—“Q: If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”—
Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts?
I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful.
Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment.
Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas.
Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak.
Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in everyday life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary).
Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity.
People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s.
This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence.
So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means.
So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds.
That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
No You Cannot Trust Your Thoughts.
—“Q: If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”— Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts? I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful. Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment. Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas. Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak. Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in everyday life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary). Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity. People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s. This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence. So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means. So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds. That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point. -
NO YOU CANNOT TRUST YOUR THOUGHTS. —“Q: If you have an IQ lower than 130, can
NO YOU CANNOT TRUST YOUR THOUGHTS.
—“Q: If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”—
Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts?
I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful.
Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment.
Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas.
Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak.
Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in everyday life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary).
Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity.
People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s.
This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence.
So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means.
So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds.
That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 08:47:00 UTC
-
Conspiracies In Our Genes
Women gossip to undermine alphas – and hen peck each other in corporations to the point where they are mutually self destructive. Do they conspire by intent, common interest, or genetic disposition? There are only three possible means of human coercion: violence, remuneration(payment), and undermining (gossip). ie: Established males, ascendent males, and females. We are very artful in combining them. But still specialize. The low IQ Gypsies specialize in mobility, low level parasitism and predation, and punishing members for honest labor. Agrarians had to develop norms, traditions, traits that allowed them to hold territory. Pastoralists never produced commons, and retained their clannishness. High IQ disaporics are diasporic because they could not develop institutions by which to hold land (and made genocide against their southern neighbors who produced iron), and had to specialize in very different skills, as did ancestor females who were portable between male groups More another time. But yes, we all, worldwide, demonstrate group strategies at the top (male) and all demonstrate equalitarianism(female) at the bottom to weaken the top. They are not strategies of intent, but they are strategies of survival. -
Conspiracies In Our Genes
Women gossip to undermine alphas – and hen peck each other in corporations to the point where they are mutually self destructive. Do they conspire by intent, common interest, or genetic disposition? There are only three possible means of human coercion: violence, remuneration(payment), and undermining (gossip). ie: Established males, ascendent males, and females. We are very artful in combining them. But still specialize. The low IQ Gypsies specialize in mobility, low level parasitism and predation, and punishing members for honest labor. Agrarians had to develop norms, traditions, traits that allowed them to hold territory. Pastoralists never produced commons, and retained their clannishness. High IQ disaporics are diasporic because they could not develop institutions by which to hold land (and made genocide against their southern neighbors who produced iron), and had to specialize in very different skills, as did ancestor females who were portable between male groups More another time. But yes, we all, worldwide, demonstrate group strategies at the top (male) and all demonstrate equalitarianism(female) at the bottom to weaken the top. They are not strategies of intent, but they are strategies of survival. -
CONSPIRACIES IN OUR GENES Women gossip to undermine alphas – and hen peck each o
CONSPIRACIES IN OUR GENES
Women gossip to undermine alphas – and hen peck each other in corporations to the point where they are mutually self destructive. Do they conspire by intent, common interest, or genetic disposition?
There are only three possible means of human coercion: violence, remuneration(payment), and undermining (gossip). ie: Established males, ascendent males, and females. We are very artful in combining them. But still specialize.
The low IQ Gypsies specialize in mobility, low level parasitism and predation, and punishing members for honest labor. Agrarians had to develop norms, traditions, traits that allowed them to hold territory. Pastoralists never produced commons, and retained their clannishness.
High IQ disaporics are diasporic because they could not develop institutions by which to hold land (and made genocide against their southern neighbors who produced iron), and had to specialize in very different skills, as did ancestor females who were portable between male groups
More another time. But yes, we all, worldwide, demonstrate group strategies at the top (male) and all demonstrate equalitarianism(female) at the bottom to weaken the top. They are not strategies of intent, but they are strategies of survival.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 08:31:00 UTC
-
Why Are Some Very Smart People So Quiet?
I’ll give you a much better answer.
1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence.
2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey.
3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own.
4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself.5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer.
6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong.
In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children.
If you do this, people will generally like you very much.
We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukrainehttps://www.quora.com/Why-are-some-very-smart-people-so-quiet
-
Why Are Some Very Smart People So Quiet?
I’ll give you a much better answer.
1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence.
2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey.
3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own.
4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself.5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer.
6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong.
In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children.
If you do this, people will generally like you very much.
We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukrainehttps://www.quora.com/Why-are-some-very-smart-people-so-quiet
-
“We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intel
—“We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intelligence and have calculated from what we know that there are at least 100 SDs up for grabs. … people with IQs of 1,600 are yet to come probably before AI.”— -
“We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intel
—“We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intelligence and have calculated from what we know that there are at least 100 SDs up for grabs. … people with IQs of 1,600 are yet to come probably before AI.”—