IQ, Mensa etc.

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
OK, so the Mensa sites says that an adult can only score a maximum of 161 on the Cattell III B test.

But what if the person were much cleverer than that? Is there no other test to measure beyond 161? Or will it just be so off the charts and away from the norm (i.e. no scale) that it would be irrelevant?


What we need is a 'Stupid' test to make the stupid people wake the hell up to the fact that they're really stupid.


What would it mean then if you failed the stupid test?

Even stupider?



Nope. Medically proven coma.




posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Based on your posting history, I'd be surprised if you didn't qualify for membership.
Personally, I did, as did my wife, but neither of us were interested in joining. Our college was doing some tests at the time, and it seemed like an interesting exercise, but I really have no desire to join the ego stroke-fest I perceive such meetings to be.

Besides, I spend a lot of effort dumbing things down a bit, so I don't seem so abnormal from friends and family. I think a lot of it is more education-related than actual intelligence anyhow. I have to think those tests are not a very accurate representation of a person's true intellect. (for one thing, I know I'm simply not near as smart as I test)...



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

What we need is a 'Stupid' test to make the stupid people wake the hell up to the fact that they're really stupid.



What would it mean then if you failed the stupid test?



I really struggle with this question: Is there such a thing as 'the right to be stupid', or 'the right to remain uneducated and uninformed'? And, would I have to defend someone's right to be stupid? I just don't know.

Call it a form of prejudice, but I don't like the idea of people that are determined to remain disconnected from knowledge. I know some of these people. Grown men, they never watch the news, read a newspaper, pick up a book, or talk about anything other than sports. Gawd are they boring and DUMB!

I'm no genius, but I always try to learn something everyday.
edit on 2/14/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 



Yes it IS a rather meaningless concept if it is looked at as by using those stereotypical tests.


What you have just said makes no sense whatsoever.


There seems to be a concept what makes intelligence (respective IQ)..and if you look at those tests you will see they are always a combination of certain sub-tests, like ability to visualize shapes, math/numbers, "logic", language and whatever other stuff there is. Who *decides* the relevancy of this?


The definition of intelligence, of course.


Someone could be a genius in some other field, like a painter


I'm terribly sorry, but does intelligence mean "Really good at ANY particular skill?"

OR is the definition of intelligence much more clearly defined, and not including "Painting" at all?

Go away.


does it make him "less intelligent"


What, being good at painting, but being dumb as a rock?

Yes, that makes him less intelligent.

You people seem to want to define "Intelligent" as "Whatever the [snip] any particular person happens to be good at so that we are all equally intelligent"

As if you could define "Tall" as "How a person feels about themselves"

Just stop it, you are embarrassing yourself.


While..on the other hand there might be super-"intelligent" people with an IQ of 160 in the Mensa test which are too stupid to put a nail in a wall with a hammer.


>"There could be people who are intelligent while at the same time being stupid!"

You are not intelligent just because you can paint, or hit a nail with a hammer.


That way of measuring "intelligence" is outdated as others pointed out.


So, you are saying that measuring intelligence, by measuring intelligence is outdated?


You are transparent.

Get over yourself.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 



Since ones IQ does not determine how well one can apply that intelligence


IQ is a test for intelligence, and intelligence is how well you can apply and derive knowledge.

Stop arguing against intelligence, without the cursory understanding of what intelligence *IS*

You are embarrassing yourself.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by heyitsok
 



And I wish to God I had the opportunity to trade whatever surplus IQ I have to be dumb, happy, and productive.


That sounds positively Orwellian.

amateur tyrants round up smart people and kill them

Modern tyrants try to convince people that intelligence is stupidity; That intellectuals are whoever agrees with the Liberals, Authority, and never questions their government.

That intelligence is synonymous with anything *EXCEPT* being intelligent, such as musical ability, kicking a ball, having emotions, etcetera...


In all tyrannies of the past, intelligent people were rounded up and executed as enemies of the state, because they represent a threat to the tyrants power.

But they don't do that anymore, because it would be far too obvious, and probably never work in America...

So they use their Mass Media and School indoctrination systems to attempt to weed out intelligence by a passive form of social eugenics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How does YOUR media portray "Smart People"?

Is it positive?


And then you have the Obvious shills in this thread:

"Hurr Durr, I have an IQ of 1,800 but I am too stupid to breathe! I wirsh I wuz more stoopid so dat I coold obey the Gubment and be happeee!!"

"I know a guy with an I.Q. of only 3.4, and he designed a single stage to orbit space-plane that revolutionized global industry because HE DUN PAINT GOOD AT FOOTBALL GENIUZ!!!"


Honestly, the *OBVIOUSNESS* of the ANTI-INTELLIGENCE SOCIAL EUGENICS PROGRAM makes me SICK.


"Hurr Durr, I know a guy with an infinity I.Q. but he disagrees with the talkin heads on the TeeVee, so therefore he is Retarded instead of Teh smartz, because the Television Networks, and Representatives that are the wholly owned subsidiary of Global Banking for Human Slavery Incorporated would NEVER tell us a lie, or try to enslave us by dumbing us down to make us more docile and less capable of figuring out how badly we are being [snip]ed on a daily basis!"


And I wish to God I had the opportunity to trade whatever surplus IQ I have to be dumb, happy, and productive.





“A fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that's just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it's a joke.”

― Søren Kierkegaard
edit on 20-4-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Can a eugenics program be carried out by Social Engineering of behaviour?


What traits would those who carry out the Social Engineering desire of the population?


What traits are desirable in a population of slaves?

What traits are desirable in Bananas?





edit on 20-4-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: Welcome to World War Z



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Breathe, ErtaiNagia. I see it, too. To prove that I see it, I cite the television show, "The Big Bang Theory". It angered me so much that I couldn't sit through the first episode without frothing at the mouth and pacing like a caged tiger. And yes, I've seen for myself the research that has taken place since the late 19th century and into the 20th century in regards to the eugenics of intelligence from Galton to Bertrand Russell to Terman and his "termites". I see it and yes, it's intolerable to fathom and I daresay that there has been extraordinarily unethical behavior that has been associated with it all.

You're not alone. I see it, too.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Thank you.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


You're welcome. I just wish I knew what to do about it. I've seen so much that it truly creeps me out but trying to explain to people that eugenics through social engineering is occurring here in the US is something that has been met with so much skepticism. On one hand, we have media and societal portrayal of the highly intelligent and educated as being either grossly socially inept to being so arrogant in their own intelligence that everything that they say is suspect. Being an expert at something is meaningless when everybody views themselves as being an expert and trying to clarify the actual difference just gets met with rabid anger and accusations of arrogance. This is all media propagated (I'd say that most of it is directly sourced to Murdoch's enterprises).

On an educational front, you have programs that isolate the highly intelligent from their former peer group. This occurred at a much earlier age with my eldest and I and, oddly enough and without even being totally aware of it, the members of our current peer groups also happen to be former children put through these same educational programs. It was pretty disturbing to see just how many of my friends were in the same type of program I was as a kid and we never knew that fact about each other. My youngest, on the other hand, was not early identified and had zero issues with assimilating with her classmates. It wasn't until this school year that she was identified and after the first week, she was voicing for the first time ever how she felt like she could no longer talk to her old friends because they wouldn't understand her. Her being very notably pulled out for these special classes enhances the divide through envy and competition. These programs divide the children and basically create nearly closed gene pools that, through social engineering and isolation from each other, create a massive divide through which genetic admixture between the two groups rarely occurs. Toss in media and god forbid if you tell somebody how smart you were measured out to be or worse--tell them that you were identified as being unique and highly intelligent by the educational system and the government. "Oh you must think you're so special...."

I could go on at length about this. I could go on at length about the fact that they are looking for the genes that make the highly intelligent what they are and how that also points towards to eugenics. I could point towards the existence of sperm banks that seek out high iq donors in both the US and in China. Or I could point out research done that makes us seem more like a fancy breed of dog than a human being. Thing is, every time I try to share this information, it doesn't seem like anybody ever really listens and that the resentments are just too deep. So yes, I hear you. And, for the record, I'm working on breaking that cycle with my youngest so she gets the additional education but without that divide. So far so good.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 



trying to explain to people that eugenics through social engineering is occurring here in the US is something that has been met with so much skepticism.


That is also a part of the program.

The faux resentment implanted in the populous regarding intelligent people serves as a self-reinforcing social control for the eugenics program, where it is effectively policed by the target population without any further effort on behalf of the controllers, sans constant bombardment/reinforcement of the meme in the media.


On one hand, we have media and societal portrayal of the highly intelligent and educated as being either grossly socially inept to being so arrogant in their own intelligence that everything that they say is suspect.


Unless they happen to be puppet mouthpieces for the Establishment, in which case they are called Intellectuals without all of the "normal" negative connotations that the media usually associates with being intelligent.


On an educational front, you have programs that isolate the highly intelligent from their former peer group. This occurred at a much earlier age with my eldest and I and, oddly enough and without even being totally aware of it


Yeah, it happened to me as well, And interestingly enough, I was further isolated from the Isolated "Gifted" group.


It was pretty disturbing to see just how many of my friends were in the same type of program I was as a kid and we never knew that fact about each other.


Well, it stands to reason that if the plan is to use social engineering, behavioral controls, and whatnot to weed intelligent people out of the gene pool, that there would be some mechanism in place that Identified them En Mass for the purposes of following their activity, and applying "Leverage" of a social nature throughout their life to prevent their Reproduction(especially with other intelligent people)/Extended Social Networking/Power of any kind.


These programs divide the children and basically create nearly closed gene pools that, through social engineering and isolation from each other, create a massive divide through which genetic admixture between the two groups rarely occurs.


Yes, Precisely.... we can't have any intelligent strains getting into the next crop, can we?


Toss in media and god forbid if you tell somebody how smart you were measured out to be or worse--tell them that you were identified as being unique and highly intelligent by the educational system and the government. "Oh you must think you're so special...."


Yeah, that's the ready made thought terminating cliche that is forced into the collective minds of the population so that their knee jerk reaction (default) to someone who is intelligent is unfriendliness to outright hostility.


I could go on at length about this.


Please Do.


Thing is, every time I try to share this information, it doesn't seem like anybody ever really listens and that the resentments are just too deep.


Creating artificial resentment is what they do.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
The faux resentment implanted in the populous regarding intelligent people serves as a self-reinforcing social control for the eugenics program, where it is effectively policed by the target population without any further effort on behalf of the controllers, sans constant bombardment/reinforcement of the meme in the media.

Absolutely. The IQ populations that they target for special education programs is reportedly the top 1-3% of iqs within the US population. When put into context with social engineering, this means that we become the distinct minority within the population. In other words, we're drastically outnumbered and if one of us says something that actually addresses one of these issues, there will be at least 10 who will gang up to blast against it out of what I would say is media driven and school aged resentments.


Unless they happen to be puppet mouthpieces for the Establishment, in which case they are called Intellectuals without all of the "normal" negative connotations that the media usually associates with being intelligent.

You noted that, too? There's a quote from Bertrand Russel that always comes to mind when I think of these issues:

Every youth will thus be subjected to a threefold training: in intelligence,in self-command, and in command over others.If he should fail in any one of these three, he will suffer the terrible penalty of degradation to the ranks of common workers, and will be condemned for the rest of his life to associate with men and women vastly inferior to himself in education and probably in intelligence. The spur of this fear will suffice to produce industry in all but a very small minority of boys and girls of the governing class...There will, however, be limits to intellectual freedom, even among the children of the governing class. They will not be allowed to question the value of science, or the division of the population into manual workers and experts. The Scientific Outlook, Bertrand Russell

www.scribd.com...
You feeling it? I feel it. And for any that would mistake that Russell has anything to do with what goes on educationally, I'd like to point out that the gifted program educational theme directly follows Russell's own autobiographical path. My kid is learning Euclid and perfect numbers at the same age as Russell himself.

Yeah, it happened to me as well, And interestingly enough, I was further isolated from the Isolated "Gifted" group.

I, too, had significant amounts of one v. one time in the program away from the rest of the program. As far as I can tell from those who were in the same group that I was in, my iq measured roughly 20 points higher than the rest so that could be why. Or it could be that they detected a troublemaker in the midst. Quite possibly the latter of the two because I never have known when to keep my big mouth shut. Lifelong issues with that.



Well, it stands to reason that if the plan is to use social engineering, behavioral controls, and whatnot to weed intelligent people out of the gene pool, that there would be some mechanism in place that Identified them En Mass for the purposes of following their activity, and applying "Leverage" of a social nature throughout their life to prevent their Reproduction(especially with other intelligent people)/Extended Social Networking/Power of any kind.

That thought also crossed my mind. I've been trying to discover what this subconscious identifier might be with little luck. We all tend to be rather isolationist so the immediate adoption is strange in itself. After I noted it to a few of them, they, too, examined their own "close friend" pool and found the same. It goes outside of age as these friendships can have even a 20 year or more age gap--zero generational divide. Odd. For the most part, we are generally an extraordinarily isolated people, reluctant to discuss our own feelings with a penchant for watching just about everything and an aversion towards attention (possibly because we came under too much attention as children).

Yes, Precisely.... we can't have any intelligent strains getting into the next crop, can we?

Low birth rates as well though the lack of reproduction was actually considered to be due to sterility in Galton's era and then there's correlation between education level and number of children.

Running out of room so brevity time. Yes, the hostility is a major issue. Think that is really derived through the programs themselves. Talked with old non-program classmates on the subject and their perceptions that they recollected from the time. They admitted feeling very envious and resentful of program kids. If people actually comprehended some of the program history, doubt they'd feel that way. We were guinea pigs.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 



In other words, we're drastically outnumbered and if one of us says something that actually addresses one of these issues, there will be at least 10 who will gang up to blast against it out of what I would say is media driven and school aged resentments.


Well, that is sort of the mechanism of making sure that the official dogma is never questioned, isn't it?

You separate the intelligent children from the others, and you indoctrinate the "Normal" children with all of the usual memes of "Disobeying or questioning authority is bad" so that the intelligent children will not be there to question the propaganda In Situ.

Giving the Propaganda time to marinate in the still forming minds of the majority populous... so that once the intelligent children are reintroduced to the herd, the herd is predisposed to attack all who question the "Official Narrative"

Furthermore, by separating the intelligent children from the rest, you can give them specifically targeted propaganda for their demographic. (i.e. what works best on intelligent children)


You noted that, too?


Ha... I'm living it.



There's a quote from Bertrand Russel that always comes to mind when I think of these issues:


Agreed, however they are generally moving towards the tactic of labelling intelligent children as "Genetically Damaged" or "Crazy" these days.

Hence, the massive pharmacological assault on children with methlyphenidate.

"Crazy" to prevent their perspective and ideas from becoming cemented into the public mind via the mechanism of the old logical fallacy of "Poisoning the Well"

And "Genetically Damaged" to further lower their chances to pass on their genes, due to potential mates wells being "Poisoned" through the stigma of being what "Society" refers to as "Genetically Damaged"


You feeling it? I feel it.


Yes, very much so.


And for any that would mistake that Russell has anything to do with what goes on educationally, I'd like to point out that the gifted program educational theme directly follows Russell's own autobiographical path. My kid is learning Euclid and perfect numbers at the same age as Russell himself.


I would say that relates somewhat to geometry...


I, too, had significant amounts of one v. one time in the program away from the rest of the program.


Oh, I was meaning that I spent most of the year isolated from the rest of the class, by myself.


Quite possibly the latter of the two because I never have known when to keep my big mouth shut. Lifelong issues with that.


"Show me a completely smooth operation and I’ll show you someone who’s covering mistakes. Real boats rock."
-Darwi Odrade; Chapterhouse Dune (Frank Herbert)

I reserve the right to *NOT* keep my big mouth shut.


I've been trying to discover what this subconscious identifier might be with little luck.


No... it's the Gifted testing and paper trail that it creates...

You have a pre made categorical list of all of the intelligent children in the target population.

With which to use as "targeting information"


reluctant to discuss our own feelings with a penchant for watching just about everything and an aversion towards attention (possibly because we came under too much attention as children).


That is because of the aforementioned conditioning of the normal population for the purposes of poisoning them against intelligent individuals.

We do not seek social attention because to US, social attention is painful, and filled with knee jerk ridicule and outright attacks.

Social interaction for intelligent people is rarely pleasant, unless it is likewise with someone who received the same treatment from the general population as we do.

They have been programmed to attack us.... and they blame us for not wanting to associate with them, and they tell us that we are genetically deficient because we don't associate with them.

"IT is OUR FAULT that they attack us."


We were guinea pigs.


No, we are "Enemy Combatants."

This is not a test, it is an attack.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Furthermore, by separating the intelligent children from the rest, you can give them specifically targeted propaganda for their demographic. (i.e. what works best on intelligent children)


Precisely, which is the reason why these programs were ordered by Congress to be run by the fields of psychiatry and psychology. Their concerns were less about education and more about assuring that we were appropriately conditioned. If any look at the research subject matters in context of these programs, what will be found is a great deal of discussion in regards to character and behavior modifications, addressing the issues with the sense of isolation not with reintegration but with assuring that the children are instilled, at least, with the innate sense of being beneficial towards society regardless of their isolation and more. Much, much more.


Agreed, however they are generally moving towards the tactic of labelling intelligent children as "Genetically Damaged" or "Crazy" these days.


That's been going on for a while actually. When I was in it the program, I remember the cautionary tale of Opal Whiteley--the genius girl who went irrevocably mad. Then there was Dabrowski and the antics of what was potentially going on in the programs in the 60's and 70's where they were attempting to force children to undergo well, this:

One of the more interesting and hopeful aspects of the active type of schizophrenia described by Boisen is that remissions are more likely to occur. This dramatic change which we have called "Developmental Forcing" (Gowan 1974:187), Dabrowski (1964:xiv) calls "positive disintegration." He feels that development does not take place without previous disintegration.Trance, Art, and Creativity John C. Gowan

Yep, you read it right. Inducing schizophrenic states. Gee. Gowan actually makes a huge defense in the case of the induction of schizophrenic states for developmental purposes and social benefit in that book.



Hence, the massive pharmacological assault on children with methlyphenidate

Aye but that kind of blew up in their faces, too, didn't it? Don't forget the "fine line" that everybody knows about and spot on about "poisoning the well".


I would say that relates somewhat to geometry...


Cryptography from what I can tell based on the cryptex that they gave the kids to play with for a bit. Gotta be useful and socially beneficial, remember?


I reserve the right to *NOT* keep my big mouth shut.


Mhmm as do I because, well, I just keep digging and needling on about this stuff.

No... it's the Gifted testing and paper trail that it creates...You have a pre made categorical list of all of the intelligent children in the target population.With which to use as "targeting information"


Not referencing the "tagging and bagging", as one neighbor put it in regards to her son, but in reference to how we still manage to identify each other without access to any database. That, I find interesting and ponder whether it's preconditioned or not.



That is because of the aforementioned conditioning of the normal population for the purposes of poisoning them against intelligent individuals. We do not seek social attention because to US, social attention is painful, and filled with knee jerk ridicule and outright attacks. Social interaction for intelligent people is rarely pleasant, unless it is likewise with someone who received the same treatment from the general population as we do. They have been programmed to attack us.... and they blame us for not wanting to associate with them, and they tell us that we are genetically deficient because we don't associate with them.


True except that last part belies all the research into our genetics and what makes our brains function the way that they do. But that's the difference between "public perception" and research--rarely the same things. So publicly, we're somehow broken but privately, they want to be able to deliberately create us.

No, we are "Enemy Combatants."

This is not a test, it is an attack.


Good point but that would most likely be because we are one of the spokes on the wheel of social control. We represent chaos in their eyes.

Finally, there is the Genius who, as founder of religion, prophet, reformer, or artist, is able to build up a vast personal authority and sway the multitude at pleasure "Social Control: The Radiant Points of Social Control", Edward Alsworth Ross.

www.jstor.org...

That's why we're the enemy. Ironic, no? Then again, some might say "ah-ha!! see! you want to be special!" with that quote but I'll just point out that they picked on us first when we were little. Not us on them. We didn't make that decision. They did.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
There are many different types of I.Q. tests. I'm not ashamed that I scored a 110 on a certain test that only went up to 140. It's hilarious to me that the average person here seems to have an I.Q. of 145 plus. Kinda like measuring ones penis. At what point did you measure it? LOL. The majority of us are quite common.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 



Not referencing the "tagging and bagging", as one neighbor put it in regards to her son, but in reference to how we still manage to identify each other without access to any database. That, I find interesting and ponder whether it's preconditioned or not.


Oh, that one is easy...

There are certain topics of discussion that are considered "Safe", such as what other people are doing.

Remember; Large minds discuss Ideas, Medium minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people.

The typical social hierarchy of School is highly artificial, and created by the State itself....

I'm going to go ahead and mention the sports programs, and the "Social Proof" of school spirit rallies and cheerleaders to get the student body to "Praise" the athletes, which sets up a perception of a higher social caste for the athletes.

Thus, Whatever these artificially popular people talk about is what is considered "Popular" to talk about... and this is usually other people.


So publicly, we're somehow broken but privately, they want to be able to deliberately create us.


That is because intelligent individuals provide a distinct economic and military advantage to the population that they belong to.

WE are being attacked because they want to destroy current society, and reduce us to slaves.

However, they want to be able to use the same eugenic mechanisms to do the EXACT OPPOSITE to their own society/civilization... make lots of smart people to make gadgets, products, weapon system, strategies and tactics.


Good point but that would most likely be because we are one of the spokes on the wheel of social control. We represent chaos in their eyes.


We represent an order that they do not control.


That's why we're the enemy. Ironic, no? Then again, some might say "ah-ha!! see! you want to be special!" with that quote but I'll just point out that they picked on us first when we were little. Not us on them. We didn't make that decision. They did.


Precisely....



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SinMaker
 



It's hilarious to me that the average person here seems to have an I.Q. of 145 plus. Kinda like measuring ones penis.


You are already using "Penis Measurement" tactic in an attempt to shame gun owners.

If you keep using "Penis Measurement" tactic as a method of social control along so many different individual tactics of the main plan of social dissolution, you run the risk of reducing the overall effectiveness of the "Penis shaming" tactic et all.

i.e. Shill Much?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


If an IQ test is designed to illuminate the ability of an individual to apply and derive knowledge, then there are an awful lot of people who are incorrectly being called geniuses. A relative of a close friend, is a Mensa member, and works for the government in the field of physics (further than that one cannot say, due to the nature of both her work, and her employer). She is fantastically clever in academic matters, and matters pertaining to her expertise. She has however managed to start kitchen fires by leaving simple WATER on to boil too long, cannot park her car worth a damn, has personal cleanliness problems, and is the most scatter brained numbskull ever born to the earth.

Ditzy I believe is the term. Not someone you would call a mind of significance, despite her qualifications and skills.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


A pot of boiling water left on the stove would be very unlikely to catch fire and more likely to simply just burn to nothing and perhaps the pot would melt. Very typical retort however but have you ever considered the possibility that, although your friend appears to be ditzy at times, it's either a. the condition at which she makes an error that any other human being is allowed to make is one that seems more extreme because of her innate intelligence (iow, because she is so smart, her occasional acts of stupidity are made more remarkable because nobody ever questions why a dumb guy can't park a car...) or b. that, at times, because one is intellectual, the thought process can become so much that one fails to register the outside world entirely. Just because the iq may be high, it does not mean that the individual will be perfect and efficient at all things. I see a lot of people who are very talented at one thing and do terrible at another. I'm supposed to be a genius and whereas I literally aced statistics and nearly every other subject, I actually struggled a bit with calculus. I'm terrible at tennis and golf (okay at badminton) and sticking me in a party? I do well enough but that's because I've learned to adapt and mimic. Usually OCD until I'm being consumed by some problem or idea--then it's pretty evident that my mind is utterly elsewhere as I'll have a few old cups of coffee sitting on my desk. Now, I've seen pictures of the desks of young men of average intelligence that were so covered with pop cans, dirty plates and food debris that would make the mind bleed because they are so consumed by their gaming. People scoff and laugh when they see desks like that but human error is only remarkable and evidence used for questioning the intelligence of another human being when it's a very, very smart (or very stupid because then it just makes others feel better about themselves) under the lens.

High iq doesn't make a human being perfect. It just means that everybody expects it of them. I grew up with that and my god, was it hard to be perfect for everyone else. I grew up realized that I didn't need to be because nobody else expected perfection in others.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Ok, put it this way. The woman I am talking about is incapable of doing even the most basic things correctly. She cannot manage her own banking, her ironing, her washing, parking her own car, organising even the most basic of non-work related things. If it was not for the fact that she has the particular skill set she has got, she would be living on the streets, or more likely dying on them.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join