Let's say there are two competing races of humans, with

>>8630203
>Who do you think would win?
The same people who always win when two different groups come together.


The pornographers.

well such a being would be like a more developed version of a human

humans developed at a time with a rich unspoiled earth full of natural wealth and wonder. it is highly probably we will go extinct within the next few hundred, maybe thousand years or so. and new forms of intelligent life will likely evolve, and since the world won't be so full of resources for them, it may take them a lot longer to settle down and develop civilization, allowing them to develop more advanced, logical brains. so theoretically this could exist as some kind of futuristic post-human.

but in a competition the answer is the humans would win on a societal level because our high level of social tendency allows us to form highly complex, specialized, developed societies with pooled resources making huge advances on a collective basis. so we advance much faster, outbreed and overpower the weaker, more rational post-humans with the power of love and blah blah some hippie bullshit. but you get what im saying

Depends on the environment. The Vulcans would probably do better in a modern structured society with laws, money, and enough technology they don't need teamwork to do very basic things.

In hunter gatherer times they'd be fucked. Our emotions and ability to perform complex social interactions evolved to keep groups together. People don't last long alone in the wilderness.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-26 at 6.07.21 AM.png (264KB, 418x534px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 418x534px

>>8630216
>it is highly probably we will go extinct within the next few hundred, maybe thousand years or so

>>8630562
War, war never changes.

>>8630203
Normal people win

Being ultra scientific and logical fine but you're not getting anywhere on your own

>>8630232
Pretty much this.

It also depends on what you define as the logical thing to do though. Is it whats best for the individual, or the tribe?

>>8630203
which ever one had the comparative advantage and was more adaptable. Based on your description of the ones that lacked emotion, I would put my money on the "normal" humans. Since the ones without emotion would not be capable of collectivism/community/societal functions in any recognizable capacity. They would be solitary creatures and territorial - like a bear.

>>8630216
>>8630232
>>8630628
Don't you think they would eventually rationalize that they have a much higher chance of survival if they work together? Also eventually they may switch their idea of individual survival to the survival of their species, just by thinking it out.

>>8630768
they'd work together for sure, but in my opinion, complex emotions that form social behaviour are exactly that. at it's very core nothing more than logic in disguise

>>8630203
ordinary humans.

>>8630768
why would they switch when they have no emotional need for collectivism?

>>8630203

The dudes with emotions, clearly. Where would the drive to survive come from if there is no reference point of evaluation? If you don't know what's good in the most general sense of the word?

>>8630775
They have a drive to survive, but of course they'll realize they are going to die eventually. Placing the idea of survival on a vague but hopefully permanent idea of their species will seem better to them. When they die, their species lives on.

>>8630776
They would still have the primitive parts of the brain that control hunger, thirst, breathing, and the fight or flight reflex. They would have an instinct of survival.

>>8630203
There wouldn't be a difference in life and that just sounds like something that's already happening and always has been. The problem with this is, how do you measure that? How do you know they're different, how do they? They could be among us now and be completely oblivious to the fact that they're biologically different. Cause who would know?

>>8630203
>race

I think you mean "species" not "subspecies".

>>8630203

We already have the result and answer to this.

Look at what happened to Neanderthals, we fucked them into extinction.

File: Fringe-observers-eoat.jpg (31KB, 550x309px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 550x309px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_AjhqyHa_Q

technically don't a lot of types of autistic people have a more logic driven brain that does not understand or read "normal" emotions

so to some extent we do already have the answer to this

so to some extend we already know the aswer

>>8631092
Observers were so much cooler before the Season 5 "lol they are like nazis" storyline.

>>8630768

No, there are many intelligent humans who are very smart but their arrogance and self-centeredness prevents them from working with others, such as autistic people. Infact, I'd argue the smarter you are, the less likely you are to cooperate with others because you'll assume you're smarter than them.

>>8630584
Human nature to survive never changes either, no one wants to die

>>8630203
>These people would not feel emotion or have a drive to form complex social interactions with each other, their actions would just be controlled by logic and keeping themselves alive.

Basically autist NEETs who leech of government welfare.

They would go extinct of course.

>>8630203
The logical ones because they would be pragmatic and ruthless, most likely have an insect like social structure.

>>8630203
>Which race do you think would win?
The lighter-skinned one, of course.

Would their logic be able to see the utility in working as a group or would these just be a bunch of self-absorbed islands?

If they could assemble and strategize it would be game over for the feelers

>>8631186

Sociopaths are among the most influential people in history and it's estimated a good bit of CEO's suffer from it

they seem to be able to manipulate human emotional weaknesses when they're aware of it

>>8630203
If we are assuming they are truly competing and the logical ones haven't already enslaved the chads, then I think the more logical ones would come out on top. In the end, they would create weapons and technology that would allow them to outgun the chads. Social adequacy is not really necessary but I'm sure the logical ones realize the importance of spreading their gene so they would be able to uphold the furthering of human evolution as well.

This presupposes that emotion is not already an evolved form of rational thought. There is such a thing as 'emotional intelligence,' you know.

>>8631246
That's actually a very fair point. Inter/interpersonal intelligence.

I guess, to find an answer everyone could agree on, op would have to sell us what forms of intelligence the logicfags have

>>8631217

incomin the neonazi faggot.

>>8631246

how the moral?

>>8630203
The emotionless people have no reason to live. They would die. They would give up while emotional people are at times too arrogant to quit.
Intelligence is emotional and mental.

>>8631497
2/3rds of living things dont have emotionts yet lives. The emotion of sadness is what causes humans to kill themselves, remove sadness and humans would be content existing forever.

>>8630203
> Muh race war.
>>>/pol/

File: dogdrive.webm (522KB, 400x224px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 400x224px

>>8631173
Not necessarily true..

I think I'm smarter than everyone but I'm still great at cooperating with others. It's just a matter of exercising your influence subtly.

>>8630216
No. We developed in the African savannah in a brutal fight with our surroundings. The humans have a very low genetical variation, which probably means, that we were almost extinct at some point (they say < 500 people).
Also the modern history of human is one of war and suffering.
> it is highly probably we will go extinct within the next few hundred
When there is no catastrophy, that destroys nearly all life forms the human will survive. humans have proven, that they are one of the most adaptable species on the planned and that even without the technology we have today
There is a theory, that

>>8630203
If they can't form complex social networks, they're fucked. The normies will just gang up on them while the new humans wouldn't be able to organize a resistance, even if they are able to solve P=NP.

>>8630775
Why would we invent aeroplanes when we have no emotional need to take to the sky?

The logical ones would figure out that it's more logical for them to interbreed with the normal humans and produce offspring with the most desirable traits

>>8631181
Wrong, people kill themselves everyday

>>8631910
In fits of emotional and irrational weakness. Logically no person should kill themselves unless for a reason greater than their continued existence, like for the safety of their community.

We all win by working together and setting aside our differnces.

File: spock_rip.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>8630203
>These people would not feel emotion
They would all die horribly indecisive deaths.

There are people in this world who have suffered brain trauma that disconnects their frontal cortex and hind brains, leading to completely unemotional decision making.

The result is that they are basically crippled useless piles of flesh, unable to make any decisions at all:

https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/radiolab/radiolab111408.mp3 (skip to 20:40)

Emotion is less about interfering with logical decision making processes, and more about making them possible. In addition to providing you with a motivation to place any values on anything at all.

Even Roddenberry understood this, it's one thing to repress emotions, but creatures with no emotions at all are doomed.