Sustainable Ingroup Formation

Positivity always wins because it’s based on creation and not reaction. The positive creator can make negative comments, but the negative commenter can’t create positive change.

100 IQ

Binary Society

Groups have to be formed based on positive concepts or else they’re doomed to fail.

This is because there are two types of people.. Content Creators and Readers.

Content Creators such as myself birth ideas that other people read about and discuss.

Readers consume what Content Creators produce.

Therefore, without Content Creators, Readers don’t exist on their own because they would have nothing to read because they can’t create any content.

Groups work the same way.

It may appear that a group founded on positivity has the same strength as a group based on negativity, but that isn’t true.

Negative people are not Content Creators because they are reacting to something that was already created.

They’re more like pundits or commenters, even if they write their own blog posts, because without the original content, they wouldn’t have anything to be negative about.

So let’s say someone made a group that was pro- short people. 😀

They’re all about clothes for short people, amusement park rides that allow short people to get on, short people dating apps, favorite foods of short people….

This group is going to thrive because they’re attempting to uplift their ingroup without being negative towards the outgroup, which would be tall people.

People who are interested in short people topics are going to gravitate towards this group and increase their numbers and their influence in society.

Now let’s say a group is formed that is anti- short people.

First of all, they aren’t minding their own business.

If you aren’t short, why are you concerned with what short people do? o_O

Second, the cohesiveness of their group is dependent upon the existence of short people.

Think about that….

If the group you’ve joined is against another group, then if the group you’re against is no longer a factor, what do you have left? o_O

Let’s say there’s a type of music called “Freestyle” and you’re a part of a group that talks trash about Freestyle music.

When Freestyle isn’t in style anymore, what does your group have left to talk trash about? o_O

This is the problem with starting groups based on negativity.

Your entire group’s identity is derivative.

Fava Beans and a nice Chianti

What’s worse is that if you actually achieve the goals of your group, you wind up with an untenable society.

Let’s say you’re a tall person who is anti- short people.

What happens if you ever remove all the short people from your community? o_O

Think about it… What happens if “short” is determined to be below 6′ tall and then you remove all the short people from your society?…..

That’s right… Tall becomes the new Short.

All of a sudden, people 6′ tall, who used to be Tall, are now the shortest people around in a society whose only purpose is to discriminate against short people. 😀

What do you think happens next?

That’s right… The 6′ tall people are purged and society only retains people 6’3″ and taller…… Who become the new Short…..

This is why you can not start groups based on negativity.

Negative people need SOMEONE to be negative about.

If they ever achieve what they claim they want, they’re going to have to come up with something new to be negative about because none of them are Content Creators and all they can do is REACT to what someone else is creating or being.

Get rid of the short people and you suddenly have blondes versus brunettes versus redheads.

Get rid of the natural hair colors and you suddenly have Christians against Atheists against Catholics against Odinists.

Get rid of the stupid people and the mediocre intelligence 100 IQ people become the new stupid.

This brings up another problem with this scenario.. Eugenics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Early_proponents

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[11] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and “immoral”.[12] Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however, they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and “The Talented Tenth” of all races should mix.[13] W. E. B. Du Bois believed “only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race’s heritage of moral iniquity.”[13][14]

If you’ve been reading along with my blog, you know that my family was documented in the 1870 Census and we’ve been here on the East Coast of the United States of America for at least the past 148 years.

I’m successful because my parents were successful because their parents were successful…

This is due to eugenics, or in other words, the best people teaming up with the best people to create families and promote their genes into the next generation.

This is the force of positivity, not negativity, and positivity always wins because it’s based on creation and not reaction.

Why in the world would someone who’s doing well for themselves and their friends & family procreate with someone who’s garbage? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They wouldn’t, because they don’t have to.

Being a high-quality human being attracts other high-quality human beings to mate with.

Being a low-quality human being attracts anybody.

Which brings us back to our hypothetical 100 IQ society…

Why would a college graduate agree to procreate with someone who doesn’t know the difference between there, their, and they’re? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That’s called DYSGENICS, which is moving BACKWARDS IN EVOLUTION.

If your society is based on the abysmal score of 100 being your average IQ, then if you remove all the people who are one standard deviation below that, which is 85 IQ from your society, average becomes the new stupid.

In fact, to people who are one standard deviation above the mean, with an IQ of 115, average IQ is ALREADY STUPID.

We don’t even want to discuss people who are 2 and 3 standard deviations smarter than 100 because they barely count 100s as properly-functioning humans, much less intelligent.

So if your society is based upon negative commentary towards 85 IQ people, if you win you lose.

Meaning that if you get rid of all the 85s, 100 is now the bottom of the barrel. If you get rid of all the 100s, 115 is now the bottom of the barrel.

Your society has to self-cannibalize because the smartest people will always be the smartest people and we only tolerate the idiots because they’re entirely inconsequential and ineffective at changing the status quo.

Rising Tides

Alternatively.. What happens when you have a similar society that’s based on uplifting each other instead of attempting to demean each other? o_O

First of all, time isn’t wasted talking about inconsequential people.

Second, time isn’t wasted degrading yourself and everyone you know.

That time that isn’t wasted will be repurposed into uplifting this society.

If someone isn’t intelligent, you don’t kick them out. You find something for them to do. Something they CAN do and something that boosts their self-esteem, even if it’s moving rocks from one location to another.

You don’t excommunicate them because they can’t program computers or edit videos or mix songs.

You find out what they’re good at and direct them towards becoming a valued member of society.

That way, they gain self-esteem and the commensurate level of income, and they’re deterred from becoming lowlives and criminals.

Having said that, if people don’t want to be constructive members of society, they have to go.

This is another benefit of forming your group around positivity.. If people become negative, they have to GTFO and fend for themselves outside of positive society.

If people are negative to begin with, they’re immediately weeded out of positive society.

The people who aren’t rowing in the same direction are hoisted overboard.

While it’s true that that makes one fewer body rowing, that body was rowing AGAINST the best interests of the group, so removing that person from the team is a net gain.

It also invigorates our community because they know they won’t be bothered by caustic, poisonous, negative people.

A lot of people aren’t willing to contribute because they don’t want to smack down the vultures.

billcammack.com/2017/01/29/smacking-vultures-loser-society/

When they’re aware that vultures will be dealt with and removed from this society, they’re incentivized to become Content Creators instead of just Readers.

Deck Chairs on the Titanic

Negativity doesn’t get you anywhere. It just gets you a bunch of fans who are also negative people and none of you can create content so you’re entirely dependent upon positive society.

Meanwhile, Positive Society will continue whether negative people exist or not.

No group based on negativity will ever prosper in the long run because even if they win, all they have left is negativity, which they will turn on themselves because they were never a team to begin with.

“The Enemy Of My Enemy” doesn’t work because if that enemy is ever gone, there’s nothing positive that serves as a cohesive factor for the remaining population.

People who put aside their personal differences to unite against a common enemy don’t count as a team. They’re merely suspending their internal war until the external war ends.

They’re saying “Let’s team up against these other people and fight each other later.”

That’s derivative and not proactive and certainly not cohesive.

The proper way to create a group is to decide upon a positive goal and invite everyone who’s willing to work towards that goal to join.

It takes a completely different type of person to create something positive compared to a derivative, reactive person who makes negative commentary about positive creations.

The positive creator can make negative comments, but the negative commenter can’t create positive change.

Negativity may temporarily bolster your self-esteem, but at the end of the day, week, or year, you’re still the same grimy, sniveling person you previously were, while other people are making positive strides in their lives.

Negativity may get you a collection of minions, but at the end of the day, you’re going to realize that your minions can’t help you just like you can’t help them.

If your group is created on the basis of negativity towards other people instead of positivity towards your people (however YOU define “your people” and “others”), you’re going to lose.

Mind your own business. Uplift your people. Change your lives for the better.

If you decide to go the negative route, just remember I told you how you were going to end up. 😀

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *