ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

The importance of IQ

As much as people slaver to denigrate and discredit it, the statistical fact of the matter is that IQ is actually more important than most people believe when it comes to certain types of success.  While it's not necessarily a surprise that college grades and years of education strongly correlate with IQ, (which may be the cause of the common confusion of academic credentials with intelligence), it may be a surprise to learn that IQ is a better predictor of successful job performance than openness, extraversion, agreeableness, confidence, or even conscientiousness.
IQ surpasses any single Big Five personality factor in the prediction of the two academic outcomes, college grades (r = .45) and years of education (r = .55). Big Five conscientiousness is by far the best personality predictor of grades (r = .22).…Conscientiousness predicts job performance (r = .13; corrected r = .22) better than does any other Big Five factor, but not as well as IQ does (r = .21; corrected r = .55). The importance of IQ increases with job complexity, defined as the information processing requirements of the job: cognitive skills are more important for professors, scientists, and senior managers than for semiskilled or unskilled laborers.…In contrast, the importance of conscientiousness does not vary much with job complexity….
Now, we all know the brilliant guy who has wasted his 175 IQ by spending twenty years in search of the eternal buzz.  I do, anyhow, he used to live in my basement.  But such individuals are complete outliers, what matters more is the advantage that the moderately intelligent man with the 115 IQ has over the even more moderately intelligent 105 IQ guy.

For some reason, the discussion of IQ differences makes people uncomfortable; it doesn't matter how obviously intelligent one is, people still find it offensive in a way that they never find a tall man being straightforward about his height is.  This is strange, because one can't do much more about one's intelligence than one can about one's height.  One can, perhaps, attempt to make more efficient use of it, but then, a tall man can strive to avoid slouching as well.  Is it because we value IQ more than height, is it because it seems a more intrinsic element of ourselves, or is it merely that height is more readily observed by the average individual?

Regardless, the reality is that the more everyone realizes that intelligence, as measured by IQ, is merely a tool and a natural advantage little different than any other genetic gift, the better off everyone will be.  Being smart doesn't make one any morally better or intrinsically wiser; the myopic foolishness of the cognitive elite is one of the greatest dangers that face humanity today.  But pretending that a potential danger does not exist is stupid and short-sighted, especially when one necessarily has to pretend that the antidote to that danger doesn't exist as well.

If you don't think it makes sense to treat a normal individual like a retard, then it should not be hard to understand that you cannot communicate with a brilliant individual as if he were a normal one.  And on the societal level, the goal should not be to try to make the retards normal or the normals brilliant, (such efforts are futile), but rather, to endeavor to teach each group of individuals wisdom and strong moral character to the best of their capacity to understand and apply it.  Even one conscientious and confident normal individual of good character can do wonders for correcting the ills caused by a gaggle of highly intelligent, evil-minded fools.

Labels: ,

181 Comments:

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 25, 2012 6:18 AM  

IQ is not real. Until it is real.

Anonymous jSinSaTx October 25, 2012 6:38 AM  

I believe we do find IQ, or at least the functioning of our brains, as more inherently us. The brain to most is the core processor of how we view things and express ourselves. To believe that someone else has a better one seems a direct attack on us.

Having said that though, the relative value of IQ in society diminishes as it increases. The step from 70-100 is more relevant than the jump from 100-130. The difference between 70 and 100 is reflective of better potential for self sufficiency. The jump from 100 to 130 might reflect an increased economic potential but will not generate nearly the gap in relating to others and society that exists at the lower level.

A 100 and 130 IQ can enjoy many of the same things even if the 130 understands the why of the subject or the esoteric aspects of thought more than the lower level person (Sports, gaming, reading).

A genius is not going to be substantially more effective in navigating an airport or many life situations, while someone with a 60 IQ will be... handicapped. Perhaps individuals have seen the video of the retard running the football with the encouragement of his and the other team. That is people trying to relate to the low IQ. How hard is it to relate to our resident genius on the soccer field?

Anonymous Koanic October 25, 2012 6:41 AM  

They're not complete outliers. Quite the contrary. At 175 IQ, almost half are maladjusted.

Here is the most spectacular example of high-IQ maladjustment I have ever witnessed.

Anonymous Koanic October 25, 2012 6:44 AM  

I don't buy that there's a diminishing return on IQ. Certainly high IQ tends to alter life objectives and therefore the form that success takes. But I think this maladjustment trend accounts for much of what is perceived as diminishing return on IQ. They are correlated but separate.

Anonymous TLM October 25, 2012 6:56 AM  

This is hardly news. Around 10th grade the V school kids, as we called them, started their day with us for a few periods and then left to finish their vocational education at a training center. These were the carpenters, electricians, etc. My guess is school districts likely dont do anymore as we are all supposed to be equal now. A shame really, the V schoolers always had the best weed.

Anonymous jSinSaTx October 25, 2012 6:59 AM  

You might crap in your diaper with an IQ of 40-60. Anything past that is probably a pretty flat line. Wiping techniques probably don't improve much as you move up the scale.

Mensa requires ~130 IQ to enter by my cursory reading of it. Is it that hard for someone with a 100 IQ to talk to a 130? I should say not. Conversely with the lower IQ of 70 and below you might worry the individual is going to hurt themselves. It is the difference between two adults interacting and an adult and a very young child.

Society is designed to function around the mean. Understanding how the laser system in the grocery store checkout works doesn't make you anymore effective at buying food.

The point is not that a high IQ brain is not superior to a lower IQ brain just that some jumps are more meaningful than other in average societal situations.

Anonymous aero October 25, 2012 7:07 AM  

The true measurement of ones IQ is not one of these IQ test they can prepare for. It is how fast they can adapt to a new environment that is 100% new to them. This will test their logic and recall abilities. I believe that a good moral character has a lot to do In ones ability to survive in any new environment. Moral character is a quality that reduces the effect of an adverse panic reaction.

Anonymous aero October 25, 2012 7:21 AM  

Communication is a two way street. A dog can warn one of danger and so can a women with an IQ below 70. The faster one deals with the danger. The faster the bitch dog will stop barking.

Anonymous Heh October 25, 2012 7:27 AM  

For some reason, the discussion of IQ differences makes people uncomfortable

IQ makes people uncomfortable because if you admit it exists and is important, then you have to admit that blacks are stupid, prone to failure, and suitable only for low-IQ jobs.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 7:29 AM  

I've found that even though I am not as well educated as my peers in the Software Development field, I am much better than them at problem solving. The frustration of communicating my solution is usually twofold:
1. It takes a few passes before what I am explaining sinks in
2. They can't believe that my solution is better than their's because I studied at the "crappiest" institution out of the lot.

There's no problem with talking to someone whose IQ is 20 to 40 points lower than mine if the topic is fluff, but when you start discussing things like the proper design pattern and why you prefer it in a specific situation, it becomes frustrating.

Blogger IM2L844 October 25, 2012 7:40 AM  

1. It takes a few passes before what I am explaining sinks in

In some respects, having a high IQ can be burdensome. I suspect that someone with a high IQ seldom makes a good teacher.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 7:47 AM  

There's no problem with talking to someone whose IQ is 20 to 40 points lower than mine if the topic is fluff, but when you start discussing things like the proper design pattern and why you prefer it in a specific situation, it becomes frustrating.

Yes. It's extremely tiring when you have to repeat the same thing a half dozen times in a half dozen ways before they "get it"

Anonymous jSinSaTx October 25, 2012 7:48 AM  

How odd that after repeated demonstrations of your superior problem solving they still cant believe. One would think laziness alone would be happier to have the problem solved.

Anonymous asdf October 25, 2012 7:55 AM  

If you truly acknowledge that we don't deserve our smarts then next thing you know we are wondering why smart people make more money, have more status, etc. The same would apply to looks, charisma, etc. You've got to re-order society. You think the people on top want that?

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 8:00 AM  

"cognitive skills are more important for professors"

Well I daresay it depends greatly upon what it is that they claim to profess... and where.

"it should not be hard to understand that you cannot communicate with a brilliant individual as if he were a normal one."

There are of course certain limits to this claim. As Stevens said of Ezra Pound when Pound had been arrested for treason after the war, "Surely even men of genius are subject to the common disciplines." And Stevens IMO was a man of far greater genius than Pound.


Anonymous aero October 25, 2012 8:03 AM  

A person with a high IQ would have the ability to explain their views in many different ways.

Anonymous aero October 25, 2012 8:13 AM  

A High IQ doesn't mean the person knows everything. It also doesn't stop them from making mistakes.

Anonymous jSinSaTx October 25, 2012 8:22 AM  

I concur to a point aero. If it is a need or requirement to engage in communication with another party then part of that burden falls on the high iq sender. Better to use the intellect to develop the communication skill than to take the lazy route and just write off the listeners as stupid.

There is a niche to be found by being the person who can tramslate high iq material to lower iq people. Translating the engineering speak to management or marketing for example.

Blogger A October 25, 2012 8:23 AM  

I think the higher IQ person has much greater potential if they work very hard than what the lower IQ person is capable of, like the difference between becoming a CEO and millionaire of a successful business venture and someone who owns their own successful restaurant or supply store or trade skill job.

For me, I think because I thought I was smart when I was younger I didn't try very hard at anything because I was learning very fast, I didn't need to work hard to do well in school (which was foolish, because I was a C student in private school, and an A in public). I thought my abilities were inborn, or genetic, or natural, or whatever, and hadn't realized the benefits of making mistakes, correcting them, and working longer and harder (that stupid phrase, "work smarter, not harder" threw me off for a long time, it made me think that if you were plain working hard you were doing it wrong).

Anonymous Cryan Ryan October 25, 2012 8:32 AM  

My wife and I grew up in lily white northern locales, and then spent a couple of years in south Georgia, which was about 50/50 black/white.

There were many conversations with blacks (neighbors, at the gym, and places like the tax assessor's office & DMV, or buying plumbing fixtures at Home Depot.)

Wow. Wow. Wow.

Standard procedure for blacks talking to whites is to nod and pretend they know what you are asking, then repeat it as a question, then fumble and mumble until you figure out what you need. Or to keep repeating the same assertion until you get frustrated and go find a white person to help you.

i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e

They may function well as hunter gatherers, but they don't do well in any situation which requires 80+ IQ.

Our experiences in rural Tennessee with the local white folks were similar. Try asking these folks for help reading a map. There is a reason they stay where they are.

Anonymous Athor Pel October 25, 2012 8:38 AM  

Two words to explain the general trend to avoid the mention of IQ - public school. The system breeds resentment.

How many of you wanted to kick the guy that ruined the grading curve for the rest of the class when he scored two or three standard deviations above the rest of the class? How many went to a school where each entering class or grade was further segregated by IQ? How many went to a school where showing your true intellectual ability was a sure road to ostracism from your classmates?

Now that I think about it what I've been describing is social class. America for all the anti-aristocratic, egalitarian feelings at its founding is hyper-sensitive to small differences in social class. Anyone that had the thought, "You're no better than me.", has a visceral acquaintance with those small differences in social class. And the only means for determining social class in America that has any quickly determined reliability is social/financial success. And those things that measure success are apparently brought to you by high relative IQ.

Therefore, IQ is inextricably linked to social class, it is evidence of the real differences between people, differences that can be used to justify the elevation of worthy persons to positions of authority. These differences act as evidence in refutation of equality as it is practiced by progressives.

What I wonder is if this trend is specific to America or is it world wide?

Anonymous Jimmydom October 25, 2012 8:38 AM  

Sometimes having to explain something 6 times isn't a reflection of IQ differences but due to experience or having spent considerable energy thinking about the problem and already resolving the questions the new person is now faced with.

Anonymous jSinSaTx October 25, 2012 8:40 AM  

In all honesty, how often is anyone here impressed by someone's intellect? Even if a person has a brilliant processor the chances are they still believe or articulate stupid things. There are more meaningful points to establish human connection than pure IQ. If MPAI then all IQ really means is that the 130 and up crowd has fewer excuses.

Anonymous jSinSaTx October 25, 2012 8:46 AM  

I am also curious about the cross cultural significance of this study. If Asians have higher iqs then there is little historical evidence that it translated to superior economic or societal achievement.

Anonymous zeonxavier October 25, 2012 8:46 AM  

Sometimes we need to be reminded that things which are obvious from our point of reference can be anything but obvious to other people.

In the Civil War, General Grant kept a dullard Captain around his headquarters. If the Captain could not sufficiently understand the orders being sent out to the field of battle, the orders needed to be reworded or simplified before they left HQ.

Anonymous Joe Doakes October 25, 2012 8:54 AM  

And since we can't teach dummies to be intellectuals, that leads us to Education Policy. In olden times, dummies mucked stables. Three generations ago, they worked assembly lines. Now, what jobs can they do? What are the schools training them for?

Anonymous JP (real one) October 25, 2012 8:57 AM  

"If Asians have higher iqs then there is little historical evidence that it translated to superior economic or societal achievement."

Read Thomas Sowell. Chinese have been successful/productive everywhere they've gone (SE Asia, S. America, etc.)

http://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html

Anonymous Angel October 25, 2012 9:06 AM  

Really, this isn't that hard. Being short compared to a tall guy you can compensate for. Being stupid compared to someone you can only compensate for by surounding yourself with stupid people. Plus, many smart people end up using their brains for evil to destroy all us not so smarty pants because we get on their nerves. This is what did Dr. Evil in. That, and that Austin got so many more chicks while having horrendous teeth.

Anonymous Angel October 25, 2012 9:09 AM  

Athor,
Good points. When I went to public school there was a serious pressure to be stupid. I moved to a private school and if you were making Bs you were considered beneath even socializing with most students.

Of course, this was mostly rich families......and then me LOL.

Anonymous aero October 25, 2012 9:10 AM  

Joe Doakes asked

Now, what jobs can they do? What are the schools training them for?
The very important job of being a professional demonstrator and occupier. The news media covers these people like they were sport stars or a Hollywood actor

Anonymous Cryan Ryan October 25, 2012 9:11 AM  

" In olden times, dummies mucked stables. Three generations ago, they worked assembly lines. Now, what jobs can they do? What are the schools training them for?"

Joe, this is the heart of the matter. There are untold millions of people in this country who cannot function as an employee of Home Depot, simply because they are mentally equipped to be digging roots out of the ground, scavenging bone marrow from lion kills, and dancing.

Yet our policies reward the females with sustenance, while allowing the males to loiter on street corners, with no visible means of support.

Truth is, most of these males depend on a mama or a grandma for a couch to sleep on. In other words, the handouts to the women also support the men (but put the women in charge)

Hell of a system.

Anonymous Athor Pel October 25, 2012 9:15 AM  

"Cryan Ryan October 25, 2012 8:32 AM
...
Our experiences in rural Tennessee with the local white folks were similar. Try asking these folks for help reading a map. There is a reason they stay where they are."



This is not a refutation of your estimation of rural Tennessean's smarts but it is an explanation for your one example that could help you understand what was going on.

If you've lived in one place all your life you have developed a mental map of the area that serves you very well. In fact you're going to know things a map could never communicate.

From research we have learned that mental maps bear only superficial resemblance to the map-wise locations of things because the paper map is absolute and the mental map is relative. If you've never needed a map to get around your home territory then looking at a hard copy map for the first time is going to be disorienting.

On top of that, map reading is a learned skill, it is not innate, you are not born being able to read maps. A map is a tool like any other and its correct use needs to be understood fully in order to use it to full effect.

I do make maps for a living, just so ya' know.

Blogger IM2L844 October 25, 2012 9:16 AM  

Sometimes we need to be reminded that things which are obvious from our point of reference can be anything but obvious to other people.

This was exactly my previous point. It's not a matter of being lazy. It goes to the tendency of high IQ people to gloss over relevant points that are so blatantly obvious to them that they seem unnecessary to delineate. Sometimes they can explain something 6 different ways and still gloss over that same point before they finally realize that it isn't obvious to everyone and is the key to their understanding. Vox is regularly guilty of this even when he tries to considerably dumb things down for people.

Anonymous Athor Pel October 25, 2012 9:20 AM  

"zeonxavier October 25, 2012 8:46 AM
...
In the Civil War, General Grant kept a dullard Captain around his headquarters. If the Captain could not sufficiently understand the orders being sent out to the field of battle, the orders needed to be reworded or simplified before they left HQ."



That's freakin brilliant. I'm going to remember this.

Anonymous JartStar October 25, 2012 9:24 AM  

Athor Pel,

I create fantasy maps. Do you have any resources you'd recommend to making them a bit more believable if not realistic?

Blogger LP 999/Eliza October 25, 2012 9:24 AM  

Facing evil minded fools describes my hellish week. No matter what I attempt for the good of my parents they spoil, sidestep and overwhelm me.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 9:26 AM  

A High IQ doesn't mean the person knows everything. It also doesn't stop them from making mistakes.

No one has asserted either of those things in the blog post or the comments.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 9:29 AM  

"My wife and I grew up in lily white northern locales"

Do not, and I mean NEVER; do not use the phrase "lily white" in any circumstances. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

"Read Thomas Sowell. Chinese have been successful/productive everywhere they've gone (SE Asia, S. America, etc.)"

Way to miss the point. If the Chinese were so darn successful, why did they have to keep leaving China and glomming on to other societies built by the work of other peoples, 'everywhere they went'? Have you ever seen mass waves of Americans or Europeans migrating to Asia or India or Africa as supplicant immigrants (viz. rather than as conquerors or reformers) in search of 'a better life'?

China has been an absolute circus ever since the collapse of the T'ang, (with the exception of the Sung), and is only resurgent a thousand years later, and only with the help of Western science, Western technology, Western political and economic theory, and the US as their masochistic economic dumping ground.

Same thing with the Jews. If they're so damn smart, why do they need to keep following us white people around wherever the hell we go? Hey, we're the evil murderous oppressive goyim, we're stupid and vile, we worship a dead guy on a stick, and we'll all turn into Dachau guards at the drop of a hat, remember? Why on earth do noble, smart, superior high-IQ Jews want to live across the street from us? They've got their own country now, which they've snookered us into paying for and defending. Why don't they all just go there already, get their f#cking fangs out of our necks, and leave us alone?

There's more to life success than IQ, apparently.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 9:30 AM  

Our experiences in rural Tennessee with the local white folks were similar. Try asking these folks for help reading a map. There is a reason they stay where they are.

But they can skin a buck and run a trot line.

Maps is for dumb Yankee city folk...

Anonymous aero October 25, 2012 9:33 AM  

IQ test are a very boring rote process. Individuals with higher intelligence know these test are a joke. They all have the same simple pattern.
Because they are a rote process a person with average abilities can score higher by repetition.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 9:34 AM  

Yet our policies reward the females with sustenance, while allowing the males to loiter on street corners, with no visible means of support.Truth is, most of these males depend on a mama or a grandma for a couch to sleep on. In other words, the handouts to the women also support the men (but put the women in charge)Hell of a system.

It's just a reinvention of the matriarchal system of grass huts, updated with smartphones and cable TV and social networking.

Anonymous RedJack October 25, 2012 9:36 AM  

The real issue is that IQ is more similar to being born tall. In other words, there is a strong genetic trait associated with IQ. That does not fit the narrative in public policy or education, and can cause some rather interesting hang ups.

Read the bookd "Coming Apart" by Charles Murry. I read it, without realizing he wrote the bell curve book. It matched much of my experience growing up, and how I live now.

And yes, a big problem is that there is nothing for a low IQ man to do that will make him moderatly successful. Maybe sports, but that isn't for everyone and takes a high specialized skill set.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 9:38 AM  

Way to miss the point. If the Chinese were so darn successful, why did they have to keep leaving China and glomming on to other societies built by the work of other peoples, 'everywhere they went'? Have you ever seen mass waves of Americans or Europeans migrating to Asia or India or Africa as supplicant immigrants (viz. rather than as conquerors or reformers) in search of 'a better life'?

Maybe because there's a whole fucking lot of chinamen? And also communism?

And the great waves of European immigration to the united states were "in search of a better life"

Anonymous aero October 25, 2012 9:42 AM  

aero
A High IQ doesn't mean the person knows everything. It also doesn't stop them from making mistakes.

Josh
No one has asserted either of those things in the blog post or the comments.

Are you sure?
Look at the association patterns. most people are defining stupid with low IQ

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 9:42 AM  

Same thing with the Jews. If they're so damn smart, why do they need to keep following us white people around wherever the hell we go? 

You've already answered your own question:

Why on earth do noble, smart, superior high-IQ Jews want to live across the street from us? They've got their own country now, which they've snookered us into paying for and defending.

Why should they go elsewhere if the snookering can continue? Better to capture economic surplus through financial engineering than through actual production.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 9:45 AM  

Are you sure?Look at the association patterns. most people are defining stupid with low IQ

So, saying that low iqb people do such and such is the exact same thing as asserting that high iq people know everything?

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 9:46 AM  

IM2L844: "It's not a matter of being lazy. It goes to the tendency of high IQ people to gloss over relevant points that are so blatantly obvious to them that they seem unnecessary to delineate."

Yes. It's like you've known me all my life :) I get this just about every time I try to start a conversation in a social setting. Not that I am crazy intelligent. My IQ is either 5 or 15 points lower than Vox's, depending on which of the two Mensa tests I was given you look at.

An example of this happened a few weeks ago when I mentioned to someone that my left-front tyre has uneven wear and I suspect it is because my allignment is out and that I should have it adjusted. I remarked that I'm not going to throw the tyre away because it will serve just fine at the rear, being that the car is FWD. I said I'll just swap the rear and front wheels around. The dude had this condescending look on his face while he remarked that "you can't just do that because it is going to run down unevenly again unless you have your alignment looked at". Now, from my perspective, it was quite obvious that I would have to do that too, but not to him for some reason.

And people keep asking me why I am happy with keeping my mouth shut at social gatherings.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 9:47 AM  

And yes, a big problem is that there is nothing for a low IQ man to do that will make him moderatly successful

Thanks to the devaluation of the dollar by the fed and the decline of manufacturing, not to mention the financialization of almost every purchase.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 9:49 AM  

Yes. It's like you've known me all my life :) I get this just about every time I try to start a conversation in a social setting.

Let me guess, you go from point A to point Z, while everyone else is just starting go from point A to point B?

Anonymous Cryan Ryan October 25, 2012 9:49 AM  

Scoobius, you ask " If they're so damn smart, why do they need to keep following us white people around wherever the hell we go?"

Perhaps they find it easier to separate the average gentile from his coins?

If the whole country is full of smart folks, equally capable of outsmarting dumber folks, how do they make a living?

You could have asked, why do black folks like to move away from their all black, high crime neighborhoods, into mostly white communites?

Perhaps they like the feeling of safety among white folks, the opportunity for quality subsidized housing, the safe, clean grocery stores where they can get their free food, the safe clean schools where their kids can get free lunches and not be raped or stabbed, the safe, clean hospital where they can get their free medical care (from competent white folks) , and the clean streets where they can let their pit bulls run free and toss their cigarette butts and candy wrappers.

As I speak, a crew of white men are building a 'habitat for humanity' home on the next block, and yesterday the new "family" was there for a visit. A black woman and FIVE black kids.

You see why they might move here?

Anonymous JP (real one) October 25, 2012 9:57 AM  

"Way to miss the point."

Oh, the irony. I'd explain but it's obviously beyond your kin.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 9:58 AM  

"And the great waves of European immigration to the united states were "in search of a better life"

But it was peer-to-peer, in the sense of one Western civilization to another. (The European conquest of the Americas doesn't count, as it was not immigration, but conquest.)

Where is an example of say ancient Romans or Greeks, or Celts, or Germans or Russians or Englishmen, mass-immigrating to the lands of a non-Western people and haplessly throwing themselves on the mercy of same? Even the stupid Goths came to Rome as conquerors.

In contrast, the Chinese and Jewish diasporas are parasitic in nature, in that they infiltrate via subterfuge an already-built and already-existing system, and then subvert it to their advantage. In the old days, this was called cunning, not "high IQ". They may be substantially congruent, but they prove different things.

Anonymous JP (real one) October 25, 2012 9:58 AM  

ken.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 9:59 AM  

Josh "Let me guess, you go from point A to point Z, while everyone else is just starting go from point A to point B?"

It's not that bad. I just skip point A1..An Like when I'm explaining how to change a tyre, I wouldn't mention jacking up the car, because it's obvious. I'll just say "loosen the nuts and take the wheel of". I don't expect anyone to just know about chocking the wheel, being on a level surface, engaging the emergency brake, having trestles handy, etc. but some things are just so obvious they should be taken for granted.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 10:01 AM  

"I'd explain but it's obviously beyond your kin."

No, by all means, do go ahead and explain. I'll eagerly listen and learn from you, sensei. And then maybe I'll explain to you the difference between "kin" and "ken".

But you go first.

This will be amusing.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 10:04 AM  

In contrast, the Chinese and Jewish diasporas are parasitic in nature, in that they infiltrate via subterfuge an already-built and already-existing system, and then subvert it to their advantage. In the old days, this was called cunning, not "high IQ". They may be substantially congruent, but they prove different things.

It proves that they are smarter than the white folks. Why is that hard for you to grasp?

Which brother was smarter, Jacob or Esau?

Blogger Spacebunny October 25, 2012 10:08 AM  

aero
A High IQ doesn't mean the person knows everything. It also doesn't stop them from making mistakes.

Josh
No one has asserted either of those things in the blog post or the comments.

Are you sure?
Look at the association patterns. most people are defining stupid with low IQ


aero - stupid is defined by low IQ.


1.lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.

But that is not what you originally asserted you were talking about knowledge and wisdom (essentially)- knowledge and ignorance exist irrespective of IQ as does wisdom (learning from mistakes). So no, no asserted anywhere that those with a high IQ know everything (it is impossible) nor that they never make mistakes. If you have quotes to the contrary please share them, it's entirely possible that I missed such assertions.

Anonymous aero October 25, 2012 10:11 AM  

Are you sure?Look at the association patterns. most people are defining stupid with low IQ

So, saying that low iqb people do such and such is the exact same thing as asserting that high iq people know everything?

A High IQ doesn't mean the person knows everything
Stupidity has nothing to do with ones IQ,race, nationality,sex
Stupidity is universal and will effect everybody.



Anonymous VD October 25, 2012 10:13 AM  

It goes to the tendency of high IQ people to gloss over relevant points that are so blatantly obvious to them that they seem unnecessary to delineate. Sometimes they can explain something 6 different ways and still gloss over that same point before they finally realize that it isn't obvious to everyone and is the key to their understanding. Vox is regularly guilty of this even when he tries to considerably dumb things down for people.

The problem is that when your starting point is not the average individual's starting point, you have absolutely no idea where to begin. This challenge is compounded by the fact that if you begin at the absolute beginning, the person to whom you are speaking will promptly take offense at you for doing so and angrily inform you that they are not an idiot.

At which point, I usually find myself thinking, "well, you kind of are, in the relative sense, but whatever", and trying to find a place that isn't so simple that they find it insulting, but isn't beyond them either.

That's why my attempts to explain things to people usually begin with questions. I'm attempting to determine their degree of cluelessness. Ironically, I actually prefer it when someone begins at the beginning when they're explaining something to me, since I understand what they're doing and I can hop in and say "look, I understand this from A to F, so you can skip ahead to F if you want."

Of course, I'm not insecure about my intelligence, so I don't view an assumption that I don't know everything about everything as an insult. It's a little surprising to discover how many people take offense at the suggestion that they might not fully understand everything.

Anonymous zen0 October 25, 2012 10:13 AM  

some things are just so obvious they should be taken for granted.

A recipe for disaster.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey October 25, 2012 10:16 AM  

And since we can't teach dummies to be intellectuals, that leads us to Education Policy. In olden times, dummies mucked stables. Three generations ago, they worked assembly lines. Now, what jobs can they do? What are the schools training them for?

They're training them to be schoolteachers.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 10:17 AM  

"A recipe for disaster."

fair enough.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus October 25, 2012 10:19 AM  

"Even if a person has a brilliant processor the chances are they still believe or articulate stupid things. "

Case in point: Dan Barker. His IQ is in the high 160's...yet he's a blithering idiot on the subject of atheism/religion etc... His arguments are no better in many cases than a garden-variety village atheist.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 10:22 AM  

"It proves that they are smarter than the white folks. Why is that hard for you to grasp?

Which brother was smarter, Jacob or Esau?"

I reject the premise, on the grounds that you haven't precisely defined what you mean by "smart" (see my distinction between "cunning" and otherwise.)

Who is 'smarter', the fellow who out of the blue invents the iPhone, or the fellow who reverse-engineers it so that he can get his peons to produce it more cheaply? See the problem?

Which is 'smarter,' the society which creates a stable and enduring system of laws and morals which allows prosperity to arise? Or the sub-society burrowed within it like a tapeworm, which calculates how to cynically extract and game and exploit the system, and which then howls with fury and bogus outrage when it is then discovered and expelled? Over and over and over and over and over again, without ever facing up to why it is continually expelled?

My whole point is, "smart" is a word with an unstable meaning, and "high IQ" is a concept the implications of which should be explored with caution.

Blogger Spacebunny October 25, 2012 10:29 AM  

Are you sure?

Yes

Look at the association patterns. most people are defining stupid with low IQ

So? As I said and demonstrated with a definition, stupid is essentially defined with a low IQ.

And further, that is not your original assertion with regards to knowledge and wisdom(not making mistakes). You are conflating those two things.

Stupidity has nothing to do with ones IQ,race, nationality,sex

You're wrong. Stupidity as defined by IQ absolutely does have to do with those things.

Stupidity is universal and will effect everybody.


You are conflating the act of stupidity (he did something really stupid) and actually being stupid (he is incapable of learning/understanding).





Anonymous sb- October 25, 2012 10:30 AM  

If IQ translates to more sophisticated reasoning of complex problems how does one view the tendency of those in positions requiring high IQ (eg. professors) to be far more inclined to hold views economically, politically, and within their own areas of research that Vox would abhor?

It seems that IQ is not a sufficient trait for one in settings which demand a higher IQ to break out of the views of the hive in which they find themselves (academia for example).

One only has to look at fields such as biology, economics, etc. to see that while individuals may possess a higher IQ they completely lack the moral courage to part from the hive and use it.

To Vox's point, this seems to rank moral character as a far superior trait than IQ alone. As you must have the moral backbone to use it in order to point out that the emperor has no clothes rather than simply finding synthesis with consensus positions whether they be keynesian, evolutionary, or otherwise.

Anonymous Beau October 25, 2012 10:35 AM  

Speaking of my friend Scott (IQ ~ 80): "I defy anyone of you to point out any part of Scott's life that is not completely yielded to Jesus. (A long uncomfortable pause ensues) Everything he has is all in for Jesus. What more can you ask of him? I wish you were all like him."

IQ is relative, discipleship is far more important.

Anonymous antonym October 25, 2012 10:38 AM  

If you want an example of IQ not determining societal success, look at the arab nations. Despite having slightly lower IQs than American blacks, their cultures are far more civilized.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 10:41 AM  

A High IQ doesn't mean the person knows everything

No one is saying it does, you reading challenged Mongoloid!

Anonymous VD October 25, 2012 10:42 AM  

If IQ translates to more sophisticated reasoning of complex problems how does one view the tendency of those in positions requiring high IQ (eg. professors) to be far more inclined to hold views economically, politically, and within their own areas of research that Vox would abhor?

I think you have to look at the impact that 20+ years of propaganda, combined with strictly limited experience of the real world and limited exposure to a broad spectrum of information tend to have. Also, the entire professoriat is a tiny fraction of the high-IQ population. For example, I would be willing to be the average IQ of the professional game designer is higher than the average IQ of the tenured Ivy League professor.

There are MUCH smarter game designers than me out there. I don't get that impression from most of the professors I've met or read.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 10:44 AM  

If IQ translates to more sophisticated reasoning of complex problems how does one view the tendency of those in positions requiring high IQ (eg. professors) to be far more inclined to hold views economically, politically, and within their own areas of research that Vox would abhor? 

Because:
Many of them aren't really that smart
They lack a combination of wisdom, history, and pattern recognition
Their views reinforce their position as science kings, philosopher kings, or professor kings

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 10:45 AM  

A high IQ gives you the means to understand advanced systems. But it's only after you've mastered said systems that you can start asking whether they are in fact reflected in observable reality. Hence, most "smart" people like the idea of Socialism and cultural Marxism, but they have not sufficiently mastered the two systems to understand that, while the system itself may seem dreamy and awesome, it is not based on reality.

You can see an example of this in courtroom dramas where expert testimonies with sound logic are given, but it is still found that the suspect is innocent because some factor was not considered. The problem isn't the internals of the model, it is the scope of the model.

Anonymous JartStar October 25, 2012 10:49 AM  

It's a little surprising to discover how many people take offense at the suggestion that they might not fully understand everything.

Because they are likely mid-wits like myself being +1 to +2 SD which means in day to day affairs they are more intelligent than about 9 out of 10 people they meet.

The two groups of people I find who know their limitations are the +3 SD and up and -1 SD groups. The dullards in particular seem to know their limitations, simply avoid complex subjects, conversations, and honestly seem to enjoy life a bit more so long as they aren't dead broke.

Being where I'm at is a bit frustrating as you see people like Vox quickly grasp some of the most complex subjects which take longer to understand assuming you can, but you can't go through life with the blissful ignorance of the cashier at Wal-mart.

Being in the middle has two advantages though: you are just dumb enough not to think on mistakes too long, and you can relate to both groups fairly well being something of a middle-man. I'm able to understand most complex subjects with enough work, and then distill it down for someone with average IQ to quickly understand.

Anonymous T14 October 25, 2012 10:50 AM  

And this a day after this article comes out..
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/popular-kids-earn-adults/story?id=17553363#.UIlQoYaneJU

I'm surprised the dubious concept of "wisdom" hasn't come up.

Anonymous RedJack October 25, 2012 10:52 AM  

The issue with high IQ professors having odd views is more to do with their culture than their IQ. If you work for the State, you view economics differently than if you worked for a company.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 10:57 AM  

Also, lots of economics at that level isn't economic theory, but attempts to use advanced math to turn economics onto physics. So the really smart people trend to work on micro niches of trade theory or something like that. Which doesn't give them much exposure beyond the cursory to economic theory and monetary policy. They're too busy trying to use second year calculus to map out the most efficient way to trade unicorn farts for gnome droppings.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 10:58 AM  

Which is why I said that the problem isn't the model, it's the scope of the model.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 11:00 AM  

I'm surprised the dubious concept of "wisdom" hasn't come up.

Eh, wot?

Why is wisdom dubious?

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 11:01 AM  

"Hence, most "smart" people like the idea of Socialism and cultural Marxism"

In my (admittedly limited) observation, the reason that "smart" people like the idea of Socialism is mainly that they had a rather grand time at university, which was this ideal, magical, Harry Potter-like world where you lived all day long on the planes of high cultural visions and elevated abstract thought, not to mention lots of groovy sex with other hot-looking smart non-threatening young people, and some other mostly invisible people washed all the dishes and paid for the whole thing. Their unexamined idea of the world is basically, "What if we could figure out a way for this trip to go on forever?" (unstated: for this to go on forever, FOR ME.) Socialism is really just the habit of not asking the questions you don't want to know the real answers to.

By the way, I'm still waiting for JP(real one) to school me about China and IQ and so forth. I'm eagerly waiting, notebook and pencil in hand, to take notes from my brand new professor!

Of course I may be holding something else in my other hand, but he shouldn't be worried about that! Come right in, friend! Sit right down, and tell me everything! I'm all ears!!

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 11:08 AM  

Speaking of my friend Scott (IQ ~ 80): "I defy anyone of you to point out any part of Scott's life that is not completely yielded to Jesus. (A long uncomfortable pause ensues) Everything he has is all in for Jesus. What more can you ask of him? I wish you were all like him."

IQ is relative, discipleship is far more important.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 11:09 AM  

Beau,

Amen, brother.

Anonymous The One October 25, 2012 11:12 AM  

God gives wisdom (Solomon), which is completely different from intelligence. There is a reason G-d made humanity short lived, as they use whatever gift they have to glorify self and bring destruction on those around them (scientists)

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 11:15 AM  

Socialism is really just the habit of not asking the questions you don't want to know the real answers to.

Agreed. It's also remarkably similar to Romney supporters.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 11:18 AM  

There are MUCH smarter game designers than me out there. I don't get that impression from most of the professors I've met or read.

Who would you say is the smartest?

Anonymous The One October 25, 2012 11:24 AM  

A bat and ball cost $1.10
The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost?

Anonymous The One October 25, 2012 11:24 AM  

More than 50% of students at Harvard, MIT, Princeton gave the intuitive and incorrect answer. At less selective universities 80% choose the incorrect answer

"Thinking, Fast And Slow"

Anonymous Angel October 25, 2012 11:25 AM  

Once again, Beau thanks for the focus.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 11:47 AM  

The ball costs 5c. The urge to say 10c is very strong, I'll give you that. If I didn't have the habit of confirming my conclusions, I would've looked like an idiot.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 11:48 AM  

It comes from many years of writing and testing software...

Anonymous Stickwick October 25, 2012 11:49 AM  

For some reason, the discussion of IQ differences makes people uncomfortable; it doesn't matter how obviously intelligent one is, people still find it offensive in a way that they never find a tall man being straightforward about his height is. This is strange, because one can't do much more about one's intelligence than one can about one's height.

Perhaps it is because IQ seems like the most deterministic attribute a person possesses. Short people can be wildly successful at lots of things. Idiots? No. It may be more of an American thing to be uncomfortable with discussions of IQ differences, since America is supposed to be the land of endless opportunity where you can be anything you want if you want it badly enough. If people have the notion that IQ is a significantly limiting factor, it may set up a de facto caste system in their minds, which is completely counter to the American way of perceiving people. It would be an interesting test to see if people from overtly hierarchical societies are more comfortable with discussions of IQ differences.

I'm able to understand most complex subjects with enough work, and then distill it down for someone with average IQ to quickly understand.

That's the essence of a good teacher or coach.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 11:57 AM  

Here is the real high IQ answer to the question:

Q.: "A bat and ball cost $1.10 The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost?"

A.: Why are you asking me a trick question? What are you trying to get at? If you had simply wanted to really know how much the ball cost, you could have phrased it differently.


Anonymous the abe October 25, 2012 11:59 AM  

Vox once quoted a former gf as saying, "If you can't articulate it than it's just an emmotion."

A brilliant but not exhaustive observation on the subject.

Intuition I think is a plenary and analog form of reckoning that can't be reaily measured (hence people that fail at school but go on to be brilliant in buisiness, etc).

Anonymous Robert Jakobson October 25, 2012 12:01 PM  

The One, am I gifted for figuring out that the ball costs five cents and the bat a dollar and five cents? I am not so sure.

Intuition is a matter of habit. A simple difference of proper and poor intellectual habits.

But why do students in highly regarded institutions fare so poorly? Perhaps it is because they are compensated in their studies and in their professions with very large rewards for remembering mechanically memorised information as fast as possible.

They are more robotic than intellectual for they do not think about how they think.

Robert

Nota Bene! I reckon being robotic is still better than being animal-like, as are most people. So the fellows at Princeton.. have a reason to look down on ordinary people. However shallow and incoherent their sense of superiority, they still are entitled do it.

Anonymous The One October 25, 2012 12:02 PM  

@Scoobius

Yes, exactly. Half the students not only failed to check their math before answering, they failed to recognize the social clue given.

Anonymous JartStar October 25, 2012 12:04 PM  

That's the essence of a good teacher or coach.

I teach/train quite a bit at work and at church and I've consistently received positive feedback. I have an edge thanks to my art background and I use a lot of images, charts, and diagrams which people generally like. I suppose the grass is always greener and I wish I could do more original thinking rather than just presenting, but such is life.

Anonymous Daniel October 25, 2012 12:07 PM  

I think you can determine your own IQ based on how stupid or informative you believe the following headline to be:

California surfer killed in shark attack may have been mistaken for prey, experts say

Thanks, experts! Wouldn't have had a clue without you!

Anonymous JartStar October 25, 2012 12:07 PM  

The One:

A man is walking through an alley without streetlights while listening to loud music on headphones so he can't hear a car without its lights on barreling towards him, but he dives out of the way before it hits him. How did he know?

Anonymous The One October 25, 2012 12:11 PM  

Robert, according to the book, human intuition is poor. VyreDenker admits the urge to pick 10 cents is strong. Those who are not slothful, but put in the extra effort (willpower) to check their instinctive answer are the ones who do well in life.

It's a fascinating read for any interested.

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 12:12 PM  

"For some reason, the discussion of IQ differences makes people uncomfortable"

"...Perhaps it is because IQ seems like the most deterministic attribute a person possesses."

Nope, it's because of the social and political implications. IQ or no IQ, the plain fact is that white Christian European people built America, and made it what it is, and intended it as an inheritance for their own posterity, not for the benefit of Bangladeshis who showed up last Tuesday after everything had already been built.

The absolutist, abstractionist notion of IQ implies that since Jews and Asians have a slightly higher IQ than whites, then they somehow magically "deserve," somehow magically possess a "mandate from Heaven", to rule over all America. Any person with a smidgen of common sense can detect that this is utter nonsense. Any person who promotes this nonsense ought to be flayed alive.

Like I continually point out, white Christian Americans created and built the University of California system with all its roots and branches, arguably the greatest public university system in the world. As soon as you could say "equality!', Jews and Asians formed a human battering ram and infiltrated and took over this system, using it to their own advantage, and sticking whites with the bill. Given the magical high IQs of legendary high-scoring Jews and Asians, I'm still waiting for them to pony up and build an equally amazing public university system, say in Colorado, for the benefit of all the whites whom they've cheated out of their birthright. Of course, I'll be a long time waiting, but in the interim I'll hear a lot of horseshit about social justice and white privilege and NAMs used as cat's-paws, as whites are steadily robbed of their own patrimony by a bunch of Asiatic parasites.

High IQ. You know where you can stuff your high IQ. I see tons of Asians learning to play Mozart. I see very few Germans learning to play the exalted works of Ching Chang Chow. Well maybe that Gangnam Style video will be the turning point.

(btw, most people need to re-learn the difference between a "turning point" and a "tipping point." They are different.)






Anonymous The One October 25, 2012 12:14 PM  

My instinctive answer is the car is pushing air ahead of it and he felt the change in air pressure or felt the vibration of the tire on the road , but I am looking for the trick.

Blogger Russell October 25, 2012 12:16 PM  

It's during the day.

Anonymous JartStar October 25, 2012 12:16 PM  

It's during the day.

Bingo.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 12:19 PM  

The car question is ridiculous. It doesn't specify whether it was pitch dark, whether the car was approaching from the front, side or back, nor whether there were reflective surfaces or other pedestrians who could have warned him. All these are equally valid answers.

Or he has spidey-sense.

Anonymous The One October 25, 2012 12:19 PM  

Very nice! Is that your own or from a book also?

Anonymous E. PERLINE October 25, 2012 12:21 PM  

If you've watched "How It is Made" on TV you saw how factory workers develop superior skills in attending to their machines. They also learn how to deal with various materials. These skills aren't dependent on IQ--Just scads of experience. This experience is still to be found in industrialized nations like the US. So there is hope for the US vis-a-vis emerging nations like China (when unions don't interfere.)

I think IQ is simply how much further you can improve a process, even though it seems to be perfect already. That applies to technology, art, and the ability to give instructions. Most people reach a certain point and can't go any further. A genius can keep improving something forever, if his brain and body holds up.

Here is an observation I haven't seen in a book. I lived through three generations, and I observed that different generations of people use their hands differently. When I was a child I saw WWI era people do tasks by moving their hands in quick darts, going this way and that. My generation is much more deliberate, using their hands in a careful but useful way. And the hip-hoppers delibeately use their hands in a decorative, rather than a useful way. Maybe they are preparing for the coming of self-replicating robots.

Blogger Russell October 25, 2012 12:23 PM  

VryeDenker : Nah, it's a bit of misdirection, the same principle of magicians and politicians. Once you figure out which hand really has the ball, the rest of the trick is easy.

Anonymous CatDog October 25, 2012 12:27 PM  

Of course people will be bothered by the realization that your IQ is highly deterministic if your on the lower end of the scale. It's the realization that you can't achieve anything special regardless of how hard you work and your life will consist of nothing more than doing menial tasks for low pay, with no chance of progress, that make those with higher IQ's richer. The realization that your children will inherit your genes and live lives the same as you with no real hope of bettering themselves. It would make you not want to have any kids in the first place. It will deprive people of any real hope of creating better lives for themselves and there loved ones, or the belief that there children can ever create better lives for themselves.

Anonymous JartStar October 25, 2012 12:30 PM  

Very nice! Is that your own or from a book also?

From a book I read years ago.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 12:31 PM  

The absolutist, abstractionist notion of IQ implies that since Jews and Asians have a slightly higher IQ than whites, then they somehow magically "deserve," somehow magically possess a "mandate from Heaven", to rule over all America. 

No one here is arguing that. You're tilting towards windmills made out of strawmen.

Anonymous The One October 25, 2012 12:45 PM  

Yes, Catdog because the highly intelligence who decide to keep the small pox around are so special, but the dumb one who did the menial task of building a fake wall to hide (Christians,Jews,black slaves, choose your decade) are losers in life.

I suggest you scroll up and read Beau's comment also.

Anonymous Stickwick October 25, 2012 12:50 PM  

I suppose the grass is always greener and I wish I could do more original thinking rather than just presenting, but such is life.

You may be producing more by being a good teacher than by being a brilliant original thinker.

My dad was a basketball coach for many years. He was not a gifted player, and whatever skill he had for the game was hard-earned. Because of this, he was able to break down and reproduce the mechanics of the game far better than a naturally gifted player. He ended up creating the top team in the province, and more of his players went on to play ball at the university level than any other team. I think it was more satisfying to him to produce several great players than to have been a great player, himself.

Likewise, it can be a source of great satisfaction to you to be an inspiring teacher at work and church. Who knows who you might be helping to achieve great things because of your mentoring.

Anonymous Robert Jakobson October 25, 2012 1:04 PM  

Josh, it is to the Holy Ghost and not to Jesus that your friend Scott should dedicate himself. Because it is written in the Gospels and strongly implied both in the Acts and in the letters of apostle Paul, not to speak of the later Councils, that after the ascension of Jesus it is the Holy Ghost that was given and remains among the faithful.

I reckon it is because people can paint and caricature their own version of the Son of God (being equally of the essence and being of both Divinity and Man, the latter making him a subject of perversion, critique, corruption and sin) to resemble their liking - to pretend they are saved, but none can do so with the Holy Ghost - which is wholly divine.

It is the Holy Ghost that redeems now. Back in the days when Jesus Christ walked the earth, he could truly save, but since he no longer is in this realm, it is up to the Holy Ghost to do the work.

If people continue to say to this very day that they are saved by Jesus Christ, not in a metaphorical sense but literally as is common among the rednecks everywhere and new low IQ belivers (who often are former alcoholics and low-class citizens) then they are contradicting the Scripture and the Tradition. According to the Bible itself or the Biblical orthodox tradition they are either mentally imbalanced or heretical.

These low IQ "Jesus freaks" are close to being gnostics of the Alexandrian tradition because they deny that Jesus Christ held the human form completely, capable of suffering, death and impermanence.

They claim that Jesus, as a man, keeps popping up in their dreams, as a bearded figure in various inanimate objects etc.. it as if there were that the same Jesus keeps being reincarnated again and again so he can keep appearing to people who are nuts or that Jesus was not really a man, placed in history but a demi-god or a timeless spirit like Ariel from Shakespeare´s The Tempest that silently and mostly out of view influences all of our lives and appears to the chosen.. all of these are funny thoughts and all of them are heretical..

People also forget that the image of Shepherd, the only human figure used by the early orthodox christians, represented the Holy Spirit and not Jesus of Nazareth. In fact the word \christian\ comes from the word to be anointed, meaning to be accepted by the Holy Spirit.

The final mistake that people who hate Christianity such as Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins and people who claim to be the true followers of Jesus make is that they claim that early Christianity was the religion of the stupid lower classes and that the more intelligent higher classes of that Greco-Roman, koine-based culture despised Christianity. Those that favor Christianity say so to cast Christians as innocent victims of an hedonistic and pagan elite. And those that dislike Christianity say so in order to imply how anti-intellectual and against nature, common-sense Christianity is.

However that shows how little both of these people altogether know of Christians or early Christians or the society of that time. A very large part of the lower classes of that time were very educated and remarkably intellectually advanced Greek or Hellenised slaves in high positions, freed men, doctors, engineers, artists, craftsmen etc.. it is not from the rabble of the society that Christianity was formed as Gibbon and many after him think. Rather it was from the creative and disciplinary classes of the society of that time.

The Greco/Roman society of that time was not built like ours is where the poor were always the stupid, the fat, the lazy who like to wave flags and promote perverted views of Jesus.

As admirable as the best of roman elite from Tacitus, to Cicero, to Marcus Aurelius was and how their genius was not repeated in the later Christian Roman Empire. We should not forget that Christian artists, craftsmen and especially engineers and architects continued to create marvelous works of art when the roman elite rotted away.

Anonymous Bobo October 25, 2012 1:14 PM  

@JP

Well according to Shintaro Ishihara, the Chinese are merely ignorant.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040318115936/http://japan.box.sk/newsread.php?newsid=4403

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 1:18 PM  

Josh, it is to the Holy Ghost and not to Jesus that your friend Scott should dedicate himself

That was a mistake on my end. I was quoting beau's post, so please direct your theological nitpicking toward him.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 1:19 PM  

"You're tilting towards windmills made out of strawmen."

No, I'm writing for an audience which is larger than just _you_.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 1:29 PM  

No, I'm writing for an audience which is larger than just _you_.

Okay, then who is making the claim that "IQ uber alles"?

Because no one here is arguing that.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2012 1:37 PM  



or is it [height] merely that height is more readily observed by the average individual?

Yes, this is it. Or perhaps I should say height is more readily confirmed, both by society and by the tall person himself. IQ you can't know just by looking at somebody, and you can't compare your own IQ to the folks around you by just glancing around either. Height, you can. So people don't routinely grossly exaggerate their height. Sure, you get the occassional 5'6" little guy insisting he's 5'10", but everybody knows he's bullshitting (to quote Obama).

Speaking of Obama, he's walking proof of why people are uncomfortable or skeptical about IQ. Remember how brilliant he was supposed to be? Smartest guy ever to be President? And don't forget he beat "the smartest woman in the world" for the '08 Donk nomination. Both of 'em are idiots. Maybe not double-digit IQ idiots, but they're not much above average. Yet persistent claims are made that they are very, very smart.

Take Obama and Romeny. Which one has a higher IQ? Don't know for sure, but I'd bet on Romney. OTOH, we know Romney is taller because we've seen them standing next to each other.

And the really insidious thing is, the person himself can be fooled about his IQ. Look at the comments in this post - folks claiming they are so damn smart they have trouble communicating with the lesser intellects they work with. Maybe that's the case, and maybe they're aren't quite as smart as they think and the reason the other folks have trouble understanding is that the supposed genius is spouting nonsense.

Now, don't take offense VryeDenker, I'm not calling you out. I'm just using your comment to illustrate something that happens often - people think they're smarter than they really are and attribute the failed communication to the listener's inability to comprehend their genius, when often the problem is the speaker is saying something that doesn't make sense.

Bottom line, society is less interested in talking about IQ than other attributes because people lie about it far more often than other things, and the lies are far more difficult and time-consuming to discover.

Blogger CR106 October 25, 2012 1:42 PM  

Nope, it's because of the social and political implications. IQ or no IQ, the plain fact is that white Christian European people built America, and made it what it is, and intended it as an inheritance for their own posterity, not for the benefit of Bangladeshis who showed up last Tuesday after everything had already been built.

Don't have time to comment fully, but I love this post from "Scooby Doo" :-) It fits right in with Vox's assertions that diversity is decidedly NOT our strength, but our downfall. And lest you call me racist for agreeing with his post, visit China, Japan, or Korea and see how accepted you are as a white person in that culture. I cannot prove it, but I've read that they are fairly racist cultures.

Just my 2 cents.

Anonymous Athor Pel October 25, 2012 1:44 PM  

" JartStar October 25, 2012 9:24 AM

Athor Pel,

I create fantasy maps. Do you have any resources you'd recommend to making them a bit more believable if not realistic?"




I can give some basic advice.

A map needs to communicate its intended main message within 15 to 30 seconds of first viewing it. If it doesn't do that then it's a failure. From this one principle most design decisions flow.

As for what elements make up a map you will always need:
a title - this is your statement of intent or main message
a legend that allows the viewer to interpret your map
a scale or ratio for converting map distances to real world distances
a north arrow which is just a symbol telling how the map is oriented
a statement of data source, where and how the data came from
and of course the body of the map itself

You are making maps of fictitious territories which means that many of the rules regarding accuracy and precision don't apply. Which means data source won't mean anything in real terms. It will merely be flavor text.


You mentioned map creation resources... well.

There is a book that every map designer needs to have read at least once. Mark Monmonier, "How to Lie with Maps". His main message being that maps are like statistics, they are both easily manipulated to give impressions that would lead a user away from a true apprehension of reality.

As for other resources all I can think of would be to find a text about drafting standards, CAD drafters make maps. There are plenty of drafting standards regarding map making. There are all kinds of maps and they all use different symbology.

Sample as many as you can stomach and pick and choose pieces and parts among them to make your own. You might want to think about how your character's background, their world might impact how they think about their world. It would certainly influence design decisions.

For example, a species that relies heavily on scent would make a completely different map than one that relies on sight like humans do. What kind of celestial objects whirl about in their sky would impact their maps as well. Think it through, you'll be surprised at what you will come up with.



Anonymous DrTorch October 25, 2012 1:46 PM  

IQ is not real. Until it is real.

So it's Heisenberg's cat?

(yes, I know. It's part of the joke)

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2012 1:51 PM  




I would be willing to be the average IQ of the professional game designer is higher than the average IQ of the tenured Ivy League professor.

The damn sure have a higher IQ than the average student those IL profs graduate...

But I think Vox and RedJack are on the right path for explaining the fondness academicians have for idiotic ideologies. They are, as Vox says, a subset of "smart" people, and on top of that they are, as RedJack hints, a self-selecting subset that favors collectivist agendas, probably because they are, IQ aside, poorly equipped for success as individuals. Likely they are the subset of plus-IQ humans who are non-hypomanic and do not have any genetic protection from the crippling fear of standing on your own.

Additionally, I'll add that I suspect professors are dumber on average today than they were a couple hundred years ago. Being successful in the academic world today isn't about brilliance or breakthroughs, it's much more about successfully playing court politics, so I suspect modern day college profs have a somewhat specialized IQ, specialized in the arena of small-group manipulation and propaganda.

Anonymous socrates October 25, 2012 1:51 PM  

Being smart doesn't make one [...] intrinsically wiser

people still find it offensive in a way that they never find a tall man being straightforward about his height is. This is strange, because one can't do much more about one's intelligence than one can about one's height.

Clearly you're right, iq is not wisdom.

Anonymous Athor Pel October 25, 2012 1:56 PM  

" Robert Jakobson October 25, 2012 1:04 PM

Josh, it is to the Holy Ghost and not to Jesus that your friend Scott should dedicate himself. Because it is written in the Gospels and strongly implied both in the Acts and in the letters of apostle Paul, not to speak of the later Councils, that after the ascension of Jesus it is the Holy Ghost that was given and remains among the faithful.

I reckon it is because people can paint and caricature their own version of the Son of God (being equally of the essence and being of both Divinity and Man, the latter making him a subject of perversion, critique, corruption and sin) to resemble their liking - to pretend they are saved, but none can do so with the Holy Ghost - which is wholly divine.

It is the Holy Ghost that redeems now. Back in the days when Jesus Christ walked the earth, he could truly save, but since he no longer is in this realm, it is up to the Holy Ghost to do the work.

If people continue to say to this very day that they are saved by Jesus Christ, not in a metaphorical sense but literally as is common among the rednecks everywhere and new low IQ belivers (who often are former alcoholics and low-class citizens) then they are contradicting the Scripture and the Tradition. According to the Bible itself or the Biblical orthodox tradition they are either mentally imbalanced or heretical.
...
"



Buddy, you should just shut your Manichean mouth now because it won't get any traction here.

You yourself in this very comment are denying Jesus as the Messiah, this makes you anti-Christ, the very spirit you claim to be championing.














Anonymous JartStar October 25, 2012 2:01 PM  

Thanks Athol. Good stuff.

Anonymous DrTorch October 25, 2012 2:01 PM  

And since we can't teach dummies to be intellectuals, that leads us to Education Policy. In olden times, dummies mucked stables. Three generations ago, they worked assembly lines. Now, what jobs can they do? What are the schools training them for?

Apparently we have room for 30M landscapers. Seriously, there are always jobs at that level to do, but we're taught that the US is exceptional, thus its citizens shouldn't be expected to work.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 2:12 PM  

I hate the myth of American exceptionalism.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick October 25, 2012 2:19 PM  

What's the best advice for a midwit in the 90th percentile? How does IQ translate into wisdom?

Anonymous DrTorch October 25, 2012 2:52 PM  

God gives wisdom (Solomon), which is completely different from intelligence.

In fairness, when you read about Solomon, it seems God blessed him with both.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 25, 2012 2:55 PM  

"What's the best advice for a midwit in the 90th percentile? How does IQ translate into wisdom?"

1. Read Moby-Dick. (Bible too, simultaneously, if you can manage.)

2. Read Dante's "Inferno".

3. Now go read Moby-Dick a second time. NOW you get it!!

4. If you're still sane at this point, read "Gravity's Rainbow".

5. Now you're REALLY starting to get it!!

"Well if the weed ain't no good, son,
Ya still feel sad,
Go take a walk downtown,
Now you ain't doin' so bad, not at all."
-- 99 Year Blues

alternate route:

Read Shakespeare, beginning with Henry IV Part One. Pay particular attention to Prince Hal's opening insult to Falstaff, which is a) the best insult in the English language, and b) the funniest way to introduce a character in the English-language rep.

Something you could try doing which would train your wits, is to read Shakespeare's whole "Wars of the Roses" history plays in the order in which they allegedly occurred, which is very different from the order in which he wrote them. It's a little like all the stylistic confusion in the Star Wars universe. It goes like this:

1. Richard II
2. Henry IV, part one.
3. Henry IV, part two.
4. Henry V
5. Henry VI, parts 1-2-3 (these are the most kooky, so you can skim them)
6. Richard III

Congratulations! Let me know what you found!!



Anonymous Heh October 25, 2012 3:05 PM  

In all honesty, how often is anyone here impressed by someone's intellect?

There is a Dunning-Kruger problem -- people are incapable of recognizing the superior intelligence of others.

Have you ever seen mass waves of Americans or Europeans migrating to Asia or India or Africa as supplicant immigrants (viz. rather than as conquerors or reformers) in search of 'a better life'?

We may see that yet if Dumbass gets reelected.

Anonymous Anonymous October 25, 2012 3:21 PM  

As a tutor and sometime teacher, I question the assertion that IQ is immutable. I've seen SO MANY people whose logical skills have been damaged, repressed, or completely obliterated because of schooling. I can help these people improve, but by the time they find me, frequently they're too discouraged to try thinking independently.

SAT and some other standardized test scores supposedly correlate with IQ. With test preparation, it's possible to improve standardized test scores considerably. (in the hundreds of points for SAT) I've seen it happen. That would seem to imply that it's possible to raise IQ. Am I missing something here?

It would be reasonable to figure that school detracts from innate IQ, and test prep enhances innate IQ, but that there are limits to those effects. You might say that smart people are damaged by school, but only a below average person would come out with no logical ability whatsoever.

But my informal observation has been that the damage or possible improvement is greater than the apparent differences in most people's raw ability. I also note the huge differences in skills and accomplishments between schooled and unschooled kids, and what happens when a schooled kid is allowed to quit. Those who are free to just learn, do so amazingly well.

Kiwi the Geek

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2012 3:54 PM  

Hey, I successfully explained what software development is to my 84 year old grandmother. I believe I communicate just fine :P

Anonymous NewAnubis October 25, 2012 4:02 PM  

As with most universal irony, I have found that for the gift of 'smarts' donned on the select few, a parasitic depression is part and parcel. An opposite to 'ignorance is bliss' I suppose.
As pertains to God, to those whom something is given, something is required. The 170iq basement dweller may well have some tough questions to field.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 4:54 PM  

SAT and some other standardized test scores supposedly correlate with IQ. With test preparation, it's possible to improve standardized test scores considerably. (in the hundreds of points for SAT) I've seen it happen. That would seem to imply that it's possible to raise IQ. Am I missing something here?

The sat is no longer an IQ test.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 6:02 PM  

There is a Dunning-Kruger problem -- people are incapable of recognizing the superior intelligence of others.

This is easily falsified. Over the course of my life I have recognized several people as smarter than myself (including an Asian woman, the only woman so far). Still, no doubt I missed many more than I recognized- it's hard to observe intelligence in introverts, who comprise the bulk of people smarter than me.

Anyway, that's not how Dunning-Kruger works in the first place.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 6:17 PM  

The relationship between IQ and intelligence is like that of your PC's processing power and 3dMark score. There is a strong correlation, but it is possible for the display adapter manufacturer to cheat, and optimize the adapter for exactly the tests that the benchmark does. This gives a slightly higher score than what would give you an honest picture of the PC's components.

However, if someone then makes the claim that 3dMark score doesn't matter, you can bet on them having a shitty PC.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 6:22 PM  

Interacting with someone who has higher IQ isn't fun. If you two see or hear the same thing, such that it can be considered a problem (in a very general sense), the other person is going to reach the right conclusion just a few moments before you do. But since they are the first to state it, the effect is the same as if you were an imbecile and wouldn't have reached it at all. You just come across always looking stupid.

Anonymous WaterBoy October 25, 2012 6:45 PM  

The 16 Smartest People In The World

"The average score on an IQ test is 100. Most people fall within the 85 to 114 range. Any score over 140 is considered a high IQ. A score over 160 is considered a genius IQ."

140? Really?

Anonymous physphilmusic October 25, 2012 6:52 PM  

The absolutist, abstractionist notion of IQ implies that since Jews and Asians have a slightly higher IQ than whites, then they somehow magically "deserve," somehow magically possess a "mandate from Heaven", to rule over all America. Any person with a smidgen of common sense can detect that this is utter nonsense. Any person who promotes this nonsense ought to be flayed alive.

No, I'm writing for an audience which is larger than just _you_.

What the hell? Who has ever, in the West, argued that Asians and Jews have a fucking "mandate from Heaven" to rule over America? Liberals? They certainly aren't arguing that - they often deny the significance of IQ. And they seem to support more the notion of blacks and Hispanics ruling America. Are people like Steve Sailer arguing that? If so, give me a link. It's the first time I've ever heard of such an idea.

And your paranoia is contradicted by a lot of other evidence - Asians tend not to be very interested in politics. Asians more rarely display enough extroversion, charisma, leadership, and ability to bullshit such that they are able to become CEOs. Most are content with being a cog in the machine. Where in the world did you get the notion that high average IQ of a race = master race? Your claim seems to be simply a load of projection which stems from your insecurity in discovering that the race you happened to be born in doesn't have the highest average IQ.

Nope, it's because of the social and political implications. IQ or no IQ, the plain fact is that white Christian European people built America, and made it what it is, and intended it as an inheritance for their own posterity, not for the benefit of Bangladeshis who showed up last Tuesday after everything had already been built.

Let me correct you: white Christian ANGLO males built America, and it doesn't seem like they intended large numbers of socialist-leaning Dutch, Germans, and other European peoples to flood the nation and eventually cause the gradual loss of personal liberties. I don't think the Founding Fathers would have been happy to welcome loads of authoritarian-loving German people into this country because it is their "birthright". And especially as these non-Anglo immigrants are the ones who played a big part in allowing Marxism and progressivism to develop and take root, thereby paving the seeds of the self-destruction of Western civilization.

Jews and Asians formed a human battering ram and infiltrated and took over this system, using it to their own advantage, and sticking whites with the bill. Given the magical high IQs of legendary high-scoring Jews and Asians, I'm still waiting for them to pony up and build an equally amazing public university system, say in Colorado, for the benefit of all the whites whom they've cheated out of their birthright.

Face it, dude. Jews and Asians competed fair and square, and you lost. I hit the books every weekend as the mostly white frat boys and girls are partying, drinking, and banging the shit out of each other. Sure of evidence of sure white superiority right there. You are right - I sure don't deserve to be here, by birthright, but sure as hell am I'm defeating the loads of whites as I do tests and assignments which are given by white professors. I'm a better research assistant, teaching assistant, and student scientist in general than a lot of whites here. I give results. So white professors like me more. Whose fault is that? Mine or the whites?

In contrast, the Chinese and Jewish diasporas are parasitic in nature, in that they infiltrate via subterfuge an already-built and already-existing system, and then subvert it to their advantage. In the old days, this was called cunning, not "high IQ". They may be substantially congruent, but they prove different things.

Yes, they're cunning, and from an evolutionary point of view, they win in the Darwinian competition, just as the parasitic cuckoo does.

Anonymous physphilmusic October 25, 2012 6:52 PM  

Scoobius doobius - you're sounding just like a liberal here. Liberals try to deny IQ and redefine intelligence in a thousand different ways since it doesn't suit their narrative that everyone is equal, except for the guilty whites. Similarly, you are trying to redefine the concept of a "superior" or "master" or "deserving" race such that it is whites who fulfill that metric. Well, you are certainly allowed to do that - but unlike the IQ test, you lack an objective metric for your criteria to succeed. IQ is simple - a lot of people take the tests, then tally up the average of each ethnic group/gender/whatever. IQ correlates with some outcomes - success, problem solving, ability in math/physics, etc. That's it. Nobody here is claiming that IQ determines the "master race". It's just that it's an objective fact that Asians and Jews score higher in it than whites.

Blogger Rod Freeman October 25, 2012 6:59 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rod Freeman October 25, 2012 7:00 PM  

I wonder if there have been any studies on how IQ relates to self-reported levels of happiness.

I've often noticed that the smartest people I know are also the most cynical, and I wonder if there is a correlation between intelligence and the belief in the impossibility of true happiness.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 8:02 PM  

Koanic,

I just followed your link to the website. Holy fuck.

It's like finding Vox Day/Fred Reed/C.S. Lewis/Heartiste/Jon Taylor Gatto/Ludwig Von Mises all over again. I can't stop gorging myself on your content and the world looks like completely different with every bit of it.

I've heard Vox mention a similar binge when he found Fred Reed. Is there a word for this phenomenon?

Anonymous Heh October 25, 2012 8:18 PM  

Anyway, that's not how Dunning-Kruger works in the first place.

This is called an ANALOGY. Clearly you are not smart enough to appreciate this.

D-K:

Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1.tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2.fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4.recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill

By analogy,

Less intelligent people
1.tend to overestimate their own level of intelligence;
2.fail to recognize genuine intelligence in others;
3.fail to recognize the extremity of their unintelligence;
4.recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of intlligence

Notice the word "tend"?

That means that you did, indeed, miss many more people who were more intelligent than you than you recognized.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 8:26 PM  

Notice the word "tend"?

Notice the word "incompetent"? The analogy to intelligence is stupid people, not people whose IQ is, say, 120 looking at someone with 140.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 8:43 PM  

Got to be careful not to take this thread hopelessly into Koanic Esoterica, but he writes:

The very gifted child or adolescent, perceiving the illogical conduct of those in charge of his affairs, may turn rebellious against all authority and fall into a condition of negative suggestibility–a most unfortunate trend of personality, since the person is then unable to take a cooperative attitude toward authority.

I know a guy like this over the internet. He is a Satanist and a homosexual. Always liked him, although with serious qualification as you might imagine. But there is a person in there, although twisted into a pretzel by circumstances. Talking to him doesn't feel like talking to the infamous chatterbot Eliza, like it does with so many better adjusted people.

Somehow it feels as if the former has more hope of getting saved than the latter, no matter how much of a paradox it seems like at first glance.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 8:52 PM  

I'd even say it is easier to make an intellectual "truce" with a Satanist than it is with a normal, secular person. They are so far away on the other side that I guess they are entirely confident that they could never be persuaded otherwise. So they do it for the lulz.

Of course when SHTF, you would be incredibly foolish to trust that truce.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 9:44 PM  

@Heh,

As Markku alluded, Dunning-Kruger doesn't apply to the general population. Only the incompetent (think of them as the fourth quadrant, if you're aspergic). If we're talking measured IQ, there's a very, very, very low chance that I fall into the applicable tranche for your statement:

Clearly you are not smart enough to appreciate this.

Speaking of ANALOGIES* and IQ, maybe we should post pictures of our penises to see whose is bigger.

That means that you did, indeed, miss many more people who were more intelligent than you than you recognized.

Your implication (that you are smarter) may actually be correct. Which is strange for me, as I don't usually have cause to correct someone who is possibly as smart as me or smarter. But your ability to argue is undercut because...you're wrong. And that's a difficult handicap to overcome**.

But I can commiserate too. I've spent most of my life in a rhetorical cesspool, wherein logic is just another weapon.

*All-caps indicates that I am SUPER SERIAL.
**It's impossible to be strictly wrong while simply making an analogy, but you were nice enough to spell it out.

Anonymous jSinSaTx October 25, 2012 10:16 PM  

Some thoughts by Fred Reed.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MexicanIQ.shtml

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 10:21 PM  

Markku,

It's really odd that you should mention that now, because my first reaction to this graph was "I'm no geneticist, but that right tail of the red curve looks like a mutation to me."

And now I'm reading all this stuff at Koanic relating Neanderthals to aspies, which suggests that Atheism ~ Asperger's ~ Neanderthals. And because Atheism is the denial of God (rather than the properly rational starting point of agnosticism) I can conclude that (probably) Atheism ⸦ Satanism, I can forge the final link in the chain:

Which is to say that it's quite credible that a Satanist would probably be easier to reason with than a nonSatanist, because a Neanderthal is probably aspergic, and therefore probably rebelled from the culture he was raised in (churchian), is probably an atheist or an agnostic, and is therefore a Satanist (whether he knows it or not).

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 10:22 PM  

In other words,

Let S = {Satanists}, A = {Atheists}, Asp = {Aspies}, N = {Neanderthals}
Let P = Modal operator "Probably"

x ∈ S
→ P(x ∈ A)
(x ∈ A) → P(x ∈ Asp)*
(x ∈ Asp) → (x ∈ N)**
And ∀ x ∈ N, P(x is amenable to reason)

*Could also be expressed: P((x ∈ A) → (x ∈ Asp)).
**I have no reason to think that Asp ⊄ N.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 10:25 PM  

I've mentioned this before, but if I post a comment like the one above you may assume that I've been drinking.

Then again, aside from my intuitive understanding I don't actually know modal logic. So maybe something up there isn't quite right. I think I'll read up on it.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2012 10:29 PM  

And especially as these non-Anglo immigrants are the ones who played a big part in allowing Marxism and progressivism to develop and take root, thereby paving the seeds of the self-destruction of Western civilization.

IQ is genetic. Height is genetic. Heart disease is genetic.

Know what else is?

Collectivism.

Only about 15-20% of the male population of any particular tribal group of humans is emotionally capable of what we might call entrepreneurship. The other 80+% are simply too paralized by fear and uncertainty to take the risks necessary.

The United States ended up with a significantly higher percentage of risk tolerant people because they self-selected from various communities, including germanic lands, by risking everything they had to cross an ocean and start over carving civilization out of a wilderness.

But then somewhere's around the late 1800's, that changed. It wasn't quite as risky to leave the old country and come to America any more. The original settlers had already carved out a civilization, and it was a wealthy one. New immigrants still needed to work hard, but they didn't need to take the same gut-wrenching risks the original settlers had to.

So now we have the genetic lineage of the pioneers, the founders, the risk-takers who came prior to the Civil War, living amid the increasing numbers of the scaredy-cats, the milquetoast-come-lately's, who yearn not to breath free, but rather to be taken care of, to have a nanny and a keeper and a scapegoat to blame their failures on.

There are liberty-loving people from every ethnic and racial group on Earth. It's just that they're a small percentage of every population except the one that founded this country.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 10:30 PM  

I'd say that he almost certainly isn't an aspie, as I never got the feeling that he failed to read between the lines, especially when I placed humor there. However, it is very likely that he would be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.

Anonymous Josh October 25, 2012 10:34 PM  

Got to be careful not to take this thread hopelessly into Koanic Esoterica

Please don't.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 10:34 PM  

Before I go, a quick response to this:

Of course when SHTF, you would be incredibly foolish to trust that truce.

When SHTF, ethnicity trumps ideology; blood is thicker than water, and whatnot. So maybe you don't trust Lil' E, but he might turn out to be an ally if you're part of the same extended family. How many black atheists are there?

It's a shame, but humans are human after all.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 10:37 PM  

IQ is genetic. Height is genetic. Heart disease is genetic.

Know what else is?

Collectivism.


Calvinism? I wonder.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 10:38 PM  

When SHTF, ethnicity trumps ideology

When someone publicly identifies with Satan, I think it is safe to say that the ideologies are so far apart that even the ethnicity divide is smaller.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 10:39 PM  

I mean, when someone actually comes right out and says that they are planning on making you trust them in order to betray you, you'd have to be exceptionally stupid to do so.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 10:54 PM  

It was really my best example of where an excess of raw intelligence without God can take you. The world view was absolutely internally coherent, there was nothing that I could do to it with logic. A less intelligent person would have been content with some form of unthinking, habitual hedonism.

But from that point, all there is left that can happen is to "taste and see that the LORD is good".

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 11:03 PM  

When someone publicly identifies with Satan, I think it is safe to say that the ideologies are so far apart that even the ethnicity divide is smaller.

Safe, certainly. Probable? We'd need a great deal more information, and I can safely assume you're right in this particular case because you're familiar with it.

I mean, when someone actually comes right out and says that they are planning on making you trust them in order to betray you, you'd have to be exceptionally stupid to do so.

With the understanding that this person is completely unskilled in deception. Satan must not be much of a pedagogue.

It was really my best example of where an excess of raw intelligence without God can take you. The world view was absolutely internally coherent, there was nothing that I could do to it with logic. A less intelligent person would have been content with some form of unthinking, habitual hedonism.

But from that point, all there is left that can happen is to "taste and see that the LORD is good".


True. Valid logic is no replacement for correct antecedents.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 11:05 PM  

With the understanding that this person is completely unskilled in deception.

No, that was logical too. Truth amused him (KOANIC ESOTERICA ALERT) and it was extremely unlikely that anyone who had seen that thread (closed forum) would actually be among the ones he'd need to deceive.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 11:28 PM  

You're talking over my head. I just started down this branch of esoterica earlier today.

Blogger Markku October 25, 2012 11:36 PM  

All you really need to know is that if you or I encourage him to cause this thread to stray too far from the topic (the REAL topic, not "if I squint my eyes just the right way, this is almost related to the topic"), some people will be unhappy.

Then we will be unhappy.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 25, 2012 11:55 PM  

Koanic is hypergraphic, in other words. That's not the part that went over my head (I go overboard myself on occasion). I'm curious about which people "he" would need to deceive and which he wouldn't, and how the truth amused him given that he admits its existence and is intelligent enough to grasp it.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems impossible to know the truth and simultaneously disrespect it.

Anonymous aero October 26, 2012 12:12 AM  

stray from the tread is just a question or statement away.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 26, 2012 1:20 AM  

Calvinism? I wonder.

As in the doctrine of Unconditional Election? An HBD fan could certainly find something there to agree with. God pre-selected (or should I say elected) those whom He would save and encoded our salvation in our DNA?

There have been wackier theologies.

But ultimately I'm not a Calvanist. Seems to me, Calvinism poses the anti-Pascal wager. If you're a Calvanist, might as well not believe in God, since He's already decided if you're saved or not.

Did someone say something about straying from the thread?

Blogger Markku October 26, 2012 2:46 AM  

how the truth amused him given that he admits its existence and is intelligent enough to grasp it.

Because affinity with the truth, even to the point where it is against the person's own good, is what Koanic claims to be the main Neanderthal trait.

Anonymous Koanic October 26, 2012 4:05 AM  

Behold, I am Hypergraph, destroyer of threads.

Aeoli, that logic post was awesome.

To answer your previous question, I call it red pilling.

Anonymous Koanic October 26, 2012 4:19 AM  

"Because affinity with the truth, even to the point where it is against the person's own good, is what Koanic claims to be the main Neanderthal trait."

More precisely, I would say that his Satanism has internal logical consistency due to socket depth. It does not prevent him from rebelling against God.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 26, 2012 4:28 AM  

As someone north of 175 IQ, reading the comments here was very amusing.

Some thoughts by Fred Reed.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MexicanIQ.shtml


I already dissected this article in the comments section on another of Vox's posts. Scroll down to 5:48 PM. Maybe I should say "analyzed" instead. The article is not wrong... just missing something.


Now, don't take offense VryeDenker, I'm not calling you out. I'm just using your comment to illustrate something that happens often - people think they're smarter than they really are and attribute the failed communication to the listener's inability to comprehend their genius, when often the problem is the speaker is saying something that doesn't make sense.

I NEVER bought this. I had an interesting afternoon not too long ago. I bumped into someone I would peg at about 75-80 IQ, and talked successfully with this person for about three hours on various simple, concrete subjects, making sure to avoid abstraction and any long chains of reasoning.

If I can do that, any one of you fleshbags should be able to hack it. Assuming no definite handicaps like Asperger's Syndrome. Then again, my verbals skills are completely awesome, so your mileage may very vary.


One thing I've noticed, is people over about 150 IQ tend to take simple concepts and make them overly complicated. Get. To. The. Point.

With. Simple. Words. Cut the bullshit. This is not a differential equation or electrical circuit diagram to get from A to B.

Blogger Spacebunny October 26, 2012 4:28 AM  

The thread topic is neither religion nor Koanic's pet theories. Koanic has a blog so if you want to discuss it, that would be the appropriate place to do it.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 26, 2012 4:32 AM  

The link to scroll: Vox Poppin' 7/12

Behold, I am Hypergraph, destroyer of threads.

Stop encouraging them you naughty instigator J. Robert Oppenheimer! I've seen examples of hypergraphia, and I don't really think Koanic fits that.

Anonymous Koanic October 26, 2012 4:59 AM  

Oh and I don't think getting Markku's jokes is in any way dispositive for Asperger's.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 26, 2012 5:04 AM  


In other words,

Let S = {Satanists}, A = {Atheists}, Asp = {Aspies}, N = {Neanderthals}
Let P = Modal operator "Probably"

x ∈ S → P(x ∈ A)
(x ∈ A) → P(x ∈ Asp)*
(x ∈ Asp) → (x ∈ N)**
And ∀ x ∈ N, P(x is amenable to reason)

*Could also be expressed: P((x ∈ A) → (x ∈ Asp)).
**I have no reason to think that Asp ⊄ N.


This is fine symbolic logic, but what the hell is "probably"? Is that probability some n => 50%? n > 70%?

Example:
Consider a set S = {a, b, c, d, e, f}
cardinality |S| = 6
Pr - probability operator, in some interval [0,1] where 0 = 0%, 1 = 100%.

[(x ∈ S) → P(x ∈ T)] → Pr(x ∈ T > 0.7)

I have no reason to think that Asp ⊄ N.

No. There are probably Asperger's cases not fully N.

∀ x: (x ∈ A → x ∈ B) → A ⊂ B.
∃ x ∈ Asp ∧ x ∉ N → Asp ⊄ N.

Anonymous Stilicho October 27, 2012 2:21 PM  

"zeonxavier October 25, 2012 8:46 AM
...
In the Civil War, General Grant kept a dullard Captain around his headquarters. If the Captain could not sufficiently understand the orders being sent out to the field of battle, the orders needed to be reworded or simplified before they left HQ."


That's freakin brilliant. I'm going to remember this.


Sort of a reverse Xerxes: Remember thou that the rest of us art mortal.

Anonymous Beau October 27, 2012 2:51 PM  

Robert Jakobson Oct 25, 2012 1:104pm

If people continue to say to this very day that they are saved by Jesus Christ, not in a metaphorical sense but literally as is common among the rednecks everywhere and new low IQ belivers (who often are former alcoholics and low-class citizens) then they are contradicting the Scripture and the Tradition. According to the Bible itself or the Biblical orthodox tradition they are either mentally imbalanced or heretical.

Your anti-Jesus rant is a perfect-pitch rendition of the classic sneer, “Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them."

The Acts of the Apostle records

Let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. Acts 4:10-12

The learned rejected the Chief Cornerstone then, just as you do now. You wrote

Josh, it is to the Holy Ghost and not to Jesus that your friend Scott should dedicate himself.

and

It is the Holy Ghost that redeems now. Back in the days when Jesus Christ walked the earth, he could truly save, but since he no longer is in this realm, it is up to the Holy Ghost to do the work.

However in Acts 15, the Apostle Paul wrote

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Acts 15:11

Which informs us that post-ascension the Lord Jesus Christ is giving his grace for salvation. Also Acts 16

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Here post-ascension an individual is counseled by the apostle to give his devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is simple direct counsel, the soul of brevity, such as could be given by any chaplain to a mortally wounded soldier with only three minutes to live. Right assurance that death not be feared. No instruction on the nature of the true church or rituals - simply salvation.

Scott is right to be dedicated to his Lord, the one who gave his grace, the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved. You counsel otherwise, against the Lord Jesus Christ.

You ooze hatred against the poor, this the Lord Jesus Christ did not do.

Anonymous Stilicho October 27, 2012 3:38 PM  

One thing I've noticed, is people over about 150 IQ tend to take simple concepts and make them overly complicated. Get. To. The. Point.

With. Simple. Words. Cut the bullshit. This is not a differential equation or electrical circuit diagram to get from A to B.


Indeed. Somewhat differently, many of the mid-witted tend to do it purposefully in order to appear more intelligent than they are. Think of your average humanities professor.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 27, 2012 5:22 PM  

Indeed. Somewhat differently, many of the mid-witted tend to do it purposefully in order to appear more intelligent than they are. Think of your average humanities professor.

Precisely. One thing people in the arts and humanities need to know, is that the complicated words in math and science are because the concepts are intricate. Each term in the sentence means a specific thing. Not because they are trying to appear smart. If I say for instance, "isometric embedding of a Riemannian manifold into a Euclidean Space" I am not trying to obfuscate it. I am saying one precise thing only. Not a topological manifold, Riemannian. Not a subspace or subset, an embedding. Not an injection or surjection, but an isomorphism. Not a Hilbert space, Euclidean.

With the exception of philosophy (which includes that symbolic logic above) and linguistics, I don't see the need for the complexity.

Anonymous Stilicho October 28, 2012 7:07 AM  

I don't see the need for the complexity.

Concise, yes. Precise, yes. Complex, no. Unneeded complexity is usually either a smokescreen or indicates the proponent's lack of understanding, or both.

Blogger RobertT October 29, 2012 1:29 PM  

I was out of town when this was posted, but I wanted to register my agreement.

If you simply acknowledge what you have observed to be true over you entire life, that you are more intelligent than the average bear, you are a complete narcissist and subject to the most vile recriminations you can imagine.

When you say you trust your own judgement over any professional you've ever met, same result.

So I make this statement as a confirmed narcissist - the communication barriers between a 115 IQ and a high IQ person are real. For instance the post immediately above this one by Stilicho about complexity and clarity. It seems to me that everything a high IQ person says seems complex to some people, although it seems thoroughly obvious and clear to the speaker. To the listener it is stupid, ignorant and a complete flight of fancy.

Also regarding your comment about a high IQ person living in your basement and wasting time on some way out thing, the examples in my life are that the high IQ people I have met have basically given up on living in the real world with with real people. I avoid them like the plague because all they want to do is argue about some esoteric thing that I never think about. They gather together to debate these subjects endlessly. That is why I say it isn't just the dummies that are idiots, the high IQ people can be idiots also.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts