Is Evola actually not based?

"IQ is a social construct and a false god. I hereby proclaim the measurement of our esoteric principles and way of life to be not the lie of intelligence, but emotions- the seat of life, the reigns of a forest of pleasures. As far as we're concerned, IQ is, at best, a second ration notion used to create systematic inequality among the races and all peoples." - Evola.

What did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

institute4learning.com/resources/articles/multiple-intelligences/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Source?

I doubt he said that, but obsession with intelligence is one of the worst aspects of modern life.

*second-rate, fuck you spell check.

"L'uomo come potenza."

Sauce?

Weird quote in my opinion.

>Is Evola actually not based?

You still think terms of Left and Right if you wanted Evola to side with you on IQ.

Evola would tell you that it doesn't matter whether can IQ can be shown to be lower or higher. It doesn't fit in with his value system.

IQ is a sign of Scientism and Modernity.

IQ is our best means of measuring intelligence. Why would Evola attack that as creating inequality? Does he mean that it's not a real means of inequality, that true inequality stems from the metaphysical and from power?

Intelligence can only be defined when it is directed towards a goal. It must be measured as an ability in completing tasks.

What tasks? What fucking goals? To idolise iq above all else is to place blind roboticism on a fucking pedestal.

>IQ is our best means of measuring intelligence.

It is scientism you literal meme.

>Why would Evola attack that as creating inequality?

Because he is consistent with his ideological position and you want to find any reason that you can to legitimize your hatred of dem negruz; even if it means opportunistically electing scientism to do so.

Well let's put it this way, does the size of your dick even matter if you're never even getting your dick wet?

>seeing politics as a conflict of ideals rather than a conflict of interests
>calling other anti-intellectual

Wew lad

/thread

Or is it the fact that modern life is becoming increasingly IQ dependant?

Insofar as it's used to shield our society's elites, yes.

Do you even understand how IQ works?

Do you?

As much as someone that has looked into it and realized it's not that important. If you don't wanna take my word for it check what IRL geniuses say about it.

Have you ever considered its social function?

That's emotional intelligence. People who end up in politics or psichiatry or investigative work that requires dealing with people one on one or shit like that have it: they understand social cues, read reactions, etc. A perfect example is Werner Herzog: see the interviews in his docu features. He gets the man in front of him after a couple of minutes and cuts right to the chase

IQ is not the best means of testing intelligence

>IQ is our best means of measuring something we can't even define
gets me thinking

OP, you just made up that quote didn't you you obnoxious faggot

>The social function of a system intended to measure intelligence is actually another system that measures something else
What?

>IQ is our best means of measuring intelligence
What, exactly, is intelligence? Don't say "that which IQ measures" either.

There's a reason why the concept of IQ is thought of by many in the academy to be dubious.

The notion that there is a factor g that can be measured at least indirectly by IQ which is predictive of a number of relevant outcomes is relatively uncontroversial in academia.

mensa assesses me to be intelligent

who wants to outargue me to feel fuddlywinx

>yea bro there's this thing that we'll call the SMARTS PART of your brain, and uhh well it's so big that it can probably also be measured by our IQ tests
>the g factor might not affect all intelligence factors in a proportional way? lol of course it does who needs to prove this it's so obvious amirite xD
remind me why psychometrics isn't a pseudo science

Tremendous insight, let me know when your award winning paper is debunking the state of the field is published in Nature

I thought high IQ people were able to properly structure a phrase.

I mean it took the largest death toll in humanity for people to realise eugenics was pseudo-science so I doubt anyone will get rid of psychometrics any time soon

> he thinks IQ is incompatible with multiple intelligences

I know which side of the bell curve you're on.

Joke is on you, my IQ is 85 but even I can see you're wrong.

Multiple intelligences? Like what, Gates and Hawking and Fermi? Or Mossad, CIA and DGSE? The fuck are you on about? How come high IQ people always sound like tryhard retards trying to appear smart?

I can't tell if you're being intentionally illiterate or not. Suck a dick either way.

It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

institute4learning.com/resources/articles/multiple-intelligences/

>being this mad and this wrong at the same time

Tep kok, did you just post an article that contradicts your position on the IQ issue?

Oh honey, just stop. IQ can be predictive and incomplete at the same time, and Gardner isn't even the only voice on the topic. Read more.

...

What reason do we have to believe that this "g factor" influences all parts of our intelligence in an equal way, in fact it's far more likely this isn't the case at all
And if it isn't the case then IQ tests are severely limited

This is what happens when you create a "science" based entirely off studies

if you study any of the things Evola wrote about in depth you'll realize that he was a dilettante

I agree, it's life-denying

what's wrong with being dilettante

Evola frowns upon your misuse of "intelligence"

you don't fucking understand Evola at all if you think that's our best means of "measuring intelligence"

fucking moron. how do you read evola and miss this? read some guenon for chrissake you stupid piece of shit

Ironically a low IQ'd comment.

Mate how many smart but lazy people do you know? Those probably have high IQs, but suck at life. IQ can't measure things on an individual level, even astrology has a better chance of that.

>smart but lazy
That's just what losers love to call themselves.

t. smart but lazy

No, many of those literally are high IQ people. But IQ doesn't mean much regarding your life choices.

Rationalism and scientism is life-denying at it's core.

>muh life-affirmation
Grab your copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and go live in the bushes like the nigger you are.

Not that user but the fact that you made that your takeaway from his post says a lot.

The death toll simply put all seriousness in the world and life to the quarantine of the minds.

So you haven't looked into it enough. Have you read the bell curve?

>Evola isn't LE BASED because he isn't a materially obsessed scientific prole
stand still dickhead

>Have you read the bell curve?

Go back to /pol/ with the other materialist addled scientism peddlers who are the inverse kin of that which they claim to loathe. These myopic fools can't even see that they're nothing more than the bizarro left.
>b-but the b-bell curve

To be fair you hand to have a high IQ to understand the bell curve

you're not talking about the holohoax are u?

t. Dilettante

t. bugman

people back then didnt consider negros human at all so the arguement doesnt apply to them because theyre just assumed (rightfully) to be lesser races

Someone like Evola would have a greater distaste for the englishman than of the negro.

Niggers are going to nig. Evolas are going to evola.

/thread

Why does he look like such a stupid fucking faggot? He has the face of a 16 year old neo-nazi LARPer. He's probably the only author whose work I refuse to read on the grounds that he's just too ugly.

He's Alan Watt's evil twin brother.

He kind of is, for me at least. The funny part is that while Evola is all about truth and greatness there's something in him that just wants to destroy and dissolve everything, and while he stresses practice and determination he is always making concessions; meanwhile Watts says it's all a joke but you need discipline to be happy at all, and while he talks of different doctrines as if they all talked about the same thing he never really forces them to mix and wouldn't support iconoclasm, even of modernity.

Exactly. IQ is a real thing, but intelligence remains undefined. Certain things can be associated with IQ that we would also associate with intelligence, but since we cannot define intelligence and since IQ is not a perfect predictor of things we would associate with intelligence, it cannot be measuring intelligence itself.

Because the enlightenment was the beginning of the real dark ages. The "problem" of the "negro" only exists as it does because of enlightenment thinking that thought it could shape the world without God, that we could build the tower to heaven without being cursed by tongues.

I read this as an autistic view that IQ is some sort of ultimate factor to create a hierarchy of men is silly. However, I disagree that emotions are what a hierarchy of men should be based on.

I cheat the IQ test because my last few years of schooling have all been logic based and IQ tests are just logic/pattern tests

>but intelligence remains undefined.
It's defined. Read up on the g factor.

One of the things that really grinds my gears is the total ignorance of laypeople concerning the field of psychometrics (and I don't blame you, journalists are the worst offenders). The belief that intelligence cannot be measured is akin to the belief that the earth is flat.

psychometrics are garbage and practically worthless

Lol okay brainlet.

The g factor isn't a fucking definition you retard
>Theg factor(also known as general intelligence, general mental ability or general intelligencefactor) is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence
>CONSTRUCT
please understand the very basics of what you support before accusing others of being ignorant on the subject

Yes, it's a construct, so is anything in physics.
>Newtonian physics is a construct! It's phony! You can't see gravity!

Kill yourself brainlet.

K babe. make me a sandwich

>yea bro, let's just call x something we can measure intelligence with
>x=intelligence now who needs definitions xD

there's a difference between a construct that is physically measurable and a construct that is purely hypothetical and can't be measured unless you already assume its validity

What is happening ITT

I feel like European romantic fascists like Evola would absolutely hate today's modern American anti-black "muh IQ" racists. There is something just so mediocre and insufferably suburban about the anti-black racist, their attitude is basically one of "I behave myself, why can't they?" and "I DO wish they would stop playing that hip hop trash in the subway, I'm trying to read my Blackberry!" It's nothing like the ideals of primordial greatness these men saw in their supposed Aryan race.

Also I wish these right-wing faggots would stop saying "based" to mean "racist". How many Lil B songs can you even name ?

G can be measured through IQ tests sweetie.

Yeah, fascists were not really that racist.

is this level of retardation even possible?
do you not understand how circular your logic is? Are you triggering me on purpose with your stupidity?

You can measure IQ and you can measure your shitty g factor, that doesn't mean any of it is valid since you haven't even defined intelligence
You can't just fucking slap "g factor" onto something and think it corresponds to that, that isn't how logic works

Completely true, they are very bourgeoisie and small-souled in outlook.

I feel your pain but I think there may be a pro-level trolling going on .
>sweetie
this really does it for me

Only count if you haven't done it before.
Or at least years between.

Absolute idiots arguing about something they can't define from a position of superiority they have not earned or deserve and some fascist shitposting. Also, lots of incels.

IQ is only useful for discerning if you're mentally retarded or not.

Why would this surprise anyone? Evola always rejected the scientific biological racism of the Nazis, it was the culture he valued

For once this hack says something right, and you are telling me he is not "based" for the only thing he said that isn't complete apeshit?

Read a book.

ITT: people missing the point

It doesn't matter whether or not IQ tests are measuring intelligence, what matters is its role in predicting success at almost all walks of life: this is an undeniable fact. Low IQ people are literally incapable of functioning in a society focused on intellectual work

But this is flat out wrong

Even the dumbest retard can become a tradie and make a good living, better than a lot of office jobs

There's a clear, well-established correlation between IQ and income, achievements in education, low crime and others. The fact some dumb people turn out okay doesn't negate this

>Low IQ people are literally incapable of functioning in a society focused on intellectual work
>The fact some dumb people turn out okay doesn't negate this
I guess IQ doesn't help with reaching logical conclusions :^)

Blue collar work is intellectual?
I think you missed my original point. Once we go full-blown automation, these people will be unqualified (and unqualifiable) to most jobs. The society we're heading at, one where intellectual work is hegemonic, has no place for brainlets

>Once we go full-blown automation
>The society we're heading at, one where intellectual work is hegemonic

Good post.

Probably because you got bullied by someone similar at school?

based retard

did he actually have magical powers?