Unironically, what are actual signs of high iq/intelligence?

[Anonymous No.14937568]

title

[Anonymous No.14937580]

laconism

[Anonymous No.14937583]

Certainly not obsessing over IQ…

[Anonymous No.14937587]

>>14937568
Posting a large number of anime maids.

[Anonymous No.14937676]

>>14937568
-Autismo-level pattern recognition without being socially retarded

-Acknowledging Zionism (not being obsessed or entirely ignorant of it)

-Difficulty with customer service jobs

[Anonymous No.14937686]

>>14937568
Being either very fat or very thin.
I’ve never met a normal weight genius. I don’t know if I believe in them.

[Anonymous No.14937710]

>>14937568
Pattern recognition and using social statistics/psychology to your advantage

[Anonymous No.14938217]

>>14937568
I wish I knew. I don't even have enough high iq power to solve basic relationship problems right now. It's too damn difficult without clear communication channels. It's almost as unnerving as electrocution, at least there I was the only one suffering

[Anonymous No.14938221]

>>14938217
Am I retarded or are you talking about human relationship problems?

[Anonymous No.14938223]

>wearing the mask over the nose
>getting vaccinated
>regularly getting your booster
>social distancing

[Anonymous No.14938227]

>>14938221
It's the constant breadcrumbing with indirect clues that fails me everyday. I don't have enough brain capacity for this. Phones are useless in these conditions. Using the Voynich manuscript would be an improvement. I think it would be extra difficult for anyone

[Anonymous No.14938235]

>>14937568
browing /sci/

[Anonymous No.14938239]

>>14938227
Just ask questions. You can't read minds.

[Anonymous No.14938246]

>>14937568
not smoking weed.
it's actually stupid, trashy, irresponsible, unprofessional and unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.14938592]

>>14938223
found the glownigger

[Anonymous No.14938604]

>>14937583
IQ is literally the difference between a poorfag and a millionaire, between a degree in stuff that matters (everything related to stem) and majoring in Gender Studies.

[Anonymous No.14938610]

Being articulate

[Anonymous No.14938620]

>>14937580
And metonymy

>The ham sandwich went to grab the check

[Anonymous No.14938622]

>>14938223
He said high IQ, not low IQ. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.14938627]

>>14937686
Stop watching TV and Hollywoke shit.

[Anonymous No.14938639]

>>14937580
/thread

[Anonymous No.14938864]

>>14937580
Creativity. That kind that produces original thought

[Anonymous No.14938877]

>>14937583
>Certainly not obsessing over IQ…
thread/

[Anonymous No.14938881]

>>14938864
Creativity + high capacity for logical thought.

Those two things together make genius from what I've seen. One alone makes either and artist or an engineer.

[Anonymous No.14938993]

>>14937583
Let me guess... you are halfling with low IQ, with micro penis, a liberal farts degree, and on top of that a socialist.

[Anonymous No.14939019]

>>14937583
>Certainly not obsessing over IQ…
>not obsessing on measure systems for intelligence is intelligent
retard

[Anonymous No.14939025]

>>14939019
What purpose does obsessing over a measurement of intelligence have? It gives nothing and wastes time to boot.

If you are smart you don't need to be told so unless you are dealing with significant trauma surrounding it.

[Anonymous No.14939090]

>>14938881
this doesn't seem to be that rare though, just look at game developers especially in the indie scene. most of them are both technical and artistic

[Anonymous No.14939096]

>>14939090
And some of them can be considered geniuses in their own right. Toby Fox composed, programmed, wrote a story, and integrated gameplay in a great combination that would normally require an entire team to even begin to approach let alone execute.

Even in the indie scene though only a small fraction of the fucking masses of games are actually good. Of those only a fraction are truly solo Dev's and those are true geniuses.

But being honest genius is a lot less useful nowadays.

[Anonymous No.14939158]

Not making a thread like this would be one sign.
But if you look at IQ research, any set of questions that could involve knowledge or problem solving, is also a test of IQ. The IQ test is a distillation of that large set of questions into a subset that are highly correlated with each other.
In more concrete terms, an IQ test would not feature questions about the internal workings of a combustion engine because that domain knowledge would not be highly correlated with domain knowledge about poetry, for example.
An IQ test contains questions that test primarily problem solving and mental capability irrespective of specific domain knowledge. But that does not imply that a test of specific domain knowledge is not in part an IQ test, it is simply a weaker test of intelligence and a stronger test of domain knowledge.

[Anonymous No.14939282]

>>14939025
retard

[Anonymous No.14939423]

>>14939096
I wasn't aware that he did all that, goodness. Know of anyone else like that? thoughts on Notch from Minecraft for example

[Anonymous No.14939771]

>>14937568
Look at the forehead

[Anonymous No.14939774]

>>14938881
Not only creativity itself, but a certain level of insanity to believe in one's own ludicrous ideas.

Anyone could have come up with the idea of gravity, a mysterious invisible attractive force between everything in the universe as a stray thought; what so drastically separates regular people from Newton though is that they would give up on such a theory and never think of it again after a couple of minutes assuming it to be so far off an idea that it's not even worth proving wrong whereas Newton pursued it entirely through to get a definitive result for his hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.14939809]

>>14937568
>alcoholism
>father hitting his son with a belt for being too clever and smart
>Being a virgin late in life
>Choosing to become a homosexual

Rate my list broski's

[Anonymous No.14939822]

>>14939771
what am i suppose to be looking at? Girl on the right has a bigger noggin?

[Anonymous No.14939831]

Extreme misantrophic and autonomy not in the autistic way

[Anonymous No.14939845]

>>14937568
1) Scoring high on iq tests
2) abstaining for posting iq threads on /sci/

[Anonymous No.14939852]

>>14939822
They both have high vertical heads.

[Anonymous No.14940075]

>>14937583
You don't even understand the context of this discussion, kindly fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14940109]

>>14938604
>>14938877
>>14938993
>>14939019
>>14940075
why are there so many orientals on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.14940206]

>>14939771
Complete opposite. Small faces imply poor nutrition and low intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14940485]

>>14940206
I can imagine what your head looks like. You can't hide.

[Anonymous No.14940487]

>>14937568
>Unironically, what are actual signs of high iq/intelligence?
Being good at literally everything.

[Anonymous No.14940505]

>>14937568
In my opinion, it is one's abilitiy to reason abstractly at a high level, to visualize abstractions and perceive multiple parts of them, and to see the interconnected nature of principles across seperate disciplines that can inform and inspire progress in others.

This is my definition of high IQ/Intelligence. I rarely, if ever, meet people like this. Ironically, when I do, they are in very honest or trade jobs. For example, both cobblers I go to are highly intelligent given their 'trade', so I've gathered from my discussions with them. A dishwasher I met at a restaurant once was perhaps the smartest and most thoughtful guy I ever met in this way.

Our current academic model has some serious flaws. I'd argue what public schools in America are doing, isn't really education anymore. It's essentially recitation on the part of the teacher, memorization on the part of the student, and then recitation on behalf of the student again, in the form of quiz, exams, and homework, all in very specific ways. You're graded on 'competancy' in a subject, but that grade is determined by very narrow ways in which the school wants you to think about those topics. The ways in which they are 'accepted', so you can be 'helpful' and productive in the work force, since all public education in America is designed with the aim in mind of creating good workers for the political and economic elite.

And I did very well in school and didnt exactly hate it's structure when I was in it, but looking back, and since I've taken great pains to educate myself personally in something of a true and classic 'liberal education', I see that both my highschool and college education did not serve me as well as they could have, and that there are huge inherent flaws in both public Highschool and Uni structure in America.

[Anonymous No.14940554]

I think that intelligence is largely how efficiently you can process, connect together, and utilize information to solve problems.

Everyone has this ability, some are a bit quicker than others, but what matters is that everyone can study and learn. Gain as much information as you can, it's the only thing you can do.

[Anonymous No.14940561]

>>14938246
NO BUT THE FUNNI PLANT CALMS MY DRUG INDUCED PSYCHOSIS

[Anonymous No.14940567]

>>14940505
>Our current academic model has some serious flaws. I'd argue what public schools in America are doing, isn't really education anymore. It's essentially recitation on the part of the teacher, memorization on the part of the student, and then recitation on behalf of the student again, in the form of quiz, exams, and homework, all in very specific ways. You're graded on 'competancy' in a subject, but that grade is determined by very narrow ways in which the school wants you to think about those topics. The ways in which they are 'accepted', so you can be 'helpful' and productive in the work force, since all public education in America is designed with the aim in mind of creating good workers for the political and economic elite.

My high school in the US had a gifted program where kids would be taken out of class to discuss philosophy, learn about critical thinking, and develop their own ideas. Shame that this was only for the gifted students, I think students would heavily benefit from an open forum discussion style, I think universities were like this pre 21st century. Freedom of discussion, no shame in being proven wrong, bouncing these topics and ideas around.

[Anonymous No.14940581]

>>14940567
>I think universities were like this pre 21st century. Freedom of discussion, no shame in being proven wrong, bouncing these topics and ideas around.

They were, objectively: I've forgotten the transliteration from English to Greek, but the word 'school' comes from the Greek word which literally translates to 'free time'. Typically, in Meddeteranian, antiquity but even up until the mid 12th century, you parents were primarily responsible for your education in basic language, basic country history, basic math. Then, you worked an apprentice job of some kind, or with family at home. Then, when the work was 'done', you went to school, or free time, which was basically an open forumn in your district, with the athletes in one corner, the actors and musicians in another, and each went his way according to his interests and nature.

And then, you were usually lead by a teacher. Some charged a fee, some didn't. Some professed to be legitimate teachers who were really frauds. But the point remains, the model was much more free an open. A few Platonist discourses take place in what amounts to a 'school' in this fasion. Someone like a Socrates was there every day, discussing rhetoric, oratory, and philosophy.

So you're right, the model is way different. What we are in now is essentially a militaristic model: Classes every hour, in cell blocks, moving between them in groups. What if i'm making a breakthrough in a class and want to stay a few more hours? "sorry, can't. Those are the rules". Perhaps education of antiquity could best be summed up best as 'no rules', or at least no oversight from people who know nothing about your field.

[Anonymous No.14940598]

>>14940581
>What if i'm making a breakthrough in a class and want to stay a few more hours? "sorry, can't. Those are the rules". Perhaps education of antiquity could best be summed up best as 'no rules', or at least no oversight from people who know nothing about your field.
You'd have to work through the bureaucracy to gain access to labs and equipment, maybe become a research assistant or whatever. Still possible!

[Anonymous No.14940621]

>>14940598
>have to go through months of red tape to study
>at a university
>which is supposed to be a place of study

fucking WEW!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.14940668]

>>14940621
cant just let any stupid nigga in

[Anonymous No.14940673]

>>14940668
I agree, unironically all of the red tape and beuracracy at universities today is because they let in people who have no business attending a university, and who have no real interest in higher education beyond being told it's "what you do after highschool".

[Anonymous No.14940899]

>>14939831
name examples of people like this (hint: no one)

[Anonymous No.14940926]

>mfw dad was in MENSA
>only slightly above average IQ (which means literally nothing)

hopefully my son gets it or something.

[Anonymous No.14941380]

>>14939423
The guy who programmed roller coaster tycoon

[Anonymous No.14941407]

>>14938604
Or, you know, parents with money, which is 99.9% of current billionaires.

[Anonymous No.14941535]

>>14941380
that other guys dad

[Anonymous No.14941646]

>>14940505
>This is my definition of high IQ/Intelligence. I rarely, if ever, meet people like this. Ironically, when I do, they are in very honest or trade jobs. For example, both cobblers I go to are highly intelligent given their 'trade', so I've gathered from my discussions with them. A dishwasher I met at a restaurant once was perhaps the smartest and most thoughtful guy I ever met in this way.
Always love hearing about people like this. Meeting them in person is always a good time, and I usually find they have a good, genuine sense of humor to go with it.

>>14940505
>abilitiy to reason abstractly at a high level, to visualize abstractions and perceive multiple parts of them, and to see the interconnected nature of principles across seperate disciplines that can inform and inspire progress in others
Do you think that this kind of intelligence can be acquired or taught? Or do you think it is something you are born with?

[Anonymous No.14941765]

>>14940899
Idk, maybe the fucking Isaac Newton?

[Anonymous No.14941849]

>>14941407
wealth travels in generations, anyone with basic fiscal sense realizes this
bootstrapping is inefficient and retarded

[Anonymous No.14941866]

>>14938217
>trying to use IQ to solve interpersonal issues

The way of the autist. What you actually need is emotional intelligence

[Anonymous No.14941868]

>>14937568
Effective filtering. Coming up with ideas, solutions, explanations, that is the easy part. But if you can't effectively filter good ones from bad ones, you end up with something essentially random and usually wrong.

[Anonymous No.14942096]

>>14937583
Kek based

[Anonymous No.14943345]

>>14941646

On paper it could probably be taught to an extent, our minds are very malleable after all. In reality though it's usually not able to be taught.

People enjoy doing things they're good at, that's what passion is. You're naturally motivated at doing things you're passionate of (most times at least) and so trying to teach 'abstract thinking' to someone that doesn't quickly adopt the idea is very difficult.

Just look at all those people that constantly proclaim their hate for math, if they tried a bit, they should be able to get it. Most times though as I said, it just realistically doesn't happen.

Though if someone is able to learn it to a good degree without necessarily being born with it or at least being introduced to the idea from a young age, well, that person is very special in their own way (lol no not in a bad way, it's just so uncommon)

Also btw i'm not the OP you were responding to, just wanted to give my 2c. Another thing, do you personally think you're smart/high iq?

[Anonymous No.14943403]

>>14941868
I get what you're saying. But I'd say it's more nuanced than that.
Yes thinking of solutions and explainations is the easy part. Yes it's better to have good solutions than bad solutions.
Someone intelligent might have insufficient information about the problem to form a good solution/explaination, or already know of one but wants to experiment to potentially find something better, or there may be no 'good' solutions/explainations to be found. Sometimes you're just asking elementary students to reinvent calculus.

[Anonymous No.14943784]

>>14943345
I think I understand what you're getting at. So basically:
>people enjoy doing things they are good at
>most people are not good at high level abstract reasoning
>therefore they won't enjoy doing it or will be discouraged by its difficulty
>this lowers their motivation to learn and thus their teachability
I guess that would imply that high-level abstract reasoning has low teachability primarily because of its perceived/experienced inaccessibility to the average layman rather than the sheer intellectual skill required. Despite its inherent difficulty, I think that most people would be capable of grasping the subject if they could find the determination within themselves to do so.

>Another thing, do you personally think you're smart/high iq?
Not really. Other people seem to think I am, though. I'm naturally competant at lots of things and have surface knowledge of lots of different kinds of topics, so I come off as being smarter than average when really I think I'm just a quick learner who knows how to shut up, observe, and listen. Any natural intellectual talents I might have had I probably lost to a decade of self-destructive drug and alcohol abuse, but I've never really tried to excel at any one thing so I just don't know.

I don't care so much about it anymore, though. As long as I'm improving myself incrementally I don't see any reason to stress over whether I'm smarter than average or not.

[Anonymous No.14943816]

>>14937568
Do you make impulsive decisions often and overreact if something doesn't go your way even in the slightest? If yes, then you're most likely NOT high IQ.

[Anonymous No.14943839]

>>14941765
overrated, could only rip off Kerala school ideas and pass them off as his own

[Anonymous No.14943930]

>>14939774
I don’t want to be that guy but gravity isn’t a force, even though newtons equations of it being a force are still used by nasa

[Anonymous No.14943942]

>>14940206
Magnus carlsen wants a word with you

[Anonymous No.14943945]

>>14943816
I'm quite impulsive even though I know I'm probably making a bad decision. I don't however get upset when things don't go my way.

[Anonymous No.14943980]

>>14943839
He invented the fucking calculus

[Anonymous No.14943990]

>>14943980
No he didn’t, Archimedes did. The problem was some dipshit ripped up the papers and thought it was trash. Newton is seen as some megamind genius of geniuses but in reality he was an average guy like some of you here. The thing is in his time there were a lot of low hanging fruit. Calculus and the laws of motion being some of them. This is why we discover less and less as time progresses. Unironically there isn’t an infinite amount of knowledge, its finite and one day everything will be unsolved, zero mysteries left to find. The first homo erectus to discover the gangbang was probably crowned as a contemporary innovator at the time similar to how we view Elon Musk and Steve Jobs.

[Anonymous No.14944097]

>>14937568
Many people will talk about how spatial reasoning and complex pattern recognition are signs of intelligence (which they are). I don’t know about you guys but I don’t spend too much effort trying to evaluate how well my coworkers can rotate objects in their head..

For me, I use:
>How they regard the opinions of “smart” people
Regardless of how you feel about the pandemic, the whole “trust the science” slogan was laughable. If you put your faith into another person to interpret data which is purposefully hidden from the public, you are not smart. Smart people listen to others only because they have neither the time nor interest to do the deep dive themselves.
>If they have their own opinions on things: the more they deviate from common sets of viewpoints, the smarter they are
If you tow the party line for every political issue, it indicates you’ve never thought deeply on any topic. One thing I see at work: If you are an “innovation guy” and 100% believe in 3D printing, machine learning, battery electric semi-trucks, fuel cell electric vehicles, topology optimization, composites for vehicle structures, solar power, graphene, space exploration etc, you are not smart but larping as a smart person. A smart person has varied and deep opinions of topics which the general populace typically treats as a monolith.

[Anonymous No.14944099]

>>14944097
>i'm heckin' smart because i'm a contrarian
/sci/ very clearly disproves your thesis.

[Anonymous No.14944100]

>>14937568
Also— how does everyone evaluate how stupid someone is?

In my life, I’ve met many people who I would guess had an IQ of 120+ and several people who are probably smarter than me.

I’ve never once evaluated someone to have a sub 100 IQ. I’m not even sure what to look for. Presumably I’ve met the same amount of people with <80IQ as I have with a >120IQ (though probably less due to my life choices).

I’ve met many “fuck-ups” who can’t hold a job and are addicted to drugs but I don’t necessarily judge them as actually stupid— might change as I grow into middle age though.

[Anonymous No.14944102]

>>14944099
If you are contrarian as a rule, you do not have your own opinions on things as your opinions are still all based on the standard set of viewpoints

[Anonymous No.14944105]

>>14944102
But you, of course, are not like the other contrarian. You're the smart contrarian.

[Anonymous No.14944111]

>>14944105
I wouldn’t consider myself contrarian.

Why would you take what I said to emphasize the importance of being contrarian? It specifically implies that in my opinion, a smart person is neither contrarian nor across-the-board supportive of conventional beliefs.

[Anonymous No.14944114]

>>14944111
>Why would you take what I said to emphasize the importance of being contrarian?
Because that's what you emphasize. These are your own words:
>the more they deviate from common sets of viewpoints, the smarter they are

[Anonymous No.14944120]

>>14944114
“the more they deviate from common sets of viewpoints, the smarter they are”

I figured it was obvious but I consider contrarians to have a standard set of viewpoints… If you are either a skeptic of all emerging technologies or an immediate supporter— you obviously do not think for yourself

[Anonymous No.14944122]

>>14944120
It's "obvious" to every mindless contrarian that his contrarianism isn't mindless.

[Anonymous No.14944126]

>>14937568

philosophy is where you determine how intelligent a person really is. the level of how deep you can think shows your intelligent. if you cannot point out paradoxes within the knowledge you have then you are borderline retarded, if you are not already retarded

[Anonymous No.14944134]

>>14944122
you’ve taken what I wrote, and without thought or much comprehension, immediately rammed it into the framework from which you view the world (ie. contrarians are dumb).

For someone railing so hard against contrarians, in all if your replies you are exhibiting the exact bahaviors and opinions (“i-im not like the other contrarians) you accuse me of.

You’re failing my test and also your own test? You think denigrating /sci/ posters propensity to contrarianism somehow makes you better than them? Stop concerning yourself so much with the opinions of those around you.

[Anonymous No.14944136]

>>14944134
Reminder, these were your words:
>the more they deviate from common sets of viewpoints, the smarter they are
:^)

[Anonymous No.14944142]

>>14944136
What’s the most common viewpoint expressed on /sci/? That all other /sci/ posters are mindless, self-congratulatory, contrarians.

[Anonymous No.14944152]

>>14944142
It may be the most common viewpoint, but sometimes a viewpoint is common just because it's obvious and true. It's pretty funny how you can't help doubling down on the mindless contrarianism you deny being part of.

[Anonymous No.14944164]

>>14944142
>>14944152
Look, the truth about all these proxies of intelligence that midwits like you come up with, is that they always get picked up on and succesfully emulated by pseudointellectual posers who aren't actually intelligent. That's why we try to estimate intelligence by making people perform mentally demanding tasks, not by gauging their ideological beliefs, or the pretentious terminology they pick up, or how many long and nested sentences they use, or how much their views deviate from the norm, or whether or not they're read Dostoyevsky, or any similar drivel that your likes rely on in place of direct evidence of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14944194]

>>14944152
see
>>14944120

your whole argument is based on the premise that I do not consider the stances of contrarians as a common set of viewpoints. As I’ve said, this is obviously a common group of viewpoints. Why do you ignore this?

[Anonymous No.14944200]

>>14944194
>your whole argument is based on the premise that I do not consider the stances of contrarians as a common set of viewpoints.
I don't care what you "consider". Here, once again, are your own words:
>the more they deviate from common sets of viewpoints, the smarter they are

[Anonymous No.14944201]

>>14944164
You never addressed my point in
>>14944097

In which I essentially state that I believe indicators of intelligence are:
1. Not relying on others to interpret and convey information to you
2. Not being prone to assimilating into a set of opinions which people often hold simultaneously

Ultimately I agree with you though. These are indicators I rely on because I’m not some autist who grills acquaintances with raven matrice problems

[Anonymous No.14944204]

>>14944200
do you disagree that contrarianism is a common set of viewpoints? You seem to indicate as much in your own comments..

[Anonymous No.14944205]

>>14944201
>I believe indicators of intelligence are [insert weak proxies consciously or subconsciously emulated by midwit posers like me]
Yes, I know.

[Anonymous No.14944207]

>>14944204
>do you disagree that contrarianism is a common set of viewpoints?
Of course. Your statement doesn't make any sense. Being a contrarian doesn't imply you have to take any particular stance on an issue.

[Anonymous No.14944219]

>>14944207
It implies you take a stance in opposition to others. I don’t see much difference between someone who parrots all of the views of a certain prominent figure vs. someone who expresses complete opposition to all of those views; both are derivative of the views of another in their own way.

You obviously do not want to address this concept for whatever reason and will continue to misinterpret purposefully

[Anonymous No.14944223]

>>14944219
>It implies you take a stance in opposition to others.
It implies you take a stance that contradicts others (which could be any arbitrary number of positions), or even just that you're criticizing them without taking any particular stance. You're a legit retard.

[Anonymous No.14944230]

>>14944223
opposite

are you perhaps confusing the words contrarian and critical?

[Anonymous No.14944231]

>>14944230
>"perversely inclined to disagree"
You conceded.

[Anonymous No.14944233]

>>14944223
regardless of how you percieved my initial comment, why don’t you address the concept after clarification rather then continue arguing on semantics and “b-but you phrased it l-like this!” Unless you still cannot grasp the concept?

[Anonymous No.14944239]

>>14944233
>why don’t you address the concept after clarification
Because your clarification is irrelevant in the first place. Even excluding your strawman that merely says the opposite of what everyone says, contrarians are typically midwit pseuds.

[Anonymous No.14944246]

>>14944239
per your definition, a contrarian is just someone who “sometimes” takes a stance that contradicts someone else’s stance or criticizes another stance. The only people not included in this definition are nonverbal vegetables

[Anonymous No.14944249]

>>14944246
>per your definition
Weren't you just crying bitter tears of rage and accusing me of arguing semantics? lol. Also, why are you lying about my definition?

[Anonymous No.14944262]

>>14944249
see
>>14944223

define contrarian then
guess we gotta do semantics because you have not addressed the original point and refuse to do so

original point (if ya forgot):
qualitative indicator of intelligence
1. Not relying on others to interpret and convey information to you
2. Not being prone to assimilating into a set of opinions which people often hold simultaneously

[Anonymous No.14944278]

>>14944262
>see
>>>14944223
That wasn't a definition. It was an attempt to explain to your dumb ass that the space of possible opinions for a contrarian is wider than "the opposite of what everyone says".

>define contrarian then
You've just given one yourself, you stupid nigger: >>14944231

[Anonymous No.14944284]

>>14944278
>selectively takes one phrase from a broader definition
>does this for one of three definitions
>”t-this is the definition of the word and im right”

[Anonymous No.14944287]

>>14944284
especially funny considering the second half of that definition explicitly refutes your point
>>14944278

[Anonymous No.14944298]

>>14944284
>>14944287
You know, the only reason I'm still talking to a piece of scum like you, is that your behavior speaks for itself, completely invalidating your own criteria.

[Anonymous No.14944324]

>>14944298
>fails to ever once address the central idea set forth
>falls back to semantics
>not even correct in semantics
>a chance is offered to again address the central premise
>levies another attack on the semantics of the idea
>literally proven to be incorrect with regards to semantics and phrasing
>resorts to slurs and name calling

And I’d imagine you actually agree with my idea too lol you are just unable to engage on any level beyond proving yourself to be right with regards to semantics

[Anonymous No.14944330]

>>14944324
>the more they deviate from common sets of viewpoints, the smarter they are
Contrarianism is not a measure of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14944337]

>>14944330
stay seething

im outta here

[Anonymous No.14944341]

>stay seething

>im outta here

[Anonymous No.14944352]

>>14938627
He also said very thin, lardass

[Anonymous No.14944385]

>>14939090
Being able to draw and use unity doesn't mean you have creativity and a high ability for logical thought. You don't realize how cookie cutter game development is.

[Anonymous No.14944388]

>>14937568
>they're weird in some way
There are no hyper intelligent normies. Even if they conceal themselves well, all high iq people are somewhat eccentric. Not that normies can't be very intelligent, it's just that you can't reach the human limits of intelligence by being normal. And of course, the inverse is also true. There are far more dumb weirdos than smart weirdos.

Other than that, it's really hard to say without resorting to manipulations of the definition of intelligence. Even saying that intelligent people are weird could be seen as a tautology.

[Anonymous No.14944400]

>>14944099
Did you fucking read his post?

[Anonymous No.14944413]

>>14937583
Do you think low iq people obsess about measuring things?

[Anonymous No.14944421]

>>14937583
/thread

[Anonymous No.14944422]

>>14944388
I agree with this mostly. It is ironic because a lot of their eccentricities probably alienate them or hinder them in some form. They know this, and instead of taking the intelligent response and stopping the eccentricities, they continue to do them.

[Anonymous No.14944470]

>>14937568
A fascination with understanding

[Anonymous No.14944504]

>>14937568
combination of consciousness + ability to achieve large aims

[Anonymous No.14944512]

>>14937583
Look how many IQ tards you baited. Well done.

[Anonymous No.14944531]

>>14939090
It is though, creativity doesn’t correlate with IQ that much. High IQ + high creativity is the killer combo

[Anonymous No.14944584]

>>14944531
What kind of creativity though? There are creative mathematicians in that can come up with creative solutions but they aren't the same kind of creatives as artists who can make anything out of their imagination or the same kind of creative writers have to tell a story.

[Ok i've had enough, read this shit No.14944606]

I'm a research psychologist and I work with IQ scores. IQ tests are good to compare certain, very exact abilities, but that's about it. Besides, IQ tests vary greatly. Some of them will just ask you to rotate stuff in your mind, others will take 2 hours and have different exercises in them. So it's easy for a person to score significantly better or worse on just a different type of a test.

[Anonymous No.14944759]

>>14944606
Is there a decent way to approximate your iq at home? What test should you go for if you want to get professionally tested?

I really don't want to get iq tested for a lot of reasons, some of which you mentioned, but at the same time not knowing is driving me crazy. I want that validation of getting a high score, but I know getting something lower than expected would be devastating.

[Anonymous No.14944807]

>>14944759
I had the same feelings for a long time too but my advice is to find out what you’re good at and work hard to become as good at it as you can and accomplish something. Who cares what your IQ is, it doesn’t prove anything.

[Ok i've had enough, read this shit No.14944814]

My niece has mild developmental delays and they did an IQ test on her when she was in 1-2nd grade, but it wasn't really to judge her IQ. It was used to judge her areas of need and skills. For example, she has processing/comprehension difficulties. They used the results to develop teaching methods for her. Technically she is lower average IQ score, but the kid is now doing great in college, working on a degree in... guess what, neuroscience. I think people do not understand the purpose of an IQ test or, at least, what the purpose should be.

tldr; a MENSA style test 'works' but a much more practical test would be to figure out what your learning style is and what you're good at.

[Anonymous No.14944821]

>>14944759
just remember what iq was originally meant to predict, and use your judgement
then round down by about 15 points because who are you kidding

[Anonymous No.14944828]

>>14944584
I guess creativity has an artsy flavor to it, so it’s about producing something original that other people value, like an engaging story, poem or even a joke. Someone being creative in maths is more about maths ability and IQ I suppose

[Anonymous No.14945202]

>>14937568
iq is intended to correlate with intelligence so one might be a sign of the other

[Anonymous No.14945285]

>>14944099
low iq

[Anonymous No.14945927]

>>14944814
>>14944821
Training potential is inversely correlated with intelligence. When you are intelligent, you don't understand why you should learn simple stuff. You feel insulted when you get things explained like to a retard. Your insistence that you don't need to learn this may get misinterpreted as insistence that you think you don't need the skill, not that you can do it without learning and so on.

[Anonymous No.14945931]

>>14943990

[Anonymous No.14945955]

>>14944814
>>14944821
>>14945927
Or in other words, the more intelligent you are, the less you need to learn by rote, and the more likely you are to get declared "uneducable".

[Anonymous No.14945960]

>>14945927
hence the latter half of the curve, "gathers own research." are you blind?

[Anonymous No.14945985]

>>14945960
No, I'm not blind. I'm saying it's on the opposite side.
You get untrainable intelligent people, and idiots who are willing to practice trivial tasks and gobble up every piece of "wisdom" that you throw at them, and become lawyers etc. with absolute zero real intelligence and no ability to deal with anything they haven't been explicitly taught.

[Anonymous No.14946089]

>>14938235
:) ty anon

[Anonymous No.14947534]

>>14944821

What's the validity of WPT (Wonderlic) and IQ correlation?, I got 33 and 34 out of wonderlic but my non-official IQ would be between 105-110. Can someone care to share their results?

[Anonymous No.14949059]

itt: low iqs that believe they're high iq but act 'humble' about it

[Anonymous No.14949132]

>>14937568
Unironically, if you don't have a strange kink, fetish or sexuality. There's a 0% chance your IQ is above 130.

[Anonymous No.14949211]

>>14939845
>abstaining for
uhh...

[Anonymous No.14949213]

>>14945927
>When you are intelligent, you don't understand why you should learn simple stuff. You feel insulted when you get things explained like to a retard
inflated ego=/=high intelligence

[Anonymous No.14949216]

>>14949059
on how many layers of "smartness signaling" are you rn

[Anonymous No.14949218]

>>14945927
>When you are intelligent, you don't understand
lmfao

[Anonymous No.14949391]

>>14938604
>people with resource can acquire more resources
why is this so hard to understand? you can model it very simply with the rate of acquiring money directly proportional to the amount of money acquired. bacteria grows according to this trend without even thinking about it. but it absolutely melts some retards brains apparently

[Anonymous No.14949411]

>>14944422
Well, it’s probably not so easy to “just stop”. Having high iq probably means that you’re lacking in other areas. It’s like only training bench press and literally nothing else. And if you’re smart, well, why wouldn’t you? Just using your intelligence every single time always works, so why do anything else?
My grandfather’s half brother was one of the smartest people around (geophysicist, worked for nasa, 4.0 undergrad, oxford grad school, etc.) but the man could barely function in everyday life. He let a raccoon live in a kitchen cupboard for weeks without saying anything to my dad, whose house he was living in at the time. Overall, very smart, but also the kind of person who couldn’t work at a McDonalds drive through. I don’t think that’s uncommon among the highly intelligent.

[Anonymous No.14949412]

>>14937568
When women don't want anything to do with you.

[Anonymous No.14949417]

>>14949412
Yeah, cause women love 70iq retards?

[Anonymous No.14949419]

>>14949417
If you have ever had a gf or gotten laid you are a sub 70iq retard and should kys immediately.

[Jealous No.14949424]

[Anonymous No.14949585]

openness to experience, liberalism, atheism, being a night owl, doing well in academics, having parents of high education, having parents of high income, doing drugs, etc.

[Anonymous No.14949945]

>>14949213
>>14949218
That isn't inflated ego, but
>something completely obvious.
>get a detailed, step by step explanation anyway
>they must think I'm a retard who needs it explained like this.

[Anonymous No.14949947]

>>14938604
i have iq of 154 all it gives me is overthinking schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.14950021]

Huge eyes, a long neck and a swollen finger.

[Anonymous No.14950027]

>>14937568
Good communication skills, successfull, hard working, not an egotist, emotional inteligence, situational awareness.
I think some one who has social grace is some one who has the intellignece to navigate complex situations. And some one who is successfull and hard working is some one smart enough not to know their priorities and succede at their goals.

[Anonymous No.14950029]

Not being sorry to burst bubbles, the physics is delightful.

[Anonymous No.14950064]

>>14950027
Intelligence has no correlation with personality. That's just probably your anecdotal experience.

[Anonymous No.14950213]

>>14937568
Being a gnostic christian

[Anonymous No.14950226]

>>14950027
I've met many idiots who could talk well. And even actual, unironic, not-exaturating, confirmed mentally retarded people who were hard working.

[Anonymous No.14950228]

I wanna kms because of low iq
>i will never become an engineer a scientist, a competitive programmer
But at the same time im too smart to move on with life by watching tv on the coach, fucking hoes and drinking beer
What to do?

[Anonymous No.14950534]

>>14950228
the funny thing is you probably never even tried

[Anonymous No.14951292]

>>14950226
>>14950064
>cherrypicking

found the brainlets

[Anonymous No.14951753]

>>14939771
Chris watts had a massive forehead.

[Anonymous No.14951767]

>>14937568
The smarter one is the more they make everyone else around them look like retards just by existing.

[Anonymous No.14951818]

>>14951753
Yes. No idea where that idea came from. Intelligent people often look the exact opposite - big face, reduced forehead.

[Anonymous No.14952002]

>>14951753
>Chris watts
Only some photos make it seem so, but it seems more like the way he was balding, than anything really extreme.

[Anonymous No.14952044]

>>14950228
>engineer
>programmer
>scientist

I don’t know why you glorify these. I’m an engineer and its not exactly some sort of arcane existence. 75% of the engineers at my company literally push documents and EOs through our internal system all day. Scientists aren’t the sage philosophers of old; they wrestle for money and attention from their department head. Programmers, even if they are talented, are just a small cog in a massive machine.

I admire entrepreneurs and artisan craftsmen

[Anonymous No.14952057]

>>14952044
>I admire entrepreneurs
Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.14952404]

>>14937583
/thread

[Anonymous No.14952426]

>>14939771

[Anonymous No.14952543]

>>14952057
keep dreaming about being a wage slave to some fortune 100 company or top 50 university

[Anonymous No.14952593]

>>14952044
Most scientists are fucking retarded slimy bastards and terrible unscientific "researchers" with an ego the size of a house.

t. scientist

[Anonymous No.14953064]

>>14952593
what about mad scientists?

[Anonymous No.14953068]

>>14937568
scoring high in an IQ test

[Anonymous No.14953079]

>>14937580
It's true

[Anonymous No.14953620]

>>14937568
1. identify a problem
2. solve a problem
3. ???
4. high intelligence

[lets exchange contact info No.14954301]

>>14938217
>>14938227
>I wish I knew. I don't even have enough high iq power to solve basic relationship problems right now.
I do.
>It's too damn difficult without clear communication channels
Why blame the channel? If I send you "asdfkljsdlfkjdlkj" do you assume the channel corrupted the message or do you assume that I deliberately sent an ambiguous message?
>It's almost as unnerving as electrocution, at least there I was the only one suffering
Are you implying that two people are suffering right now? Cuz the rest of your message makes it sound like you're chasing some girl and don't know if she likes you, but if two people were suffering that would imply you are doing something to make the girl suffer as well.
>It's the constant breadcrumbing with indirect clues that fails me everyday.
Women are designed to be this way. They don't say "yes" or "no", they say "maybe, try harder, show me what you got". Men are designed to show off for a while and then to ask them out on a date, which is the "quantum observation" that collapses the ambiguity wave function.

[Anonymous No.14954321]

>>14953620
Some people think that intelligence is measured by IQ tests. But the ultimate test of intelligence is, do you have a big titty goth gf?

[Anonymous No.14954437]

>>14954321
lack of big tiddy goth gf is the biggest problem many of us will face in our lifetimes

[Anonymous No.14955795]

>>14937568
Ummm, not being a 4chan incel chud and loving wholesome big chungus memes ;)

[Anonymous No.14956388]

Most of you don´t get it. The real characteristic that defines a very high IQ individual is: HIGH EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. Some can hide it better than others but most very high IQ people behave as non-extroverted as a consequence of dealing with average IQ people (aka dumb people) during years.

It is not that they are autistic, it is that they have experienced too many negative interactions with normal IQ people.

Of course there are many average IQ people with high emotional response but in this case is as a consequence of their own stupidity in not knowing how to deal with situations or solve problems.

In the case of high IQ people is a consequence of a higher evolved neurological system (that makes them higher in the IQ and the emotional response classifications). That there are high IQ people with low emotional response? Yes, they have their minds so fucked up (because of decades of interaction with average IQ people) that they have a full inhibition of their personalities.

[Anonymous No.14956575]

>>14954301
>Women are designed to be this way. They don't say "yes" or "no", they say "maybe, try harder, show me what you got".
And that's why they're retarded and made zero significant contributions

[Anonymous No.14956642]

>>14937568

I like to call it "brain control".

[Anonymous No.14956646]

>>14956388

Man find zen, you seem the type of guy who could really benefit from some good ol' buddhism lol

[Anonymous No.14956650]

>>14937568
At this point I'm convinced the difference between intelligence and wisdom is entirely real. Intelligence is the ability to make quick connections and can be measured precisely. Wisdom seems like the ability to make good life decisions, or perhaps its even more than that, but at this point in my life (29 years old) I'm finding that wisdom is far more important in almost every way.

I know many, many women that are intelligent but I don't know if I would call any of them wise.

[Anonymous No.14956653]

>>14956388
I am constantly reminded that people around me don't all view themselves as being exceptionally smart. Many people genuinely think their intelligence is only average, and they don't fight against this in any way.

[Anonymous No.14957463]

>>14956653
Well maybe because they are genuinely average? I would love to think myself as being pretty smart, at least compared to my classmates in college but that kind of opinion would drastically change if I were to go to another college like Harvard or Stanford and so I know that really, I'm probably just average.

[Anonymous No.14957770]

Transferable ability, like a scientist being multi-talented in different instruments or somebody being able to be exceptional in multiple sports or something.

[Anonymous No.14958103]

>>14937568
Long neck and huge dark eyes

[Anonymous No.14958208]

>>14944099
70% of people are average. Bell curve. They choose the narrative.