for what is being discussed here, unless we know what the distribution of the intelligence curve is in India (fat tail?), and we know who was tested, I wouldn't take that measure of the average IQ of somebody from India as anything like a reliable predictor of how many really smart people there are in India.

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 27, 2019 10:37 AM  

I notice you don't have an idea yourself.

I didn't say we should aid them at all. Stop thinking we can or should "fix" their material situation. Let them sink or swim on their own with whatever human dignity they can muster, and ignore them unless they try to cross our borders.

The desire to sterilize them comes from the same globalist mindset as the desire to build cities for them to squat in. There's no moral high ground in either.

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 10:40 AM  

nbfdmd wrote:A statistic I would want to see is the IQ trend of high IQ populations, especially white Europeans.

https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-flynn-effect-rising-iq-scores-over.html

Here you go. From Mr Flynn of Flynn effect fame himself - and studies looking at Norwegian males' results on national service tests from 1970 - 2009.

I love this bit the most:

"The results show that large positive and negative trends in cohort IQ operate within as well as across families. This implies that the trends are not due to a changing composition of families, and that there is at most a minor role for explanations involving genes (e.g., immigration and dysgenic fertility) and environmental factors largely fixed within families (e.g., parental education, socialization effects of low-ability parents, and family size). While such factors may be present, their influence is negligible compared with other environmental factors."

It's NOT IMMIGRATION okay? Negligible.

What makes me laugh about these kind of desperate cries is that if it's within families not between families and NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION it must be due to things like fluoride and estrogen in the water, thimerosal in vaccinations, plastic endocrine disrupters, food contaminants, and cultural marxism.

It actually has to be - if it isn't due to genetic changes, and within family variables like educational level are 'minor factors'.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 27, 2019 10:54 AM  

@30
IQ is known to have fatter tails than a strictly normal distribution.

Part of the problem with India is that it is not really a single nation, but dozens, or perhaps hundreds of nations, so modeling it as a single population may not really be appropriate.

This is a decent review of data on Indian IQ:
IQs of Indians

And the Indian vs. Chinese war in the comments is kind of comical...

Blogger Avalanche February 27, 2019 11:02 AM  

@21 "Surely we can put our big brains together and come up with better solutions than treating human beings like farm animals."

Even when they are? Read again (as many times as you need to understand) at these numbers that "Not Len" quoted:

what Fourmilab actually wrote: "If we consider an IQ of 145 as genius level, in a population of a million with a mean IQ of 100, one in 741 people will have an IQ of 145 or above, so there will be around 1350 people with such an IQ. But if the population's mean IQ is 95, just five points lower, only one in 2331 people will have a genius level IQ, and there will be just 429 potential geniuses in the population of a million. In a population of a million with a mean IQ of 90, there will be just 123 potential geniuses."

The average IQ in many african "states" is 65-70. TRY to imagine what that means for ... is there such a thing as negative-numbers of geniuses? And that is CURRENT day, when White countries are pouring food and medical aid into all of them!

Old Dollar-Bill Gates has saved MILLIONS of unable to feed- and care-for-themselves FARM ANIMALS... who continue to breed and send their rootless violent young males to OUR countries... It is a KINDNESS to poison them off by sterility; instead of Hutu's and Tutsi's cutting of each others' arms; or 'stealing' once-fertile farmland by raping, torturing, and killing the SAfrican White farmers who once FED those farm animals and leaving them to starve...

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 11:09 AM  

Avalanche wrote:The average IQ in many african "states" is 65-70.

And yet it is the African Methodists who are resisting globo-homo. They all have to go back. Coal-burning leads to pollution. But still, they aren't animals. Just incompatible human beings.

Blogger xevious2030 February 27, 2019 11:16 AM  

@8 Add to that, in the US, the length of time kept out of the public domain, decades after the death, or such. It was supposed to be innovate, profit some, and move on to introduce another innovation because it is now in the public domain. The whole purpose of government protection was (at least claimed to be) to encourage bringing the innovation to the public domain (rather than remaining a trade secret), not to be an ongoing cash cow. And without that agreement, no reasonable addition to the public domain, no protection. It does not overshadow IQ, the basic starting place, but it contributes to the stagnation of innovation.

@ 3 I don’t know the comparative IQ of the population of ancient Greece to today. The average individual of their day might have scored higher on a test of today than the average individual of today, or not. Given the amount of innovation, and the difficulty in survival and of civilization, it is almost assured their average person would score higher than the average person today. Yes, people with lower IQ can innovate, especially overly simple things high IQs tend to overlook or dismiss or not focus on, but lower IQ people don’t do nearly as well with the multitude of complex innovation as higher IQ people do. Many complex solutions from a variety of people, and smaller population, point to greater general capacity to comprehend creatively.

Blogger Avalanche February 27, 2019 11:16 AM  

@30 "Or perhaps it is the IQ of a group of students in a classroom, and the real stupid ones are off in 'special needs' and don't even get tested."

My less-than-perfect understanding of stats still blows that off into uselessness! *Unless you're suggesting segrgating the lowest IQ -- and then only testing them to form the class/nation's Bell Curve?? Nah, you can't be suggesting that.)

The ("less-stupid" -- cause I don't agree with your "non-stupid" word choice) students LEFT in the classroom would form a pretty normal Bell curve too, assuming there were enough students. Using the class as a proxy for a country/nation, there WOULD be enough students/data. If the stupidest 'tail' of the nation were 'cut off' (sent to the dummy's classroom); those remaining would STILL form a Bell Curve, and you'd have a remaining curve wherein the highest tail would actually move UP toward a higher score... (essentially, the whole "curve" would move rightward, the average would come up slightly, and the highest scores would be slightly higher.

So, in a country of 67-average-IQ, the new/truncated Bell Curve caused by slicing off the tail of those at the bottom: (say, the 45-55 IQ cohort) would leave you with a new average of approximately what? 73? 75? And the genius level would creep up to 1 guy out of the whole country with a 105?!

Not quite the new Nobel winner pool!

Blogger Blacksmith Zeke February 27, 2019 11:19 AM  

Johnny wrote:Except for a few weirdo Europeans who want to import them, the expanding sub Saharan African population isn't a threat to anybody but itself...

You think the Europeans are given a choice about importing them? You think the Americans will be given a choice about importing them? That's funny.

Blogger Avalanche February 27, 2019 11:22 AM  

@30 "... things like malnutrition, disease, or injury will cause a certain number of people to under perform their native IQ ability. Thus you get a fat tail on the stupid end."

Oh yeah -- the NATIONAL IQ will still be affected BY the stupid people no matter the cause. If malnutrition and disease cause blunted intelligence -- but the unblunted intelligence is STILL too low to manage agriculture and social structure formation -- so what?

And as western countries import millions of these stunted and/or naturally low-IQ people, WE, too, will lose the ability to (maintain a society able to) send them food and meds... so - there is NO cure. Loping off the fat tail of stupids just means...

nothing.

Blogger Nate February 27, 2019 11:24 AM  

"This is a particularly dismaying prospect, because there is no evidence for sustained consensual self-government in nations with a mean IQ less than 90."

There is not damned thing about democracy in this statement.

Blogger Unknown February 27, 2019 11:26 AM  

Its not actually a very controversial statement, and its undeniable.

The world today contains far more highly intelligent people than during periods of great innovation. It's simply a mathematical fact.

Germany today, for instance, has more smart people in absolute terms than it did during its periods of great innovation. So does America. So does any developed nation.

Anyone who does not understand this, does not grasp basic arithmetic.

Its also undeniable that innovation has been declining in the past few decades. But it is clear that whatever is driving this decline can't be a relatively modest decline in global IQ that is only decades long.

In absolute terms, there are undoubtedly more smart people today in America the in the late 19th century, yet Americans were far more innovative then.

This merely proves that innovation is driven by things other than just ability - motivation and desire for accomplishment probably being primary.

I am always amused when people say the immigration of low IQ people to America will lead to a decline in high level performance. Lol, it's not like the high ability people already in America will just vanish. They will just become a smaller fraction of the whole. Immigration won't affect their absolute numbers. Some people can't understand the difference between fractions and relative size, and absolute numbers.

There are good reasons to oppose immigration, but if we want to enlist intelligent people to our side we can't make stupid arguments that only appeal to people who can't do math.

Vox - would love to respond, but your comment is just posturing and no substance.

Blogger Dave February 27, 2019 11:30 AM  

Nate wrote:"This is a particularly dismaying prospect, because there is no evidence for sustained consensual self-government in nations with a mean IQ less than 90."

There is not damned thing about democracy in this statement.


Well, what is his definition of sustained, also?

Blogger justaguy February 27, 2019 11:37 AM  

Absent the “A Rand great man crap above, it seems that we had a few brief times where innovations were allowed to flourish if they a practical applicability and the common man could discover them. The “system” for innovation, the Royal Academy of Science, or academia now, didn’t find these innovations. The industrial revolution was not state led, but somehow we went from a few waterwheels to mechanized production in Northern Europe. Of course the scholars have been arguing the reason why ever since (I like Mc Closkey’s idea of middle class values). But once the ideas and environment allowed-ideas flourished.

The next set of innovation was at the end of the 18th century—and again the practical application of what was known this time leavened with some academic discoveries (i.e. Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc.—the basics of engineering and material science). Here again, it wasn’t the brightest- although their theories helped, but Edison wasn’t the brightest in making GE, he merely took Tesla’s ideas and applied them. Of course, again in an innovation friendly environment.

Today, with the bureaucratic control of academia, everything except some engineering is controlled by central government boards—so of course nothing gets discovered except by the few rebels. However, again innovation came from computers where then practical application in garages could lead to useful applications. Think how Apple and Microsoft out-maneuvered HP and IBM. Same with those who got ahead in the internet world- once readily available knowledge could be easily applied in a friendly environment a bunch of guys made ebay, amazon, netscape etc.

So, while we need relatively smart everyday guys in the world to discover and apply the next innovations, it doesn’t have to be and really never was a bunch of Einsteins. Your small decrease in the average IQ still gives enough smart ones to innovate—more important is whether or not the environment is friendly for innovation, especially when we aren’t sure what a friendly environment is like. So worry more about the government than the people says the small “l” reformed libertarian .

Blogger nbfdmd February 27, 2019 11:38 AM  

@41: I would argue that the fraction matters more than the absolute number. If the high IQ people are scattered and surrounded by low IQ people, they're not going to be as innovative as if they were able to live in large, slightly-above-average communities, like small town USA circa 1960. The presence of chimps has a dampening effect on innovation.

Blogger Johnny February 27, 2019 11:41 AM  

@37
>>My less-than-perfect understanding of stats still blows that off into uselessness! *Unless you're suggesting segrgating the lowest IQ -- and then only testing them to form the class/nation's Bell Curve?? Nah, you can't be suggesting that.)

I am not "suggesting" anything. And that is not me, that is you inferring what you think I am suggesting.

What I am doing is stating that unless you test the the entire population you don't have a measure of the entire population. You have a measure of the subset that you tested.

>>If the stupidest 'tail' of the nation were 'cut off' (sent to the dummy's classroom); those remaining would STILL form a Bell Curve,

The term "bell curve" in this context refers to a normal distribution. And if you cut off a tail, exclude data, you don't get a normal distribution, and thus not the bell curve in this context.

And if you will pardon my bluntness, you are correct when you assert you have a less than perfect understanding. Take the scores, add them together, and divide by the number of scores. That gives you a mean value, but does not automatically produce a normal distribution. Lacking that you can not use the math to predict the number of outliers. It is both mean and distribution, not one or the other.



Blogger Jack Amok February 27, 2019 11:43 AM  

Even the Romans didn't accomplish much outside of law and civics.

Engineering. They built bridges that are still standing today. You're flirting with being the straight man in a Monty Python skit.

Whatever is driving the decline of innovation, there is no chance that it is declining IQ.

Of course it is. A few years ago, a milblogger had a post on the futility of building power plants for Afghanistan. The average IQ there is 85. Based on ASVAB scored needed for various specializations, he estimated you needed an IQ of 112 to be a power plant technician. That's about +1 SD for Northern Europeans, but almost +2 SD for Afghanis. That means there's a limited supply of potential power plant techs.

There's still plenty enough 112 IQ Afghanis though to run the power plants we built them... except... except for the fact that that same limited pool of candidates also has to supply the doctors, engineers, technicians in other industries, entrepreneurs, leaders and all the other smarts-required occupations necessary to run a modern society that can actually make use of power plants. When you add in all the demands, which scale in response to the size of the population, there aren't enough +2SD people to do everything.

And any smart person who's had to work with idiots can tell you how much of a hindrance they are. Even well-intentioned, non-argumentative ones require a ton of oversight and put a major drag on the productive of the smart people. When you add in the obstinate Dunning-Kreuger ones who think they know what they're doing and don't follow directions, it's mess.


Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke February 27, 2019 11:46 AM  

Influence conditions that would allow for Gavelkind succession in land, or to a point where there is no "issue". And an improvement or maintenance in "living standards".

Replace corrupt councils, with manorial estates and or churches.

Something perhaps akin to a Jeffersonian decentralisation.

Brilliant individuals to start organisations to bring like minded people together personally and mentally, something like the 18th Century The Spectator or similar projects. Instead of the current Tower of Babel.

Or adopt a Turkic succession; strangulation of unfortunate male heirs, bury excess daughters in the backyard.

------------- From Wikipedia

In Number 10, Mr. Spectator states that The Spectator will aim "to enliven morality with wit, and to temper wit with morality". The journal reached an audience of thousands of people every day, because "the Spectators was something that every middle-class household with aspirations to looking like its members took literature seriously would want to have."[2] He hopes it will be said he has "brought philosophy out of closets and libraries, schools, and colleges, to dwell in clubs and assemblies, at tea-tables and coffee–houses". Women specifically were also a target audience for The Spectator, because one of the aims of the periodical was to increase the number of women who were "of a more elevated life and conversation." Steele states in The Spectator, No. 10, "But there are none to whom this paper will be more useful than to the female world."[3] He recommends that readers of the paper consider it "as a part of the tea-equipage" and set aside time to read it each morning.[4] The Spectator sought to provide readers with topics for well-reasoned discussion, and to equip them to carry on conversations and engage in social interactions in a polite manner.[5] In keeping with the values of Enlightenment philosophies of their time, the authors of The Spectator promoted family, marriage, and courtesy.

Blogger gunner451 February 27, 2019 11:46 AM  

It is all about culture, from the 15th century on wards you had the protestant revolution which brought truth and a desire for finding the truth to the forefront in most of Europe (and later parts of the Americas dominated by non-Catholic religions). It was that culture of a belief in a God that could be known and a certainty that God had created a logical and knowable creation that allowed people of high IQ to advance the knowledge base and technology beyond what had been the current limits up until that time.


We no longer have that kind of culture, today we live in a world where truth is not the ultimate ideal but conformance to PC doctrine and with the attempt to not offend people with the maturity of a 13 year old girl and with about as much emotional stability as well. Even with a population rich with high IQ people they can't advance innovation in that kind of environment.

Technology is going forward but the West is no longer the driver, the East has taken up some of it but even then it looks to be more momentum carrying us forward at this time than anything else. I fully expect us to start to lose what we have as time goes on and for the west to decline back down to mud huts some time in the not too distant future. A good example of that is the here in Los Angeles where they decided (based on AOCs green new deal) that they would not fund refurbishment of 3 natural gas power generators but will hope the non-carbon solutions will magically appear sometime in the near future. This dooms LA as without a reliable source of power the entire basin will descend into chaos.

Blogger Jack Amok February 27, 2019 11:48 AM  

Anyone who does not understand this, does not grasp basic arithmetic.

Stop doubling down. Go read my comment at #46 about Afghan power plant techs and see if that explains it to you.

Blogger Johnny February 27, 2019 11:48 AM  

Blacksmith Zeke wrote:Johnny wrote:Except for a few weirdo Europeans who want to import them, the expanding sub Saharan African population isn't a threat to anybody but itself...

You think the Europeans are given a choice about importing them? You think the Americans will be given a choice about importing them? That's funny.


I usually overlook it when people misread what I write, but I can't help myself this time. Your reading comprehension is just so low. Did you not notice the word "few."

>>You think the Americans will be given a choice about importing them?

The only accurate thing about this sentence is the question mark at the end. You don't know what my opinion is because I didn't assert one. Nor did I suggest one. And if it gives you pleasure, all I can say is that it must be nice to be so easily pleased.

Blogger Primus Pilus February 27, 2019 11:49 AM  

The IQ of the overall population matters. A genius surrounded by a higher IQ population will get the chance to exercise his IQ, because society will be capable of recognizing the genius and have an infrastructure in which his innovations can be executed.

A genius forced to live in the primate house at the zoo for the rest of his life will never accomplish anything.

The idea that the raw number of geniuses is the only thing that matters, even if each one is surrounded by an ocean of imbeciles, is ridiculous on its face.

Blogger Unknown February 27, 2019 11:50 AM  

@nbfmd

Sure, but high ability people aren't scattered. They always concentrate in large urban centers in developed nations, and this process is actually accelerating. Immigration of low ability people probably actually drives this process as well.

Look, having too wide a disparity in terms of ability between different sections of the population is unwise politically and socially, and may in really extreme cases lead to such dysfunction that high ability performance suffers. But even then the problem is political, not about declining innate ability.

Hispanic immigration to the US is of people who are only modestly below ability on whites, and unlikely to create these extremes anyways.

There are good reasons to oppose Hispanic immigration as well immigration of the highly intelligent. But if we make mathematically illiterate arguments, we only make ourselves look stupid.

Blogger Jack Amok February 27, 2019 11:52 AM  

Alternately, Unknown, you could read the linked article and find this point:

"...intelligence eventually reached a critical mass which led to the industrial revolution, due to a sufficiently large number of genius intellects alive at the same time and an intelligent workforce who could perform the jobs needed to build and operate the new machines."

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 11:54 AM  

Unknown wrote:But even then the problem is political, not about declining innate ability.



What is average national IQ? A measure of aggregate innate ability.

Is it going up or down? It's going down. So innate ability is declining.

How can you read what VD linked to and everything else showing the average dropping like a stone, and then say innate ability isn't declining?

Blogger Unknown February 27, 2019 11:54 AM  

"The IQ of the overall population matters. A genius surrounded by a higher IQ population will get the chance to exercise his IQ, because society will be capable of recognizing the genius and have an infrastructure in which his innovations can be executed."

Only true in really extreme cases where the absolute number if geniuses is too low.

In reality, if a developed country has a certain absolute number of geniuses and the infrastructure to utilize them, and a track record of doing so, immigration is not going to lead to any kind of decline in high level performance.

Now, of course, at a certain level of immigration of extremely low level ability, political dysfunction might become so extreme that it interfere with while system. May even destroy it.

But no developed nation is anywhere close to so that - so any decline in high level performance today in any developed nation cannot be ascribed to immigration of lower ability people lowering the average.

Blogger Unknown February 27, 2019 11:56 AM  

@YeclepedBobAli

You do not understand simple math. I am sorry, but there is no way to explain it to you.

Blogger kurt9 February 27, 2019 11:56 AM  

I read the book "At Our Wits End". It certainly makes a compelling argument that intelligence decline is indeed happening. However, I was disappointed by the last part of the book. If their argument is indeed correct, the obvious solution that can be pursued by decentralized networks of individuals (who actually give a rat's ass about the problem) is what I call the "islands of competence" strategy. This includes things like DIY life extension and intelligence increase (when the latter becomes possible) for both oneself as well as ones' kids, working in technical fields like 3-D printing, automation, and the like that make it possible for smaller groups of people to do what could formerly be done only by large corporations and governments, and other such stuff. The long-term progression of this trend is to create our own city-states. First, charter cities, later seasteading, followed ultimately by space colonization. This really is the only way to deal with the problem short of megascale social engineering which, by definition, is not practical.

What ultimately disappointed me about the book is that the authors specifically excluded these approaches to dealing with the problem for reasons they failed to clearly articulate. I suspect the authors did so because they are European themselves and, by nature of such, are imbibed with the "cut the tall poppies short" mentality that seems a hallmark of European thought.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 27, 2019 11:57 AM  

@41
But it is clear that whatever is driving this decline can't be a relatively modest decline in global IQ that is only decades long.

Naked assertion.

Some people can't understand the difference between fractions and relative size, and absolute numbers.

And, as @44 said, some people have utterly failed to justify -- or even recognize -- their implicit assumption that, regardless of the size of the country, the only factor that matters is the absolute number of high IQ people, rather than the fraction.

To anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature, this assumption is far from a self-evident truth...

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 11:59 AM  

Unknown wrote:Germany today, for instance, has more smart people in absolute terms than it did during its periods of great innovation

Really?

Do tell - what do you base that on?

Blogger Don't Call Me Len February 27, 2019 12:01 PM  

@56 - What math? All you have is bold but unfounded assertions about your secret king understanding of what's really going on. Do you have any numbers, or even a link to someone else's numbers?

Blogger nbfdmd February 27, 2019 12:02 PM  

@46: Good point, well taken. Still, I think total innovation (not saying anything about per capita) ramped up considerably in the modern period because of a combination of a higher population and high European IQ. After all, the Romans invented the arch, but compare that to 19th or 20th century engineering. There's no comparison. Which is what you would expect, given the 10x higher European population. That's all I'm saying.

@51: Exactly! You said it better than I could. The entire environment matters. You're awash in the average IQ of your community, no matter how much you try to segregate yourself.

@52: You're simply ignorant of what the US looked like in 1960. Back then, you didn't need to silo yourself in academia to find other smart people -- relatively smart people were all around you. Today we have little islands of intelligence, whereas back then it was a continent.

Just an example: back then, they had rifle ranges in high schools. Can you imagine giving guns to the high school students of today?

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 27, 2019 12:03 PM  

A couple generations ago, a company like Ma Bell would pay a bunch of nerds to sit in a lab and try to think of new things and make them exist. Nowadays companies like Google do something similar, letting nerds spend some of their paid time working on other projects.

But it feels different somehow. I don't have any expectation that the Googlers will invent anything really innovative. It's all minor improvements in things that already exist, like an app that lets you post cat pictures with fewer taps. Maybe it is partly lower IQ, because most of them do seem like midwits at best. Also, the real thinkers are being driven out of those companies by SJW convergence, so they don't benefit from that "patron" system anymore.

Blogger nbfdmd February 27, 2019 12:10 PM  

@62: There's also a problem with the remaining smart people being forced into what Peter Thiel calls "the world of bits" rather than "the world of atoms". And you can point to lots of reasons for this that ultimately relate back to average IQ. For example, why does the general public think solar and wind are better energy sources than natural gas, nuclear, or hydro? That's low intelligence leading to ignorance, leading to policies that make it impossible to innovate in the physical world.

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 12:11 PM  

Unknown wrote:In reality, if a developed country has a certain absolute number of geniuses and the infrastructure to utilize them, and a track record of doing so, immigration is not going to lead to any kind of decline in high level performance.



Except massive reductions in IQ have occurred in every single western state, and the reduction onset coincides every time almost precisely with immigration commencement.

If average IQ drops, outlier IQ's drop. Richard Lynn, Douglas Murray, and Jim Flynn don't agree that intelligence can't be modelled on a bell-curve due to fat-tails.

If average IQ drops, the 'absolute population' of high IQ holders drops. Immigration demonstrably has dropped average IQ's almost everywhere it has taken place. Otherwise there wouldn't be dozens of studies showing that average IQ's have dropped. It doesn't matter if immigration is of high IQ cohorts - because of regression to the mean. It only takes a few generations for the descendants of the High IQ to regress all the way down to their nation's median.

You write long comments that say nothing. Everything you are saying contravenes common sense and the actual data staring you in the face.



Blogger Jack Amok February 27, 2019 12:19 PM  

From the review:

"The authors contend that there is an inevitable cycle in the rise and fall of civilisations which has been seen many times in history. A society starts out with a low standard of living, high birth and death rates, and strong selection for intelligence. This increases the mean general intelligence of the population and, much faster, the fraction of genius level intellects. These contribute to a growth in the standard of living in the society, better conditions for the poor, and eventually a degree of prosperity which reduces the infant and childhood death rate. Eventually, the birth rate falls, starting with the more intelligent and better off portion of the population. The birth rate falls to or below replacement, with a higher fraction of births now from less intelligent parents. Mean IQ and the fraction of geniuses falls, the society falls into stagnation and decline, and usually ends up being conquered or supplanted by a younger civilisation still on the rising part of the intelligence curve. "

How many people here remember playing Traveller 2300AD? Dammit, we are the Kafer, aren't we? Does that mean I can start jabbing idiots at work with a cattle prod to make them smarter?

Blogger sammibandit February 27, 2019 12:24 PM  

>The desire to sterilize them comes from the same globalist mindset as the desire to build cities for them to squat in. There's no moral high ground in either.

So what?

Your idea of cutting off foreign aid has merit. But my idea of using deception to reduce the amount of foreign aid over the long term doesn't because it is immoral and globalist? That doesn't make sense because it would only be bad by our own standards. They know not our morality and care not for our desire to lessen globalism.

The Canadian Minister of Immigration is Somolian and you ought to know that there is no moral hurdle for Somolians to interfere in their own interests with North American politics. Why hamstring ourselves when we havent left the gate?

I'd buy your issue with my idea more if you would have said that my idea requires giving out foreign aid to work. You didn't say that, though.

Anonymous Anonymous February 27, 2019 12:29 PM  

Unknown wrote:You do not understand simple math. I am sorry, but there is no way to explain it to you.

You said that there has never been more intelligent people in Germany in absolute terms then today. In 1970 the population of Germany was nearly 79million, only 3 million less then today - except it didn't include about 7million Turks and Syrians. Or even take Germany pre-Merkelisation. Are you really nonsensically suggesting that in absolute terms there are more intelligent people now in Germany then there were pre-rapefugee enrichment, or in 1970?

IQ tests are constructed and defined to produce a normal distribution of results by definition. Even empirically, even though an intelligence curve has a higher incidence in the tails and is non-negative - it still approximates to a normal distribution.

Please tell me some more about how I don't understand simple math, and Germany post-Kebab is now way smarter in absolute terms then it was even in 1970 when the population was only 4million less, but was still German?

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 27, 2019 12:35 PM  

Yep, good review.

David Reich, in his book "Who we are and How We Got Here" makes the point, in passing, that IQs in Iceland and the US are dropping 1 point a generation. He also says that this drop has to be a result of the plus variants in educational attainment.

See Greg Cochran's blog.

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/01/29/space-and-time/

So, Cochran muses, the reverse may be true -- that is over the thousands of generations of mankind, IQ would have increased, and pretty quickly, and if we find allelles for intelligence, then we can trace back this development in ancient DNA.

And note: this 1/2 percent to 1 percent decline per generation is happening right in front of our eyes.

If the decline persists, we'll see a 10% decline in intelligence in a single century. This does not bode well for the planet.

Blogger James Dixon February 27, 2019 12:39 PM  

> Supposedly Africa is going to quadruple in population to 4 billion by the end of the century. I can't see this coming to pass.

It won't. They're dependent on outside food sources and outsider technology to maintain the population they have now. Eventually we'll get tired of or lose the ability to feed them.

> In absolute terms, there are undoubtedly more smart people today in America the in the late 19th century, yet Americans were far more innovative then.

There's this thing called the law of diminishing returns. You may want to look into it.

> Sure, but high ability people aren't scattered. They always concentrate in large urban centers in developed nations

Erm, no, they don't. This blog alone can offer numerous examples to the contrary. Now, if you wish to modify your statement to percentages, that may be accurate.

Blogger PJW Gent February 27, 2019 12:45 PM  

Unknown wrote:Its not actually a very controversial statement, and its undeniable.

The world today contains far more highly intelligent people than during periods of great innovation. It's simply a mathematical fact.


Didn't you want to say the world contains the mathematical probability of far more highly intelligent people than previous periods. The variables that affect that number are numerous as are the incentives to express that intelligence in non-productive outlets which never existed before in such readily accessible quantities and are just the beginning of possible reasons for failure to launch.

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 27, 2019 12:45 PM  

I'd buy your issue with my idea more if you would have said that my idea requires giving out foreign aid to work.

I assumed you knew what your own words meant.

If we have a problem with our politicians giving our wealth to foreigners (and I do), that's an "us" problem, not a "them" problem. Trying to eliminate the recipients as a way to end that process is just a shitty thing to do to anyone. It's like finding out your wife is cheating on you, so you poison all the good-looking men in town so she won't have the opportunity anymore. And apparently I have to point out that doing something with deception doesn't make it any better.

Blogger Elijah February 27, 2019 12:55 PM  

how long will these idiots prop up the blank slate theory?

Blogger DonReynolds February 27, 2019 12:57 PM  

Vox is entirely correct about the mix of high IQ and low IQ individuals in more developed countries. It is a mathematical fact that the average would decline as more low IQ are added to the mix. Yes, that is probably taken as a "hate fact" by the more sensitive.

There may be another causal factor to the enstupidation in more advanced countries that is worth mentioning. Everyone knows that more is expected of the first born, and they tend to end up with greater responsibility at a younger age, but I have noticed it is not often the first born who is actually the most intelligent. My own stab at the question is that the first born only had young parents for teachers, whereas the last born was taught by older parents and all of their older siblings. The younger kids simply have more and better teachers. History has plenty of examples of exceptional achievers who were the younger, if not the youngest, of the siblings.

Where all of this appears to break down is in the case of the only child. When a couple only has one child (or only one child who survives) that child only has their parents for teachers as they are growing up. "Spoiled brat" is a common result....and this may be another cause of enstupidation in developed countries, as so many couples opt for fewer children, many only one.

We can easily and simply enforce the borders to keep out the low IQ sorts from less developed countries...thus control the mix. But the domestic and native source of enstupidation would seem to be more of a challenge.

All through much of American history, women averaged 13 children. Some had more and some had none, but the average was 13 live births in their lifetime before the advent of effective birth control.

Blogger sammibandit February 27, 2019 1:00 PM  

I don't disagree at all that my idea is unpalatable, Damelobn Brinn. I'm just not convinced your character issues with it are good enough for me to scrap it. I'm a bandit!

>If we have a problem with our politicians giving our wealth to foreigners (and I do), that's an "us" problem, not a "them" problem.

Thanks for clarifying and I agree with this assessment.

Blogger Lance E February 27, 2019 1:01 PM  

nbfdmd wrote:@10: India is only de jure "democratic". It's mostly held together by the caste system. If the lower castes actually tried to participate in politics as equals, the country would fall apart very quickly. Fortunately for them, the caste system is so deeply embedded in their cultural DNA that it will never happen.

Not to mention that 70 years is a pathetically short time to call "sustained". The great (non-democratic) civilizations of the past could last for a thousand years. America didn't really go into steep decline until about 200 years into its democratic feedback loop.

I doubt that the veneer of democracy in India will survive anywhere near that long. They're a little like Russia that way, play-acting at democracy in order to keep the American empire off its back. As the American empire declines, I expect many supposedly "democratic" countries will start to drop the facade. If they don't - if they follow America's path toward universal suffrage - then they will implode eventually.


Johnny wrote:The thing about innovation is that most societies don't promote it and a great many are against it because the establishment views it as a threat.

Of course, there would be no reason for an "establishment" to view innovation as a threat if said "establishment" was an actual aristocracy - formal, well-defined rulers. They stand to reap the benefits of any innovation, which is why hereditary monarchies in medieval Europe not only encouraged it but helped fund it from their own capital.


Damelon Brinn wrote:Surely we can put our big brains together and come up with better solutions than treating human beings like farm animals.

I'll agree with you that stopping foreign aid would probably be good enough for Africa - although there are some confounding factors right now such as China's colonization. Regardless, we are still eventually going to need a real solution for our own lumpenproles. There are a staggering number of genuinely useless people in our own society, more so now than ever before; people who will never be able to contribute productively and in many cases can't even be properly socialized.

Aside from Moldbug's rather impractical Matrix idea, I hear almost no one proposing solutions that are either (a) humane and practical or (b) inhumane to modern sensibilities but realistic enough to work.

Blogger Jack Amok February 27, 2019 1:10 PM  

There is not damned thing about democracy in this statement.

No, there isn't, but I'd assume having a tribe from over the mountains (or the sea) conquer you and set up a Raj doesn't qualify as self-rule either, and that's what India had prior to their recent experiment with democracy.

Blogger Jack Amok February 27, 2019 1:18 PM  

It won't. They're dependent on outside food sources and outsider technology to maintain the population they have now. Eventually we'll get tired of or lose the ability to feed them.

Feed them? They need our help just to have non-poisonous water. I know a mush-headed ditz who uses her husband's money to do charity work in Uganda building wells. a) the natives have no ability to dig wells, something pretty basic for most of the rest of humanity. b) most of them don't understand the problem with defecating in the same river pool they get water from. c) the few women who are smart enough to know better still get drinking water from the cespool because going to where there is clean water means walking through a jungle where the outcast men are all waiting to rape them.

Raised in other circumstances, this women would probably have made a decent nurse or homemaker. Instead, she's off tilting at windmills and squandering her husband's capital.

Blogger cloom February 27, 2019 1:19 PM  

I think the low IQ Syrians in Canada are accidentally burning their houses down. I am imagining a wood fire in the decorative gas fireplace or else a camp fire in the oven because why have an exhaust fan over the stove except for smoke ... or something like that.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4994547/syrian-family-grateful-fire-fredericton/

"A family of eight Syrians is feeling a lot of gratitude on Sunday, despite escaping their burning home the day before with only the clothes on their backs".

The fire came on the same day as a funeral for seven Syrian children killed in a house fire in Halifax.

“The family told us they’re starting again like they did when they first came to Canada last May,” said Degante.

The family says they hope to find a new home as soon as possible.

Blogger Lance E February 27, 2019 1:21 PM  

Damelon Brinn wrote:And apparently I have to point out that doing something with deception doesn't make it any better.

It wasn't so clear to me that the sterilization-through-aid proposal necessarily involved deception.

I've heard some "radical" proposals for domestic welfare such as allowing people to go on the government dole for as long as they like, if they volunteer to undergo sterilization. Single mom? Sure, society will pay for your one kid, as long as we get to make certain you don't have any more of them.

I don't really see the problem with these proposals. If you choose to be a ward of the state or are incapable of living otherwise, then you submit to the state's demands. We won't handcuff you, jam a gun in your back and force you to the operating table, but why is it immoral to offer you a lifetime income to do it voluntarily? People do far worse things for far less money.

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 27, 2019 1:25 PM  

It's more than IQ.
Mental obesity leads to physical obesity and you can judge a book by its cover.
It's no coincidence that around the time we came up with vaccines, tetanus shots, and for the most part "defeated the winter wolves", was also around that time when the dumb ideas were taking root. So yeah maybe in 1870 you might have had a spinster aunt who was also a suffragette or that one cousin who called himself a progressive and didn't get a real job until he was 25.
Now after around 150 years of vaccines, the defeat of hard winters, and other things to protect the stupid, what do we have?
Look at these frothing at the mouth marxists, with women's breasts but it matters not if they are supposed to have them because their obesity makes it irrelevant. At the same time people are getting dumber, look at cancer on the rise. Look at the childhood diseases on the rise. Autism needs not introduction.
My take is that the "patriarchy" for all its good kind of sows the seeds of its own destruction. When "every man a king" and "every man can get married and have kids" takes effect, and this is ultimately a by-product of total egalitarianism, then a lot of men who, for the human race it would have been better to for them to die as hapless cannon fodder, are having kids when they should not.
I'm glad people like Vox and Owen have kids and wish they would have a dozen more. But most of the people I meet out in the world should not have kids.
Women, I theorize, are hard-wired to destroy civilizations like ours. But their screeching against the "patriarchy" is misplaced. They are not deep enough into self-awareness to know the root cause. The root cause is that Slothlord A meeting Slothlordette A at the shartmart and cranking out even slothier dumber kids is NOT ideal reproductive strategy.
What's ideal is a warlord with a harem. The top alpha male who can kick ass mating with the prettiest girls. And I say this not as some warlord with a harem. I'm cannon fodder actually. Always have been.
So when we scream and cry to the women and their votes and movement "But... but.... that will DESTROY CIVILIZATIZON!" you don't get a straight answer because they are following hard-wiring. But once they have destroyed civilization, the weak and stupid die off, only the best and strongest men procreate.
One might think I favor the warlord political system but I don't. The actual "balance" was achieved: civilization with enough selection to keep the idiots from overrunning the planet. It was before the so-called enlightenment, before egalitarianism became a religion. It's only in the last 50 years that the egalites have turned against "family" but notably they don't turn against brown families and those of lesser civilization, in particular that one that puts women in their place times 10, gets a pass.

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 27, 2019 1:27 PM  

Regardless, we are still eventually going to need a real solution for our own lumpenproles.

That's true, and I don't have one either. Although if we keep getting dumber, that problem may solve itself, because it's modern technology that allows so many people to be useless and still survive. One thing Idiocracy got wrong is that the technology was still functioning long after those smart enough to maintain it were gone. In reality, if we get that dumb, there won't be anyone working as a Costco greeter or watching Ass on big-screen TVs, because none of that will work anymore and we'll all be too busy working on the next meal.

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 27, 2019 1:33 PM  

It wasn't so clear to me that the sterilization-through-aid proposal necessarily involved deception.

I thought the word "doctoring" made it clear enough, but quoting from @66: "But my idea of using deception to..."

I don't necessarily have a problem with voluntary sterilization, at least not on the same grounds. At least then it doesn't have that "we know better than the goyim so it's for their own good" sense to it.

Blogger xevious2030 February 27, 2019 1:34 PM  

@3
Where would the average IQ individual of ancient Greece score on an IQ test, if raised in the world today? The answer is, there is not an answer. [More on that at the end] You can reasonably say there are more geniuses alive today (200 million) than could possibly have been in ancient Greece (13 million total at maximum possible, if they each took the test today and were compared to the scores of today). But how many of those 200 million today are managed by the average or so-so (a somewhat recent post, few months back, on material success and IQ relates to this)? [And here is where the end kicks in] Multiple geniuses collaborating and directing (rather than being worker bees on inane and slight advancement projects) can be a force multiplier of innovation, well beyond hard numbers. In societies run by the so-so, more so-so point to less innovation regardless of the number of high IQs. We do not have that kind of data on the comparative IQ of ancient Greece and today, and so do not have data on the likely force multiplier. Given the level of innovation, it was likely high until they began expanding and marrying the less complimentary to their particular genetics based portion of their IQ (not necessarily lower IQ of the spouse, but less complimentary to heritability of the right combinations to maintain IQ in offspring). It is not just hard numbers, it is overall interactive quality and the environment operated in.

Blogger The Cooler February 27, 2019 1:36 PM  

The entire world is literally getting dumber every day

I'm not sure we needed any more proof than the success Jordan Peterson is currently enjoying.

Blogger sammibandit February 27, 2019 1:53 PM  

>I don't necessarily have a problem with voluntary sterilization, at least not on the same grounds. At least then it doesn't have that "we know better than the goyim so it's for their own good" sense to it.

I'm so tickled that my idea made you think of trewish jix. No really. I'm not being sarcastic. It wouldn't hurt for more goys to use tools at our disposal we have refused to use for decades. Involuntary sterilization in my province has been outlawed since the 70s after the Social Credit party lost in 1973--just for a point of reference in time when it ended.

Amren has an interesting take on this issue, linked below the quote from vol 8, no 2, February 97,

>Involuntary sterilization came under legal fire as a violation of a basic right. Fittingly, it was a great progressive jurist who wrote the most authoritative decision on the matter, finding that involuntary sterilization, in certain compelling circumstances, was not incompatible with the United States Constitution.

The decision, Buck v. Bell [1927], was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who dominated American jurisprudence for half a century. Of the right of the State of Virginia to sterilize a feebleminded child, Holmes, who had been badly wounded at Antietam 54 years before, wrote:

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for those lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such for those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with their incompetence ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” [The Bucks, one of whose family members were plaintiffs in the case, were poor whites.]

//

You are correct that my idea as I phrased it is on-the-face deceptive. Lance E noted however he is interested in voluntary sterilization.

I fall somewhere else. My logic is that if you take aid you are beholden to the state for the burden of carrying you. No free lunch.

Blogger sammibandit February 27, 2019 1:55 PM  

Here's the link

https://www.amren.com/ar/1997/02/index.html

Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke February 27, 2019 2:34 PM  

Who cares if the province or country next to you is retarded. As long as they don't have Penguins of Mass Destruction. As long as, you're not enslaved to evil.

If you really wanted to sterilise people in the 3rd world you'd join the Gates Foundation.

Looked up that the county of Kent was able to maintain its laws, despite the Norman Conquest of England. Invicta.

Blogger Nameless One February 27, 2019 3:00 PM  

My theory on the decline in innovation is globalism and the internet which has standardized thought across the global. Innovation, by definition, requires people to look things differently than the current "experts", to reject orthodoxy and be outside the box. That was much easier prior to the information age because people were isolated and what's the conventional wisdom in one region might be complete foreign to another. These isolated pockets allowed the can generation of new ideas that would be unthinkable to other parts of the world.
Nowadays thoughts and idea are highly synchronized across the globe. People learn basically the same basic stuff no matter where they are at.

Blogger nbfdmd February 27, 2019 3:18 PM  

@88: That's obviously wrong. The US had a fairly standardized education system as far back as the late 19th century. With the advent of television, most Americans thought in very standardized ways for most of the 20th century. It's only now that the idea of "standard knowledge" is breaking down. There are inner city high schools where the majority of kids aren't even literate.

Blogger Mark Stoval February 27, 2019 3:25 PM  

Interesting thread.

I think several people were talking past each other and that is unfortunate.

The fact is that HBD research shows that all human traits are heritable. Certainly IQ depends mainly on your DNA even if other factors are involved.

The society that has a higher mean IQ score has an advantage over those with a lower score but there are other factors involved as some have mentioned.

There is a lower level of mean IQ below which a society is not going to be able to keep a modern industrial society going; much less advance one. A few geniuses in a 75 IQ primitive society are not going to touch off an industrial revolution. Can we all not agree on that?

There is some percentage of smart and capable people that an industrial society must have to even stay viable. There is a larger number of smart capable people needed to advance a society.

We might argue that there are other factors needed besides plenty of high IQ people, and the example of the USSR might convince us of that fact. But, a low IQ society like many African states are never going to become an industrial powerhouse. (Hollywood movies are only fantasy)


So, can we agree that a dropping mean IQ is BAD? Damn bad.

Blogger Zander Stander February 27, 2019 3:31 PM  

Look on the bright side: if idiocracy encroaches, we here become even smarter! We may even attain that zenith of a 115 average IQ when it is corrected for the inverse Flynn effect. Hallo Mega Society!

Blogger Nameless One February 27, 2019 3:34 PM  

@89 I'm talking abou standard scientific and technology knowledge. And not specifically to America but globally. Many of the "American" innovations were from people who were educated elsewhere.

Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke February 27, 2019 3:51 PM  

@91 In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Humanism, For the Win! Idiocracy; possibly the greatest movie ever made.

-----------------

My dear penguins, we stand upon a great threshold! It's alright to be scared; most of you won't be coming back. But, thanks to Batman, the time has come to punish ALL of God's children! 1st, 2nd, 3rd AND 4th-born! Why be biased? Male and female! Hell, the sexes are equal with their erogenous zones BLOWN SKY HIGH! FORWARD MARCH! THE LIBERATION OF GOTHAM HAS BEGUN!

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella February 27, 2019 4:07 PM  

Oh, good grief. An IQ is an attribute that makes it easier to solve a problem. When you have a stable society with a good educational system, factories, mines, mills, and farms, and a space program, you solve the problems of that society. When you have a society of violent felons with low IQs and a broken educational system, you solve the problems of a broken educational system and the problem of how to live, at all.

Which is to say, the founder of the Khan Academy solved his social problem: he made Khan Academy to deal with the Louisiana public schools. You may look at the demographic maps yourself to see what problem he was solving. It is a great solution for the entire rest of the globe, which should give anyone else pause.

That's the current problem. I spent high school in that system. The brighter residents solved it by having three magnet schools: one general one for whites, with limited enrollment- it's in the top 100 high schools in America. A second one is a magnet school for the arts. The regular school board attempts to take its foundation money to buy who knows what. So the leaders compromised: you can learn to write, make music, dance, and cook. You can guess the racial composition of said classes: white, black, black, black. So, 15 white kids a year get a chance at an education in one subject.

The final magnet school is black majority. The valedictorian of this school, a few years ago, made the news because she could not pass the entrance exam for the state university. It's not a competitive exam. It's a basic, easy, simple, 'can you read and do, at best, what is middle school math in other states?' Their very best, most studious student at their most premiere urban high school- supposedly among the best in the state- could not pass this test that a white, suburban 12 year old boy could pass half asleep with no warning about taking tests.


So, how exactly, are these single bright kids in poorer, more diverse settings with failed manufacturing, migrant farm labor on latifundia, mines that the government sells to outsiders, or simply closes because 'global warming', supposed to create this marvelous high-tech world that ya'll seem to feel entitled to, after you didn't maintain the fuck out of the one you inherited?

They can't and they won't. They'll solve the problems in front of them, and you won't like the solutions, but they'll be effective. Pretty much what they needed was to find each other for colloquium, and that is happening. And it's the alt-right, online, and everyone else already sequestered in somewhat safe, somewhat stable regions have nervous breakdowns when they listen in. (the facebook moderator article about how they get radicalized and have breakdowns)


Vox Day, in his dry "expect reservations, war and ethnic cleansing" isn't wrong. He's bright. He's solving the problems in front of his own eyes. He's helping. He's doing videos and publishing books: comic books and gardening might not look like much, but illustrated manuscripts and monasteries of six guys didn't look like much when they started, either.


Blogger liberranter February 27, 2019 4:11 PM  

This merely proves that innovation is driven by things other than just ability - motivation and desire for accomplishment probably being primary.

I think there is a lot of merit behind the theory that Western civilization has reached a sort of "plateau" that has dampened the pressure to innovate. Nearly everyone in the Western world today is blessed with sufficient quantities of life's necessities (i.e., food, clothing, shelter, and medical care), as well as luxuries (entertainment), courtesy of the innovations of the last one hundred years. This has removed much of the motivation summed up by the old expression "necessity is the mother of invention" common in days when most of the world was occupied with trying to figure out where its next meal was coming from. This might also explain, as pointed out here, why most "innovation" today is a misnomer and consists mostly of making (generally nugatory) "improvements" to existing technology. Why go the extra mile when the ROI in terms of time, labor, and other expenses is flat or negative? Mediocrity among the educated and skilled classes of today is one possible explanation, the disincentives and stumbling blocks created by Western governments and society is another ("bright and white" people most likely to be creative and inventive are usually the first targets of talentless, parasitic SJWs who would destroy them while taking full advantage of their innovations. Most will eventually say "fuck that shit" and more or less limit themselves to subsistence-level labor, even in a techno-white collar environment).

Blogger Blacksmith Zeke February 27, 2019 4:11 PM  

Johnny wrote:Except for a few weirdo Europeans who want to import them, the expanding sub Saharan African population isn't a threat to anybody but itself...

Blacksmith Zeke wrote:

You think the Europeans are given a choice about importing them? You think the Americans will be given a choice about importing them? That's funny.


Johnny wrote:
I usually overlook it when people misread what I write, but I can't help myself this time. Your reading comprehension is just so low. Did you not notice the word "few." You don't know what my opinion is because I didn't assert one. Nor did I suggest one. And if it gives you pleasure, all I can say is that it must be nice to be so easily pleased.


I think you're the one suffering from a lack of reading comprehension. You did assert an opinion. You said that the expanding sub-Saharan African population isn't a threat to anyone except itself, thereby assuming the low-IQ people born in Africa would stay there. (I can't imagine you would be so stupid as to assume they'll leave and yet will not be a threat to the lands they end up in.) Your opinion is foolish, though, because of course they will continue to emigrate, as they have been, regardless of how the natives feel about their arrival -- whether "few" welcome them or not.

Johnny wrote:I suppose using this IQ stuff is a useful way of thinking about things, but not always. The data isn't all that accurate.

Yeah, that right there shows how little you understand about IQ.

Blogger Balam February 27, 2019 4:32 PM  

Nameless One wrote:My theory on the decline in innovation is globalism and the internet which has standardized thought across the global. Innovation, by definition, requires people to look things differently than the current "experts", to reject orthodoxy and be outside the box. That was much easier prior to the information age because people were isolated and what's the conventional wisdom in one region might be complete foreign to another. These isolated pockets allowed the can generation of new ideas that would be unthinkable to other parts of the world.

Nowadays thoughts and idea are highly synchronized across the globe. People learn basically the same basic stuff no matter where they are at.


I agree with you that the pockets of intellectual/cultural resistance are harder to maintain because of the globalization of research/academia. The 'powers that be' incumbents have unprecedented ability to chase down heretics and batter them down. On the other hand looking at blogs like this or the 'chans in general it is clear that the mavericks are still alive and well and having a good time of it when they can. Never before have smart people with too much time on their hands cost mega billion entities (like Disney) so much in losses through so little work. Where it would have taken our host Vox a few crates of grenades to do millions in damage to the East India Trade company in the past he can take the pain to IndieGogo with a lawyer and careful application of their own TOS.

The book about 4th generational war talks about this very thing - nowadays we should expect no resistance to the states in the form of making new states but instead from a hundred tribes. Don't expect to fight Academia man-for-man pound-for-pound because they'll always win, you observe that yourself, but you can have a following like Owen's Bears. Innovation will survive in these tribes because their leaders are trying to follow the truth in doing the best by those they love. It will not spread to the State, though, and you should disentangle any loyalty you have towards it.

sammibandit wrote:You are correct that my idea as I phrased it is on-the-face deceptive. Lance E noted however he is interested in voluntary sterilization.

I fall somewhere else. My logic is that if you take aid you are beholden to the state for the burden of carrying you. No free lunch.


You are already seeing voluntary sterilization in the form of career ladies who love cats. The problem with voluntary sterilization is the same as the barren couple in Idiocracy - the only people who would do it are the ones that you want reproducing. On a related note could you imagine if the super smart people took the onus on themselves to have as many children as possible? Imagine a conversation at Mensa,"Jamal just made his 6th kid, I gotta catch up!" I am not sure why but I do feel that that is unrealistic.

Blogger Lance E February 27, 2019 4:42 PM  

sammibandit wrote:I fall somewhere else. My logic is that if you take aid you are beholden to the state for the burden of carrying you. No free lunch.

But that is exactly my logic. If you're unable to take care of yourself, you are either a child or a ward - you are somebody's personal property. If you also can't produce enough value for anyone to voluntarily care for you, then you become a ward of the state. State-owned property.

In a functional society, it must be this way, because the unfit will always be treated as if they have no agency. Even in today's Progressive Utopia, placing in the Oppression Olympics means your misbehavior is forgiven because you are assumed to have no agency. So your caregiver must be responsible in order to prevent misbehavior, and there is no responsibility without ownership.

But I think we'd find that this is quite voluntary. The American underclass isn't having a lot of kids because they really want to preserve their family name. They're having a lot of kids because we pay them to - welfare benefits. Likewise with foreign aid; their fertility was much lower before we intervened. And if we pay them now to have kids, I guarantee we can pay them to not have kids and they'll go along with it willingly. In fact, we sorta already do with subsidized abortion. Voluntarily sterilization is much more humane for everybody involved.

The ethical questions around involuntary sterilization are complicated, but regardless, I just don't think we need it when the voluntary version will be 95% as effective.

Blogger DonReynolds February 27, 2019 4:46 PM  

@75 Lance E
There is that "d" word again.
The USA was never a democracy, nor was it intended to be a democracy, nor is it a democracy today.

Universal suffrage does not make for a democracy if there is hardly an occasion to cast that vote and if that vote is not counted or has little or no effect on governance.

Of the three branches of the US government, the largest branch (Executive) only has an election every four years for one person and a running mate. The outcome of that election is not determined by popular vote.

The Judicial branch never has an election of any sort, for any judge, nor are their decisions subject to any vote, nor can they be removed by voting, nor do they pretend to be speaking for the majority when they do make a decision.

The Legislative branch would be the ideal place to practice a little democracy, but the Congress is not democratic, and the more powerful side of Congress....the US Senate....is the least democratic and they serve 6 year terms of office. California has the same two Senators (for 40 million people) as each of the seven states who only have one Congressional district, six of which have a population of less than a million persons.

The District of Columbia has no Senators whatsoever, even though their population exceeds that of Vermont and Wyoming, who have two each. Puerto Rico also has no US Senators whatsoever, even though their population (of American citizens) exceeds each of 21 US states.

The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico each have a single seat in the House of Representatives, but neither have a vote.

Blogger tublecane February 27, 2019 4:51 PM  

@9- Understanding the basics of music isn't necessary to becoming a rock star, like say Paul McCartney. But after his whirlwind days were over and he had a billion dollars or whatever's in his bank, you'd think sheer curiosity might entice him to learn whether being able to read the dang notes could help him write better songs. Apparently not.

Many, many things contributed to the nosedive of the arts in Western civilization. An important one is the romantic vision of the artist as line hero-creator, pulling art out of nothing but his ego. But the odds of such an artist's work being great is like the odds of a dandelion surviving a hurricane.

Fewer intelligent people are around, proportionately. Ones that are are less likely to pick up worthwhile disciplines. The ground has not been prepared to cultivate their takent. That's what culture is.

Blogger Dos Voltz February 27, 2019 4:54 PM  

We have been inundated with drooling hordes of invaders since 1965, all contributing to our downfall. Though I think that breeding between the races is much less to blame than the behaviors and voting habits of the invaders and white women whose paramount goal in life is to virtue-signal.

I think (thankfully) that the public school systems and the university systems are mostly responsible, as they have had to dumb down the curricula for EVERY subject for half a century now, in order to allow the more dim-witted to advance along at an even pace with the white, heritage Americans.

The blank-slate Marxists have called every program that has strived for excellence "racist" and has dismantled them. The "No Child Left Behind" program meant that the classroom had to go very very slowly so that 65 IQ Mbuukii Angenowliigogonga showed just as much progress as 130 IQ Jenny White.

Couple this with the never-ending screeching from those who hate the idea of space exploration (for example) and say "not while there are hungry mouths to feed!" The invading hordes are a most incurious class. They want government to spend only on their food, housing and medicine. Nature used to keep the populations of stupid hordes low. Now we invest all our money in keeping them alive, ensuring their progeny outbreeds our own, and making them fat.

So we have two or three generations of Americans now who have been purposefully dulled into mid-wittery and low achievement. Greatness was possible for some of them, but every nail head that popped up was slammed back down in an instant.

I said "thankfully" earlier, because the problem might indeed then be fixable. Academia will need a purging of administrators and teachers who believe in blank-slate and equality. That this can only happen after Civil War 2.0 is indeed sad, but nonetheless true.

Anyone afterward who clamors for equality of outcome, or to slow down the progress of our very best "has to go back" or can get in line to the gallows.

The republic died a long time ago. Too bad most still can't recognize a rotting corpse even when they're living inside its rib cage.

Blogger Haxo Angmark February 27, 2019 5:08 PM  

borderline genius VoxDay is an excellent example of the IQ-decline thesis, in terms of productive genius requiring a broader support stratum:

where would he be w/o his comic book-buying posse of midwits?

still in Italy, but no one would care.

Blogger tublecane February 27, 2019 5:23 PM  

@20- There was a book called Mediocracy by Fabian Tassano, subtitled Inversions and Deceptions in an Egalitarian Culture. It consisted of a glossary of terms which he'd define in both their old and contemporary senses, the latter almost always being a direct contradiction of the former. Basically, a Devil's Dictionary for PC.

The interesting part for me is how egalitarianism and mediocrity go together. Or I should say the pretense of egalitarianism. Because the real thing doesn't exist, and in order to foist pseudo-egalitarianism over on the people (without resort to brute force) you must practice deception and invert successful culture.

Clever people can be kiars, but this sorry of systematic deception brings the intellectual level of society down, I should think. There was a George Lucas t.v. news interview, as I recall, in which he compared the old Soviet film industry favorably to Hollywood. His argument being that once you accept basic political limitations, they'd leave you free to create and provide the resources.

Now, however many entertaining movies Lucas churned out, he's not exactly a Kubrick or Hitchcock. He could be comfortable doing Social Realist popcorn flicks. Heck, maybe Eisenstein and Tarkovsky liked it too. But I think that system would more favor the medocrities .

Blogger Johnny February 27, 2019 5:37 PM  

>>Your opinion is foolish, though, because of course they will continue to emigrate, as they have been, regardless of how the natives feel about their arrival -- whether "few" welcome them or not...

All that is going on is that the Western democracies have a cultural elite that think it is to there benefit to let in this third world types. And so they are both letting them in and encouraging it to happen. You are taking that transitory situation and imagining that it applies to all societies everywhere and all time.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella February 27, 2019 6:08 PM  

I suppose my question is: why on earth is anyone expecting people from one state to care about people in another state. That whole War of Northern Aggression was war against the very bright whites in the southern states- that's who died. Not the low-IQ subjects that we are supposed to be so solicitous about for the past 150 years.

After blighting one of the most wealthy regions in the world, manufactories moved in to prey on the desperate, poor whites. That less than two centuries later the whole region was both rebuilding, and pursuing visions antithetical to the Northeastern hive- shows how they were, and are, wonderful. I think the guy who owns Hobby Lobby taking ancient near east artwork out of dangerous war zones labelled as store supplies is on the level of any of the British museum free-booters. Chick-fil-A stabilizing marriages and personalities by religious retreats is a far better stewardship than the entire clown-show of marriage counselling and Freudian therapy.

When you leave small, homogenous white regions alone, the birth rate springs back, if you look beneath the boomer layer. I live in a town where the 'right size' is about four kids. The quite healthy, athletic young women could have the traditional ten of British history and American history right up to the 1900s, easily, if the financials were right. These are the cognitive elite. The women like smart husbands and polite masses of children surrounding them. They like their life of exercise, prayer groups, book groups, volunteering at the school, nights with their husband, arts, travel and so on.

Blogger Nameless One February 27, 2019 6:15 PM  

@97 Yeah but all your example are political and cultural "innovations", whereas I was mainly talking about scientific and technological innovation. How do you preserve the pockets of that? No blog has the power to fund a research center, or a university, in order to be incubators of thought opposed to the current scientific orthodoxy.

Blogger Lance E February 27, 2019 6:22 PM  

DonReynolds wrote:@75 Lance E

There is that "d" word again.

The USA was never a democracy, nor was it intended to be a democracy, nor is it a democracy today.


You understand that this argument is identical in form to the one used by communists, yes? "That wasn't real communism."

Democracy is an ideal, not a real system. It exists only in Plato's world of forms. It's too unstable to exist for more than a nanosecond in practice.

When most people use the word "democracy", with a lowercase "d", they mean a system that is very close to capital-D "Democracy" on the axis between dictatorship and Democracy. And America is democratic to an unprecedented degree; far more than even ancient Athens.

The fact that this system results in practice in an degenerate oligarchy is simply a result of the factionalism inherent to it, and the fact that whomever controls public opinion effectively controls the state. Thus, we are ruled by the Academy and the media, with nominal authority delegated to judges who toe the line.

"Republicans are the real Democrats" is an even sillier argument than "Democrats are the real racists". Actual democracy is an anti-goal, and it's irrelevant anyway because every liberal in every western country already equates "democracy" with "rule by progressives". You see it every time someone perceives a "threat to our democracy".

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella February 27, 2019 7:21 PM  

Why do you believe that people would continue to emigrate? You have to have airplanes for that. That's an innovation of this century. You have to have boats that don't capsize. You have to be confident that the people on the other end of your journey won't kill. None of that is a fixed, immutable given.

Most mid-line traders, historically, got paid a great deal because they were willing to risk any of those propositions. America and Britain have been ideologically captured by the descendants of middlemen- people who understand the road, but not the castle or the farm. Their ideas are now subject to testing and debate. So far it's at the fringes- Mises clearly did not understand Western European farming- he just thought the land was randomly lush, not that he was hearing about literally thousands of years of effort. He had no idea about what he didn't know. Horrifying.

America First scandalizes the middlemen, but makes sense to the farmers. Gilet Jaune scandalizes the middleman, but makes sense to the nationalist.

You are expecting high grade airline fuel in abundance, forever into the future. You are expecting that whites will not abandon Africa. You expect that the Chinese in Africa will behave like whites, rather than Chinese. You expect that electric companies will keep the lights and heat on in hard cold weather- even though they didn't even manage that for this polar vortex: small towns lost electricity in the cold. Families were leaving ahead of black ice on the roads, or making dangerous trips into farther south states to buy generators. You expect food transfers to continue, indefinitely, for everyone, worldwide, without famine, ever.

Why do you expect this?

Blogger Balam February 27, 2019 7:25 PM  

Nameless One wrote:@97 Yeah but all your example are political and cultural "innovations", whereas I was mainly talking about scientific and technological innovation. How do you preserve the pockets of that? No blog has the power to fund a research center, or a university, in order to be incubators of thought opposed to the current scientific orthodoxy.

The Christian monasteries have been mentioned a few times. I don't know their history myself but they are purported to be pockets of not only preservation but advancement of knowledge. However they did it is probably going to be very relevant.

Blogger Daniel February 27, 2019 8:21 PM  

It is. Check Venezuela

Blogger DonReynolds February 27, 2019 8:22 PM  

@107 Lance E
Since I have no affection for democracy, I am not dismayed by the lack of democracy, nor do I suppose (as claimed) it is not "pure" or "perfect". I do challenge the idea that the US is a democracy or that "universal suffrage" somehow means that anyone actually gets to vote on the important issues facing the government or society. More importantly, it is wrong to suppose that the Majority rules anything in the US.

Give everyone the vote. I do not mind. Let the dead vote, and the children, and the illegal aliens, even the Russians and the Chinese. They will have as much impact with their fake vote as we do with "real" ones, which is to say very little impact.

Paul Harvey had a wonderful commentary on "majority rule" that I particularly enjoyed. Majority Rule was the excuse given for black rule in South Afrika at the time. Paul Harvey said he liked the sound of that, but maybe we should try Majority Rule in the USA before we insist that everyone else try it. Then Paul Harvey listed numerous issues where the vast majority wanted the very opposite of public policies....specific policies, not theories. None of those would exist if we had anything like Majority Rule in America. We probably won't hear much about majority rule anymore in the US until whites are no longer the majority. Then we will hear about it. If the Majority does not rule, then it is not democracy.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 27, 2019 9:40 PM  

@108 Ariadne Umbrella
Why do you believe that people would continue to emigrate? You have to have airplanes for that

Apart from technological/ transportation issues, the current glorification of so-called "refugees," and the accompanying eagerness to resettle alien peoples in Western countries, is a historical aberration. In the past, invasions of foreign lands by "refugees" have typically had outcomes closer to this:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Children%27s_crusade

Blogger SirHamster February 27, 2019 10:05 PM  

sammibandit wrote:I don't disagree at all that my idea is unpalatable, Damelobn Brinn. I'm just not convinced your character issues with it are good enough for me to scrap it. I'm a bandit!

Just remember that every tactic you use, is fair game to use on you and your children.

I think stopping the aid is the superior and easier solution than poisoning it and rationalizing the virtue thereof.

Blogger xevious2030 February 27, 2019 10:15 PM  

@83
32 million. 200 million made no sense, should have caught that. About 2.5 times the population of ancient Greece.

Blogger sammibandit February 27, 2019 11:36 PM  

>I think stopping the aid is the superior and easier solution than poisoning it and rationalizing the virtue thereof.

Succinctly put. Ariadne above as well hit home. None of the ideas I floated earlier matter. I'll go into that in a moment. Your diplomacy is always a treat, SirHamster.

>Just remember that every tactic you use, is fair game to use on you and your children.

Tl;dr I read too much Amren these past several weeks?

I don't see my idea working without close contact with the adversary like we currently enjoy. In the event of mass infrastructure failure, as described by Ariadne, there would be no aid delivery logistics let alone a plant in which to cook the aid. If close contact is only way I have to send doctored aid I'd think there are more pressing matters at hand!

I'm sorry to report but morally I do not have a problem with strategic wartime enemy population decimation . All war is without consent. Let me be clear, I do not want to call our good boys to die. I drive past those military issued headstones regularly and in some towns they take up nearly half the lot. So many died that I'll never meet. Nor their descendants for never having been born.

Do we not decimate the enemy when we kill their men? Do we not hamper their population growth?

My idea of sending doctored aid falls apart here because we are only in a cold war, sometimes called polar bear hunting, with the hoary sub-Saharan plebs. There's no reason to spark their insurrection here with doctored aid abroad. That's not cool at all.


The article in the OP talks about the early modern period death sentences reducing propensity towards crime over time. I figured that adulterating food that would surely be stolen and consumed by warlords, thieves, and their customers the process would speed along. I don't think at this time that is a good idea however, but I may as well clarify from where I was coming to here, now. Thanks for the opportunity!

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella February 28, 2019 12:08 AM  

I'm not talking about dramatic wartime failures. I'm talking about MPAI, and the wild white death rate. Someone has to safely mine for oil. Someone has to refine that oil. It's hard to keep either of these systems going if your population is only minimally bright. South America relies on pumping oil, and if they don't have foreigners (that is, Euros and Americans) running things, checking things, maintaining things, things blow up, break, rot, rust and decay. Same for Africa, and really, even in the Middle East. You'd think if you only had one egg, you'd be the best ova-carer around, but you'd be mistaken.

Blogger Rhys February 28, 2019 2:24 AM  

Of all the things I've seen disputed on the comments, the last thing I'd imagine would be the fact that declining IQ is a bad thing. Even if it is just one guy. If you accept the validity of IQ, then declining IQ means less advancement and sustainability. Period.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella February 28, 2019 2:59 AM  

For that matter: Duke vs Griggs Power. Our government judges decided that it was more important the some minorities not get honest feedback about their capabilities than it was for a Southern city to maintain a safe, reliable electrical grid.

A different judge decided it was more important that a black man not get his feelings hurt because he couldn't pass an exit exam at a college. That functionally illiterate black man then rose to run the Detroit public school system. So a major, wealthy city's entire public education was worth less than one black man's ego, and one judge decided that. That judge likely wasn't related to any of the parents of any of the children in that city.

I think cities responded pretty rationally to this sort of monkey-wrenching. Cities gutted their vo-tech programs. If you ask electricians, today, how they got into their jobs, it's because an uncle or their dad or a cousin. On one hand, it's nepotism, on the other, it's practically family based guild quality control. An uncle or cousin isn't going to waste time training an incompetent who could burn down a city. A kid who isn't exposed to the possibilities of making a living as an electrician while at school is going to have to be pretty ambitious to crack the guild/family system in place.

An subcontinental Indian woman decided we didn't need maintenance along electric lines in California. Entire towns burned down. She's not related to anybody in America, is she? It's not her house burning down. It's not her culture suffering from her short-sightedness. It's ours.

Now, add in Flint, Michigan water woes, keep affirmative action hiring policies and activist judges: how on earth do you suppose we are going to keep the lights on anywhere?

It's possible for ruling parties in countries-even advanced ones- to decide that some ideology is more important than technical excellence. France threw out its Protestants. It hasn't recovered in 500 years. England set Paki rapists into the towns that had traditionally brought forth its technical innovators. They have bureaucrats telling Mr Dyson he couldn't sell his innovative appliances in England. We had a president who thought NASA should make inbred, violent people from other countries feel better about themselves, rather than go to the stars.

America hasn't built nuclear reactors for cheap energy in my lifetime. I'm thinking maybe we are waiting out the generation whose highest value was some intensely costly virtue signaling. We can't afford to have idiots near the reactors. The planners tried to kill off GenX. They were getting a diverse youth. They've realized that a big part of GenZ is based, and now they are cranking up the alluring suicide and weird serial killer movie machine again.



Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 28, 2019 7:52 AM  

Declining IQs of course witness any Muslim held area for a few centuries. A coworker came up to me a few years ago asking about off the grid water pumping knowing that I had an interest in it. He was a churchian helping Guatamalans who frankly could not get water for themselves. That seems to be a big churchian scam for virtue signalers I have met a few who postured like they were Christs of Clean Water.

Blogger sammibandit February 28, 2019 9:47 AM  

>I'm not talking about dramatic wartime failures. I'm talking about MPAI, and the wild white death rate.

No, but it helped me demonstrate why my idea didn't work. Thank you.

With that said, you have a good point in this post and the following one. If I may paraphrase, immigrants present a national security risk when employed in fields attending our basic needs.

For example the doctor who decapitated a baby during birth because she didn't know not use forceps on the head.

Blogger Nameless One February 28, 2019 11:14 AM  

@109

" In 2000, there were about 710 nuns and 230 monks in Anglican religious orders in Britain and Ireland. Eight years later, numbers are down more than a third - to 470 nuns and 135 monks.

It is no better for Roman Catholic orders. The Vatican revealed last year that numbers worldwide fell 10% in 2005-06 alone. The Conference of Religious in England and Wales represents around 80% of Catholic communities, some 4,930 nuns and 1,320 monks. In 2007, just 13 men and 16 women became novices. Numbers have been declining steadily for at least 20 years and the average age of entrants is much higher."

That's from an article in 2009.

There are no monks lefts.

Blogger Oski Bopalena February 28, 2019 12:05 PM  

I guess I'm behind the curve, but finding all of John Walker's Reading List reviews just made my day. Reminds me of the moment a few years ago when I discovered Vox Day.

https://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/

One question: for many years through the end 2008, John wrote copious reviews. This year he appears to have only written one, the one Vox linked to. Anyone know why?

Blogger Balam February 28, 2019 12:43 PM  

Nameless One wrote:That's from an article in 2009.

There are no monks lefts.


The circumstances, techniques and rules that benefited the old monasteries are more worth looking at then the actual converged modern monasteries themselves. Having had more time to mull it over I think there are monks, or at least tribes advancing and preserving knowledge against the mainstream, all over the place. For example, there are communities devoted to NoFap under odd testosterone theories, 'mewing' which is the belief that strong jaw muscles are the key to healthy facial bone structure and dentistry, red laser fanatics who took that nobel prize study in the 60s which said that certain wavelengths of light enhance healing and bathe themselves in homemade arrays, many diverse water filter communities, modern metallurgy clubs, farming groups who have youtube channels or books (David the Good comes to mind) who are still pushing the boundaries of what people think of agriculture. Some are insane cults, sure, but some have just the right kind of people to kick off new technological revolutions. It was outsiders like these who first challenged the high carb food pyramid the US government enforced, and their success was mostly because what they did worked.

My intuition is just that the old trees, the old order, needs to fall/retract and cause a bit of chaos. Then these fringe groups, by virtue of living by the rules and results of reality over delusion, will flourish simply because people will want what works.

As to how this relates to the lowering of the world IQ, one can only hope that it's mostly increased Africans or welfare or whatever booming the lower end of the spectrum and dragging down the average and that once nationalism and tribalism rises to the forefront again the selective pressures go the opposite direction. These tribes are still around and still forming, they just need the right soil to bloom.

Blogger P hall February 28, 2019 3:55 PM  

I think we're looking at the problem wrong. I see the issue being not a lack of smart people, but an overabundance of stupid people doing stupid things. Innovation comes in fits and starts, and often contributes to societal decay. Medical technology, for example, has reduced Darwin's role in population genetics worldwide. How many fewer gangbangers would there be if we weren't so good at treating gunshot wounds?

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella February 28, 2019 7:03 PM  

AJACortes just sent an email talking a great deal about the subjects bounced around in this thread. It might be of interest to ya'll. He's on Twitter, and just went through a twitter mobbing, but came out of it in better shape. I'm subscribed for the fitness material, but the book reviews and social observations are starting to be way more interesting. He includes rebuilding small communities of interest, coalescing around internet connections, like #123 was talking about.


Blogger eclecticme February 28, 2019 7:06 PM  

I doubt Chinese IQ is falling much. Maybe some if smarter women have careers instead of kids. They do not allow in immigrants, at least not long term. They show no abhorrence for genetically engineering humans.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella February 28, 2019 7:06 PM  

and, #112, I don't talk about what I think is likely to happen with a return to historical norms, because I really am not wicked enough, or clever enough. I think what you posted is more likely than a constant ceaseless motion of people met with welcoming committees.

Blogger eclecticme February 28, 2019 7:31 PM  

@94. Ariadne Umbrella February 27, 2019 4:07 PM
...

So, how exactly, are these single bright kids in poorer, more diverse settings with failed manufacturing, migrant farm labor on latifundia, mines that the government sells to outsiders, or simply closes because 'global warming', supposed to create this marvelous high-tech world that ya'll seem to feel entitled to, after you didn't maintain the fuck out of the one you inherited?
...

The ruling class does not farm, manufacture, or mine and their children do not compete with low skilled immigrant labor. "We" means the ruling class to the ruling class. They rely on capital, social capital acquired at Ivy League schools (including access to top govt jobs) and credentialed jobs protected by govt.

The only hope is immigration control, tariffs, and reduced environmentalist religion. If not they have to feel the pain that the unprotected feel.

Blogger Nameless One March 01, 2019 12:50 PM  

@123

Your examples sounds nice but unrealistic. For the kind of innovation we are talking about, you need larger pockets that can actually support serious scientific research. And the population of the those pockets to be large enough to produce a number of geniuses. Tiny isolated communities can't do that.

Blogger Balam March 01, 2019 7:52 PM  

Nameless One wrote:Your examples sounds nice but unrealistic. For the kind of innovation we are talking about, you need larger pockets that can actually support serious scientific research. And the population of the those pockets to be large enough to produce a number of geniuses. Tiny isolated communities can't do that.

There have been major inventions funded by industrial/governmental labs and there have been those that have not. A cursory googling into the big innovations of human history in the latter brought up the process of steel making, discovery of penicillin, Gutenberg press, the compass. New super processes developed by people who were employees by accident, trying to improve existing processes in their business or sheer inspiration. For the former there were the myriad of things coming out of Bell Labs like the telegraph, Navy labs like GPS, nitrate fertilizers from academia and pretty much all computer tech I could find without spending more time on it. Deep pockets help to an extent but, like water for a plant, you only need enough.

Your argument is that the easy spread of knowledge leads to homogenization of knowledge which is stifling people who would be contrary. I don’t think homogenization is stiffling contrarianism and, giving it more thought, I don’t think expert homogenization is even occurring. Instead of group consensus driving uniformity of thought we’re seeing the opposite. There are constant articles and news about “scientists” new discoveries that “totally upset everything you know about the universe and here’s 10 reasons why” because the new global knowledge economy is incentivizing people to be fame/money whores rather than lockstep drones. People wanting to be contrarian is so bad now that they’ve abandoned telling the truth and are outright lying to everyone leading to the current state where you can’t even reproduce the experiments they claim to have done. Knowledge as basic as XX and XY chromosomes deciding gender is being tossed aside despite it being globally common knowledge. Solar companies are lying about being able to make more power to get more money and fame. People are defying the experts, it’s just that none of it works.

What is happening, and what would explain the complete lack of progress in knowledge, is that people’s priorities are different now. In short people don’t want truth anymore they want money/fame. I re-found and skimmed 'Fate of Empires' by Sir John Glubb who laid out the lifetime of an empire, such as our beloved US, as follows: The Age of Pioneers (outburst), The Age of Conquests, The Age of Commerce, The Age of Affluence, The Age of Intellect, The Age of Decadence. The gist is that it’s the culture/spirit of the people that decide the age and it’s that culture/spirit that leads to material results (such as societal IQ, racial homogeny, innovations, wealth, etc). Also, implicitly, the ages always go forwards and never backwards.

If you allow me to modify my suggestions for the tribe a bit: because of the changes to the peoples (getting dumber, basically, but more specifically the degradation of their morals because the new selection pressures are for degeneracy instead of excellence) we will not be able to move back into an era where people suddenly are great inventors again. No systemic change will work because the corrupt people will be corrupt no matter how you arrange it - there’s no point in trying. Instead we should tribe up in order to protect our loved ones locally, with a particular focus on virtue, and once the old empire falls we hope that one of our groups is ready to fill the gap in a new Age of Pioneers. The new selection pressures will be for excellence and that culture will get around to new innovations eventually.

Blogger eclecticme March 02, 2019 6:04 PM  

@130. Balam March 01, 2019 7:52 PM

Nameless One wrote:
Your examples sounds nice but unrealistic. For the kind of innovation we are talking about, you need larger pockets that can actually support serious scientific research. And the population of the those pockets to be large enough to produce a number of geniuses. Tiny isolated communities can't do that.


There have been major inventions funded by industrial/governmental labs and there have been those that have not.


Random related thoughts:

NN Taleb said that most inventions are the product of "stochastic tinkering" not the Harvard-Soviet model of top down development, or similar language. Interesting.

After reading that I read The Wright Brothers (David McCullough). Wow. Stochastic tinkering by bicycle mechanics. The US govt did not invent the airplane. I recall the blue LED was created by a misfit Japanese researcher.

The number of inventions from Bell Labs was incredible. A Prof once said (decades ago) that Bell Labs had the highest reliability computers but we never heard of them because they were used for switching. I wondered why Bell telephone was broken up.

After reading Free Trade Doesn't Work I thought of the cited benefits of Bell Labs living off the monies from a regulated monopoly.

Blogger eclecticme March 02, 2019 6:08 PM  

I originally came back to this topic to post this. I wonder if the classics, at least in the original. will be lost to another dark age. It seems expecting the learning of Greek and Latin is racist. So is relying on commentaries by dead white males.

https://quillette.com/2019/02/26/how-i-was-kicked-out-of-the-society-for-classical-studies-annual-meeting/

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts