I basically agree that low 120ish is a great IQ to have in the Euro-sphere in this day and age: smart enough but not maladjusted.
That is why eugenics is so necessary. We need to move the mode to the right on the bell curve chart.
Merit is relative; it has to do with what the arena is. Change the arena and you change what is alpha pup and what is dead runt.
I believe for _Euro Caucasoids_ the chiefs of yore were 135ish; shamans were 140ish (or just 135 add 'lactose intolerance' or etc) and the tribe males were 120ish. (The rest were dead. We keep the dead alive now in a humongous dysgenic serfdom where fancy talk covers up the word "cat herded serfdom".)
Today, the leaders/professionals etc are 120 ish(or less!), the tribe is 100 or worse(!) the 135s are deemed the cosmic enemies of all mankind's history and the 141ish are the runty, ring-kissing, _cowed_ neurons of a giant body no one ever advocated or understands. (Above that set are newly kept alive poor fucks that only survive now because of the new environment (modern civilization).)
This is all easy to investigate --if liberalism (and its tendency to convolute and distort) is quashed:
Test and observe the children (3-11 years old).
Observe natural pecking order issues.
I assert the class leader males will be 135 ish. (Children naturally follow the kid with 'IT'; 'it' according to the old measure of men from which we come and are still an echo of.)
Then follow these kids around for life. I bet those leader males are ousted during puberty in favor of dumber conformity controllers.
(This is true even without non white ethnics dumbing up the soup I assert. Ie this trend starts before their introduction.)
Further, the ousted males don't go on to be the "corporate heads" or political heads or any leaders above board. (They probably are still leaders of their circles --since pack males naturally defer to `cache; or they are loners.)
This ousting-the-born-leaders-and-replacing-with-fools thing is what democracy (and civilization in general) aspires to do by _stated goal_ and design. So if what I'm saying is not happening then democracy is failing at its goal.
I've already noted that politician-IQ-reports are usually high; absurdly so. They are created by partisans.
We don't hear about anglo western pols' real IQs because they are low (115 to 120 ish?). The "dictators" were much higher I assert. And that doltishness is not a coincidence: it is what democracy is.
Suspected Bell Curve mode avgs for classes:
(I just make everything up... But I'm still right...)
-white masses 102 [a newly kept alive thralldom]
-military and police 110 [pre history early history's tribal warrior mass; now tweaked in their morphologies: namely they are simple-focused, like immune cells are simple-focus amoeba (as dogs are specialized/tamed wolves)]
-politicos and media 115-123 [rabble rousers of the "alpha beta gamma dynamic" (coup d eta chimp system); courtly sycophants of medieval dynasty system]
-CEOs and professionals[lawyers] 120-126 (professionals are high) [just right for the new world order going on centuries now; more courtly vestiges yore]
-comedians 125-130 [hmmm...]
-artists 131-135 [old shamans and chiefs, functioning on charisma and aptitude display]
-scientists 140 [old shamans (and chiefs)]
IQ tests are not the be all end all. Yes the jews are sophister convoluters and distorters but they do point at truths (that's why they are effective demagogues):
People are like bar graphs of traits. And then there is very _relevant_ Nurture Syndrome (which is real and NOT the same as that B.S. liberal "blank slate").
Nurture Syndrome = like callouses or lead paint, but even more profound and extensive --glandular and neurologic habituation etc.
"Emotional IQ" is jew sophistry. The end result of that "research" as far as I can tell is 'dumb liars make more functional citizens' [and wimmins]. The fact jews don't then go on to deconstruct that by saying "citizenship --like any other measuring stick-- is a relative test which says more about the tester than anything else" even though it is their raison d tre to deconstruct just like that exposes their hypocrisy once again.
All that above there complexifies simple IQ assertions. I say that, even though I am a genius. It is just that I have seen people as smart as me and smarter (@#*! :-) ) not get simple stuff because of their cowardliness or testosterone issues or other bio-soup issues. (Eg bench warmer issues in childhood or physiological cognitive blind spots cause warped lensing.) If we had to pick a simple selection criteria I guess IQ would be best... "Let's just get it over and done with and we'll recon with details about the survivors later".)
I do say again, "merit" is relative; it has to do with what the arena is. Change the arena and you change what is alpha pup and what is dead runt.
Conservatives have a hubris about their good luck (and mediocrity!).
Also when talking about _group_ intelligence one NEEDS to state the curve slope not just the "mode". Is it soft knee or sharp like North East Asia? (where few people above 123 exist, all clustered around 109).
(Compare Eurosphere: where there is ca 13% above 121; but an abysmal horde down at 100.) I still don't know the black curve and I've been around race sites for a while now. Do any race types even know it?
**Note it is not the 'Mean'. Mean is standard division: how many times up to bat compared to how many hits. 'Mode' is for plurality sets.
It is scary that college people who study this don't know that.
[...T'is all part of the english/french/dutch vibe to corrupt their schema. Maintaining consistency is "oppressive". An example is their spelling and pronunciation systems which have absolutely gutted the concept of phonetibet...]
If anyone knows why "mean" is used instead of "mode" I'd like to know.
Also what exactly is the mechanism for this "regression to the mean" which is used?
What is probably meant is dumb people adopted into smart families are still dumb (same for anyone). Ie you demonstrate liberals are full of blank slate hogwash.
Well yes. But I assure all that people's sperm don't just magically 'regress to the mode', just because the environment is now selecting for dunce and breeding the intelligent chiefs of yore into extinction.
Smart people generate sperm (and egg) that codes for clever more often than do dumb folks. If not, then "evolution" wouldn't work like it does. ['evolution" = variant pups and selection; niche-stasis (temporary) creates snowballs of morphologic(shape/qualities) tweaking].
(Also when talking about breeding, there is the "Liger" thing ["recombinant gender sorting"]. The fact we don't know more about that very relevant part of inheritance is all part of that sophister-convoluter-distorter thing. That is why it was important to keep "them" out.)
RED HAIR STUFF
Red hair doesn't guarantee high IQ. But what it does is it effects the nervous system. Or rather the chemicals that make red hair etc effect the nervous system in a way that leads to more exchange between the neurons more quickly.
There have been papers about that --especially from Britain. (Where else? lol) Note it was framed as "redheads are more susceptible to pain than everyone else", for PC reasons.
Note --and everyone should already know this-- cutaneous system and nervous system are the same in the womb.
Red haired females seem to express this tendency differently. Meaning --and to be as curt as I am with gulls-- they often appear very ditzy. I wonder why. (Testosterone or etc mitigates redhair chemicals?)
Red head chemicals are simply one feature of a complex soup called that individual. But if those red hair type chemicals are there it gives the nervous system a boost in addition to what ever that individual's aptitude was going to be anyway --making it more responsive to stimuli (and quicker at laying in memory).
Search for it. Especially if you're a red head. I save nothing because I would never pay Mankind the compliment.
"T" IS FOR TESTOSTERONE
Testosterone in the womb and testosterone flood in early puberty are two different things.
That has been explained before. But there are so many studies and so much distraction and bunk, things get lost on top of getting stomped. (It's just like there are too many entertainment choices.)
So if a man is high IQ and High T, it probably is womb testosterone rather than the puberty infusion (puberty infusion being equated with brutish male or female thuggery). (In short in-utero T creates the systems of the body early on; puberty T acts like a hormone which shapes behavior.)
High T womb are often bald.
Testos is not the simple PC buzz word it has been demonized as.
It is more complicated; in a complicated nurture soup that mitigates it further.
Testos is what makes men smarter than females. (Cell and tissue, organ and system formation itself in the womb.) It's what makes the best men very smart and virile [and braggarts in front of pussy too].
What people are trying to express through the demonization of T is... male puberty has always been a quandary for civilization. Ie quandry for the aging en statused males who want to maintain their _sedentary_ rank [access to sex] as the young princes roar in the night for the [sexual] territory.
Fine. But it is a question of who's going to deal with that 'problem' (of males maturing). ?Men who have the best interest of their sons* --ie their own continuation-- at heart when they organize up some kind of 'social contract'**? Or will it be ethnic aliens who want to geld the host culture males; or female wallflowers with ax to grind issues; and/or other females(basically normal) who are simply envious and angry at boys?
(These 'other females(basically normal)' are confused and dualistic in their anger and demand for male-stunting, since females still expect boys to become men in order to be worth anything. ...Reason number four billion six hundred [and] fifty two why females should not be in charge of anything or be considered "philosophers".)
[*Fathers are a threat to sons as sons are a threat to fathers. This has always been the THING. Whether literally in a family or abstractly between the generations. Take many mammals as ex: Either the adult male runs the young male(s) off the land or the younger run(s) the adult off; Humans have complexifed /muddy that like we do everything --with our specially designed complexifier growing on our shoulders.
Man has not dealt with this well. ...Constant coup d eta and counter-strategy snowballs and pendulums have complexified to the point a female hyper-leverage _hive structure_ developed.
That above is what I'm getting at when I talk of MY "alpha beta gamma theory" of human evolution and civic/political snowballs.]
[**Note many/most fathers are already princess-spoiling enablers.]
Alpha beta gamma Stuff.
Faculties etc are "liberal" because they are the ascendant beta males (lower testosterone) of the recent coup d etas.
"Liberalism" is the desire to marginalize 'high T' males. The expression of that fear and desire is all the liberal canards, lies and protectionist political-coalition tactics.
An endless string of coups make up history yes. But the recent coups were specifically called parliament-democracy and liberalism.
Note National Socialism was a counter-coup movement comprised of what I call 'continental late Jacobins'(whether they know it or not). It was beaten back; mankind is still reeling from that.
Capitalism is part of the low T fear and desire too; it needed to clear the Highlands (high T males) to create a safe environment for 'commerce' back in actual Jacobin days.
This exposes the root false dichotomy between 'conservatives" and liberals. This is why the lower "right" (usually neo masculine rebellions[whether they know it or not]) can't win.
The above are all just the latest vocabulary words for a dynamic that is ancient.
The wandering jews just complexify this being both beta male types And enemy aliens who have a need to geld host culture rams.
We don't know what I'm talking about because no one is self aware enough or honest enough --or consistent enough in their own made up BS ("science"/antropology/sociology/ HBD)-- to frame it this way.