....................
....................
Last edited by suedehead; 08-11-2016 at 05:42 PM.
You forgot to quote the last part:
I think that sums up my thoughts on this whole article quite well.The Bottom Line
To sum it all up, IQ tests are not always the most reliable tools one can use to determine their intelligence or emotional quotient, and IQ is a highly relative thing. The signs and symptoms described above tend to be the most commonly displayed ones by those who have a lower intelligence quotient than average, but they are by no means intended to serve as guidelines or as definite proof that one’s IQ is not satisfactory.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Reading these meaningless articles.
You are certainly very curious about IQ stuff
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 03-21-2016 at 08:20 PM.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I already told you your most likely I.Q. before. You should be looking into developmental disabilities or mental illnesses.
I was expecting red of biblical proportions. That's not very much red.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Indeed, those of us who are the dregs of the IQ barrel have no choice but to look out on the world like fish in an aquarium and try to comprehend the nature of something we are utterly incapable of understanding with our feeble intellects. Maybe someday, high-IQ people will give us implants we can stick in our heads to give us these mysterious powers we see everyone else having, but until then, we just have to make sure we are equipped to explode in case the Nazis try to drag us off to the showers and the ovens.
High I.Q. and intellectually disabled I.Q. people are still a minority group. If you went into Compton and said "Rejoice! You're a minority group!," you'd probably get your ass kicked.
you seem to explain yourself rather well through forum posts.
and the forum shall rise as one army to fight off his demons (one at a time, each & every time).
I still think he's just lazy. If I was that concerned about my looks, I'd find a retard job that pays well and save up for plastic surgery.
Trade craft blue collar jobs pay $20/hr in the south, and minimum I.Q. is around 90 to not bounce from job to job.
If you have self-esteem issues and need constant reassurance from others that you are normal then fine, but you don't need to create a dozen threads explaining how much of a victim of the circumstances you are in order to obtain emotional support from others. If you need love then ask for love.
9 sign
If you remind George Bush jr
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
? That's not how good looks work. It must be because you're stupid and ugly.
You do blue collar and get better looking. Then you're better looking. Everyone acts like you're smarter than you are, because you're better looking. Teachers give you better grades, because you're better looking. You pass college, because you're better looking. Then you get offered sweet white collar cushy jobs, because you're better looking. Then you get promotions, because you're better looking.
Your avatar looks like a dirty, unkempt, beat-up vagina.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I realize these articles are not the be-all-end-all when it comes to IQ and what not, but it kind of scares me. I have noticed I have a very hard time picking up on things that others can seem to pick up in an instant. Slow learner doesn't even begin to explain me. I need to be shown how to do something like 10 times before it actually starts to somewhat sink in. I can't remember what I did two days ago or often what I have done the night before...I don't have much of a memory at all. I continue to be in mindless jobs because I don't feel like I have the brainpower to do something serious. I always joke around that I am too distracted since I often have a million things I am thinking about but idk if I can chalk it up to that anymore...
i'm glad i can just blame it on the weed.
I'm a little slow sometimes when it comes to grasping certain logical concepts, but I consider being a good person that doesn't treat other people like shit - I value that a lot more than that other stuff anyway. People just grow by focusing on their strengths, not weaknesses... you make a living for yourself following your strong sides. Or you can eternally play victim and constantly be supported by the government, but most people who do that aren't happy I don't think.
This is not necessarily true. There is a lot to be said for being a well-rounded individual. Breadth versus depth is a personal choice. Children are usually encouraged to experience degrees of both, so they may make well-educated decisions on their paths in life.
Or education. Don't confuse being educated with being intelligent.
Bell curves apply to most things related to people. For instance, intelligence and looks. Let's say, hypothetically, that you want a partner that is within the top 99.9 percentile. You also want a 9/10 on facial symmetry that is probably around the top 98 percentile. Now, each person also has a "taste" for looks, which we will just say is in the top 90 percentile. Already, you're looking at 1 in 500,000, which, considering you probably want a straight female, is probably (well, I don't know sexuality statistics, so I'm just making it up as 20% fruity) 1 in 5 million. How many people even live within a 50 mile radius of you to begin with? Want her to be sane? Because, including the fact that attractive females tend to be more targeted for things that create mental illnesses, you just multiplied that 5 million by a lot. Want her to have a certain religion or background? Multiply it again. Age range? Multiply. Interests? Multiply. No kids? Multiply. Is she even single? Multiply. Etc.
This is why it is called "chasing a unicorn." Do they exist? Yeah. But they'll probably want to have sex with other unicorns. Which is probably why they're basically extinct. It simply isn't realistic nor practical to look for one.
Personally, I kick the whole "intelligence" thing to the curb. I'm also pretty dang lenient on the sanity and background portions as well.
You have to balance out the traits you're looking for in a partner and adapt yourself to unconsciously aiming for such. Kinda like balancing a character sheet on a video game. Then once you do it and just start playing with what you've got for the game, you forget about the underlying character sheet and it just becomes natural.
I'll play devil's advocate to the general reaction in this thread by talking about my initial reaction to this article. I wonder if the people targeted by this article would realize that some of these things apply to them. After all, it's not as if these are absolute measurements where the bounds are clearly discernible. Things like curiosity are up to opinion, and you can have a million different justifications for why X doesn't apply to you. So who's to say how much this article is worth to its intended purpose anyway.
And on the flip side, some thoughts regarding the flimsiness of the box in which this article resides:
- There's some rationality bias here. Which I am personally ok with, but many people might say that rationality != intelligence.
- The things generally pointing at lack of curiosity as a sign of deficit are ..highly subjective. A lack of curiosity is usually caused by disinterest, and I see no direct causation between this and fluid intelligence. To be fair to any possible correlations, curiosity might be related in some tangential way.
- Being unable to explain yourself is not a reliable indicator of intelligence because of the (potentially) modal nature of intelligences in the sense of types of minds, which may be somewhat correlated to intelligence in a pyramid fashion, but those correlations are likely to expose wide bands or multiple bands.
- Understanding is a hard one, because it isn't visible besides actions. And until placed in an environment where someone has been given the chance to learn, and has done... whatever you do when you attempt to learn but absolutely can't, and then fails to display their understanding, it's hard to know whether they are really unintelligent or not. The baseline sampling for what things are 'intelligent' in daily life could be explored here.
However, there are people who exhibit these extremes, and you can take the position of, UNTIL PROVEN WRONG, they are stupid. You can always be proven wrong though. But then again, in case of anomalies, if the law of averages plays out as seen by their ability to understand things, you can be more confident they're relatively incapable. You could also note strengths in some areas and not in others, and this is sort of more interesting than talking about one g because you can decompose their intelligence partly.
This stuff may seem obvious, but I think these are reasonable things to exclude or move away from in a discussion of whether or not an intelligent person can seem dumb, a dumb person can realize they are dumb, etc.
Last edited by ouronis; 03-27-2016 at 09:34 PM.
1. You think looks are very important, but you don't have the looks nor the money to get them.
2. You think money is important, but you don't have the I.Q. to get money.
3. You think confidence is important, but you don't have confidence because you aren't desired.
4. You're gay.
Solution: Find older alpha male. Tell him you need help. Take a weeny in the butt. Feel desired. Get confidence from him. Get money from him. Get plastic surgery. Get better alpha male. Repeat. Get super alpha male. Then have gay buttsex to your heart's content.
What? Just because your finger or your mouse doesn't respond as fast as your brain? I did worse on that than you btw. I am not a gamer who sits all day increasing my speed though. I use a touchpad. It was frustrating for me too. My mouse would like hang right in the middle of a click or I would click too lightly. When I was sick I was like in the 600s or something. I finally gave up on playing that particular game. I am not going to take this one serious...sorry.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung