# Do high IQ people view IQ pissing contests as shallow…



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

As they do, People who compete to be the hottest?

I thought about this because of all the threads on this site with people debating what types are smartest?

I am curious if high IQ people who have these pissing contests or peacock their intelligence more overtly view themselves as shallow or vain ever? Or do they think vanity only comes in those who care about physical appearance.

blah blah on semantics of who qualifies as high iq. Beats me. Whomever has actual high iq, genius level, or self proclaimed smart gifted people on threads talking about how smart they are.
Whatever

Do people consider only those who peacock their looks, or take pride in physical achievements to be vain?

I think this is worth discussing or considering.


----------



## Miharu (Apr 1, 2015)

Vanity encompasses looks, skills and abilities, and one’s worth. It would qualify as long as excessive pride is present, I think.

Editing to add—I had a classmate in university who would always compliment herself randomly (as in, she’d pass by a mirror, stop and look at herself then say “I’m so pretty!” She also used to do it after taking selfies or group photos with us, then would ask us—“Am I pretty?”) She is pretty and smart, it’s true, but it was weird to hear her proclaim it all the time. I think she got used to hearing compliments and it became a habit. That or those were self-affirmations. Unsure where to draw the line.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

shameless said:


> As they do, People who compete to be the hottest?
> 
> I thought about this because of all the threads on this site with people debating what types are smartest?
> 
> ...


I like watching battle of wits movies.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Miharu said:


> Vanity encompasses looks, skills and abilities, and one’s worth. It would qualify as long as excessive pride is present, I think.
> 
> Editing to add—I had a classmate in university who would always compliment herself randomly (as in, she’d pass by a mirror, stop and look at herself then say “I’m so pretty!” She also used to do it after taking selfies or group photos with us, then would ask us—“Am I pretty?”) She is pretty and smart, it’s true, but it was weird to hear her proclaim it all the time. I think she got used to hearing compliments and it became a habit. That or those were self-affirmations. Unsure where to draw the line.


Id agree all those things are vanity based.

Personally I think usually people are at some time or another guilty of some vanity

My point I think with this is maybe it seems like some people (not all) base a feeling of superiority on IQ, or possibly a perceived depth yet often appear to not equate it to vanity or shallowness. I see many of these same people be dismissive maybe to those who possibly put more stock into skills/talent, or those who care a lot about their looks. I see them all, as forms of vanity


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

ENTJudgement said:


> I like watching battle of wits movies.


Such as ?


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

shameless said:


> Such as ?


Liar Game
Death Note
Classroom of the elite
Kaiji
Oneouts
Akagi
Code Geass
Jojo


----------



## Miharu (Apr 1, 2015)

shameless said:


> Id agree all those things are vanity based.
> 
> Personally I think usually people are at some time or another guilty of some vanity
> 
> My point I think with this is maybe it seems like some people (not all) base a feeling of superiority on IQ, or possibly a perceived depth yet often appear to not equate it to vanity or shallowness. I see many of these same people be dismissive maybe to those who possibly put more stock into skills/talent, or those who care a lot about their looks. I see them all, as forms of vanity


I understand your point. Like I said, I think as long as it’s _excessive_ pride in oneself, it counts as vanity. Or an exaggerated view of one’s characteristics or capabilities.

There are some people who become arrogant and refuse to believe they could be wrong about something they consider their expertise, for example. I think that counts as being vain. Another example is thinking you’re far above, more important because x y z.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

ENTJudgement said:


> Liar Game
> Death Note
> Classroom of the elite
> Kaiji
> ...


i will have to look some of these up


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Miharu said:


> I understand your point. Like I said, I think as long as it’s _excessive_ pride in oneself, it counts as vanity. It could be about your skills, too.
> 
> There are some people who become arrogant and refuse to believe they could be wrong about something they consider their expertise, for example.


Absolutely agree

I am not trying to suggest one form of vanity is good and one is bad. With what I am about to say

A big thing I tend to maybe notice however with those with skill/talent, or looks based vanity/pride they tend to take more pride in their being that than that they appearing to be minimizing others specifically with pretentiousness. Again not that I think all smart people do that. I think they may not view themselves as capable of being just as shallow as what they find shallow.

Anyways I will totally own I can at times be skills/talent based vanity. And have arrogance with it. Which is precisely why I can sometimes roll my eyes at the brainiacs or sensitives who either peacock they are deep or smart yet often use the word shallow only toward those with looks or talent based ego

Meh miharu you are not even one of these pretentious fucks just to be clear


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Live and let live, is what I say....

If you're happy & not hurting anyone....what's the problem?

I literally haven't slept for over 24 hours...did I even answer the question? lol


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Does it count when I write up a post and when I hit reply I just sit back in my chair and think “damn, that made so much sense, I’m too sick”


----------



## Miharu (Apr 1, 2015)

shameless said:


> Absolutely agree
> 
> I am not trying to suggest one form of vanity is good and one is bad. With what I am about to say
> 
> ...


No worries, I don’t claim to be a genius anyway, far far far from that lol I’m completely average, and that’s ok.

Completely agree though—we can have those moments. I think it’s normal to be frustrated with other people sometimes. It’s when you can barely find fault in yourself that it veers into the fucked up narcissistic, vain territory.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Sometimes you become strongly identified with your role and it can be coming from a source of insecurity. In that case you will derive your self image from that. I think they are all different forms of vanity. But with physical beauty and skills-based people you can easily see the outward results. You can see the value instantly, because if you are gorgeous or handsome, people want access to you. Want to date you. Want to be friends with you. They act nicer to you.

If you have a lot of skills or talents people want to work with you. Want to consult with you. Recommend you for opportunities. This is not the case for intelligence and intellectualism. Most ppl can not see the hours of research you put in nor the utility in being clever. You need to actually _do_ or _show_ something outwardly to get love/respect. So if being smart is your greatest strength, then prepare for many years of getting shat on by ppl who see no value in your intellect whatsoever. You will have to do something to maintain a positive sense of self, otherwise you’ll slide into self-loathing. So one way ppl might handle it is to seek out other high IQ friends and just spend time with them. Or they tell themselves that the normies just don’t think deeply enough.

I’ve also seen it the opposite way round. With anti-intellectualism. Anytime you make a small mistake or ask for help with something there’s someone going, “Are you sure you went to college?” Or “You’re a college grad but you don’t even know how to do xyz”? These people are also coming from insecurity and telling themselves that the bookworms don’t work hard enough and are lacking pragmatism.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Me: Tryna be vain
Also me: Shit this is hard work yo, I be slacking already


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Kintsugi said:


> I literally haven't slept for over 24 hours...did I even answer the question? lol


Why won’t you go to bed?


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

OrchidSugar said:


> Sometimes you become strongly identified with your role and it can be coming from a source of insecurity. In that case you will derive your self image from that. I think they are all different forms of vanity. But with physical beauty and skills-based people you can easily see the outward results. You can see the value instantly, because if you are gorgeous or handsome, people want access to you. Want to date you. Want to be friends with you. They act nicer to you.
> 
> If you have a lot of skills or talents people want to work with you. Want to consult with you. Recommend you for opportunities. This is not the case for intelligence and intellectualism. Most ppl can not see the hours of research you put in nor the utility in being clever. You need to actually _do_ or _show_ something outwardly to get love/respect. So if being smart is your greatest strength, then prepare for many years of getting shat on by ppl who see no value in your intellect whatsoever. You will have to do something to maintain a positive sense of self, otherwise you’ll slide into self-loathing. So one way ppl might handle it is to seek out other high IQ friends and just spend time with them. Or they tell themselves that the normies just don’t think deeply enough.
> 
> I’ve also seen it the opposite way round. With anti-intellectualism. Anytime you make a small mistake or ask for help with something there’s someone going, “Are you sure you went to college?” Or “You’re a college grad but you don’t even know how to do xyz”? These people are also coming from insecurity and telling themselves that the bookworms don’t work hard enough and are lacking pragmatism.


Smart answer, I see you.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

OrchidSugar said:


> Why won’t you go to bed?


Good question...

Medication changes and I MAY be having a minor Manic episode. Probably because I'm adjusting my doses ATM

I am fine though. Just.....IDK. A little bit hyper& sleep deprived, lol


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

OrchidSugar said:


> Sometimes you become strongly identified with your role and it can be coming from a source of insecurity. In that case you will derive your self image from that. I think they are all different forms of vanity. But with physical beauty and skills-based people you can easily see the outward results. You can see the value instantly, because if you are gorgeous or handsome, people want access to you. Want to date you. Want to be friends with you. They act nicer to you.
> 
> If you have a lot of skills or talents people want to work with you. Want to consult with you. Recommend you for opportunities. This is not the case for intelligence and intellectualism. Most ppl can not see the hours of research you put in nor the utility in being clever. You need to actually _do_ or _show_ something outwardly to get love/respect. So if being smart is your greatest strength, then prepare for many years of getting shat on by ppl who see no value in your intellect whatsoever. You will have to do something to maintain a positive sense of self, otherwise you’ll slide into self-loathing. So one way ppl might handle it is to seek out other high IQ friends and just spend time with them. Or they tell themselves that the normies just don’t think deeply enough.
> 
> I’ve also seen it the opposite way round. With anti-intellectualism. Anytime you make a small mistake or ask for help with something there’s someone going, “Are you sure you went to college?” Or “You’re a college grad but you don’t even know how to do xyz”? These people are also coming from insecurity and telling themselves that the bookworms don’t work hard enough and are lacking pragmatism.


Yeah that is a good answer. 

Thank you. I think this was what I was looking for. Some actual perspective to help me understand the psychology behind it. You provided that. Thanks again. I think a lot of what you explained helps it make a lot more sense to me thinking of it from that perspective.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

I'm literally listening to Britney Spears, lol


----------



## thedazzlingdexter (12 mo ago)

shameless said:


> As they do, People who compete to be the hottest?
> 
> I thought about this because of all the threads on this site with people debating what types are smartest?
> 
> ...


I mean it depends on why. It could be seen as petty but it can also be seen as two people fighting for the same thing. Also IQ level is different depending where you go. For example you can be the smartest man in room but if the room is full of idiots that isn't saying that much. There also different type of intelligence. Like some people can fix a computer but have 0 common sense. I've had to deal with IT geniuses who were barely 14. I thought they were brilliant but they had 0 common sense and I sometimes would fix thier problems cuase they had no sort of sense outside the realms of fixing a computer or software design. I don't think they were stupid but they were very one trick pony. I had stuff where I personally been very good at without much effort what so ever. I use to find others who bragged annoying and than they were amazed when I performed. I don't consider myself smart, I am more calculated but that makes everyone think you know everything. I was told I scored very high on an IQ test at school but they never gave me my actual score. Somehow the school assumed I was an idiot because I had no freinds and other children would pick on me. The problem is more I was raised by very conservative parents who told me to not to have sex before marriage and drinking and doing drugs was bad. I actually listened cuase I thought my parents were the smartest people on the planet as a child and put them on a pedestal as supreme creators. The other children use to pick on me for not having sex or providing them with drugs but that doesn't make you cool in school. I know school demands you fit in but teens priorities are so problematic. I not sure why HS and MS was so determined into having me get into drugs and sex so quickly. It really seems illogical. Public school system seems aimed at destroying our youth and thier future so completely.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Red Panda said:


> there are no hundreds of studies on this, you linked the same exact study that was in the media article you linked earlier, it's the one used the most as evidence for this idea
> yours and the ones I linked all use both self reporting and diagnoses, which makes sense because we're talking about mental health, there's no blood test for anxiety


Another one invalidating your 









Why highly intelligent people suffer from more mental and physical disorders


Your brain's heightened sensitivity can make you perceptive and creative. But it's a double-edged sword, researchers find.




bigthink.com





Yawn. Could do this all day.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

MadMaxSDP said:


> Another one of the hundred of studies showing IQ is not linked to success or that it predicts mental disorders (and physiological).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


actually this study shows that IQ is both linked to success and better mental and physical health, but it's not the only predictor (pretty low for depression as well compared to personality)














MadMaxSDP said:


> Another one invalidating your
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the same exact study again by Ruth I.Karpinski LOL

u are not even reading your own links, OK I'm out dude, you gotta be trolling


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

the consensus are coping for the most part btw, nothing more comforting than believing intelligent people are in just as bad a situation, right? well too bad it ain't like this which ofc makes sense, intelligence = understanding, and understanding leads to better health as you figure out solutions to problems


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

@Red Panda 

That stupid Mensa study. It just won't die, lol. Depression Studies: What causes Depression?

What's so funny for this argument is that very study which links psychiatric disorders to intelligence also uses the rationale that higher IQ also correlates with more success. They do this in order to explain away the high socio-economic status of the sample.

I just can't.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Red Panda said:


> actually this study shows that IQ is both linked to success and better mental and physical health, but it's not the only predictor (pretty low for depression as well compared to personality)
> 
> View attachment 913009
> 
> ...


changing your argument? Again? Intelligence is not a predictor of success. The study shows it is not strongly correlated to success. Your argument wasn’t that intelligence combined with other attributes leads to success. Your argument was that intelligence past a certain level does. Are you reading the studies for your specific argument or are you dumbing it down and gas lighting.


----------



## Shodan (Nov 17, 2016)

Is this right now an IQ pissing contest?


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Squirt said:


> @Red Panda
> 
> That stupid Mensa study. It just won't die, lol. Depression Studies: What causes Depression?
> 
> ...


It’s not just one study. I provided several others. Stop gas lighting.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Shodan said:


> Is this right now an IQ pissing contest?


No. The argument is that a person with an IQ above 125 is no better off than someone with an IQ of 125 in terms of success and that an IQ much greater is correlated mental and physiological disorders.

@Red Panda keeps gas lighting and dumbing down the argument so either she is trolling or or goring the facts.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Red Panda said:


> the consensus are coping for the most part btw, nothing more comforting than believing intelligent people are in just as bad a situation, right? well too bad it ain't like this which ofc makes sense, intelligence = understanding, and understanding leads to better health as you figure out solutions to problems


Intelligence does not equal understanding that is why we have two words one for each lol…more straw man material here..

once you start straw maning you’ve lost the debate.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

@Red Panda not once in your argumentation have you addressed my premises. Not one single post my dear.

come. Try again.

you cannot refute my conclusion without refuting my premises. Logic 101.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

MadMaxSDP said:


> It’s not just one study. I provided several others. Stop gas lighting.


I just thought it was funny that one study keeps coming up. Nothing against you.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Squirt said:


> I just thought it was funny that one study keeps coming up. Nothing against you.


Fair enough. @Red Panda provided a singular study that was entirely based off a self reported survey. This is borderline astrology in all the hard sciences.

At least the Mensa study is true.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

MadMaxSDP said:


> changing your argument? Again? Intelligence is not a predictor of success. The study shows it is not strongly correlated to success. Your argument wasn’t that intelligence combined with other attributes leads to success. Your argument was that intelligence past a certain level does. Are you reading the studies for your specific argument or are you dumbing it down and gas lighting.


My argument was that it's been debunked that high IQ = more mental illness which is what the study you linked 3 times claims, I never said anything about success.




MadMaxSDP said:


> Unfortunately my dear Panda, both as a studious intellectual and one with a significantly high IQ, I must inform you that neither has been debunked, only further verified by recent studies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











Why Are Intelligent People More Prone to Mental Illness?


Higher intelligence can be a risk factor for depression and other mental health problems. Learn more about mental health treatment options.




www.originsrecovery.com





_One large study led by Ruth Karpinski of Pitzer College surveyed more than 3,700 members of Mensa, a society whose members must have an IQ in the top two percent, which is typically about 132 or higher. The team asked about many factors, including mental health. They discovered that mood disorders and anxiety disorders were extremely common among Mensa members. _




MadMaxSDP said:


> There are selection biases in every selected sample in every study. I admire your tenacity but nothing you state negates the conclusions of others and myself.
> 
> there are other studies that corroborate these results as well. Many more than you’ve listed to negate the conclusion.
> 
> ...





https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303324






MadMaxSDP said:


> Another one invalidating your
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why highly intelligent people suffer from more mental and physical disorders which describes theMENSA study yet again https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303324


STFU about the gaslighting you linked the same study 3 times, this is the most ridiculous argument I've been in, just take the L and move on jesus christ everyone makes mistakes


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Squirt said:


> @Red Panda
> 
> That stupid Mensa study. It just won't die, lol. Depression Studies: What causes Depression?
> 
> ...


great analysis and yea it's curious how this one study keeps coming up


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Red Panda said:


> My argument was that it's been debunked that high IQ = more mental illness which is what the study you linked 3 times claims, I never said anything about success.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you’re not even arguing agaisnt me. You’re saying intelligence isn’t correlated to mental disorders. Well it is after 125 IQ so you’re partially right but also partially wrong.

my argument is more nuanced than yours and yours has nothing to do with mine so don’t tell me anything about mine is debunked because it’s not. You haven’t proven anything of the sort. The overwhelming consensus is that at high levels IQ is correlated to mental and physical disorders and begins to reverse the likelihood of success.

fact - the link between a high iq and mental disorders is not debunked based One one study using self reported surveys.
You take the L. Dear. You made the mistake. Look in the mirror?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

the coping is intense


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Well once you make personal insults you’ve lost the debate. Shananana hey hey good bye!


Red Panda said:


> the coping is intense


You want to be taken seriously but you mention selection bias as an issue in my study yet refuse to discuss self reporting bias which is akin to astrology.

Maybe you are right. Intelligence = understanding, to quote your own words, and you cannot understand.

Bye Dear. You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

This is wild:

1869-Article Text-10397-1-10-20221130.pdf



> This article asks whether prospective parents should have the freedom to test embryos for IQ. IQ has been chosen as the focus of this article because it is one of the few polygenic non-disease traits for which an embryo can be tested at present.18 As much of the ethical discussion of testing for non-disease traits was conceived prior to any such test being developed,19 this article reconsiders this earlier analysis in the context of the test for IQ. This article reviews the arguments advanced both for and against the use of embryo testing and applies them to selection for IQ. Arguments that support the freedom to undertake such testing include reproductive liberty, advancing the welfare of the future child and the open future argument. Arguments commonly advanced against the use of embryo testing for positive selection include the therapeutic/non-therapeutic distinction, the expressivist objection and the idea of the ‘new’ eugenics. Consideration of these arguments suggests that there may be a case for prospective parents to have the freedom to utilise the test for IQ that is currently available.


It also discusses the difficulties of using IQ testing to measure intelligence, and the role of intelligence in mental health and success... how should these judgements be applied?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

MadMaxSDP said:


> Well once you make personal insults you’ve lost the debate. Shananana hey hey good bye!
> 
> You want to be taken seriously but you mention selection bias as an issue in my study yet refuse to discuss self reporting bias which is akin to astrology.
> 
> ...


dude stop you're embarrassing yourself, the MENSA study is based on self reporting which further shows you don't even read what you link

and you insulted me first when you said I'm gaslighting you


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Squirt said:


> This is wild:
> 
> 1869-Article Text-10397-1-10-20221130.pdf
> 
> ...


Now this is a serious response, worthy of an award.

It goes back to answering why an exceptionally high IQ is STRONGLY correlated to mental disorders, just like an exceptionally low IQ.

the answer is because there are other measures of intelligence and the greater the IQ the less likely these other intelligence are developed or accessible to the person.

Hence we see the world is dominated by those with above average intelligence and exceptionally high emotional intelligence. As IQ increases past a certai. Point (125) the likelihood that EQ is diametrically opposed to this increases also increases.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

secondpassing said:


> @MadMaxSDP You've made mention of "beyond a certain point" and I think that's where we've gone wrong. You're referring just to extremely high IQ individuals. In my first post here, I was referring to just higher IQ, so I am including individuals with IQ scores of 101, 102, 125...
> 
> Are people at the highest range of IQ more likely to have mental health issues? Maybe. I haven't made my mind up yet on that one.
> 
> ...


Very well. You’re a good man. And yea…it’s about those marginal returns after 130 decreasing and then inverting… thank you for reading.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

I only do “pissing contests” with the uneducated
I do enjoy listening to the educated 
They offer view points I have not considered 
And will research further if I find it interesting


----------



## ShushFox (3 mo ago)

shameless said:


> As they do, People who compete to be the hottest?
> 
> I thought about this because of all the threads on this site with people debating what types are smartest?
> 
> ...


IQ is not something to brag with but rather a way to defend yourself or assert authority - albeit it needs to be paired with common sense.

You don't say you're better because you're smart, you say you thought things through because you're smart.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

ShushFox said:


> IQ is not something to brag with but rather a way to defend yourself or assert authority - albeit it needs to be paired with common sense.
> 
> You don't say you're better because you're smart, you say you thought things through because you're smart.


That’s not intelligence but you’re right. I am reminded of two kids in my school in grade school. One had an IQ over 180 and the other 160. Neither were A students because they did 0 work and event hiufh they could intuitively approach advanced mathematics our tests were designed for acquired and applied knowledge…not raw intelligence.

hence IQ is not a predictor for success but is often used as an excuse or marketing ploy. Jordan Peterson does this trick. He makes it seem like he knows what he’s talking about because he’s shrewd but the man is off his rocker.


----------



## UpClosePersonal (Apr 18, 2014)

If you answer this thread does that come with the assumption that you're high IQ?
I'm just posting this in case that's true.
I don't mind being considered High IQ


----------



## ShushFox (3 mo ago)

MadMaxSDP said:


> That’s not intelligence but you’re right. I am reminded of two kids in my school in grade school. One had an IQ over 180 and the other 160. Neither were A students because they did 0 work and event hiufh they could intuitively approach advanced mathematics our tests were designed for acquired and applied knowledge…not raw intelligence.
> 
> hence IQ is not a predictor for success but is often used as an excuse or marketing ploy. Jordan Peterson does this trick. He makes it seem like he knows what he’s talking about because he’s shrewd but the man is off his rocker.


IQ on its own is no authority, that's why I added the 'common sense' part.
i do think overall it's silly to brag about traits you are born with, because you didn't earn them. Common sense is supposedly earned, although I think some people are just born without it and never can gain it.


----------



## bifurcations (Jan 31, 2021)

There's no direct implication of inferiority of people with mental disabilities in this thread, but mental illness was mentioned so often that I just wanted to point out that people with bipolar, schizophrenia, depression, etc. can live relatively normal lives with some of the medications we have out now. With treatment, a mental health diagnosis doesn't necessarily mean that someone is doomed to a life-long internal Hellscape.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

ShushFox said:


> IQ on its own is no authority, that's why I added the 'common sense' part.
> i do think overall it's silly to brag about traits you are born with, because you didn't earn them. Common sense is supposedly earned, although I think some people are just born without it and never can gain it.


IQ and common sense is not even it. That’s not what I was saying. I was talking about applied knowledge experience and grit once you have an average IQ. The richest and most successful people in mass have IQ’s between 110-125 and magnke may not have success. The are cut throat C students who have at most bachelor degrees in college and slay in business. They have emotional intelligence but some of them have no common sense outside of business.you can pick out a few exceptions like Elon Musk but lost rich people are like Donald Trump…they are exploiters and users who are able to abuse other people with little remorse.

even Elon musk is like this hence he is an extreme case where for once a high IQ person is also wealthy. This is an exception.

do you think Nanci Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Mitch McConnel, and other plutocrats have IQ’s above 130? You might find some rando internet site that indicates as much but you’re wrong, they do not.

pelosi doesn’t even know how the stock market works and she’s made so much money in it from insider trading she’s more successful than every MIT fund manager in history combined.

how do you think someone with an IQ of 130 games 1,000 people with IQ’s over160?

its not common sense. It’s emotions intelligence and the ability to manipulate and control.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

I'm not intelligent and I hate pissing contests, unless it's sarcastic, tbh it's almost always is.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

shameless said:


> As they do, People who compete to be the hottest?
> 
> I thought about this because of all the threads on this site with people debating what types are smartest?
> 
> ...


It's the same thing really. But they will probably use their extensive vocabulary and expert mental gymnastics to prove that it's not just another case of vain on vain crime.

Also, I think I'm vain. Miharu's post made me realise that. I'm that guy who can't help but smile when I catch a glimpse of my own reflection. I definitely think very highly of myself. I guess I don't try to bash people over the head with my vanity so it's not as bad as what you're talking about, but I should probably go see a shrink just in case.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

A high IQ person will most likely be bitter at times about how successful lower IQ people are relative to himself.

a good illustration is operational power in corporations which belongs mostly to finance and accounting people who average an IQ of 110-125. Yet the game designers, engineers, physicists, and other highly technical specialists who average higher IQ‘s have virtually no power and get paid less. There are exceptions but let’s be real - most executives are not the smartest people in the company. They are the most well connected who can bring in resources from family and friends.

another example are hospitals. The average senior manager at a hospital is making between $300k-2 million dollars depending on the position per year and the average doctor is making between 150k-800k per year.

the business men and women with lower iq’s run and operate resources systematically across all industries yet the technical specialists dwarf their IQ by almost 1.5 standard deviations.

Just look at the salary disparity between physicists at a university and their IQ and finance and accounting managers and their IQ. Hell a partner at a medium sized firm makes 5-6 million easy.

even partners at law firms are not the brightest lawyers. They are the lawyers who can sell the most businesss

so someone with a high iq will realize how worthless the attribute is and would happily trade it for more emotional intellifence.

unless they do not care at all for worldly success and enjoy the 32k stipend to study astrophysics while the accounts payable director is raking in 200k a year working one to two hours a day.

some people are happy to be involved in discovering the laws of the universe, and meanwhile not having even a pot to piss in.Nothing wrong with this but most people do not define this as success.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

MadMaxSDP said:


> Short answer. Highly Intelligent, who are also wise, people will most likely wonder why people care to have too much intelligence, which is more a curse than an asset.


Intelligence is not a curse. It is definitely an asset. Complacency is the thing that plagues a lot of bright people. And it makes you wonder. How intelligent are you really if you're dumb enough to be complacent? I scored really high on the two IQ tests I've taken. I know people who scored even higher, and significantly so. They don't have mental health problems. They mostly suffer from laziness and a love for reading to the point they will forget to eat and/or socialise. But it's not because they're intelligent. It's because they lack discipline.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

ENFPathetic said:


> Intelligence is not a curse. It is definitely an asset. Complacency is the thing that plagues a lot of bright people. And it makes you wonder. How intelligent are you really if you're dumb enough to be complacent? I scored really high on the two IQ tests I've taken. I know people who scored even higher, and significantly so. They don't have mental health problems. They mostly suffer from laziness and a love for reading to the point they will forget to eat and/or socialise. But it's not because they're intelligent. It's because they lack discipline.


The discipline will follow if you’re motivated to direct your intelligence toward an external goal.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

intranst said:


> The discipline will follow if you’re motivated to direct your intelligence toward an external goal.


This is why character > talent, if you don't have both. A high IQ is basically a way of saying you're intellectually talented. But that doesn't matter if you lack the character. This principle applies in all fields. The most successful sportsmen are not necessarily the most talented, but they're always the most driven. The problem is, talented people tend to get overly praised just for being talented and that cheap praise often breeds complacency. Highly attractive people often suffer from that complacency as well.

I think Max is correct that people with extremely high IQ are outperformed by people with moderately high IQ, but that's because of complacency and not because of their IQ.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

MadMaxSDP said:


> A high IQ person will most likely be bitter at times about how successful lower IQ people are relative to himself.
> 
> a good illustration is operational power in corporations which belongs mostly to finance and accounting people who average an IQ of 110-125. Yet the game designers, engineers, physicists, and other highly technical specialists who average higher IQ‘s have virtually no power and get paid less. There are exceptions but let’s be real - most executives are not the smartest people in the company. They are the most well connected who can bring in resources from family and friends.
> 
> ...


I had this argument with my sister not too long ago. I wouldn't promote an employee to management based on their technical expertise. I would promote them to management based on their ability to manage the experts.

I'm sure there's a lot of people who are promoted for reasons that have nothing to do with merit. But whenever I hear people complain about getting passed up on a promotion to a management position by someone who is not as good as them. I always wonder if they stop to consider that management requires entirely different strengths. Why even make that the issue. If they're a more important asset, they should simply negotiate a higher pay for themselves. So many people could make way more money if they just went up to their employer and told them to pay them what they're worth or they're taking their services elsewhere.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

Antiparticle said:


> Looking back it looks like the motivation of this test was to pick kids who didn’t score well and tell them to pick something mediocre for college or don’t go. 😂Based on a test that you can actually practice to become very good, and gives you only one number. Good thing that nobody really cares about IQ. Imagine needing this number for jobs etc.


Interesting!

I've read this book Grit by Angela Duckworth who looks at the concepts of hard work, grit vs natural talent and success.
Grit ,

She said "measures of self-control are better predictors than IQ of both report card grades and improvement in these grades."

Natural talent or IQ does help. But it needs training/practice, combined with hard work. And natural motivation helps too.

The tortoise and the hare analogy can be quite applicable. Someone with slightly less IQ who works hard can beat a higher IQ person who doesn't study or try.
My little brother and I probably demonstrate this. His IQ is bit higher, but I've been more successful in life than him so far. I think my parents telling him that he's smart probably ruined him.

Parenting books applying Angela Duckworth's research would say "congratulate effort, not talent" - so don't say "You're so smart!" rather say things like, "You did so well because you tried really hard and it paid off! Great effort there!"


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

ENFPathetic said:


> I had this argument with my sister not too long ago. I wouldn't promote an employee to management based on their technical expertise. I would promote them to management based on their ability to manage the experts.
> 
> I'm sure there's a lot of people who are promoted for reasons that have nothing to do with merit. But whenever I hear people complain about getting passed up on a promotion to a management position by someone who is not as good as them. I always wonder if they stop to consider that management requires entirely different strengths. Why even make that the issue. If they're a more important asset, they should simply negotiate a higher pay for themselves. So many people could make way more money if they just went up to their employer and told them to pay them what they're worth or they're taking their services elsewhere.


Yeah I get that and it leaves them bitter.

The Problem is IQ doesn’t make you irreplaceable. The scientists who win the Nobel prizes aren’t the smartest…they are the ones with the secret knowledge.

this is wher Jordan Peterson really gets it wrong. He contradicts himself repeatedly when he alludes to the social hierarchy and then makes statements about high iq and success.

the social hierarchy cares nothing about your IQ. Even if you are in the top .0001 percent, there are still at least 100k other people who can replace you…and if we set the bar a bit lower but still receive marginal gains, we can optimize our revenue with at least 1 million other potential employees.

Are you in corporate?

I think it’s very hard for a technical specialist to get a salary raise but what they can do is jump ship and get a salary bump working for a competitor. They get a premium for bringing in trade knowledge as opposed to the Highly developed technical skills which is a dime a dozen in this small digital world.


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

Lol, so a post in another thread had me thinking about this conversation. Idk my kid's IQ because no one ever told me. I only know they tested as college reading level in like 3rd or 4th grade and were offered advanced placement classes. Which they declined saying it's just more work and they would rather be with their friends. 

My kid now constantly tells me to stop being a tiger mom. I'm like, "I'm literally asking you for Ds so I don't have to put you in continuation school." Self taught and motivated with EVERYTHING. Report cards say all the same things mine did back in the day, "Incredibly smart, but won't do their work." 

I had a high school teacher one time call me in after class after I finally submitted an essay. "I don't understand how you can write this, _hold up essay_ and be failing my class?" "Because I pay attention, I just spend 8 hours at school everyday and don't think I should have to go home and do more school when I have a bunch of other stuff going on. Sigh....I'll try harder..." Turns out that teacher was my future ex husband's neighbor and when we all found out he asked the teacher about me, and all he could say was, "She's very....insincere."  

Brother was in the nuke program in the Navy, but then quit. He was like, "People are committing suicide over this shit. Fucking weirdos." 

So there is definitely a stigma or an expectation when you're a bit smrt, and it's a bit isolating. Right, but the clashes it has with peers and society CAN lead to more mental health issues, and less success in the long run. Because of the values and expectations that are put on people who seem more intelligent, or the miscommunication in interacting with peers. 

The smartest people learn how to play the game, the less play it naturally, and the most brilliant change it. Somewhere between that 125 and 146 lie a bunch of hipsters with nowhere they belong. Lol!


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

MadMaxSDP said:


> Yeah I get that and it leaves them bitter.
> 
> The Problem is IQ doesn’t make you irreplaceable. The scientists who win the Nobel prizes aren’t the smartest…they are the ones with the secret knowledge.
> 
> ...


If they're replaceable they're not that important. But often times they are not as easily replaced as their employer may have them believe. It's just a negotiation strategy. Their employer is not going to want to pay more than they have to and a lot of employers are willing to call an employee on their bluff. But often times, even if the employee is not really exceptional, it's usually much cheaper to give them a raise than to have to call in a contractor. But calling their bluff works too because more often than not, the employee would rather stick to with the devil they know.

I'm not in corporate. Never have been. I'm a private contractor and I run a small business on the side.


----------



## thedazzlingdexter (12 mo ago)

secondpassing said:


> The first two scientific articles linked by @Red Panda seemed statistically sound to me. As far as I can tell at least. I would trust them.
> 
> The first one linked said there was a very small correlation between IQ and lifetime reporting of depression after accounting for various factors like income. It even proposed a few explanations-- higher IQ individuals tend to be more health literate. Seemed like a good explanation to me, but I would go even broader. I think higher IQ individuals are more likely to use effective coping tactics to stabilize their mental health.
> 
> That is, of course, just my prediction and another one of my off-topic posts, but is also a curiosity I wanted to point out.


I dont see how this data would be suprising.
Being more intelligent means, you are naturally going to be less blissful.
Also if your IQ is less common you are less likely to get along with other people.
Being different is often pushed out of society
You dont need a study to conclude something like this
It would seem intelligence itself would just be more likely to make people unhappy


Joe Black said:


> Has anyone mentioned that there are different types of intelligence?
> 1. Linguistic
> 2. Logic
> 3. Kinesthetic,
> ...


IQ tests seem to be based on pattern recognition and problem solving vs anything else. Though when actively applied in real world is oddly discouraged. Like no school wants a 6 year old has noticed how redundant school is and question why they need to do homework.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

@Dezir
Good points and insightful

I will simply say

I do not just blatantly envy high IQ

I usually regard high IQ or highly smart people with lower pretentiousness very highly. I envy this the same way I admire and respect it. So the only people I envy with it, are the same I respect. 

BUT I usually hold high IQ people or highly smart people with high pretentiousness very low, I DO NOT envy them. I find them very off putting. Not worth envy. They usually think anyone who rolls their eyes, or snarks back does envy them, but I am usually really put off by their behavior or delivery far too much to envy them.

I just thought I should clarify that on the thread. Cuz many people said stuff generalizing the topic of IQ. When I was more specific on asking about certain kinds of smart or high IQ people and if they liken themselves to shallowness or vanity the same when these specific types compare to other forms of shallowness or vanity. So equating the topic to envy I think is a tad off.

I think possibly the basis of where I was even coming from with this entire thread possibly has been lost in translation by my own fault, as well as many peoples interpretations. I was definitely referring to certain kinds of people who conflate their IQ or depth overtly to people comparing, more so than referring to every intelligent person and lumping them in together.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> Some do, some don't.
> 
> I'm member of a high IQ society. To get into the society you had to be chcked by a psychologist specialized in this domain as well as pass a standardized IQ test and score at least 2 standard deviations better than the average, it's not an internet IQ test or something. Feel free to doubt me I don't care. I only care about this because I get to talk with people on the same IQ level and because it looks good on my resume.
> 
> ...


In response to your snyde remarks (clearly you were triggered by this bit about Magnus, which can only be explained by a sense of projected narcissism and neurotic attachment issues as he has nothing to do with you) I’m richer than Magnus…by a long shot. No need to make it personal though.

My point still stands unabashed that Magnus got into a pissing match and his IQ of 190 proves that Iq does not equal intelligence or wisdom. For if he was intelligent he would not have committed the logical error of falling into Han’s trap, and if he was wise he would have not lead to his own self-undue Ing, while even knowing that his actions would lead down a path unfavorable to both his chess career and the more ideal and practical outcome. He could have easily tipped his hat and completely avoided the lawsuit with all the benefits of the later but none of the negatives. So he was dumb and a fool. Big deal. Why does it trigger you?

in debate once you make it personal you lost…also showing that your iq which is higher than mine doesn’t really help you in debate either.

and you’re creating a lot of straw man arguments here. Science has shown that IQ is correlated with neuroticism, not intelligence per se, and there is gene overlap between bi-polar and IQ. Just because there is a framework thar incorporates a measure of neuroticism into its system does not negate the body of science and literature of neuroticism independent of said framework. Nice try.

you are confusing intelligence with IQ. IQ is a measure of skill and intelligence is something greater that science hasn’t been able to pinpoint. Stop conflating the two before you try to debate me.

and FYI whether Hans wins or loses, using game theory, he has beat Magnus in the court of general public opinion. Most people who do not watch chess will know Magnus as the person who LOST to Hans and accused him of cheating…not as the person who lost to a cheater. In the eyes of the general public Magnus will never be the greatest as he LOST to someone that the other great chess masters would have beat and then cried about it instead of beating him in the second match. A real shame…he was almost there.

Showing again that Magnus’s high IQ is meaningless. You seem to be under the false assumption that getting into a volatile lawsuit by slandering your opponents is a wise choice in any situation. We know that leaving any sort of outcome to a jury is incredibly stupid if uneccesary so clearly you are the victim of your own criticism (short term thinking) or have no idea how the law works. No lawyer, even the brightest in the world, would advise a client that slandering someone into a law suit is wise even in the long run. Magnus gains nothing by losing or winning in fact even if he wins it will take resources of his own away from his chess play. Hans is elevated no matter the outcome - no press is bad press. He is cannibalizing Magnus’s reputation. Yawn.

I find this long diatribe comparing looks to IQ a false analogy and quite boring (yawn). Looks are a combination of millions of variables and IQ is a measure of a few attributes. It’s like comparing a door to a house with many doors and windows. Just doesn’t make any sense at all.

You also validated the thread by stating how high your IQ was and then getting into a convoluted passive aggressive pissing match, clearly annoyed by my statements about Magnus, showing that self awareness and IQ are radically different attributes, in addition to immunity from fanboism.
@shameless

I can’t believe I wrote all this in one minute on my phone.

and fyi Magnus does care what people think of him. Clearly he said so himself. But to play devils advocate I could easily turn around and say the same thing to you - “Why does Hans even care what you think?”

Hans after all is the one who beat Magnus- fair and square…unless you are a flat earther conspiracy theorist and actually believe he had anal beads in his bellows, in which case clearly you are gullible.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

shameless said:


> @Dezir
> Good points and insightful
> 
> I will simply say
> ...


It seems he validated your point, actually.


----------



## bifurcations (Jan 31, 2021)

shameless said:


> @Dezir
> Good points and insightful
> 
> I will simply say
> ...


Sorry to have gotten off-topic. I remember agreeing with Handsome ****'s general answer. I think shallowness refers to physical, external appearances more, and maybe also on avoiding being challenged, and that makes being fixated on your own intelligence a little different than being shallow (fixated on the superficial). Intelligence refers to inner processes a little too much, and it also likes challenge. When I think of shallowness, I think of lacking emotional depth and looking at things based on cliche'd societal meanings without considering personal meaning. I don't know that it's the same to think of intelligence as enhancing status the same way a shallow man might think of how a beautiful woman would enhance his status and make him look more impressive. Actually, I think someone who is flaunting their own intelligence is probably looking for more depth.

Vanity, however, is different. I do think having a pity party about how frustrating your life is because of your high IQ is potentially the ego rushing in to protect oneself from harm. "I may be lonely and frustrated, but at least I'm smarter and therefore superior in some other arena of competition." I think vanity is often about ego in the sense of wanting to look impressive in comparison to others. The word "vanity" is often connected with looks like shallowness is, but I think it extends beyond physical appearances to more abstract things too, like the term "vanity publishing" which jokingly refers to being able to say to others that you have a book out even though no one reads it. So the implication of "vanity" is trying to look impressive too, but the implication of "shallowness" is more so that there is a lack of inner emotional meaning going on.

I'm writing this in a little box on my phone while I procrastinate, so I hope it makes sense. Lol


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

The underlying assumption that IQ measures intelligence has already been debunked. We have to be careful in translating the word IQ to intelligence. In fact such a inference is also highly suspect and could be considered an extreme form of unconscious racism.

If IQ were intelligence then a high IQ would more than correlate to Intellegience. Correlation is not enough even if it is strong. A measure of speed does not correlate to speed…it actually measures the velocity. If something is traveling 55 mph we do not say it’s speed is correlated to its velocity…on the contrary we say that the velocity is 55 mph.

not so with IQ. It does not directly measure intelligence and may not even indirectly measure intelligence (has yet to be proven). And the more types of intelligence we add into the equation the more the correlation may become or approach negative.

this does explain quite a bit. We see people like magnus Carlson with exceptional abilities but not exceptional intelligence, broadly speaking, and we see someone like Elon Musk with above average IQ but unparalleled intelligence.

so again the overall assumption of the entire thread that intelligence = iq is incorrect and debunked. Furthermore the debunking of IQ measuring intelligence in a way validates the subject matter of the thread as it provides support or a premise for why people with such a high IQ will engage in pissing matches so often.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

MadMaxSDP said:


> In response to your snyde remarks (clearly you were triggered by this bit about Magnus, which can only be explained by a sense of projected narcissism and neurotic attachment issues as he has nothing to do with you) I’m richer than Magnus…by a long shot. No need to make it personal though.
> 
> My point still stands unabashed that Magnus got into a pissing match and his IQ of 190 proves that Iq does not equal intelligence or wisdom. For if he was intelligent he would not have committed the logical error of falling into Han’s trap, and if he was wise he would have not lead to his own self-undue Ing, while even knowing that his actions would lead down a path unfavorable to both his chess career and the more ideal and practical outcome. He could have easily tipped his hat and completely avoided the lawsuit with all the benefits of the later but none of the negatives. So he was dumb and a fool. Big deal. Why does it trigger you?
> 
> ...


I have an alternative explanation - you are projecting.

It's clear you were triggered since you called my remarks "snyde" instead of taking the remarks for what they are. Then saying "clearly you were triggered by this bit", are you sure I was the one who was triggered? Usually, when people are triggered they like to play "the other side is being triggered" game. Like whoever is the most triggered loses or some sort of stupid game made to hide their personal insecurities.

I very much doubt you are richer than Magnus.

Here is the answer to your unabashed point:


> As for the lawsuit, Magnus is going to win it. Saying he's dumb because he ended up in a lawsuit in the first place is just thinking short-term.


"So he was dumb and a fool. Big deal. Why does it trigger you?"
Again, are you sure that I'm the one who is triggered?

I don't have a debate with you, I'm simply explaining you why I'm right. And you make it personal for some reason.

"Science has shown that IQ is correlated with neuroticism"
No, the opposite actually, my God.


> Not true, neuroticism is a trait on the Big Five independent of IQ. Heck, if anything, what actual empirical evidence says is the opposite of what you are going for, neuroticism and IQ seem to have a small negative correlation.


"Stop conflating the two before you try to debate me."
I'm not trying to debate you, that would be a waste of time. Your opinions are on the verge of conspiracy theories, I have nothing to learn from you, so my interest in a debate is... limited.

"and FYI whether Hans wins or loses, using game theory, he has beat Magnus in the court of general public opinion"
lmafo, did you actually watch the scandal?

"no press is bad press"
that is BS positive psychology. There is such thing as bad press. If you were richer than Magnus you should know that.

"You also validated the thread by stating how high your IQ was and then getting into a convoluted passive aggressive pissing match, clearly annoyed by my statements about Magnus, showing that self awareness and IQ are radically different attributes, in addition to immunity from fanboism."
You could not be more wrong about what's really going on even if you tried.

Because you were wrong and I explained you how you were wrong that means I was triggered? You seem to be the one who started the "passive aggressive pissing match", and I'm not playing it, just enjoying the show. Yes, very annoyed by it, you drove me so mad I broke a chair. Do you really not realise that I wasn't triggered at all by your comments? You must have seen this and took it personally, but really consider it factually than personally:


> Maybe Magnus doesn't care about the things that you care about?
> 
> If you had his money and IQ you would have made different decisions, but he didn't. That's not to say he is dumb (ie. you are smarter than him and would have made better decisions in his place, since you judge his decisions as subpar). Really, what is it that Magnus lacks? and how much you think it bothers him?
> 
> As for the lawsuit, Magnus is going to win it. Saying he's dumb because he ended up in a lawsuit in the first place is just thinking short-term.


Instead of reading it like "Maybe Magnus doesn't care about the things that you care about? YOU LOW IQ IDIOT I'M BETTER THAN YOU HAHAHAHAHA"
Try reading it like: "Maybe Magnus doesn't care about the things that you care about? He doesn't care about the lawsuit as much as you would in his place, he doesn't care that you think he is only good at chess and nothing else because frankly it's enough for him to be only good at chess and nothing else".

TL;DR - he doesn't have the same values you have.

You seem to have difficulties understanding perspectives, putting things into the different perspectives of people, as you were off the point in Magnus' case as well in my cases that I'm triggered by you. This one-dimensional way of going that "If I think/value that then everybody must think/value that" is false. You will clearly see this comment as me being triggered by you or triggering you once again. This is not the case. I'm simply explaining you that if you care about X doesn't mean everyone must care about X, this is what understanding the different perspectives of people means.

"I can’t believe I wrote all this in one minute on my phone."
Yet, you are not triggered, I am.

"and fyi Magnus does care what people think of him. Clearly he said so himself. But to play devils advocate I could easily turn around and say the same thing to you - “Why does Hans even care what you think?”"
Roasted. Okay, you got me there. I have no answer to this. You won, GG.

Before you take you cup champion, I would like you to read again what I wrote:


> Maybe Magnus doesn't care about the things that you care about?
> 
> If you had his money and IQ you would have made different decisions, but he didn't. That's not to say he is dumb (ie. you are smarter than him and would have made better decisions in his place, since you judge his decisions as subpar). Really, what is it that Magnus lacks? and how much you think it bothers him?
> 
> As for the lawsuit, Magnus is going to win it. Saying he's dumb because he ended up in a lawsuit in the first place is just thinking short-term.


And then read your reply to me where you definetly roasted me. Can you spot an inconsistency there? if any at all?

But I digress, I accept your devils advocate and take your question head on:
“Why does Hans even care what you think?”"
He doesn't. And I'm okay with that.
Mindblown.



> Hans after all is the one who beat Magnus- fair and square…unless you are a flat earther conspiracy theorist and actually believe he had anal beads in his bellows, in which case clearly you are gullible.


Not sure if sarcasm or not, you're very difficult to predict, take that as a compliment.

But hey, at least you were right about this thing:
"self awareness and IQ are radically different attributes"
there's a first time for everything.

"The underlying assumption that IQ measures intelligence has already been debunked. We have to be careful in translating the word IQ to intelligence"
No, it wasn't, lol. But clearly you are triggered by it for some reason.

"If IQ were intelligence then a high IQ would more than correlate to Intellegience. Correlation is not enough even if it is strong."
Mindblown.

"And the more types of intelligence we add into the equation the more the correlation may become or approach negative."
The higher your IQ, the dumber you are! Someone must really hate IQ tests.

"this does explain quite a bit. We see people like magnus Carlson with exceptional abilities but not exceptional intelligence, broadly speaking, and we see someone like Elon Musk with above average IQ but unparalleled intelligence."
Have you ever asked yourself: how do you define intelligence? or do you automatically think that everyone defines intelligence the same way you do because you lack any perspective?

"the overall assumption of the entire thread that intelligence = iq is incorrect and debunked "
By your turly, MadMaxSDP, weekend psychologist.

"way validates the subject matter of the thread as it provides support or a premise for why people with such a high IQ will engage in pissing matches so often"
Oh boy, I really hit a nerve there, why? no seriously, no joke, why did I hit a nerve there? What made you overreact with such intensity about my comment that Magnus knew what he was doing?


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> I have an alternative explanation - you are projecting.
> 
> It's clear you were triggered since you called my remarks "snyde" instead of taking the remarks for what they are. Then saying "clearly you were triggered by this bit", are you sure I was the one who was triggered? Usually, when people are triggered they like to play "the other side is being triggered" game. Like whoever is the most triggered loses or some sort of stupid game made to hide their personal insecurities.
> 
> ...


In Jungian therapy the only way to know if someone is projecting is to be analyzed yourself by another. Your inference that I’m projecting is counter-transference since I am more self-aware than you.

Hence I wont even read your response. I do not waste my time with snooty and snide people. I’m sorry you wasted all of yours. My self-awareness protects me from pointless endeavors and engaging in frivolous argumentation.

where is your self awareness?


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

MadMaxSDP said:


> In Jungian therapy the only way to know if someone is projecting is to be analyzed yourself by another. Your inference that I’m projecting is counter-transference since I am more self-aware than you.
> 
> Hence I wont even read your response. I do not waste my time with snooty and snide people. I’m sorry you wasted all of yours. My self-awareness protects me from pointless endeavors and engaging in frivolous argumentation.
> 
> where is your self awareness?


As the another who is analyzing you, I conclude that you are projecting. Your inference that you are more self-aware than me is counter-transference since I am more self-aware than you. 

Anyone can use big words that are wrong like you.

MadMaxSDP:


MadMaxSDP said:


> My self-awareness protects me from pointless endeavors and engaging in frivolous argumentation.


MadMaxSDP a few hours ago:


MadMaxSDP said:


> In response to your snyde remarks (clearly you were triggered by this bit about Magnus, which can only be explained by a sense of projected narcissism and neurotic attachment issues as he has nothing to do with you) I’m richer than Magnus…by a long shot. No need to make it personal though.
> 
> My point still stands unabashed that Magnus got into a pissing match and his IQ of 190 proves that Iq does not equal intelligence or wisdom. For if he was intelligent he would not have committed the logical error of falling into Han’s trap, and if he was wise he would have not lead to his own self-undue Ing, while even knowing that his actions would lead down a path unfavorable to both his chess career and the more ideal and practical outcome. He could have easily tipped his hat and completely avoided the lawsuit with all the benefits of the later but none of the negatives. So he was dumb and a fool. Big deal. Why does it trigger you?
> 
> ...


My self awareness is right here, preventing me from taking personally arguments that weren't personal to begin with, from making snyde claims about IQ as a defense mechanism because I don't think I can hold up to the standard, from comparing IQ with my subjective definition of intelligence that doesn't match with the with the standard definition used by psychologists so I can say facepalm things like "If IQ were intelligence then a high IQ would more than correlate to Intellegience" which anyone with a fundamental level of knowledge in the field can tell how dumb that statement is, from understanding that there are other variables at play, and from calling the other person triggered when I'm triggered as a defense mechanism because he disagreed with my take on Magnus Carlsen.

I have enough self-awareness not to do any of that.

where is your self awareness?


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> As the another who is analyzing you, I conclude that you are projecting. Your inference that you are more self-aware than me is counter-transference since I am more self-aware than you.
> 
> Anyone can use big words that are wrong like you.
> 
> ...


I feel like a ten year old wrote this.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

shameless said:


> As they do, People who compete to be the hottest?
> 
> I thought about this because of all the threads on this site with people debating what types are smartest?
> 
> ...


It is only vain to compete with half a brain cell. High intelligence is just taking others as an example not to follow so it makes really odd pissing contests where skilled ppl don't aim to piss on a same target but find one the other wouldn't think about. Only morons piss in the same direction.


----------



## bifurcations (Jan 31, 2021)

Going back to the OP, I think people engaging in pissing contests of any kind are way too angry to think of what they're doing as vain or shallow. Even if they do think it's egotistical, which I think would be more popularly agreed-upon, they're probably too upset to care--at least until they calm down. And they may never calm down about that particular thing.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

MadMaxSDP said:


> I feel like a ten year old wrote this.


Coming from you, that's a compliment.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> Coming from you, that's a compliment.


now we’re playing touch butt in the locker room. On lookers are definitely sensing erotic undertones.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

MadMaxSDP said:


> now we’re playing touch butt in the locker room. On lookers are definitely sensing erotic undertones.


Please tell me more about you not engaging in pointless endeavors and frivolous argumentation.

Because of god tier level of self-awareness.

*🙃*


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

MadMaxSDP said:


> now we’re playing touch butt in the locker room. On lookers are definitely sensing erotic undertones.


Is this Nate Diaz talking about us?


Dezir said:


> Please tell me more about you not engaging in pointless endeavors and frivolous argumentation.
> 
> Because of god tier level of self-awareness.
> 
> *🙃*


is this Nate talking about us?


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

Please let’s analyze the topic and not the people them selves.
This is starting to fall into personal attacks and let’s refrain from that.
Yes, this is a warning.
Thanks


----------

