Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

IS IT TRUE YOU NEED A HIGH IQ FOR P? (NO)

—“If I remember correctly, you once stated that an IQ of 120 is required as a bare minimum for having the most basic understanding of Propertarianism. Is this correct? Be honest”—Korey Savoie

I almost wouldn’t answer this because of ‘be honest’. WTF do you think I do all day? At great personal cost. lol 😉

THE INFLUENCE OF IQ

1 – IQ determines time and effort in learning something.

2 – Cost benefit prediction determines willingness to invest time and effort in learning the subject.

3 – Cost benefit prediction determines willingness to invest in the time and effort of assisting others in their learning of the subject.

So when I say “You need x IQ to understand P” it’s in the context of learning the METHOD along with the group. The 140/150+ crowd can do it quickly. Others not. It is very hard to explain and apply the method. That seems to be a 130/140 requirement. But pretty much anyone can understand everything up to applying it, and I’m not sure other than theoretical mathematicians will understand the underlying logic.

UNDERSTAND WHAT PART OF THE PROJECT?

EVERYONE

The psychology (acquisition) sociology (compatibilism), the Ethics (basic reciprocity, telling the truth), and politics (optimum government)?

MOST EVERYONE

The foundations of western civ in natural law?

The group strategies of different civilizations?

The history? The JQ/20th C attack on our civ?

SOME

The method? Reciprocity? Testimony, the grammars?

The legal method? Strict construction of law?

The constitution?

FEW

Applying and arguing with the method

VERY FEW

The operational description of brain and consciousness?

The logical foundations?

The geometry of thought?

—“Excellent. For some reason I thought you or Bill or Brandon posted a few months ago that an IQ of 120 was required just to scratch the surface. I haven’t been tested, but I assumed mine to be somewhere in the 100-109.”—

Korey Savoie

It’s because if someone ARGUES with us, that requires we resort to using the METHOD and if they can’t use the method we can’t conduct an argument.

So we can understand what it tells us, vs understand how to use it.

You don’t need to undrestand calculus to understand most statistical diagrams. You do if you want to argue against those diagrams.

You don’t need to understand operationalism to undrestand the findings of operational analysis using P-law. You do if you want to argue against those findings.

Understanding WHAT vs understanding HOW.