Fascists, I am curious - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14520946
My social experiences with fascists happen mostly with the so called white nationalists - Not all of them are fascists but at least half of the individuals I've met have authoritarian political orientations. I know white nationalism isn't really representative of fascism, and I know fascists don't necessarily think alike all the time, so I thought I'd make just a few questions:

- What are your views on ethnic/racial preservation and interracial marriage? If you support ethnic preservation (and cultural), how do you determine who belongs to a race? For example, I am white, but how white must I be to be considered of ethnic origin? According to some white nationalists I wouldn't be considered white if I had, for example, one distant Jewish relative. And how would you deal with this legally?

- How would citizenship work in a fascist State? Bloodline only? Or could it be given to non natives with merit? If you answered bloodline, how does that work? One parent of national origin is enough, or both?

- Since in a fascist States individual interests are limited to benefit the State, how would you prevent individuals from posing a threat (try to be specific)? Would it be like in the good old days, with political police and armed paramilitary?

- How free would individuals be in their daily activities?


Don't take my questions personally, I'm just curious, and I don't know much about fascism b sides a few white nationalists I've met.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14520995
Dystopian Darkness wrote:- What are your views on ethnic/racial preservation and interracial marriage? If you support ethnic preservation (and cultural), how do you determine who belongs to a race? For example, I am white, but how white must I be to be considered of ethnic origin? According to some white nationalists I wouldn't be considered white if I had, for example, one distant Jewish relative. And how would you deal with this legally?


I'm not a "race realist", so ethnic/racial preservation is pretty low on my list of priorities and I'm not opposed to interracial marriage. However, I do believe that an ethnically homogeneous country is in some ways much easier to unify than a diverse one. On the other hand, since I also support imperialism and conquest, I believe that multi-ethnic societies are pretty much inevitable.

- How would citizenship work in a fascist State? Bloodline only? Or could it be given to non natives with merit? If you answered bloodline, how does that work? One parent of national origin is enough, or both?


I think citizenship could be given to non-natives with merit.

- Since in a fascist States individual interests are limited to benefit the State, how would you prevent individuals from posing a threat (try to be specific)? Would it be like in the good old days, with political police and armed paramilitary?


What kind of "threat" are we talking about exactly? If it's plotting treason or something, then of course such people will have to be imprisoned/eliminated.

If you're referring to promoting anti-fascist ideology, or spreading anti-fascist propaganda, then that will be met with imprisonment and/or re-education.

But ultimately, people will have to be indoctrinated from an early age.

- How free would individuals be in their daily activities?


Much less so than they are now. I imagine daily life would be significantly more spartan than it is now.
#14521002
I'm not a "race realist", so ethnic/racial preservation is pretty low on my list of priorities and I'm not opposed to interracial marriage. However, I do believe that an ethnically homogeneous country is in some ways much easier to unify than a diverse one. On the other hand, since I also support imperialism and conquest, I believe that multi-ethnic societies are pretty much inevitable.

I do agree that some racial homogeneity gives people a sense of union, belonging and cooperation, but I do think it's inevitable and I don't endorse racial superiority. Do you mean imperialism and conquest as Genghis Khan or Roman Empire style?
I think citizenship could be given to non-natives with merit.

Ok, and if these individuals married and had kids would they pass on the citizenship and thus their kids would in theory be considered "natives"?

What kind of "threat" are we talking about exactly? If it's plotting treason or something, then of course such people will have to be imprisoned/eliminated.

If you're referring to promoting anti-fascist ideology, or spreading anti-fascist propaganda, then that will be met with imprisonment and/or re-education.

But ultimately, people will have to be indoctrinated from an early age.

Do people have the right to a fair trial before being subjected to corrective or punitive measures?

Much less so than they are now. I imagine daily life would be significantly more spartan than it is now.


On this I'd like some elaboration. Outside my work schedule, what would I be able to do? Would I be able to leave my house as I feel like and go everywhere I want as long as the law allows me to go there? Would I be able to discuss any cultural, political, social or ethical topic as long as it's not anti-fascist?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14521011
Dystopian Darkness wrote:I do agree that some racial homogeneity gives people a sense of union, belonging and cooperation, but I do think it's inevitable and I don't endorse racial superiority. Do you mean imperialism and conquest as Genghis Khan or Roman Empire style?


Roman Empire, more-like.

Ok, and if these individuals married and had kids would they pass on the citizenship and thus their kids would in theory be considered "natives"?


No reason not to.

Do people have the right to a fair trial before being subjected to corrective or punitive measures?


Sure.

On this I'd like some elaboration. Outside my work schedule, what would I be able to do? Would I be able to leave my house as I feel like and go everywhere I want as long as the law allows me to go there? Would I be able to discuss any cultural, political, social or ethical topic as long as it's not anti-fascist?


It's not that your personal freedom would be reduced by being forbidden by law from doing a whole bunch of little things. It's more like certain standards would be required and expected of a good citizen, such as improving yourself, your family, your community, and your country.

I don't think any ideas are inherently "anti-fascist". You would be able to discuss any topic with anybody, so long as your goal is to learn by bouncing ideas or arguments (even subversive ones) off of others. The only thing you need to be aware of is that deviation from core Party ideology is not permitted (except for top intellectuals under certain circumstances), and intentionally trying to persuade people of anti-fascist ideals/beliefs would be considered a crime.
By Decky
#14522395
By definition the American white pride lot will have to support giving citizenship to non natives unless they want to pack their bags and leave themselves.
#14529627
Dystopian Darkness wrote:My social experiences with fascists happen mostly with the so called white nationalists - Not all of them are fascists but at least half of the individuals I've met have authoritarian political orientations. I know white nationalism isn't really representative of fascism, and I know fascists don't necessarily think alike all the time, so I thought I'd make just a few questions:

- What are your views on ethnic/racial preservation and interracial marriage? If you support ethnic preservation (and cultural), how do you determine who belongs to a race? For example, I am white, but how white must I be to be considered of ethnic origin? According to some white nationalists I wouldn't be considered white if I had, for example, one distant Jewish relative. And how would you deal with this legally?

- How would citizenship work in a fascist State? Bloodline only? Or could it be given to non natives with merit? If you answered bloodline, how does that work? One parent of national origin is enough, or both?

- Since in a fascist States individual interests are limited to benefit the State, how would you prevent individuals from posing a threat (try to be specific)? Would it be like in the good old days, with political police and armed paramilitary?

- How free would individuals be in their daily activities?


Don't take my questions personally, I'm just curious, and I don't know much about fascism b sides a few white nationalists I've met.


I agree quite a bit with Saeko.

I am ideologically Fascist, and quite personally, I laugh at the notion of race. Like Mussolini, I see very little evidence for it, quite frankly. What we call "race" is nothing more than the genetic patterns found in higher concentrations among areas where particular populations agglomerated. People who breed in closer proximity to one another will inevitably develop similar characteristics. But I also realize the unfortunate truth that intelligence is mostly hereditary, and as a result, some populations or "races" will produce a higher number of intelligent people.

For me, homogeneity is desirable, but only to the end of class unification. I see multiculturalism as a ploy of neocapitalist fat cats who seek to import cheaper labor whilst at the same time foster division among the ranks of the proles. The truth of the matter is that diversity equals division, and this is precisely why I oppose it. Leftists support it only out of loyalty to the tenants of internationalism, and because they are batshit insane.

It became very clear to me, and very early as I became interested in politics, that the only hope for a future worth living, particularly in the west, is the Third Position. It is only beyond the greed of the right and the insanity of the left can we find our salvation.
Last edited by Stormvessel on 24 Feb 2015 15:16, edited 1 time in total.
#14529700
Let me also add that I agree with Saeko in that I have a positive view of Imperialism. But I will add some other ideas:

Like Hitler, I do believe that it is the destiny of the strong to assert themselves. Unlike Hitler, I do not feel that "race" has anything to do with it. There are superior and inferior specimens found in any "racial" group. That some groups have a higher number of inferior specimens is easily solved through stringent implementation of negative and positive eugenics, which is something I would like to see employed immediately upon realization of a Fascist state.

As for personal rights, well, no matter how unpleasant this may be to weak minds, the fact is that the only rights that exist are those that can be enforced through strength of arm. I know that may sound harsh to those indoctrinated into the current landscape of popular thought, but it is a natural fact. I do not believe that human specimens should take the liberty to invent fairy tales in an effort to make themselves feel better about the world, especially when said fairy tales have such a detrimental effect on our social policy.

Fascism is not an end but a means to an end - a revolutionary process of enlightenment and organic amelioration. Hitler didn't believe so much in a master race as much as he believed in creating a master race. Eugenics is key. Simply put, we can hold the key to our own evolution, but we are currently impeded by weak minded specimens who oppose this for any number of trivialities. In a Fascist state, a clearly defined hierarchy will be established and maintained, and based entirely on merit and genetic quality (as opposed to inheritance or birthright), through a dynamic called "class collaboration". Look up on it and read about it if you are truly interested.

Back to imperialism...

Imperialism is sort of a dirty word nowadays. Once a nation has achieved rebirth, that is, Fascist revolution, and has the means, I feel it would be a duty to liberate other nations and peoples from democratic tyranny and envelop them into the organic process of genetic amelioration and rebirth.
#14529758
Stormvessel wrote:Let me also add that I agree with Saeko in that I have a positive view of Imperialism. But I will add some other ideas:

Like Hitler, I do believe that it is the destiny of the strong to assert themselves. Unlike Hitler, I do not feel that "race" has anything to do with it. There are superior and inferior specimens found in any "racial" group. That some groups have a higher number of inferior specimens is easily solved through stringent implementation of negative and positive eugenics, which is something I would like to see employed immediately upon realization of a Fascist state.


Great ideas, stormvessel and Saeko. Good to see this subforum hasn't gone completely to the dogs, with screwy talk of religion based monarchy.
One thing though. It would be wise IMO not to use the term "fascism" in reference to a future system. Not only to avoid the historical baggage. Fascism was a failed movement of 3/4 century ago, in an age with maybe 10% of current let alone future knowledge. Surely we have enough brains and originality to devise our own system based on our own times rather than just copy early 20th century theorists.

I do not believe that human specimens should take the liberty to invent fairy tales in an effort to make themselves feel better about the world, especially when said fairy tales have such a detrimental effect on our social policy.


Agreed. That includes "human equality" and religion in my view.

Fascism is not an end but a means to an end - a revolutionary process of enlightenment and organic amelioration. Hitler didn't believe so much in a master race as much as he believed in creating a master race. Eugenics is key. Simply put, we can hold the key to our own evolution, but we are currently impeded by weak minded specimens who oppose this for any number of trivialities. In a Fascist state, a clearly defined hierarchy will be established and maintained, and based entirely on merit and genetic quality (as opposed to inheritance or birthright),


Meritocracy and eugenics are great ideas. But in the future there should be all kinds of means--genetic engineering, creation of androids, to make a superior group possible.

Imperialism is sort of a dirty word nowadays. Once a nation has achieved rebirth, that is, Fascist revolution, and has the means, I feel it would be a duty to liberate other nations and peoples from democratic tyranny and envelop them into the organic process of genetic amelioration and rebirth.


I've long seen global unity through hegemonization as vital to ensure peace and stability, more effective solving of global problems, and for mobilizing all of earth's talents and resources for really great achievement in space.
#14530348
No, no. I agree. I don't often refer to myself as "Fascist", simply because people will jump to conclusions, believing things about Fascism that the capitalist overlords and cultural marxist front have put into their weak little heads. The Fascists in the 20s didn't go around calling themselves monarchists - they rebranded themselves. That is part of what it means to be Fascist: to undergo rebirth, reinventing and rejuvenating that which is old...and good.

I don't know a more proper designation for those who believe as we do, but for now, "Third Positionist" works pretty well.
#14530395
Stormvessel wrote:No, no. I agree. I don't often refer to myself as "Fascist", simply because people will jump to conclusions, believing things about Fascism that the capitalist overlords and cultural marxist front have put into their weak little heads.


IMO historical baggage, and failure, should consign the term to the dustbin of history.


The Fascists in the 20s didn't go around calling themselves monarchists - they rebranded themselves. That is part of what it means to be Fascist: to undergo rebirth, reinventing and rejuvenating that which is old...and good.


They were inspired by ancient Rome and Caesarism, not medieval-type monarchy. Modern authoritarianism is more meritocratic not relying on heredity, and it meant State activism.

I don't know a more proper designation for those who believe as we do, but for now, "Third Positionist" works pretty well.


I've used the term Wholist, but whatever the proper term, in the short run, for tactical reasons, it may be best to use some title like American patriotic movement.
#14531420
I agree quite a bit with Saeko.

I am ideologically Fascist, and quite personally, I laugh at the notion of race. Like Mussolini, I see very little evidence for it, quite frankly. What we call "race" is nothing more than the genetic patterns found in higher concentrations among areas where particular populations agglomerated. People who breed in closer proximity to one another will inevitably develop similar characteristics. But I also realize the unfortunate truth that intelligence is mostly hereditary, and as a result, some populations or "races" will produce a higher number of intelligent people.

For me, homogeneity is desirable, but only to the end of class unification. I see multiculturalism as a ploy of neocapitalist fat cats who seek to import cheaper labor whilst at the same time foster division among the ranks of the proles. The truth of the matter is that diversity equals division, and this is precisely why I oppose it. Leftists support it only out of loyalty to the tenants of internationalism, and because they are batshit insane.

It became very clear to me, and very early as I became interested in politics, that the only hope for a future worth living, particularly in the west, is the Third Position. It is only beyond the greed of the right and the insanity of the left can we find our salvation.

[/quote]
I have to disagree on the part that human intelligence is mostly hereditary. Intelligence is influenced by both genetics and the environment. Personally I see the environment as a more determinant factor. You can raise two different people with the same genes and they'll probably have different IQ's if you raise them in different households

I agree on multiculturalism and the second paragraph

Like Hitler, I do believe that it is the destiny of the strong to assert themselves. Unlike Hitler, I do not feel that "race" has anything to do with it. There are superior and inferior specimens found in any "racial" group. That some groups have a higher number of inferior specimens is easily solved through stringent implementation of negative and positive eugenics, which is something I would like to see employed immediately upon realization of a Fascist state.

So basically you eliminate undesirable cultural and social backgrounds that breed low intelligence? And what race as the superior specimens, in your opinion?

As for personal rights, well, no matter how unpleasant this may be to weak minds, the fact is that the only rights that exist are those that can be enforced through strength of arm. I know that may sound harsh to those indoctrinated into the current landscape of popular thought, but it is a natural fact. I do not believe that human specimens should take the liberty to invent fairy tales in an effort to make themselves feel better about the world, especially when said fairy tales have such a detrimental effect on our social policy.

Fascism is not an end but a means to an end - a revolutionary process of enlightenment and organic amelioration. Hitler didn't believe so much in a master race as much as he believed in creating a master race. Eugenics is key. Simply put, we can hold the key to our own evolution, but we are currently impeded by weak minded specimens who oppose this for any number of trivialities. In a Fascist state, a clearly defined hierarchy will be established and maintained, and based entirely on merit and genetic quality (as opposed to inheritance or birthright), through a dynamic called "class collaboration". Look up on it and read about it if you are truly interested.

Interesting. But how necessary is eugenics? Can't "inferior" people contribute to the nation as well?

Genetic quality pretty much means inheritance, at least the way I see it. I support meritocracy regardless of personal characteristics (race, gender, etc.). Someone capable should be rewarded.

Imperialism is sort of a dirty word nowadays. Once a nation has achieved rebirth, that is, Fascist revolution, and has the means, I feel it would be a duty to liberate other nations and peoples from democratic tyranny and envelop them into the organic process of genetic amelioration and rebirth.

I don't know how much I like this because I live in a weak country in the international scale (military wise). Would "invaded" nations be able to keep their customs and identity?

Agreed. That includes "human equality" and religion in my view.

Yes!

Meritocracy and eugenics are great ideas. But in the future there should be all kinds of means--genetic engineering, creation of androids, to make a superior group possible.

Full disclosure - I don't think eugenics is necessarily bad if we want to achieve desirable traits. But I don't like going down the path of considering some people inferior and less deserving of living in society. How do you see people with less desirable traits? Like disabled or less intelligent people.


How would a fascist society work for me? I'm the average man in his 20's. Could I marry whoever I want? Could I have any job I want (my IQ is a bit above average)? Could I have as many kids as I wish? Could I listen to any music I like? - This last part brings an interesting question. How would culture work in a fascist state?
#14531485
Dystopian Darkness wrote:I have to disagree on the part that human intelligence is mostly hereditary. Intelligence is influenced by both genetics and the environment. Personally I see the environment as a more determinant factor. You can raise two different people with the same genes and they'll probably have different IQ's if you raise them in different households.


I will have to disagree with that, genetics heavily influences intelligence more so then the environment( I assume you mean social-economic class, and not say prolonged hypoxia at birth). For instance, people with low inherited IQ will tend to be less successful in life and live in more unfavorable environment. So people with lower IQ tend towards lower social classes, and people usually reproduce with people from the same social strata. Which in turn, give to people with lower IQ. Of course environment is a determinant factor, but not the most determinant factor: for instance, you can not make a monkey become a physician or a politician no matter how good the environment. The concept of equality at birth is simply not true, some are more socially adept, healthier or possess of greater intelligence. No amount of environment can change that. If still not convinced, go volunteer/work at a pediatric hospital for a week.

Dystopian Darkness wrote:Full disclosure - I don't think eugenics is necessarily bad if we want to achieve desirable traits. But I don't like going down the path of considering some people inferior and less deserving of living in society. How do you see people with less desirable traits? Like disabled or less intelligent people..


I agree, the extremes of the spectrum is easy to see (ie: the mentally retarded IQ<70) and the severely physically disabled do not get many chance to reproduce physiologically, but the rest gets murky.

Dystopian Darkness wrote:I don't know how much I like this because I live in a weak country in the international scale (military wise). Would "invaded" nations be able to keep their customs and identity?


Only if it benefits the Fascist state.
#14531545
I will have to disagree with that, genetics heavily influences intelligence more so then the environment( I assume you mean social-economic class, and not say prolonged hypoxia at birth). For instance, people with low inherited IQ will tend to be less successful in life and live in more unfavorable environment. So people with lower IQ tend towards lower social classes, and people usually reproduce with people from the same social strata. Which in turn, give to people with lower IQ. Of course environment is a determinant factor, but not the most determinant factor: for instance, you can not make a monkey become a physician or a politician no matter how good the environment. The concept of equality at birth is simply not true, some are more socially adept, healthier or possess of greater intelligence. No amount of environment can change that. If still not convinced, go volunteer/work at a pediatric hospital for a week.

Good point, but how much does genetic influence intelligence? I consider myself reasonably smart. Maybe not a genius, but I'm better than the average citizen, and no, saying this doesn't make me elitist or narcissistic. I grew up in a household that incited me to learn, to cherish critical thinking, science, to question everything, to discover, work hard, to hold solid moral values... I would have to be a fool to deny it had an impact on my development.

I've had psychology classes (basic 101 level) and what I learned is that depending on the individual sometimes the environment plays a bigger part, other times it is genetics that influences the most. Obviously someone who is born mentally retarded will have a harder task in life and someone who is born with a predisposition to intellectual giftedness will have a much easier time. However, these are two extreme cases in the spectrum. Most people are born with an average IQ and with proper educational and methodological measures can become good citizens.

Be honest - How much would you say genetics influence intelligence? And is intelligence merely IQ? I think there's more to intelligence than IQ tests. Working hard is very important. Obviously if your intelligence is very low working hard will be useless, but as long as you are average you have an opportunity to be useful.

To give you a counter analogy - Try raising two different kids in two different households (with the same DNA) - Then go check if they score the same in IQ tests and life success. I have witnessed this personally, and believe me - The difference is tremendous.

I am not saying genetics aren't important - I'd have to be a fool to say that. But if I may ask - Why does everyone need such high intelligence? Can't average people be useful to a fascist state as well?

I have a problem with one of your arguments - You are comparing humans with apes, which is obviously not accurate since we are drastically different despite similarities and evolutionary common traits.
I agree, the extremes of the spectrum is easy to see (ie: the mentally retarded IQ<70) and the severely physically disabled do not get many chance to reproduce physiologically, but the rest gets murky.

I'm confused with your reply. How do you determine the rest and what do you do to those in the lower end of the spectrum?
Only if it benefits the Fascist state.

I should have expected that
#14531610
Dystopian Darkness wrote:Good point, but how much does genetic influence intelligence? I consider myself reasonably smart. Maybe not a genius, but I'm better than the average citizen, and no, saying this doesn't make me elitist or narcissistic. I grew up in a household that incited me to learn, to cherish critical thinking, science, to question everything, to discover, work hard, to hold solid moral values... I would have to be a fool to deny it had an impact on my development.
Be honest - How much would you say genetics influence intelligence? And is intelligence merely IQ? I think there's more to intelligence than IQ tests. Working hard is very important. Obviously if your intelligence is very low working hard will be useless, but as long as you are average you have an opportunity to be useful.


IQ is the most suitable way to measure intelligence for now, it is much more accurate for the lower ranges (<100) than for the higher ranges (>100).
All people with IQ higher than 75/80 can be useful.


Dystopian Darkness wrote:To give you a counter analogy - Try raising two different kids in two different households (with the same DNA) - Then go check if they score the same in IQ tests and life success. I have witnessed this personally, and believe me - The difference is tremendous.


There can be a difference, and DNA is no guarantee of success, (and no, no one has the same DNA; even in monozygotic twins: the inactivation pattern of genes (methylation), point mutations, and mosaicism is different for each individual and even for group of early stem cells in the same individual), since too many variables exist. And raising two different kids in two different households (with the "same" DNA), unless extreme socio-economical divergence in households, IQ will remain fairly consistent. Children with higher IQ than their parents socio-economical class IQ average tend to leave that class.


Dystopian Darkness wrote:I have a problem with one of your arguments - You are comparing humans with apes, which is obviously not accurate since we are drastically different despite similarities and evolutionary common traits.


It is an example to demonstrate the effect of genetics on intelligence. We share more than 98%(Or was it more?) of our genome with the chimpanzee or the bonobos, but the IQ difference is like night and day.
User avatar
By fuser
#14531653
Andraste wrote:for instance, you can not make a monkey become a physician or a politician no matter how good the environment.


Wait, what? I... You do realize monkeys and humans are two completely distinct species and no such distinction exists between any human population group? And hence this example is completely invalid.

And as per intelligence, there is no consensus on what constitute intelligence (and IQ is a very poor method) as Stephan Hawkins said and I agree, "Only losers care about their IQ" and in what amount it is affected by genetics or environment. People tend to agree with one or another only because of their pre conceived ideological position and nothing more.

Beside Environmental factor is indeed one of the major factor but people don't tend to comprehend what environment is in this context. For example an unhealthy malnourished population will show sign of lower intelligence (regardless of color and geography of this population group), the solution here is quite obvious which is environmental that will also lead to improvement in genetic factors too in a few generation. But it seems that Fascists are more interested in eradicating people than actual problems.

Also I don't understand what's this obsession with genetic intelligence? Is the substantial difference between two Koreas because of substantial difference in the intelligence (however you measure that intelligence) of the Korean people, now divided in two group because suddenly there is an arbitrary border between them?
#14531656
It is an example to demonstrate the effect of genetics on intelligence. We share more than 98%(Or was it more?) of our genome with the chimpanzee or the bonobos, but the IQ difference is like night and day. It shows that genetics matter, no matter how minuscule the difference.

As I said, IQ is the most suitable way to measure intelligence for now, it is much more accurate for the lower ranges (<100) than for the higher ranges (>100). Hawking is a physicist/celebrity, if he was a medical practitioner who work with the mentally ill and/or retarded, I will be more inclined to believe him.

A brief summary would be that IQ potential is genetic, whether you can achieve it depends on the environment though higher potential IQ itself tend to influence positively the environment. My previous 2 posts have a longer explanation.

Obsession with IQ? It remains a fascinating subject that requires more research.
User avatar
By fuser
#14531659
Andraste wrote:It is an example to demonstrate the effect of genetics on intelligence. We share more than 98%(Or was it more?) of our genome with the chimpanzee or the bonobos, but the IQ difference is like night and day. It shows that genetics matter, no matter how minuscule the difference.


Yes, genetics matter. No one said otherwise or else this wouldn't had been a scientific field. But what you are once again forgetting is that no matter the percentage of difference, monkeys and humans are not same species (hint: Its not only about percentage of difference but more about "type of difference") unless you are trying to claim that Humans consist of different biological species, this example makes no sense at all.

As I said, IQ is the most suitable way to measure intelligence for now, it is much more accurate for the lower ranges (<100) than for the higher ranges (>100). Hawking is a physicist/celebrity, if he was a medical practitioner who work with the mentally ill and/or retarded, I will be more inclined to believe him.


No its not, it just appears to be because its simply popular in pop culture. There are many other methods that are more suitable and yet they also are far from perfect. The fact of matter is that there is no universal consensus on what exactly is intelligence and how to exactly measure and map it.

A brief summary would be that IQ potential is genetic, whether you can achieve it depends on the environment though higher potential IQ itself tend to influence positively the environment. My previous 2 posts have a longer explanation.


Again, there is no universal consensus on it at all. There are tons of research easily accessible through magic of google fu supporting one or another pre conceived assumption of a poster. I am not willing to go there as this has been done to death on the forum.

But see Flynn Effect. Flynn effect can only be explained through environmental factors as I said in my previous post using example of a malnourished population, this effect can only be explained by taking into account the rising health and education level of the population groups.

Obsession with IQ? It remains a fascinating subject that requires more research.


Oh, I have no problem if obsession/fascination is academic, what my Korean example was showing was why obsess with IQ over how to create/run a society.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]