ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, December 26, 2016

The IQ delta

It has been observed that the exceptionally intelligent think differently than those with conventional minds, even those which most people would consider to be highly intelligent. The difference is qualitative, not merely quantitative, in nature, and is akin to the difference between the genuinely mathematical mind and the non-mathematical mind. It is, to use one acquaintance's example, the difference between the minds that can ascend the mountain by the winding path or by climbing straight up, and the mind that takes a helicopter ride directly to the peak.

I have been asked on more than a few occasions to explain what the qualitative differences are and to provide some perspective on how the different thought processes work. Now, obviously I am somewhat handicapped in explaining this because I have never not thought the way that I do now, but I do have the advantage of observing considerably more conventional thinkers than any conventional thinker, no matter how intelligent, has been able to observe non-conventional thinkers. However, upon beginning to read Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, I believe I may finally able to articulate a few of these differences.

There are a few observations I have made over the years that are of limited utility in differentiating between what I think of as "very smart" vs "brilliant". The terms themselves are meaningless and entirely subjective here, to put it in terms the quantitatively minded can accept, let's call them VHIQ vs UHIQ for the time being, with the understanding that what applies to the VHIQ also applies to midwits and average minds, whereas what applies to UHIQ does not.

And FFS, if you're reading this and think something might apply to you, please understand that is not a signal to decide that you are an unconventional thinker or exceptionally intelligent and share that fascinating observation with everyone. That very reaction is a pretty reliable indicator that you're not. If you can't fathom that, go ask a very tall person how excited he was this morning about discovering that he was tall.

Keep in mind that these are tendencies, not iron-clad laws. If they don't make sense to you, don't worry about it. On average, the responses will fall into six categories:
  1. Huh?
  2. Hmm.
  3. Vox just wants to talk about how smart he is again.
  4. Vox is right/wrong because [x].
  5. OT: Something off-topic because IMPORTANT. Link goes to the Drudge Report, which no one reads.
  6. Hey, I can use this as an excuse to talk about ME!
Regardless:
  • VHIQ inclines towards binary either/or thinking and taking sides. UHIQ inclines towards probabilistic thinking and balancing between contradictory possibilities.
  • VHIQ seeks understanding towards application or justification, UHIQ seeks understanding towards holistic understanding.
  • VHIQ refines the original thought of others, UHIQ synthesizes multiple original thoughts.
  • VHIQ rationalizes logical conclusions, UHIQ accepts logical conclusions. This is ironic because VHIQ considers itself to be highly logical, UHIQ considers itself to be investigative.
  • VHIQ recognizes the truths in the works of the great thinkers of the past and applies them. UHIQ recognizes the flaws in the thinking of the great thinkers of the past and explores them.
  • VHIQ usually spots logical flaws in an argument. UHIQ usually senses them.
  • VHIQ enjoys pedantry. UHIQ hates it. Both are capable of utilizing it at will.
  • VHIQ is uncomfortable with chaos and seeks to impose order on it, even if none exists. UHIQ is comfortable with chaos and seeks to recognize patterns in it.
  • VHIQ is spergey and egocentric. UHIQ is holistic and solipsistic.
  • VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force.
  • VHIQ attempts to rationalize its errors. UHIQ sees no point in hesitating to admit them.
  • VHIQ seeks to prove the correctness of its case. UHIQ doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the jury.
  • VHIQ believes in the unique power of SCIENCE. UHIQ sees science as a conceptual framework of limited utility.
  • VHIQ seeks to rank and order things. UHIQ seeks to recognize and articulate concepts.
  • VHIQ is competitive. UHIQ doesn't keep score.
  • VHIQ asks "how can this be used?" UHIQ asks "what does this mean?"
This obviously doesn't explain how a UHIQ thinker thinks per se, but it might provide some perspective concerning the qualitative differences between conventional high IQ thinkers and unconventional high IQ thinkers previously observed by others. For example, when I read something, even something about which I am inherently dubious, I do so in what is essentially an intellectual clean room. I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying.

However, upon encountering an obvious falsehood, non sequitur, bait-and-switch, or erroneous leap of logic, the clean room is muddied. The more mud that accumulates, and the more rapidly it is accumulated, the more certain that I am of the text containing errors. I don't know exactly what they are yet, because I'm not reading critically, and I don't retain more than a general sense of where on the page the mud is, but I know where to go and look for it, and perhaps more importantly, I know with almost 100 percent certainty that I will find something there. Every now and then I pick up a false reading, but that doesn't happen more than 2-3 times per year.

I'll demonstrate this in action in a longer post about Fukuyama's book, specifically, the introduction, in a few hours. In the meantime:
The topics of genius and degeneration are only special cases of the more general problem involved in the evaluation of human capacities, namely the quantitative versus qualitative. There are those who insist that all differences are qualitative, and those who with equal conviction maintain that they are exclusively quantitative. The true answer is that they are both. General intelligence, for example, is undoubtedly quantitative in the sense that it consists of varying amounts of the same basic stuff (e.g., mental energy) which can be expressed by continuous numerical measures like intelligence Quotients or Mental-Age scores, and these are as real as any physical measurements are. But it is equally certain that our description of the difference between a genius and an average person by a statement to the effect that he has an IQ greater by this or that amount, does not describe the difference between them as completely or in the same way as when we say that a mile is much longer than an inch. The genius (as regards intellectual ability) not only has an IQ of say 50 points more than the average person, but in virtue of this difference acquires seemingly new aspects (potentialities) or characteristics. These seemingly new aspects or characteristics, in their totality, are what go to make up the "qualitative" difference between them [9, p. 134].

Wechsler is saying quite plainly that those with IQs above 150 are different in kind from those below that level. He is saying that they are a different kind of mind, a different kind of human being.

Labels: ,

247 Comments:

1 – 200 of 247 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Koanic December 26, 2016 7:18 AM  

This is a comparison of a large sample of VHIQ to an UHIQ, not the class of UHIQs.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 26, 2016 7:20 AM  

- VHIQ inclines towards binary either/or thinking and taking sides.

Outwardly not visible when we put our fighting rhetorical hats on.

- UHIQ seeks understanding towards holistic
understanding.

Being a science type, I refer to this as "understanding the universe". Why books from otherwise or eventually off their rocker types like Richard Dawkins can be of great value, like The Selfish Gene, which also launched the meme of the meme.

- UHIQ synthesizes multiple original thoughts

This, so very much this. If you see someone making an original synthesis from disparate sources, it's probably a good sign you're witnessing a UHIQ in action. From our side, the trick often then becomes figuring out how to explain it to VHIQs.

- VHIQ enjoys pedantry. UHIQ hates it.

Perhaps related to the above, and certainly to many of the other points. When it happens, I wonder if the VHIQ just does not get it, which is to be expected, especially to the extent we fail at explaining. At the other and all too common end of the spectrum they're being trolls.

- VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force.

What do you mean by "force"?

- UHIQ sees no point in hesitating to admit [their errors].

This is what saved me from Gammatude et. al., an early starting in 1st grade focus on science, in which this is ostensibly one of the very most important values. Of course, with UHIQs being kept out of most slots in institutional science nowadays you don't see all that much of it, but the ideal was true in the living memory or thereabouts of the field. Look for example at the development of quantum mechanics, I recommend this relatively short book: Thirty Years that Shook Physics. Note how at the very beginning the already well established Max Planck refused to "die on [the] conceptual hill" of classical physics, which just wasn't explaining critical things.

Anonymous #8601 December 26, 2016 7:24 AM  

Vox, do you mean solipsistic in a female way, or in a more strict philosophical way, i.e. only the self can be proved to exist?

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 7:26 AM  

Vox, do you mean solipsistic in a female way, or in a more strict philosophical way, i.e. only the self can be proved to exist?

In a loose philosophical way. Only the self is perceived to be relevant.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 26, 2016 7:29 AM  

@1 Koanic:

This is a comparison of a large sample of VHIQ to an UHIQ, not the class of UHIQs.

As someone who, like our host, is at the low end of UHIQs and who spent a dozen years in the company of many 1SD+ further UHIQs, he's spot on, modulo that bit about "force" I don't yet know what he's referring to.

Blogger Roger Hill December 26, 2016 7:30 AM  

When considering a UHIQ mind like that of G.K. Chesterton, one can easily recognize applications of these general tendencies in his work.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 7:36 AM  

As someone who, like our host, is at the low end of UHIQs

Ironically, that betrays a tendency towards quantitative thinking on your part. It's not about the numbers at all. It's entirely possible for a 175 IQ to be VHIQ and for a 145 IQ to be UHIQ.

I even suspect that UHIQ is compartmentalized, which may explain the pedestrian thinking of the math geniuses outside their area of particular brilliance. I'm not sure what the compartments are, however, between math, not-math logic, not-math pattern, and not math not logic not pattern. Most UHIQ I've encountered only seem to have one.

Blogger Stilicho December 26, 2016 7:43 AM  

The VHIQ will take great pains to and great pleasure in explaining every foothold he use to climb straight up the mountain. The UHIQ will tell him that he doesn't need to hear about it, he watched from the top of the mountain until he got bored and flew to a different mountain top.

Caveat: the VHIQ is much more likely to be conventionally successful in his endeavors (e.g. Edison vs Tesla).

Anonymous Aphelion December 26, 2016 7:43 AM  

Enlightening. I work for a VHIQ who has a remarkable memory. But he certainly is a binary thinker. There are many times I just stop explaining things because I know he doesn't and won't understand my point of view.

He reminds me of one of the midwit commentators all upset about the Donald's Twitter feed. I see the Donald resetting the table, or moving the window, to prepare for new negotiations with Russia, China, the UN and others.

Too many western leaders are stuck in the binary and answering the wrong questions to boot.

Anonymous Jeffrey Quick December 26, 2016 7:44 AM  

Well, that was humbling.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable December 26, 2016 7:46 AM  

I even suspect that UHIQ is compartmentalized, which may explain the pedestrian thinking of the math geniuses outside their area of particular brilliance. I'm not sure what the compartments are, however, between math, not-math logic, not-math pattern, and not math not logic not pattern. Most UHIQ I've encountered only seem to have one.

This is VERY interesting and explains a great deal.

Blogger ZhukovG December 26, 2016 7:50 AM  

Very interesting; I look forward to your upcoming post.

Blogger Cataline Sergius December 26, 2016 7:51 AM  

@VD

Is the individual who suffers from what I term Attention Surplus Disorder more likely to be VHIQ or UHIQ?


Not asking for me, you understand. Of all my problems, this assuredly ain't one of 'em.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 26, 2016 7:51 AM  

@7 VD:

As someone who, like our host, is at the low end of UHIQs

Ironically, that betrays a tendency towards quantitative thinking on your part. It's not about the numbers at all.


Nah, it's an very recent application of what you've told us about the spectrum of IQ levels and what that tends to mean, to try to explain things like what I witnessed when surrounded by plenty of other UHIQs (and of course pure g is not a reliable guide). I'm going to group the next two sentences together, based on those observations:

It's entirely possible for a 175 IQ to be VHIQ and for a 145 IQ to be UHIQ.

I even suspect that UHIQ is compartmentalized....
.

That is absolutely the case, although I too haven't been able to figure out what the "compartments", or perhaps unhindered talent sets are.

For example, you've got to be good at situational awareness, and I'll bet also at 3D visualization (I presume this from your gaming and sports and martial arts side). I really suck at the former, the latter plus a certain sort of memory allowed me to breeze through organic chemistry without having to use those little plastic "LEGOs for chemists" kits.

Blogger Stilicho December 26, 2016 7:51 AM  

Re: compartmentalization, I think that's part of it, but there are also tendencies on the part of individuals to use their raw abilities differently. If you drive a 500 hp GT 350 like a granny heading to the grocery store, a race car driver in a camry will beat you every time. Personality plays a huge role in how intelligence manifests.

Anonymous Anonymous December 26, 2016 7:55 AM  

This blog is fast becoming very basic bitch boring.

Anonymous h December 26, 2016 7:57 AM  

This blog is fast becoming very basic bitch boring. I think I'll be removing it from my feed. Your writing isn't anywhere as profound as you've been thinking it is this past year.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 8:01 AM  

there are also tendencies on the part of individuals to use their raw abilities differently. If you drive a 500 hp GT 350 like a granny heading to the grocery store, a race car driver in a camry will beat you every time.

Of course. But we're not talking about anyone beating anyone. A midwit Alpha will almost always outperform a brilliant Gamma or Omega, because the Gamma sabotages himself and the Omega might not actually tell anyone about his breakthrough insight. We're talking about qualitative differences in the modes of thought.

Smart is like normal, only more and faster. But really smart is not just more and faster smart. It's something else. VHIQ is more and faster smart. UHIQ is something else. For the technicals, it's like a more efficient operating system and faster hardware, vs faster hardware on the same OS.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 8:02 AM  

I think I'll be removing it from my feed.

It sounds like you probably should.

Blogger Lazarus December 26, 2016 8:09 AM  

The descriptions of the VHIQ thought processes present more ego involvement than the descriptions of the UHIQ.

Blogger JDC December 26, 2016 8:10 AM  

VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force.

Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14: 31-33)

Blogger Pravda Zvíťazí December 26, 2016 8:10 AM  

@That Would Be Telling
"What do you mean by 'force'?" Goes to a few of the other points.
"UHIQ accepts logical conclusions","UHIQ synthesizes multiple original thoughts","UHIQ inclines towards probabilistic thinking and balancing between contradictory possibilities.", and finally,"VHIQ seeks understanding towards application or justification, UHIQ seeks understanding towards holistic understanding."

The reason UHIQ seemingly backs down isn't weakness, but because it wasn't a competition to them to begin with. As soon as a new idea passes their entry- level bullshit tests, UHIQ looks at it like a shiny new toy, and can't wait to try it out. This isn't necessarily wholehearted doctrinal acceptance of the other guy's point, but rather an attempt to jump off his thought towards a greater understanding of the truth. Probably also goes towards their solipsism, and might be why so many UHIQ people believe in God: they feel alone in the realm of ideas, and hope someone (or Someone) else is coming to join them.

My UHIQ boss will do this all the time: argue against me for 20 minutes, then pick up my position without skipping a beat, or acknowledging that I "won." It can be annoying as hell.

Blogger My Dead Gramps December 26, 2016 8:18 AM  

Spend a couple of hours with a mentally retarded individual that's on the upper quartile of intelligence (for a retard) talking about life. That's what I imagine UHIQs feel like when trying to explain things to the rest of us.

Blogger rumpole5 December 26, 2016 8:19 AM  

"Basic bitch boring" -- Yep, and you can just skip the posts that don't interest you. I skip most of the game ones, some of the Castilia and football ones. It's his blog and he can post whatever the hell he wants! It's disgusting to me that you have the temerity to criticize your better.- impudent Jerk!

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 26, 2016 8:19 AM  

@7 VD:

Ironically, that betrays a tendency towards quantitative thinking on your part.


Actually, while you were wrong in this case, I will note that as part of my training in science I did learn to routinely "do the math." It short circuits a great many things that take up way too much time and mind share among the innumerate, see especially the Greens for whom it's not a religion.

I can't find a reference to the book right now, but there's one out there on three thinkers of note, including John McCarthy, one of the 5 "fathers of AI" although best known for inventing the Lisp programming language. In it, he mentions a trick he dod in a general education sort of class, where he posits a man who's gifted with a healing touch, all he has to do is touch someone for a moment and they're healed of whatever condition they're suffering from. He then tells the class to come back in the next session with what they think the healer's fate might be.

Uniformly nasty, of course, but then he points out that if you "do the math", with a system of conveyor belts, allowing him to touch with either hand or even foot patients as they travel by, he could cure everyone in the world only spending a half-hour or so each day....

Fermi would probably be a supreme example of a numerate UHIQ, theory, experimentation (including having the judgement to light off the first nuclear reactor in the middle of Chicago when the originally planned way out there site was unavailable due to striking workers), and those famous Fermi questions.

Anonymous JamesV December 26, 2016 8:25 AM  

This does help explain why people tend to think I'm smart when I know for a fact that, test wise, I'm just above average. For some reason I can look at a something holistically and often have what seem to be inspired insights about it. On the other hand, compared to my colleagues it takes me a long time to get the holistic picture figured out. The frustrating part is that I never know how much of a topic I need to learn before I'm going to be able to think unconventionally about it and in a lot of cases I never get there. What I have learned though is to reserve judgement until I know more.

In engineering school one of my fellow students commented on my ability to naturally discern the solution to a homework problem. I didn't know how to take that comment because even if I had an insight I wasn't nearly as quick in figuring out how to apply the subject specific mathematical techniques to describe the solution.

Now, how to harness this new information and apply it...if only I were smarter I might figure out a way to do that. I'll just wait for a epiphany I guess.

Anonymous JustAnotherPairOfEyes December 26, 2016 8:28 AM  

I'm in science. I think the really critical things are the tendency of VHIQ to rationalize logical conclusions and errors. It's a matter of "the smarter you are, the better you are at rationalizing anything", not just the things that happen to be true.

The rationalizations seem to often take the form of narratives. Facts are ignored or exploited according to whether they fit the narrative or not.

I suspect this is due to memory in the primate brain being organized around narratives. It's not just that the SJWs believe false narratives, it's also the method that the champion memorizers (mnemonics) use. That is, they memorize the 52 cards in a shuffled deck by transforming the cards into a narrative. It's so much easier for mankind to remember narratives. They claim that anyone can train themselves to be able to repeatedly memorize 52 cards in something like a minute. I've seen a guy memorize the initial condition of 12 Rubik's cubes and then solve them all while blind folded.

Same thing applies in science. The weaker minds understand principles of physics as if they were narratives. This is very limiting. The only part of a narrative that can be tested are the equations it implies. And most people fail to recognize that those equations do not imply the narrative. That is, there are many different possible explanations for the same set of equations but we teach only one.

Some of the best examples I've seen of people limited by the narrative method of understanding are people with photographic memories.

Blogger Ezekiel December 26, 2016 8:38 AM  

"Now, obviously I am somewhat handicapped in explaining this because I have never not thought the way that I do now"

That is a problem, isn't it? No one can every really know what it's like to be smarter or dumber or just different than he already is.

I suspect this explains a great deal of the mind-altering drug abuse among people who should know better.

Anonymous Rien December 26, 2016 8:47 AM  

@VD

It struck me that life experience seems to be involved in this as well. I.e. that the natural progression for (high IQ) people would be from VHIQ to UHIQ on your list.

Anonymous type6 December 26, 2016 8:49 AM  

Answer type 6 incoming.

For example, when I read something, even something about which I am inherently dubious, I do so in what is essentially an intellectual clean room. I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying.

However, upon encountering an obvious falsehood, non sequitur, bait-and-switch, or erroneous leap of logic, the clean room is muddied. The more mud that accumulates, and the more rapidly it is accumulated, the more certain that I am of the text containing errors. I don't know exactly what they are yet, because I'm not reading critically, and I don't retain more than a general sense of where on the page the mud is, but I know where to go and look for it, and perhaps more importantly, I know with almost 100 percent certainty that I will find something there.


Very interesting insight. Both in the difference between critical reading and emphatic reading. Never thought of it as an intellectual clean room, always thought of it as my mind being lazy and not using its full potential.

Also applies to fantasy books where you simply accept the world as the author paints it, no matter how different it is from the real world. But once the author breaks the logic of his own world it does take away from the enjoyment of the book.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch December 26, 2016 8:50 AM  

I seem to have traits of both of the IQ types you've listed.

For me, this is also sort of like my difficulty with the sociosexual Alpha/Beta/Gamma hierarchy. I find myself behaving like one or the other at different times. For example, I'm Alpha at home, but Sigma at work--and sometimes Delta. And I've "been at my worst" before and acted Gamma.

So,too, with this new IQ categorization. Sometimes, I'm competitive, but other times, I choose not to keep score. Sometimes I try to make order out of chaos, other times, I'm wallowing in the Cult of Kek.

I wonder if there are others who find themselves in this position, and what does it mean? Is it common? More questions spring up.

Blogger JK December 26, 2016 8:51 AM  

Very cool post, Vox...best for while. It feels so right..

Blogger Orville December 26, 2016 8:51 AM  

"Most UHIQ I've encountered only seem to have one." Maybe they are non-idiot savants. Normal in all respects, but nearly a savant in one.

Along those lines since the desire to rationalize may be at its core an emotional response to chaos, the UHIQs may have a slightly suppressed emotional level, but since I've never been around any its pure speculation.

Anonymous Don December 26, 2016 8:52 AM  

" I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying."

That line was fascinating. Is that always the case for you Vox or are there times when you go into a book with skepticism such as when you read some of the new atheist books?

Anonymous bobdobbs December 26, 2016 9:02 AM  

Point 12.

Blogger Rambam December 26, 2016 9:10 AM  

Whoa? That was a mind full.

Blogger Some Dude December 26, 2016 9:14 AM  

5 Observations:

1. You may want to look into the qualitative difference between a quant leaning mind and a verbal leaning mind. This explains the compartmentalising. What do you think about on the bus, in the doctor's waiting room or before you sleep - objects or people?
2 UHIQ ad hominem. VHIQ read long tracts. In a new environment/new field one will initially read to establish the nature of the 'jury' you refer to and its composition - then collapse this information to filter by sources primarily, information secondarily. We can detect obvious falsehoods and sophistry...but we cannot detect what information is left out or engineered to be true from the texts alone I'm afraid.
3 VHIQ specialise in knowledge. UHIQ systemize.
4. UHIQ are not ideological. VHIQ usually are. Dropping the ideological teddy bear anchoring of Master, or in the Western case, (((Master))), is primarily emotional bravery however. This is why women love 'bad boys', psychopaths and schizos, because they are instinctively inclined to 'shrug' brainwashing off from a young age and not rely on 3SD+ verbal IQ to work out the Illusion after 20 years of research like Charlie Munger.
5. UHIQ are more aware of their biases and weaknesses and seek out others to compensate in their thinking process. VHIQ people are not and functional in seeking out others to agree with them, work towards a specified goal or perfect upon what they say.

Vox is a sci-fi writer. They usually have a very strong profile. This post in particular is a great example of the quality of the observational mind needed in that field. Sci fi fiction writing is the most complex, and most rewarding.

I recommend people interested in this topic reading Nick Taleb's Intellectual Yet Idiot essays - it's a similar vain.

You wanna know what the biggest secret is though fellers?

High IQ is largely maladaptive. High testosterone is not. There is no clear ceiling for test except other's subduing you. But high IQ runs into the autist/schizo wall eventually.

Read about genius. Then read about their children to see, to see, to see. The pattern is unmistakeable. Its a tradeoff between survival and splendour at a meta level.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 26, 2016 9:16 AM  

@32 Orville:

"Most UHIQ I've encountered only seem to have one." Maybe they are non-idiot savants. Normal in all respects, but nearly a savant in one.

Along those lines since the desire to rationalize may be at its core an emotional response to chaos, the UHIQs may have a slightly suppressed emotional level....


Or maybe life history, or that leading to your concept of "suppressed emotional level." I'd expect differences between someone who grew up in an "ideal" city, that is, not the currently chaotic ones in the West which have been "abandoned" to the insane, the criminally minded and so on (scare quotes because the role they play is of value to many), vs. more out in "chaotic" nature. Pushing yourself through undergrowth and brambles does not encourage a view of the universe that's neatly ordered....

And, hmmm, kids in the US aren't even particularly allowed anymore to thoroughly "explore Nature" on their own for hours to months at end.

Blogger Lee Katt December 26, 2016 9:24 AM  

Half of these distinctions, if not more, are about character and maturity. Some are temperament. Perceiving v. judging, or seeking closure v. open-ended investigation may be characteristic of ultras, but they are also characteristics that anyone can learn.

I've been blessed to work with and be friends with several people who are "ultras" in the IQ department. I have found:

* extremely fast processing speed.
* excellent memory.
* the ability to (very completely) finish off a thought, tell a story, or articulate a concept. They often have great ability to clarify concepts and explain complex things simply and concretely.
* precise thinking. They use the words they mean to use, in the way they mean to use them, and no more.
* parallelism. They make links between things that others may not see.
* processing power. They have real stamina in thinking things through. Often great visualization power.
* details. Some often have great attention to detail after they power through the big concepts.
* when it comes to learning, they equate memory/recall with understanding (although they have great recall). If they can't remember, they just recreate the concept from scratch.

But then there are more mystical elements. Some of spoken to me about "textures" of thought and seeing concepts in their minds in terms of shape and form, which they can take as a way of knowing whether or not they are on the right track -- sounds to me like they may actually wander into a realm of platonic forms. Many, I suspect, get lost there.

One thing I also see (as a negative) in ultras is sometimes they seek a theory of everything. I think they finding the "ultimate synthesis" a great temptation.

I also think since their brains are essentially Ferraris, they need to have space to race as they fast and far as they can, and they can't do that if they are always bottled up in traffic.

Blogger Doug Cranmer December 26, 2016 9:27 AM  

See category 4.

I'm more inclined to 6. Who doesn't like hearing about me?

Anonymous User December 26, 2016 9:29 AM  

Edsgar Dijkstra is a fascinating example. He clearly had a brilliant and lively mind, but refined and used formal reasoning to convince himself with absolute certainty of the correctness of his arguments.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 9:29 AM  

It struck me that life experience seems to be involved in this as well. I.e. that the natural progression for (high IQ) people would be from VHIQ to UHIQ on your list.

It would seem so, but I am dubious. I can't recall ever seeing anyone switch from one to the other. As for me, my thinking has always been unorthodox, from the time I accidentally won a drawing competition in first grade by tracing an encyclopedia image to the time I found a structural contradiction in a giant corporation's decades' old marketing program two weeks ago.

Tens of thousands of people have used it without incidence for more than 20 years. So, naturally, I ran into a designed-in showstopper the first time I used it.

Blogger wreckage December 26, 2016 9:31 AM  

Well, I think like a UHIQ, except when I can't. Most certainly this is a compartmentalization issue, since I am not measured as UHIQ. I need not say that it's immensely frustrating to have cognitive processes that are UHIQ enough to continually bang into the fact that I don't have the raw horsepower to run it.

But it DOES explain why people I think of as smart consistently fail to think, even when I hand-hold them through it. From their perspective, I am doing it wrong.

I wonder if this is what it's like to acquire a brain injury and just wake up one morning retarded?

In any case it illuminates Vox's apparent ability in his fiction to maintain as though valid several completely opposed moral and emotional systems, without backing into a dry, rules-based iteration of his pre-determined rubric of cultural and personal differences, and to do so, it seems, for several different individuals and cultures without any attempt to rationalize the differences nor any sign of breaking a sweat.

I've just started in on the Selenoth short stories and I found that aspect most impressive.

Blogger Some Dude December 26, 2016 9:34 AM  

In my later years I reflected how they always scorned people Freddy and James for not paying attention in school and skipping out.

But Freddy always had a girl and James was respected by the lads, even feared.

The lads went on to college to read sophistry in the social sciences or narrow practical specialisations in natural sciences. In time some of the lads parroted Master's slogans in pretty language, or curated his ideology...while still others made Master's extraction system more efficient, more robust...and Master and his cronies became more wealthy and powerful either way.

In the end, dust blowing across my porch I realised Freddy and James may be broke, on welfare or dead. Who knows, right?

But they always worked for themselves. They were their own bosses. Even though they were assholes. And deep down lads and girls knew that alike.

Blogger Bodo Staron December 26, 2016 9:37 AM  

There are lot of comments about logic and reason and brain power.

How does this relate to someone in art, like Michelangelo.
Is someone like that just "talented" and a great craftsman, or does his art reflect some higher genius?

Blogger Seth Schueler December 26, 2016 9:40 AM  

Great post Vox. Could you please expand on this point. "VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force."

Blogger wreckage December 26, 2016 9:40 AM  

Truly great naturalistic art requires, at least unconsciously, a lot of mathematical processing power. I would say that in art more than in some other pursuits, there are very hard ceilings on achievement without genius.

Blogger Doug Cranmer December 26, 2016 9:42 AM  

This blog is great that way.

Anonymous type6 December 26, 2016 9:46 AM  

Could you please expand on this point. "VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force."

Can someone explain what's not to understand about that point? Seems to me everything is spelled out already.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 9:47 AM  

That's what I imagine UHIQs feel like when trying to explain things to the rest of us.

It's not QUITE that bad. Among other things, we're used to it. Anytime you see someone switch effortlessly from trying to explain something one way to trying to explain it another way, that is a potential indicator that they are highly intelligent. Eventually one lands upon a language the monkeys will comprehend....

Big Bang played this for laughs when Sheldon was asked how he felt holding his newborn nephew. He said something about staring into the blankly uncomprehending eyes of a clueless being, shrugged, and said it was pretty much like dealing with everyone else. My life became much easier for both me and everyone around me when I stopped sharing what I was thinking and learned to talk about a) music, b) sports, and c) current events.

Now you know why I have zero patience with the "sports are trivial" crowd.

In any case it illuminates Vox's apparent ability in his fiction to maintain as though valid several completely opposed moral and emotional systems, without backing into a dry, rules-based iteration of his pre-determined rubric of cultural and personal differences, and to do so, it seems, for several different individuals and cultures without any attempt to rationalize the differences nor any sign of breaking a sweat.

That does make sense. I often wondered why other writers always seem to feel the need to "take sides" when it's not appropriate for the story.

Is that always the case for you Vox or are there times when you go into a book with skepticism such as when you read some of the new atheist books?

Pretty much. I often feel vaguely embarrassed with myself after reading a book I consider to be nonsense. Even the recollection of that momentary period of prospective agreement with complete nonsense can feel humiliating.

Blogger Some Dude December 26, 2016 9:50 AM  

"But then there are more mystical elements. Some of spoken to me about "textures" of thought and seeing concepts in their minds in terms of shape and form, which they can take as a way of knowing whether or not they are on the right track -- sounds to me like they may actually wander into a realm of platonic forms. Many, I suspect, get lost there."

YE--ahh--SS!!!! Not just shape - colour! Sadness has many colours, but_happiness_can not be defined by the reciprocal of those hues Derida.

Math is lego logic. Verbal is liquid logic.

Thass why Wittgenstein who lego man baby caann figuz out language isn't uh programming function. Laballin isnt LogiK Witty. Go back 2 schul. Witgenstein proved autistic people can't do philosopheee without devolving into sophistreee. Russell never writing NEthing insightful beyond set theory!! Whyy!! OH why!!!

I don't read the philosophee to learn how to write a legal contract. I read it to read the reason. If Philosopher want to speak like Kinshasa man, he c^an stille make sens-e. You know? The Sense.

Autistche shudnt run world affaiz either cos theyd be duped by (((O___0))) The schizo verbal people.

Merry Christ. I go now back to my people.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 26, 2016 9:53 AM  

@41 VD:

[M]y thinking has always been unorthodox, from the time I accidentally won a drawing competition in first grade by tracing an encyclopedia image to the time I found a structural contradiction in a giant corporation's decades' old marketing program two weeks ago.

Tens of thousands of people have used it without incidence for more than 20 years. So, naturally, I ran into a designed-in showstopper the first time I used it.


An example of perhaps this sort of thing that I've experienced in my career of programming is independently solving a problem without notable effort that everyone else who'd put their hand to it didn't, at least acceptably. In one domain which became generally just tractable and therefore cutting edge on PCs for a few years in the '90s it was all but uncanny.

For one problem, it was in part a total refusal to "do the math" and see that no disk system you could build at that time could handle the IOPS required, and I could point out "M times N is much greater than [available IOPS]" and that was just ignored, even when that caused The Big Project to abjectly fail. It wasn't essential to the nature of the project, just a detail, so it shouldn't have been "political" unless it was so because it came from me, the boss at the very top did have a preference for those who told him what he wanted to hear at any moment.

In many other examples, it was an "I just can't imagine how they can make it so slow". Although that can often be easily answered by code examination or profiling, and, yeah, these sorts of people tended to treat it all as a mysterious black box instead of using tools to figure out what was inside it and actually going on.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 9:55 AM  

VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force.

VHIQ tends to be emotionally attached to concepts it embraces, or worse, feels it understands. UHIQ isn't, and finds it much more easy to relinquish concepts it previously embraced wholeheartedly.

Compare my reaction to Ian Fletcher poking holes in free trade to Francis Fukuyama's reaction to events poking holes in his End of History thesis for a comparison that should prove illuminating.

VHIQ: That's obviously wrong and I shall write multiple long, contorted, mutually-contradicting arguments proving it to be wrong!

UHIQ: That can't possibly be right, can it?

Dirty little secret: if a UHIQ won't even entertain your argument, he doesn't just think you're wrong. I never avoid debates for fear I might lose one. I frequently avoid them out of a perception that I will win in a matter too painful for the other party to bear.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) December 26, 2016 9:57 AM  

Smart is like normal, only more and faster. But really smart is not just more and faster smart. It's something else. VHIQ is more and faster smart. UHIQ is something else. For the technicals, it's like a more efficient operating system and faster hardware, vs faster hardware on the same OS.

I would imagine it's like the difference between the gym rat who takes 1000 shots a day after practice and Lebron James.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 9:58 AM  

#6 was not actually an invitation, That Would Be Telling.

Blogger wreckage December 26, 2016 10:00 AM  

Uh, do you mean early or late Wittgenstein? because while I don't really understand late Wittgenstein, once you boil it down to core concepts it's very helpful in systematizing the absence of knowledge. Kind of mashing that and The Road to Serfdom together was a kind of intellectual renaissance to me. Realizing that the absence of knowledge was a working part of the model really helped.

I have a weird-arse quasi-physical model of knowledge itself in my head. I can see ideas that fit and ideas that don't, sometimes even see how they interact, and sometimes even for concepts I do not fully understand. It's mostly concerned with how energy, knowledge, and economy are all the same thing fundamentally. I don't fully understand the model but over time more and more observable facts fit neatly into it.

Blogger Doug Cranmer December 26, 2016 10:01 AM  

"It's a matter of "the smarter you are, the better you are at rationalizing anything", not just the things that happen to be true."

In my readings economists strike me this way.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable December 26, 2016 10:04 AM  

#6 was not actually an invitation, That Would Be Telling.

It's like you call 'em, and then we all just count the seconds until someone does it anyway.

Blogger Zimri December 26, 2016 10:04 AM  

'VHIQ seeks understanding towards application or justification. ... VHIQ asks "how can this be used?" UHIQ asks "what does this mean?'

So, the difference between engineers and pure physicists.

Anonymous Viidad December 26, 2016 10:05 AM  

Interesting. I scored "Sigma" again.

Blogger wreckage December 26, 2016 10:06 AM  

Uh, yeah, that was a bit #6 of me. Interesting ideas tend to make me want to test them on some of the black-box sections of my brain and see what happens.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft December 26, 2016 10:10 AM  

VD, in many ways I see several of your VHIQ vs. UHIQ traits as being perhaps more indicative, of hubristic/narcissistic/self-deceiving traits versus those that are innocent/uncorrupted/honest.

These traits are the rationalization pair, the prove self correct/competitive, and the egocentric/die-on-my-hill couple.

I don't, of myself, think that those particular traits are direct sources of differing IQs. Perhaps they are, but that has some quite disturbing implications. I find it at least apparently more likely that those negative traits lower the power/capacity of the IQ, rather than being innate to certain individuals. In other words that those traits "cause" lower function where they are found, rather than being innate to all lower functioning minds within a certain range.

Perhaps my error here is in thinking that IQ is mostly or entirely hereditary, where I see those negative points as learned behaviors that are possible to correct.

As a parting duo of notes, I may be simplistically merging concepts you find to be obviously distinct, but to me it looks like your list has several nigh-identical repetitions as well. In addition, the rest of your list seems solid.

Blogger wreckage December 26, 2016 10:12 AM  

#56 It's a major failing of smart people that their biggest advantage often seems to be how thoroughly they can outsmart themselves.

Sometimes you just need to let the concept float in your mental space instead of trying to ram it into one of your pre-existing boxes. Look for links but don't commit. Smart people cripple themselves by trying to make the universe less smart than them.

I suspect UHIQ people, having few or now direct competitors, never feel the universe as an ego-threat, explaining their ability to evaluate new ideas, accept chaos, and change models without flinching. Well, two reasons spring to mind:

1. No threat to ego.
2. Having to remodel is much less onerous so they are much less reluctant to do so.

A combination of ego-threat and plain old calorie conservation explains a lot of the weaknesses of the VHIQ characteristics as laid out here.

Blogger seeingsights December 26, 2016 10:13 AM  

Vox Day supports limiting immigration. But I wonder if he would make an exception for high IQ Asians. Vox Day places high value on IQ and is a Japanophile.

Blogger Ben Cohen December 26, 2016 10:14 AM  

Hmm

Anonymous Viidad December 26, 2016 10:15 AM  

I see there being both overlap and contradictions between these notes on VHIQ and UHIQ.

Some of these categories might easily be used by a high IQ individual regularly.

Compare

"VHIQ believes in the unique power of SCIENCE. UHIQ sees science as a conceptual framework of limited utility."

And

VHIQ asks "how can this be used?" UHIQ asks "what does this mean?"

UHIQ could also easily ask how the utility science provides could be used. VHIQ could similarly wonder both what something means and what it could be used for.

For a crude example, one could know how percentages are calculated and find playing with mortgage amortizations entertaining (abstraction) - yet the real-world application to personal finances (utility) salts the dish.

Anonymous KG December 26, 2016 10:16 AM  

"For example, when I read something, even something about which I am inherently dubious, I do so in what is essentially an intellectual clean room. I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying."

I do the same thing! I'm surprised no one has quoted aristotle here; "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Anonymous Kudos The Lexecutioner December 26, 2016 10:21 AM  

In response to the statement "It must be nice to be the smartest person in the room," the VHIQ will reply: "No. It's awful." (see "Broadcast News"). The UHIQ will reply: "I don't know, you'd have to ask the smartest person."

Most VHIQs just assume that because they are smart (or rather, credentialed, which is what seems to pass for "smart" these days) and don't immediately see someone just as smart, they are the only very smart one in the room. The UHIQs seem to always have the self-critical thought that maybe someone there is smarter, but they haven't recognized who it is yet.

UHIQs often seem unable to understand why everyone else doesn't "get" things the way they do. It's like a musician with perfect pitch trying to understand why everyone else doesn't hear that the singer is off-key.

That's just my perception, for what it's worth.

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams December 26, 2016 10:22 AM  

The Myers Briggs personality test categorizes this as intuitive vs sensing. Intuitive people are about 30% of the population.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.htm

Anonymous NateM December 26, 2016 10:24 AM  

Most of the traits that seemed observably true were the ones I noticed from reading here for so long, not so much in myself (though a few have rubbed off through learned behavior). Reading VP really does confer benefits. Also learning about European politics I'd never have really paid much attention to otherwise.

Anonymous Salt December 26, 2016 10:30 AM  

seeingsights wrote:Vox Day supports limiting immigration. But I wonder if he would make an exception for high IQ Asians.

/cultural facepalm

Anonymous Bob December 26, 2016 10:34 AM  

Would it be accurate to summarize ... my feels vs. the truth.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 26, 2016 10:37 AM  

Some of UHIQ may not show up until adulthood. I also tend to think the UHIQ are comfortable accepting the complexity of reality & their place in it. Instead of left or right, there's ebb, flow, trend & exception.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr December 26, 2016 10:38 AM  

What I've seen over the course of my career is that most people, even VHIQs, tend to think inside the box. There's no creative spark, no ability to connect to ideas outside the defined workspace. They operate following a cookbook.

There are a handful of people who have that creative spark. They don't recognize the box ever existed, and cheerfully pull elements from outside the normal definition of the working area to solve problems. They write their own cookbook...then ignore half of it.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy December 26, 2016 10:40 AM  

Kudos The Lexecutioner wrote:In response to the statement "It must be nice to be the smartest person in the room," the VHIQ will reply: "No. It's awful." (see "Broadcast News"). The UHIQ will reply: "I don't know, you'd have to ask the smartest person."

… The UHIQs seem to always have the self-critical thought that maybe someone there is smarter, but they haven't recognized who it is yet.

Nope. We usually catch on some time before we go find a different room.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft December 26, 2016 10:40 AM  

@71. Partly.

Perhaps more accurate to summarize "quick-N-dirty conclusions" vs. "indeterminate flexibility".

Blogger Benjamin Kraft December 26, 2016 10:45 AM  

@73. Some people call that "associative horizons", saying that it encompasses both the number and the width of variety of different concepts to which one intuitively relates any given item.

It actually has a lot to do with "insanity" because people who make "too-broad" of associations either cannot maintain cohesion of thought, or perhaps more accurately, everyone else cannot possibly follow their comparisons/allegories/analogies/allusions/logic, so they are seen as insane whether they actually are or not.

Blogger rycamor December 26, 2016 10:46 AM  

Lee Katt wrote:
* the ability to (very completely) finish off a thought, tell a story, or articulate a concept. They often have great ability to clarify concepts and explain complex things simply and concretely.


UHIQ may be better able to explain a complex concept to those less intelligent (HIQ), but VHIQ are better able to explain *how they think* to the HIQ, by dint of their focus on formalities and formulas, allowing the plodding HIQs to approximate their success to some degree. This is why the VHIQ tend to do better commercially. I see this all the time in the world of software. VHIQ people come up with metric assloads of "methodologies", "philosophies", and layers of abstraction that allow the managerial types to imagine they can quantify by the man-hour, and give the regular programmers all kinds of handy metaphors and checklists to provide them a supposed objective framework to conform to. UHIQ developers will skip whole levels of abstraction and come up with solutions that alternately boggle or scandalize the regulars.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 10:50 AM  

Hey, I can use this as an excuse to talk about ME!

I lolled.

I'm not sure what the compartments are, however, between math, not-math logic, not-math pattern, and not math not logic not pattern. Most UHIQ I've encountered only seem to have one.

Ah, now that's interesting! (The rest I think could've been distilled down to "intellectual humility + cynicism".)

Anonymous eShamus December 26, 2016 10:51 AM  

VHIQ ~ Smart
UHIQ ~ Wise
?

Well done with applicable scriptural passage to illustrate.

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 26, 2016 10:55 AM  

VD
I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying.



i wouldn't go so far as to say that i "believe whatever the author is saying", but i don't have any issue with stipulating to points that *my interlocutor* is assuming for the purposes of THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION.


i notice that this often makes everyone else in the conversation loopy, that i'm not dogmatically adhering to some orthodoxy or other.

but the primary reason why i'm doing that ( stipulating to the opponent's point of argument or assumption ) is that i don't assess the point of orthodoxy as being A SALIENT in that particular discussion or argument.

this does NOT mean that i actually agree with the point being stipulated or that i would not argue that point at some other time / in another discussion.




2. That Would Be Telling December 26, 2016 7:20 AM
What do you mean by "force"?



i would characterize it as making an approach against the salient or weak point in the logic.

but then i'm not assuming that you think i'm UHIQ, so you may not consider this comment to have any bearing on the discussion.



16. h December 26, 2016 7:57 AM
This blog is fast becoming very basic bitch boring. I think I'll be removing it from my feed. Your writing isn't anywhere as profound as you've been thinking it is this past year.



so brave, thank you for this.



52. VD December 26, 2016 9:55 AM
I frequently avoid them out of a perception that I will win in a matter too painful for the other party to bear.



get the fuck out of here.

intergalactic level cruelty artist, not.

Blogger Tupla-J December 26, 2016 10:56 AM  

@79 Well put - as a young man I was perhaps sharper than I am now, but stupidly competitive and utterly naive. Getting older has taught me a thing or two about what meaningful interaction looks like. These days I waste a lot less time on informing those who refuse to accept information.

Blogger pyrrhus December 26, 2016 10:59 AM  

An example of UHIQ thinking that produces stunned responses from good engineers is that most of the Green ideas pushed by media stories every day, such as batteries that don't degrade, are literally impossible because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. You don't need to know any details.

Anonymous Type 5 December 26, 2016 11:06 AM  

I may or may not be a UHIQ, but I am a Secret King! So, I've got that going for me, which is nice.

Anonymous eShamus December 26, 2016 11:07 AM  

Imagine a matrix, categories of IQ as rows, SMP descriptors as column headers.

Be very interesting to know:
1) how can one change categories efficiently?
2) how to most efficiently and effectively communicate, lead, edify from one intersection towards others?

How would a mid-wit Alpha successfully team with a UHIQ Sigma, etc. (Likely easy to construct a narrative, but the gestalt could be fun.)

Blogger frigger611 December 26, 2016 11:17 AM  

@73, agreed - I think I remember something Vox wrote here quite some time ago - that while some claim a genius can "think outside the box," the truth is that a real genius doesn't even acknowledge that a box exists. That one has stuck with me.

Blogger Koanic December 26, 2016 11:21 AM  

"It's entirely possible for a 175 IQ to be VHIQ and for a 145 IQ to be UHIQ."

Which is why IQ is the wrong name for it.

Adaptiveness gets closer, in the "people are adaptation executors" sense.

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 26, 2016 11:22 AM  

82. pyrrhus December 26, 2016 10:59 AM
An example of UHIQ thinking that produces stunned responses from good engineers is that most of the Green ideas pushed by media stories every day



i think solar roads are one of the stupidest ideas i've ever heard of, for a multitude of reasons.

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/12/worlds-first-solar-road-opens-in-france/

and yet, i've got an improvement on the concept:
piezoelectricity.

IF
you're actually going to waste time and wealth on building out the infrastructure to a 'power generating road'
THEN
shouldn't the incremental cost of deriving power from passing over head traffic be practically negligible?

with the added benefit that piezo compression would not be dependent in any way on the weather or snow / ice cover, but rather on traffic volume ...

i'm not going to point that out to a Green engineer though, i don't want to encourage these morons.

Blogger Badmojo December 26, 2016 11:25 AM  

Larry Correia wrote a series - Grimnoir Chronicles - where he introduces magic-powered people called Cogs. Each has an area of extreme expertise - Einstein was physics, John Browning was machinery, specifically guns - but those skills didn't translate into other areas.

From that mindset, the "compartmentalized UHIQ" makes sense.

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 26, 2016 11:26 AM  

84. eShamus December 26, 2016 11:07 AM
Imagine a matrix, categories of IQ as rows, SMP descriptors as column headers.
...
1) how can one change categories efficiently?


i assume you flipped "category" from defining IQ to being an SMP column here?

because IQ is, according to the experts, highly inelastic.

Blogger praetorian December 26, 2016 11:28 AM  

The unfortunate thing about this distinction is that VHIQs can often dominate UHIQs in public debate/rhetorical situations. As UHIQs are prone to see both sides of an argument (almost all arguments have reasonable points on both sides) it becomes easy to concede a point or two out of intellectual honesty and then watch the middle-of-the-bell curve slip away as the VHIQ hammers away, ignoring or perhaps ignorant of what the UHIQ is getting at.

I posit this dynamic is why jews, the arguers par excellence, are so infuriatingly binary-oriented: they argue to win, not necessarily to get at the truth.

I think I'll be removing it from my feed.

Passive voice, faggot?

Blogger Nathaniel Blair December 26, 2016 11:33 AM  

@17 VD: For the technicals, it's like a more efficient operating system and faster hardware, vs faster hardware on the same OS.

EXACTLY! UHIQ is a brain (hardware) that's better genetically - your "COMPARTMENTS" are compartments of the brain!
- As opposed to VHIQ: better learning (OS) on a genetically inferior brain

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 11:34 AM  

Vox Day supports limiting immigration. But I wonder if he would make an exception for high IQ Asians.

No, he would not. Why would you want to import a ruling class with no attachment to the ruled, who will insist on importing more of their own once they hold sufficient influence?

It is because I respect Japanese culture that I want it to remain Japanese.

In response to the statement "It must be nice to be the smartest person in the room," the VHIQ will reply: "No. It's awful." (see "Broadcast News"). The UHIQ will reply: "I don't know, you'd have to ask the smartest person."

No, the UHIQ will assume, correctly, that he is the smartest person in the room in most circumstances. It's just a matter of mathematical probability, after all. Most VHIQ are also pretty relaxed about it; what you labeled VHIQ behavior is more indicative of the midwit, who desperately hopes to be considered the smart guy in the room by everyone and is eager to demonstrate it the first chance he gets. Which he will create, if need be.

Both VHIQ and UHIQ are more likely to respond with "what?" Because if it's not a direct question addressed to us or we're not directly engaged, we're probably not really listening to the low-level social dominance chatter.

The lack of HIQ conventional engagement can't be overstated. As recently amused Nate and some of the other ilk, I don't even have copies of some of my own books. The day ASOS was released, I recorded an entire show with Stefan Molyneux and forgot to tell him that I had a new novel out. Imagine a midwit neglecting to do that. You simply can't. Hell, given half the chance, a midwit would spend 30 minutes talking about the novel he planned to write someday.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 11:35 AM  

EXACTLY! UHIQ is a brain (hardware) that's better genetically - your "COMPARTMENTS" are compartments of the brain!
- As opposed to VHIQ: better learning (OS) on a genetically inferior brain


That was not a correct summation.

Anonymous KG December 26, 2016 11:38 AM  

they say that intelligence is linked to (poor) handwriting. I'm a genius!!

"The unfortunate thing about this distinction is that VHIQs can often dominate UHIQs in public debate/rhetorical situations. As UHIQs are prone to see both sides of an argument (almost all arguments have reasonable points on both sides) it becomes easy to concede a point or two out of intellectual honesty and then watch the middle-of-the-bell curve slip away as the VHIQ hammers away, ignoring or perhaps ignorant of what the UHIQ is getting at."

this could not be more true

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 11:42 AM  

The unfortunate thing about this distinction is that VHIQs can often dominate UHIQs in public debate/rhetorical situations. As UHIQs are prone to see both sides of an argument (almost all arguments have reasonable points on both sides) it becomes easy to concede a point or two out of intellectual honesty and then watch the middle-of-the-bell curve slip away as the VHIQ hammers away, ignoring or perhaps ignorant of what the UHIQ is getting at.

This is incorrect. Again, you're confusing midwits for VHIQs. VHIQ and UHIQ get along just fine; there are very few of either. Remember, VHIQs think like normal people, only better and faster. There is absolutely nothing wrong with how they think.

I posit this dynamic is why jews, the arguers par excellence, are so infuriatingly binary-oriented: they argue to win, not necessarily to get at the truth.

Not possible. The vast majority of Jews are nowhere nearly high IQ enough to qualify as VHIQ. We're talking minimum 3SD IQs here.

Blogger plishman December 26, 2016 11:51 AM  

"VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force."

Christ rose from the dead. A man who cannot be killed? On your knees. He cannot be beaten.

I surrender.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 12:01 PM  

might be why so many UHIQ people believe in God

No. I experience Him. His angels physically protect me, four of them led by Samuel, one at each corner of my car.

You can protest this claim all you want, and I will stubbornly assert it. You don't even know.

Blogger 1337kestrel December 26, 2016 12:04 PM  

I dunno, it seems pretty representative of UHIQ as a class, not that I've met many.

What I am interested in is genius, which is even more qualitatively different and more akin to the helicopter ride. Genius seems correlated with IQ but not quite as distinctly as this UHIQ description... Genius painters or musicians for example, who just see without the blinders everyone else has.

Also people who can write a program from top to bottom with a vague plan and have it run on the first try, or people who get great fully formed ideas out of nowhere. I know some of these are reproducible, and I can force myself to pop out an idea, but how is the process taking place?

On the other hand it's very straightforward to take existing ideas, analyze them to their fundamental elements, and create a "new" idea. To a third party this is indistinguishable from genius.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 26, 2016 12:04 PM  

This discussion is interesting but where it becomes fascinating is when we add the direction of focus. Internally focused people use their insights & syntheses in their lifelong process of being better today than they were yesterday. The ultra effect is still heterogeneous, such that its "benefits" only accrue directly to the individual. To some extent those benefits spread via secondary effects, but they really can't be taught or passed on.

My sons exhibit clearly different forms of high intelligence. One, for instance, used his "helicopter to the top" aptitude to complete his day-long examination for the PE (Professional Engineer), a system of tests most people can't complete in the allotted time. His gift is quite different from mine.

For this reason I believe that the aptitude being discussed, while related to "g," is quite difficult to encapsulate.

Perhaps it qualifies for designation as a 6th stage of mental development in the Piagetian format.

Anonymous type6 December 26, 2016 12:06 PM  

"The unfortunate thing about this distinction is that VHIQs can often dominate UHIQs in public debate/rhetorical situations. As UHIQs are prone to see both sides of an argument (almost all arguments have reasonable points on both sides) it becomes easy to concede a point or two out of intellectual honesty and then watch the middle-of-the-bell curve slip away as the VHIQ hammers away, ignoring or perhaps ignorant of what the UHIQ is getting at."

this could not be more true


It's wrong.

LowIQ person: sees one side
MidIQ person: sees two sides (so called intellectuals which populate our universities)
HighIQ person: sees hundreds of sides all at once

Vox has a post up about it.

OpenID elijahrhodes December 26, 2016 12:08 PM  

Vox, I'm curious about your take on this; a psychologist claims Trump has an IQ of 150+. Clearly Trump does not have high verbal intelligence, but without a doubt he displays masterful deftness in other ways. How would you position him on your UHIQ scale?

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2016/11/published-long-before-trump-won-primary.html

Anonymous grey enlightenment December 26, 2016 12:13 PM  

UHIQ are similar to VHIQ but the subtleties are probably lost on all but other UHIQs

Blogger dc.sunsets December 26, 2016 12:16 PM  

After I wrote a review of Prechter's "Pioneering Studies in Socionomics" some years back, Bob invited me to dinner to try to discern how it was that I "got it."

We spent a couple hours chatting about a broad spectrum of concepts but I don't think he came away knowing any more. The premises of his work are simply inaccessible to people who don't process things a certain way. They're counter-intuitive abstractions requiring the "clean room" ability VD mentioned. Biases are so strong in us that recognizing them, even inferring the existence of subconscious versions from reflexive thoughts, is a major aptitude.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 12:19 PM  

How would you position him on your UHIQ scale?

Not UHIQ. I could be COMPLETELY wrong, and indeed, some of his actions are surprisingly encouraging and bear further observation, but my perception is that he is VHIQ with a gift for low-level rhetoric.

I have always recognized that he is quite smart. Idiots don't go to Wharton. I see him more with an engineer-style high-IQ mind than an intellectual one.

Anonymous KG December 26, 2016 12:21 PM  

"It's wrong.

LowIQ person: sees one side
MidIQ person: sees two sides (so called intellectuals which populate our universities)
HighIQ person: sees hundreds of sides all at once

Vox has a post up about it."

I did indeed confuse the midwit for the VHIQ person. I dont pretend to be VHIQ or UHIQ, but I exhibit at least some traits of UHIQ and I sure have experienced the frustration of seeing things in a more holistic way, and allowing for the other party 's view to have some validity and only to have that used against me.

Anonymous BBGKB December 26, 2016 12:22 PM  

VHIQ is uncomfortable with chaos and seeks to impose order on it, even if none exists. UHIQ is comfortable with chaos and seeks to recognize patterns in it

Whenever I have seen a pattern in chaos I arranged vacation time to avoid as much chaos as possible. Some call it luck.

i think solar roads are one of the stupidest ideas i've ever heard of, for a multitude of reasons

It's one of those ideas so stupid every liberal loves it.

I think I'll be removing it from my feed.Passive voice, faggot? NAFALT

Clearly Trump does not have high verbal intelligence, but without a doubt he displays masterful deftness in other ways.

TRUMP speaks to people at a low level so that people can understand him. It's like reading pre op instructions written by child life specialists. He can grasp big concepts and break them down to sales bullet points.

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata December 26, 2016 12:22 PM  

UHIQ sounds like they would make poor engineers.

Anonymous Qasim December 26, 2016 12:26 PM  

I think the insights in this post correspond to a large extent to the S (sensing ) vs. N (intuition) part of the Myers-Briggs personality classification system.

https://www.16personalities.com/articles/energy-intuitive-vs-observant

One could argue that the modern educational system and scientific establishment has come to be dominated by S, much to the detriment of both.

Reading about this S vs. N thing was very helpful for me, I am starting to realize that arguing with Ss, no matter how intelligent or educated, is largely a waste of time; the difference in the way we think is just too great.

To me, Vox seems like a classic INTP, I wonder if he has ever taken the test.

Anonymous grey enlightenment December 26, 2016 12:26 PM  

Trump with an IQ of 150? nope. But I imagine he's smarter than average. To scribe such a high score we would need better proof. Nothing about Trump's childhood (such as skipping grades, early admittance to uni. etc.) suggests such a high IQ. Getting into Warton is insufficient, and I think his odds were boosted by family connections.

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata December 26, 2016 12:32 PM  

Ok, UHIQ are the intellectuals and the VHIQ are the engineers.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 12:37 PM  

Now, how to harness this new information and apply it...if only I were smarter I might figure out a way to do that. I'll just wait for a epiphany I guess.

Simple, just accomplish things. Don't over-complicate it.

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 26, 2016 12:41 PM  

101. elijahrhodes December 26, 2016 12:08 PM
Clearly Trump does not have high verbal intelligence



oh, do shut up.

Trump tailors his PUBLIC SPEAKING to the Left half of the bell curve. this is not at all the same thing as not having "high verbal intelligence".

i pointed out a year ago ( back when Trump first got into the primaries ) that Trump was doing the same thing that both Obama and Shrub and Clinton had done previously ( and successfully ) to win the White House; pretend to a folksy and somewhat simple minded speaking style. given that this tactic has now successfully won 7 consecutive presidential terms, you MIGHT wish to re-evaluate it's utility in an election campaign.

you listen to Fake News channels like MSNBC and you're going to get Fake assessment of the facts.



95. VD December 26, 2016 11:42 AM
This is incorrect.



concur.

i don't "lose" IRL debates because i'm being browbeaten into silence.

i "lose" because no one else in the room can ( or wants to ) extrapolate what i consider to be the obvious logical consequent.

they map my intransigence as a SocDom power play.

so, they go do their thing and i go do mine.

and they can't figure out why i'm magically there at the finish line waiting for them.


but they know, they just KNOW, that if they tell me i can't do it my way, everything will be better.

even though i've already demonstrated the efficiency of my method ...

Blogger Casher O'Neill December 26, 2016 12:44 PM  

You (fairly for a preliminary characterization) highlight characteristics that are both affective ("VHIQ enjoys pedantry. UHIQ hates it") and intellectual [ @38] ("VHIQ refines the original thought of others, UHIQ synthesizes multiple original thoughts") in a post that is in essence about the intellectual difference. Though I grant the affective responses are often more important in life, e.g., JustAnotherPairOfEyes wrote:I'm in science. I think the really critical things are the tendency of VHIQ to rationalize logical conclusions and errors. It's a matter of "the smarter you are, the better you are at rationalizing anything", not just the things that happen to be true.

What is central to the intellectual difference is the capacity for and use of abstraction. Hence UHIQ being drawn to disciplines that are abstract in their activities (mathematical physics/mathematics & philosophy/history of science floating on the extreme high end of mathematical and verbal IQ). Hence too, "recognize and articulate concepts", "what does this mean?" & "holistic understanding"

UHIQ can more easily abstract and can more easily understand various abstract concepts in relation to each other. VHIQ can easily understand lower levels of abstraction and applying them to concrete circumstances (biologists?), but is less good with independent abstraction, high levels of abstraction, or synthesis of abstract concepts.
Most of the "feeling it out" type activity in UHIQ is a mode of applying of the abstract principles to the concrete circumstances in conditions where the UHIQ person is unfamiliar with the concrete side or how to articulate the abstract concepts and relations (in internal or external discourse). Much of dying on a hill discussion @52 is due to the individual concepts being more valuable to VHIQ as they are more costly to attain, but set them above the mid-wits.

Similarly with the "probabilistic"/"pattern recognition"/"investigative" characteristic. This is an abstraction under variable, seemingly random circumstances, which can, for example, be seen systematically and formally understood in this article from The Drudge Report


This fundamental distinction works itself into the various circumstances. @9 's boss, for example, probably (at least tells himself that he) likes intellectual conversation (about politics, e.g.) but is also at a state in life where learning new abstractions is tiresome. How many conversations have Alt-right folk had where one just has to agree to stick with the old conservative-liberal dichotomy just to make a basic point or convey some information. Asking even conscientious & intelligent people to abstract and synthesize on the fly is difficult. This, in part, accounts for mathematicians' boredom with and pedestrian thought on concepts outside of their area of expertise. Though this is also due to actual differences between verbal and mathematical intelligence, which function differently and can exist independently. I always thought Matt Drudge's distinction between the mathematical and the intuitive mind was a useful starting point on that.

In sum VHIQ can deal well with "We know that all men are mortal, therefore will x die?" and UHIQ with "Prove -(p&q)⇔(-p∨-q)" or "how would a critical examination of the nature of human knowledge as a precondition for furthering scientific inquiry need to proceed?"


Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 12:50 PM  

I wonder if there are others who find themselves in this position, and what does it mean? Is it common? More questions spring up.

Just accomplish things. Don't over-think it.

Blogger dienw December 26, 2016 12:52 PM  

My life became much easier for both me and everyone around me when I stopped sharing what I was thinking and learned to talk about a) music, b) sports, and c) current events.

Bingo.
I learned the art of conversation and how to tell a joke. I rarely talk about my art; and I let the interests of the other person guide the conversation: they are usually there to talk about themselves anyway. It still works to my benefit; because I occasionally come away with new concept to ponder.

Blogger praetorian December 26, 2016 12:53 PM  

This is incorrect. Again, you're confusing midwits for VHIQs.

Mmm, interesting. I see the binary/non-binary dynamic play out almost daily in bay area software companies, so smart folks, but not (mostly) 3SD+ folks, with a fairly strong association of intelligence and non-binary thinking.

Perhaps I'm just seeing what I want, though.

Blogger pyrrhus December 26, 2016 12:59 PM  

Notoriously, the most successful people in life are smart, but not UHIQ. Probably because they communicate better with average people, and are less prone to spergyness....I would estimate Trump's IQ at 140-145, which is the top of the range, but also benefitting from being very un-spergy and pro-social, which has been crucial for him.

Blogger Casher O'Neill December 26, 2016 1:04 PM  

Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata wrote:UHIQ sounds like they would make poor engineers.

Agreed. How many great engineers would you say are UHIQ? Think of the greats you know. Kelly Johnson, Thomas Edison . . . any other names? Are they UHIQ?

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 1:05 PM  

I also think since their brains are essentially Ferraris, they need to have space to race as they fast and far as they can, and they can't do that if they are always bottled up in traffic.

Well that's very flattering, but we actually like people and want to be in traffic, as frustrating as that is sometimes.

Blogger dienw December 26, 2016 1:12 PM  

What I've seen over the course of my career is that most people, even VHIQs, tend to think inside the box.

Most people do not understand the why of the box. Once you understand the why of the box, you can play with it beyond the comprehension of even those who are your peers.

Blogger Doom December 26, 2016 1:21 PM  

Irritating. But I seem to live in both worlds as I see fit, so don't really fit either. And I don't agree with all written, if it seems interesting at least. I think the whole thing, as is often the case here, is a trap. Then again, it might be fun to see who all fell in what part. You have been... kneecapping for a generation... half a generation? Some such. Looks like mostly noobs here. They don't remember the scalping sessions of old. I do, I do. :)

I'll read later when more awake.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 1:25 PM  

I need not say that it's immensely frustrating to have cognitive processes that are UHIQ enough to continually bang into the fact that I don't have the raw horsepower to run it.

Your dry recitation indicates a sperginess that is unsurprising here. Frankly just "rubric" is almost enough to diagnose you.

Blogger weka December 26, 2016 1:26 PM  

Dear Dread Lord, firstly may your gracious spouse and heirs hath ahd a joyous holiday season.

But now sharpen the subtle knife.

(That was fun for two sentences)

I think you have set the threshold for UHIQ too low. The alternative is that most tenured are idiots.

The Ultra high IQ blow me away: I can follow them (though the math makes my brain hurt). Most of the people I like working with think as you describe.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 1:32 PM  

How does this relate to someone in art, like Michelangelo.
Is someone like that just "talented" and a great craftsman, or does his art reflect some higher genius?


Genius.

Blogger GracieLou December 26, 2016 1:34 PM  

Grandson says, “Mom, do we have borax and a glue gun?” He holds up the latest issue of Popular Science, Make a Sonic Tunnel of Fire “In ten EASY steps!” He’s 6. Later we learn his vision is so bad it has to be corrected incrementally. How does a half-blind kid teach himself to read? Nobody knows.

This year he decides Hillary Clinton is a liar and Donald Trump is clearly the better candidate, with vastly superior hair. He worries about North Korea and the nuclear threat. They disable the news app on his iPad. The only app left is the Weather Channel. He always asks if I’ve seen any tornadic activity. There’s a low front over the Midwest. L means lousy. The other night my daughter called on the phone and said he was in the shower talking to himself about the Illuminati. How the hell does a 7yr old know about the Illuminati? Nobody knows.

How do you get a kid like this through normal school? Right now he’s flunking 2nd grade. He refuses to do any of the work; cause it’s stupid. A social worker said she was sure he wasn’t paying attention, yet he correctly answered every single question asked. He knows higher math but won’t do common core show-your-work. He just knows it. How does he know it? Nobody knows. He hates the teacher. He spends all day reading and fighting, which he learned at ghetto kindergarten. He seems to enjoy that and girls--he can’t even nerd like normal.

He’s gifted, but how much? They can’t even tell. He has asynchronous development, hyperactivity, poor fine motor skills and sensory issues. After two years of telling us he’s not on the spectrum, now they say he might be, a little. I suspect they are trying to get him labeled with something juicy (other than OT and gifted) to get more help. Nobody knows what to do with him. I don’t even know. In my teaching experience I’ve never seen any kid like him. He doesn’t give a rat’s butt about order or procedures, per your typical autist. His speech isn’t that great but it miraculously improved when we stopped talking to him like a baby. Maybe we were just boring. What was his incentive? I’d say he’s ADHD, but is he? Maybe that’s how his brain works. Would doping him help or would it just be cruel?

Blogger Matthew December 26, 2016 1:38 PM  

type6 wrote:LowIQ person: sees one side

MidIQ person: sees two sides (so called intellectuals which populate our universities)

HighIQ person: sees hundreds of sides all at once


UHIQ sees a vast cyclic graph at once.

Blogger 1337kestrel December 26, 2016 1:46 PM  

Tens of thousands used the program without incident because they are trying to use the program- they are not trying to perform the actual desired task the right way.

Odds are there are hundreds of people aware of the flaw, but they've never been listened to.

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 26, 2016 1:49 PM  

125. GracieLou December 26, 2016 1:34 PM
Would doping him help or would it just be cruel?



doping him is great ... if you like abusing children.

125. GracieLou December 26, 2016 1:34 PM
They disable the news app on his iPad.
...
He refuses to do any of the work; cause it’s stupid.



surely, you see the contradiction here?

he WANTS to learn. that's how he knows about the Illuminati.

the response of the parents and school has been to tell him that he is permitted to learn at rate 'x', AND NO FASTER.

of COURSE he's going to be bored out of his fucking mind.

you ( and his parents ) can continue to raise him as Harrison Bergeron.



OR

you can encourage him to learn as much as possible while attempting to keep up with him. discuss what he's reading with him and caution that, just because something is written down does NOT mean that it's true ( critical thinking ).

admit that you don't know everything, point out that no one can. be honest.

that will be harder.

that will require more effort than just vegetating in front of the television for six hours every day.

Blogger CynicalMan December 26, 2016 1:51 PM  

Way too much thought required to give any answer other than "huh".

Blogger rcocean December 26, 2016 1:53 PM  

"It's a major failing of smart people that their biggest advantage often seems to be how thoroughly they can outsmart themselves."

I'd phrase it differently. Their biggest flaws are (1) letting their emotions/Self-interest override their intelligence and (2) assuming intelligence can substitute for knowledge.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 1:54 PM  

A combination of ego-threat and plain old calorie conservation explains a lot of the weaknesses of the VHIQ characteristics as laid out here.

That is interesting and false.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope December 26, 2016 1:55 PM  

I've found that over the years, the UHIQ thought processes can get in the way of progress and career success. Therefore, it has been useful to adopt some of the VHIQ thinking as laid out above.
Especially:
* Understanding toward usefulness vs holistic understanding (just because it is so interesting)
* Recognizes the great truths in great thinkers of the past vs getting lost in exploring where they were right and wrong
* Binary thinking makes implementing change simpler than exploring the whole concept
* Competitive vs doesn't keep score - man, this one has really hampered progress sometimes in a competitive office

It is one of the many many things I look forward to in heaven, to finally have the time to explore the world in the way which my mind craves, because there will be enough time to think and experiment and explore and talk with others.

The character of Benedict in the Amber Chronicles, where Corwin said that Benedict had visited multiple worlds to observe the same battle but with subtly different changes in troop movements to learn aspects of combat - that was something that really stuck in my head.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope December 26, 2016 1:56 PM  

And I believe a lot of the reasons UHIQ people have more difficulty in being financially successful is because of their innate desire to understand and explore vs taking action, the advantage that VHIQ people have with understanding just enough to take effective action.

Blogger Jose December 26, 2016 2:04 PM  

Greetings from the fat part of the IQ distribution.

Since intelligence is something one has no control over, being determined mostly by factors of genetics and early childhood environment, it's strange to be proud of it. As a person of reasonable, compact stature, I noticed a similar behavior in tall people who were proud of being tall. It's not something you achieve; therefore it's nothing to be proud of. Thankful, maybe.

Also, there's a measurement problem, once one moves away from pattern-matching and response speed tests (I used to think that psychometrics was put in the world to make phrenology look good; then I realized it happened by accident) and into real-world outcomes, which depend on a lot more than raw brain power, for example, observable outcomes depend on:

- The opportunities to use that brain power, and the fields in which it's used.
- The motivation to use it, and the goals to be achieved.
- The skills and knowledge, including thinking skill (which is separate from intelligence in the same way that competitive weightlifting skill is separate from raw physical force) and a can-do attitude towards thinking.
- Outside factors which distort the observables; they can be random events (what engineers call 'noise') or they can be environment biases.

This became a 1500-word response, so I go over VD's points in a post at:

http://sitacuisses.blogspot.com/2016/12/much-ado-about-extreme-intelligence.html

and in the interest of fairness, if VD has a rejoinder I'll post it too (if the rejoinder is "you didn't understand my post," it's already there as a possible explanation).

Live long and prosper,
JCS

Blogger weka December 26, 2016 2:09 PM  

@128. Yep. Bored through school, med school and post graduate. But had to learn this stuff. Not bored as much now. But it took getting tenure, and dealing with tedium (committees with people who take central gov't commands as holy writ) to get there.

The kid needs to learn the social skills, and how to produce work the teachers like. knowing that they are midwits at best.

Our higher education system fails such: they struggle until post PhD, or drop out and just get a job. (Kids in University at present: got that T shirt).

Oh, and don't let anyone medicate that kid.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 2:14 PM  

Irritating. But I seem to live in both worlds as I see fit, so don't really fit either.

You don't fit either, Doom. Your IQ isn't high enough.

Blogger 1337kestrel December 26, 2016 2:15 PM  

Metaphorically yes, but literally no.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 2:15 PM  

He’s gifted, but how much? They can’t even tell.

Homeschool him and get out of his way.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 2:19 PM  

So, okay it may be that from my position in the scale I can't see the existing differences, but it appears to me that performance measurement theory has a pretty good explanation for most of these points, and it doesn't require too much smarts to understand.

You were right, JCS. You simply can't see the differences. They are significant and obvious to those who can.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing December 26, 2016 2:21 PM  

Yes. Thanks for doing the work on this.

Knowledge is one thing, wisdom another. I think UHIQ fundamentally doesn't get 'wisdom' because it can't be intuited, unlike knowledge.

I work at it, but don't naturally apply wisdom at all. I married a man naturally gifted with wisdom, and it's perplexing to watch the application. Sometimes I can recognize the patterns, but most of the time it's a black box and I just thank God that I married well.

Blogger 1337kestrel December 26, 2016 2:25 PM  

Simply remember: there are no sides.

Blogger valiance. December 26, 2016 2:27 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger 1337kestrel December 26, 2016 2:32 PM  

No

A VHIQ engineer quickly and efficiently designs a piece of equipment with no flaws, other than what are inherently part of the equipment's function. For example, dissipating excess heat and using optimal amounts of high temp materials.

An UHIQ engineer designs a new way for the equipment to function, which does not have those inherent flaws.

Edison's DC versus Tesla's DC.

Blogger Under Par December 26, 2016 2:37 PM  

<a href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-iq-delta.html#comment-7”>@7</a> Something else to consider or keep in mind is that the UHIQ also might resemble people who fall into the INTP MyersBriggs personality type. Most of the UHIQ things describe me personally yet I know I'm nowhere near VHIQ or UHIQ. I don't know what my IQ is but it's nowhere near that level. If I had to guess it's maybe a little above average. So, while all of these characteristics may represent UHIQ individuals, I suspect they also likely include many people who have an INTP personality type like me.

Anonymous Tipsy December 26, 2016 2:43 PM  

UHIQ inclines towards probabilistic thinking and balancing between contradictory possibilities.

Bayes lives!

Blogger 1337kestrel December 26, 2016 2:44 PM  

IMO, doping a child like that is like trying to gender reassign his brain because adults think there's something wrong with it. Much better to learn to deal with the world in his own terms.

Blogger GracieLou December 26, 2016 2:56 PM  

Thanks for the input.

@Bob, the reason the news app got disabled, other than our concern about propaganda, is because he's way too smart for his seven years life experience. He lacks perspective so he freaks out (granted,temporarily) over things. Asynchronous development means a kid will have a high school reading level with the emotional maturity of a 4 yr old. The plan is to keep him steady until it levels out.

Anonymous SanityClause December 26, 2016 2:57 PM  

Back on topic however, it seems one difference between UHIQ and VHIQ may, in many cases simply be the presence or absence of one single thing...

Sin.

It appears to me that many of the differences between the one and the other is simple pride. For instance, pride can keep one assaulting and dying on a conceptual hill simply because ones pride makes it impossible to accept when one is wrong.

Thus, one way to move from the VHIQ to the UHIQ camp is …

Christianity.

Why, because Christianity STARTS with the realization that one is sinful, that one is wrong. Realizing that you may be wrong puts you in the UHIQ camp, even if your hardware is slow (you do not have a genetically superior brain). Oh sure, you may never come up with the brilliant idea that solves the problem, but hey, you did not waste your time assaulting that hill, so, there's that... You think in the style of a UHIQ person, even if you are not actually one. You have thus increased your effective IQ, even though you are unable to actually upgrade your CPU, as it were. You may not have become much smarter, but you have become less stupid, some VHIQ people can be very stupid at times (whole books have been written by people who are genetically geniuses to support stupid ideas, what a waste).

Christianity has been seen to increase ones IQ by up to 20 points, or so I have heard, you can see why. On the bright side, it will make you more honest, so if you don't have the smarts to design that bridge, you will have the smarts now to realize that and not try, which, if you did, could get people killed. You will also become more realistic about your capabilities, and thus will not be all butthurt because you cannot design a bridge, but will be happy with your role in life, such as being a good riveter so that the brilliant design will not fail, or being a good cook so that the riveter can rivet all day. It might be nice to be smarter, but being less stupid has BIG advantages, you waste less time and are a lot happier.

Note that it is possible to be honest enough to be at least somewhat UHIQ even without Christianity, but Christianity works from the inside out, and is thus a more total expression of honesty, thus a non Christian UHIQ person may at times act more like a merely VHIQ one due to a lack of honesty. To be honest, however, a Christian who realizes that they are not perfect (“NO! REALLY??”), will also lapse sometimes in this manner, but at least they are more likely to recover from it and go back to being UHIQ. Also, a Christian is more likely to use that honesty in a wider field of thinking, such as the ordinary stuff of life, such as “I don't really need another doughnut”, and “I may be wrong in this argument, and thus should not get too angry about it”.

This is to not even talk about the fact that if you are in touch with God, a being of infinite intelligence, that being may occasionally suggest an idea to you that your physical brain is not smart enough to think on it's own, and/or for which you do not have the information. This has actually happened, there was one healer woman way out in the sticks who was able to give correct solutions to such diseases as polio by simply asking God what to do and then doing it. She used hydrotherapy and hard massage therapy long before such things were known by actual doctors, her patients lived and even thrived while those treated by the doctors of the day often died or became crippled.

Anonymous Salt December 26, 2016 2:58 PM  

SanityClause wrote:You will note that it takes many more lower IQ types to make a functioning society than high IQ types, you will also note that it does take some high IQ types. I suspect that is why there are more low IQ types than high IQ, simply put, they are necessary.

Someone finally discover the bell shaped curve?

Anonymous SanityClause December 26, 2016 3:05 PM  

"Someone finally discover the bell shaped curve?"

I am discussing the VALUE and necessary existence of a majority of ordinary IQ people, not whether they simply exist or not.

Blogger Casher O'Neill December 26, 2016 3:10 PM  

1337kestrel wrote:A VHIQ engineer quickly and efficiently designs a piece of equipment with no flaws, other than what are inherently part of the equipment's function. For example, dissipating excess heat and using optimal amounts of high temp materials.

An UHIQ engineer designs a new way for the equipment to function, which does not have those inherent flaws.

Edison's DC versus Tesla's DC.


This is a good point and highlights Tesla's relative mastery of EE. This is also why Tesla is portrayed as the magician whereas Edison a more poplar tinker/hammer things together type. Everyone can understand, by analogy, a simple DC circuit (high voltage = up hill, current = water, resistor = rapids). Polyphase transmission can be taught to any engineer. But creativity in engineering techniques require - for more elegant solutions - ingenuity which itself calls for a capacity to understand and manipulate the more abstract elements of mathematical and physical theory and the physical means of applying them, which Tesla had. (Though his abstraction did make him think of crazy ideas like the airships dumping electrical energy on cities thing.)

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants December 26, 2016 3:12 PM  

This just further affirms my belief that I'm clinically insane. But, I'm ok with that.

Blogger Austin Ballast December 26, 2016 3:13 PM  

GracieLou,

That is why homeschooling is so much better.

Vox,

Vox is right/wrong because [x].

Disagreeing with you means we are stupid? Nate must be an idiot.

Haven't you said being specific is important?

(I am now in that bin because I asked the question.)

Disagreement, even strong disagreement, is a human trait, not an indicator of intelligence or its lack.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 3:23 PM  

It appears to me that many of the differences between the one and the other is simple pride. For instance, pride can keep one assaulting and dying on a conceptual hill simply because ones pride makes it impossible to accept when one is wrong.

Thus, one way to move from the VHIQ to the UHIQ camp is …

Christianity.


No. Absolutely not.

Disagreeing with you means we are stupid?

No, but failing to grasp that I was indicating both agreement and disagreement with me does. Relatively speaking, anyhow.

Most of the UHIQ things describe me personally yet I know I'm nowhere near VHIQ or UHIQ.

It's not about Meyer-Briggs or introversion.

Blogger technovelist December 26, 2016 3:26 PM  

VD wrote:The unfortunate thing about this distinction is that VHIQs can often dominate UHIQs in public debate/rhetorical situations. As UHIQs are prone to see both sides of an argument (almost all arguments have reasonable points on both sides) it becomes easy to concede a point or two out of intellectual honesty and then watch the middle-of-the-bell curve slip away as the VHIQ hammers away, ignoring or perhaps ignorant of what the UHIQ is getting at.

This is incorrect. Again, you're confusing midwits for VHIQs. VHIQ and UHIQ get along just fine; there are very few of either. Remember, VHIQs think like normal people, only better and faster. There is absolutely nothing wrong with how they think.

I posit this dynamic is why jews, the arguers par excellence, are so infuriatingly binary-oriented: they argue to win, not necessarily to get at the truth.

Not possible. The vast majority of Jews are nowhere nearly high IQ enough to qualify as VHIQ. We're talking minimum 3SD IQs here.


Yes, but since the median IQ of Ashkenazis is about +1 SD, there are far more of them in the 3SD group than proportionally to the population.

Not that you didn't know that, but some others might not.

Blogger Austin Ballast December 26, 2016 3:26 PM  

No, but failing to grasp that I was indicating both agreement and disagreement with me does. Relatively speaking, anyhow.

In this post or in another discussion? Just trying to make sure I get the point.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 26, 2016 3:28 PM  

Pretty much. I often feel vaguely embarrassed with myself after reading a book I consider to be nonsense. Even the recollection of that momentary period of prospective agreement with complete nonsense can feel humiliating.

The really frustrating thing is when the author made what - even after reading their subsequent nonsense - still seems like a good point. How much credence can I put in that point? Nobody's going to be 100% correct about everything, but when they've gotten one thing disastrously wrong, your trust in everything else is called into question, and when you really liked that one good point...

Well, people can reach the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.

Blogger technovelist December 26, 2016 3:28 PM  

Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata wrote:UHIQ sounds like they would make poor engineers.

Nope. However, they do have to be challenged, because they get bored with repetitive work that doesn't allow them to use their talents effectively.

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata December 26, 2016 3:31 PM  

After further review my statements were incorrect. I misunderstood the axis.

Blogger technovelist December 26, 2016 3:34 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 26, 2016 3:35 PM  

147. GracieLou December 26, 2016 2:56 PM
He lacks perspective so he freaks out (granted,temporarily) over things



indeed.

and you should point this out to him.

and you should also point out that him losing his mind doesn't accomplish anything.

and indicate that he NEEDS to consult with his parents BEFORE he loses his mind over some issue or another, especially given that the issue may be wholly imaginary.

is he scared by Darth Vader and the Emperor using Force lightning on him? why not?

not every 'Lousy' indicates a tornado or hurricane.

trying to give your children a marshmallow world is how we got this generation of Millennial retards.

learning how to cope with an adrenaline dump is actually a worthwhile life skill.

it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to enroll him in some kind of combatives class either.


wrapping your children in a cocoon is fine for toddlers and younger. that's women's work.

he is of an age, and displaying sufficient aptitude that's it's time for his father to take over and start stressing him and building him up.

feminine risk avoidance is not appropriate for all stages of child development.

John Paul Jones was working as an apprentice on a sailing ship at 13 and had his first captaincy by 21.



147. GracieLou December 26, 2016 2:56 PM
The plan is to keep him steady until it levels out.



is it going to level out faster if he gets practice leveling it out?

or is it going to level out faster if he's taught to be avoidant about things that weird him out and he needs to go to his safe space?


153. Austin Ballast December 26, 2016 3:13 PM
Disagreement, even strong disagreement, is a human trait, not an indicator of intelligence or its lack.


disagreement without understanding the conversation is, though.

Blogger technovelist December 26, 2016 3:39 PM  

I have noted anecdotally that the NT personality type seems to be positively correlated with IQ, but I have no substantial evidence.

As for Introversion vs. Extraversion (MBTI spelling), there is definitely a correlation between Introversion and IQ, as well as a negative correlation between sexual experience and IQ. Probably the only reason that I'm not a virgin at my advanced age is that I'm an E, given my IQ of 156.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 26, 2016 3:43 PM  

How do you get a kid like this through normal school?

You don't; putting that kid in school is insane. If your child were Mozart, would you send him to a music school that required him to practice his scales for 8 hours a day? If you did, would you be surprised if he emerged from it hating and looking down on learning, school, his teachers, and maybe the parents who sent him there?

The socialization excuse fails, because a kid that far outside the norm will get the negative kind more than the positive. School is the place where his "weirdness" will stand out more than anywhere else, because he won't be able to hide how advanced he is (or hiding it is all he will learn). Get him involved in scouts, sports, 4-H, or other activities, preferably with kids of a range of ages, so he won't always be the one getting the most gold stars, and he'll have a chance to be a normal kid with normal friends.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 26, 2016 3:46 PM  

Yes, but since the median IQ of Ashkenazis is about +1 SD, there are far more of them in the 3SD group than proportionally to the population.

Why wouldn't groups with different average IQs don't also have different STDEV as well? I'm reasonably certain Han's are either a) cheating on their IQ tests (e.g. selective sampling), or b) have a much lower STDEV than Europeans. (there is also possibility c - significantly lower risk-tolerance hampers expression of genius).

Ashkens do share a lot of characteristics with the Han, when you think about it.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 26, 2016 3:55 PM  

I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying.

I don't know enough +3SD people to have much of a judgment on this post, so I'm going with #2, except to say a lot of it rings true to me. But the line above caught my attention. I think I do the same thing, and I've wondered sometimes if I'm being naive, because conventional wisdom says you're supposed to be skeptical of all new information, especially if it contradicts what you've already been taught.

I never thought of it before as two different modes of thinking, where one says, "I won't believe anything new until you prove it" -- perhaps a misapplication of the scientific method -- and the other says, "Okay, let's accept what you say and follow it to its logical conclusions to see if they make sense." I thought of those as differences of personality, between skepticism and naivete, but they make sense as two different modes of thinking, ways of absorbing and filtering information.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 26, 2016 3:59 PM  

Regarding Trump, wherever he lands on the IQ scale, he is not lost in theory. He incorporates reality into his understanding and has a fairly good grasp of cause-and-effect. In fact, he appears to go beyond linear cause-and-effect thinking to cyclical feedback loop thinking. Maybe even multivariable thinking.

A plus B causes C. A by itself does not, but if B is taken for granted, midwits won't realize it and think A cause C directly. The next step beyond that is realizing A + B -> C, and C then causes some change in A or B.

For example, Diversity + Proximity = War, and War = Death and Migration which = less Diversity and Proximity (or at least that it's been relocated somewhere else).

I'm fairly certain Trump is more than a midwit.


Blogger Matthew December 26, 2016 4:05 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:The really frustrating thing is when the author made what - even after reading their subsequent nonsense - still seems like a good point. How much credence can I put in that point? Nobody's going to be 100% correct about everything, but when they've gotten one thing disastrously wrong, your trust in everything else is called into question, and when you really liked that one good point...

Questions are more interesting than answers.

Blogger Casher O'Neill December 26, 2016 4:11 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:I thought of those as differences of personality, between skepticism and naivete, but they make sense as two different modes of thinking, ways of absorbing and filtering information.

Personality would seem to have modes of thinking as a formative part. How you think affects how you present yourself to or interact with the world.

Blogger Matthew December 26, 2016 4:11 PM  

technovelist wrote:I have noted anecdotally that the NT personality type seems to be positively correlated with IQ, but I have no substantial evidence.

If MBTI is at all relevant, you would see a correlation between *N*P and UHIQ.

I reliably score neutral on the T/F axis and strong P on the P/J axis.

Note also that Vox has claimed high empathy. That matches my experience.

Blogger Hal Gore December 26, 2016 4:15 PM  

Mathhew 169 said:

If MBTI is at all relevant, you would see a correlation between *N*P and UHIQ.

I reliably score neutral on the T/F axis and strong P on the P/J axis.

Note also that Vox has claimed high empathy. That matches my experience.
------\


What else needs to be said?

Blogger Doc Rampage December 26, 2016 4:16 PM  

VD wrote:I can't recall ever seeing anyone switch from one to the other.

I'll take #6, "Hey, I can use this as an excuse to talk about me!"

Up to my mid 20s I mostly fit the first half of the description. Then I started reading Berkeley with his ridiculous idealism, and damn if he didn't make a lot of good points. It was earth shaking to not just acknowledge but actually *believe* that there is a lot more I don't know than I do know. I don't know if my thinking changed as a result of this experience or if that was merely my first experience of thinking that was already changing, but I became much more like your description of a UHIQ.

However, although I tend to fall on the UHIQ side of this: "VHIQ seeks understanding towards application or justification, UHIQ seeks understanding towards holistic understanding." I am coming more and more to view that as a weakness.

The problem is that without the application, you are adrift without an objective standard of correctness.

Without the pragmatic confirmation, it is too easy to get into an Axiom-of-Choice situation where everything works out great, but if you had made the opposite assumption, everything would have worked out differently but just as well.

Blogger Matthew December 26, 2016 4:17 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying.

This is the one place I differ wholly from what Vox reports. I read everything antagonistically. I'm especially antagonistic to arguments I think I'm going to eventually agree with.

Blogger Matthew December 26, 2016 4:19 PM  

Hal Gore wrote:What else needs to be said?

I'm tall, handsome, have steely green eyes, and women twirl their hair when I'm around.

Blogger Derek Kite December 26, 2016 4:25 PM  

Interesting. I don't fit in either, and frankly don't care. But smart people I've run into don't put things in tidy boxes. They also don't rank levels of knowledge in themselves; they simply don't know enough and never will, their insatiable curiosity will never be satisfied. But they recognize very quickly the limits of knowledge of other people, mostly because in any interaction they leave knowing everything the other person knows.

I listened to a Richard Dawkin's talk once. His cadence, the structure and flow of his talk, even the arguments were so familiar to me because it was a religious sermon, right down to the self righteous preening of this audience. I said something to that effect somewhere and was pilloried. Not because I was wrong, but because these people considered themselves so smart that they would never fall for anything like that, hence it couldn't be anything like that.

I appreciate the notion of intuition. This comes from accumulated knowledge and understanding, and the brain operating on a different level. Smart people listen to that, listen carefully. Not as truth from above, but an indication of a direction to think about. Most advances in understanding come from there, some intuitive notion that gets fleshed out.

Blogger Casher O'Neill December 26, 2016 4:26 PM  

VD: Just some thoughts on nomenclature:

VH & UH usually relate to magnitude along a scale. IQ is a numerical scale. Since you identify your very smart vs. brilliant distinction it as a qualitative difference and you envision overlap on the quantitative IQ scale, it might be advantageous in your future write-ups you move to qualitative descriptors. E.g., (as per your descriptions) focused/intent v. diffuse/vagrant intellect or something of the sort. Willingness to wonder far or wide is frequently a prerequisite of ingenuity.

Blogger The Sasquatch December 26, 2016 4:42 PM  

Trying to think of a reaponse that falls outside the 6 possibilities mentioned. Failing. Giving up and going with #2.

Actually posting because the kids are screaming and this makes it look like I'm doing something important. #GoodParenting

Blogger GracieLou December 26, 2016 4:50 PM  

@Weka, your story reminds me of a story a friend told about her parents who went to a conference at her brother's high school. The counselor sat them down and said, "Mr and Mrs Smith, your son, is mentally retarded." They didn't understand how that could be since he spent all day reading. He became a surgeon.

Social skills, learning to be in the world when he's not really of it, and controlling the intensity of his experience is going to be a challenge for my grandson as it is for all you brainiacs.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 26, 2016 4:54 PM  

two different modes of thinking, where one says, "I won't believe anything new until you prove it" -- perhaps a misapplication of the scientific method -- and the other says, "Okay, let's accept what you say and follow it to its logical conclusions to see if they make sense."

Cail, you're on the right track mentioning the Scientific Method. Much of the distinction between actual Science and the ersatz religion of Science! we're plagued with today springs out of the difference between these two modes of thought.

The real scientific method involves accepting new theories as plausible and looking for ways to test them. It also involves realizing no theory is Absolutely True, only better or worse at explaining things than the alternatives. So the new theory doesn't have to be perfect, it "wins" if it has fewer holes than the old theory.

Our modern credentialed Science Priests don't do that today though. Instead they demand proof, and for them proof means convincing the jury (which has a vested interest in the old theories which are the basis of their own credentials).

It fits with the chaos vs order distinction too. When science was young, it was mostly chaos and unpleasant for the VHIQ who had:

-no original thoughts of others to refine.
-...or to apply.
-no conclusions to rationalize.
-no jury to appeal to.

Blogger Under Par December 26, 2016 5:28 PM  

VD wrote:

It's not about Meyer-Briggs or introversion.


Correct, but I obviously didn't articulate that very well. The point I was trying to make was that the traits listed as potential identifiers of UHIQ people likely include far more than just those UHIQ people. I'm a good example. From the little I've read about the INTP type, those traits might even include many who fall into that personality type, which is far more than actual UHIQ people.

Maybe it would have been better to just emphasize a couple things you mentioned in the original post:
There are a few observations I have made over the years that are of limited utility in differentiating between what I think of as "very smart" vs "brilliant"…Keep in mind that these are tendencies, not iron-clad laws.

These traits alone include far more people than just the UHIQ people so in case anybody thinks they’ve stumbled upon a UHIQ person, think again. I can assure you that your chances are still slim, even if better than random odds.

Blogger RobertT December 26, 2016 5:53 PM  

Just thought I'd mention, I love posts like this one. They're very informative about a subject that intrigues me. You are about the only guy out there that even considers this subject from this angle. Every other source is a steady diet of puzzles or equations.

Blogger VD December 26, 2016 6:03 PM  

The point I was trying to make was that the traits listed as potential identifiers of UHIQ people likely include far more than just those UHIQ people. I'm a good example. From the little I've read about the INTP type, those traits might even include many who fall into that personality type, which is far more than actual UHIQ people.

Who the fuck cares? We're talking about differentiating between two specific groups of people and their modes of thought as exhibited through observable behavior.

You might as reasonably point out that retards are introverted too, therefore they must be UHIQ. Look, I guarantee no 115 or 135 IQ INTP or INTJ thinks like the UHIQ do. They think like VHIQ do. The fact that you're introverted or whatever does not help you think holistically or to conceptually synthesize.

My son said he used to wonder why I would coin new terms until he got old enough to follow some of what I was discussing. Then, when he found himself having to discuss things like rhetoric-rhetoric-rhetoric and rhetoric-not rhetoric-pseudo-dialectic, he suddenly understood. If you don't have to regularly invent words just to communicate what you're thinking to another human being, one who finds the new words useful, you're not UHIQ.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr December 26, 2016 6:08 PM  

@125 Gracielou: Don't dope the poor tyke into idiocy. Throw all the information at him he can handle. A big library will be his friend. And do get him into some sport. Be warned, he'll probably take a liking to something exotic.

I'd also start teaching him about how to put out a fire...and by extension, the importance of being able to extricate yourself from any possible trouble he gets into. If you can't get out, don't go in.

BTW, folks, UHIQ people make excellent engineers...but they do work at the fringes of the field. Good for top-level design, not detail work. They knock a hole. The VHIQ types do the exploitation and mop-up.

Blogger JWM in SD December 26, 2016 6:17 PM  

I think I have to look into this more. UHIQ could explain a good portion of my life and career choices.

Anonymous trev006 December 26, 2016 6:25 PM  

I've spent all day pondering the difference between the very smart and the truly brilliant, from the differences Vox has observed, and I can't honestly summarize the difference. Which probably indicates I'm not in either bracket.

Does humility explain the brilliant mind accepting defeat and change? Of course not, the suggestion is preposterous by itself. Is creativity the key? Maybe, but genuinely creative minds are usually only of use within their field- and can be rigidly dogmatic outside of it. Holistic thinking? Never, some brilliant minds are wholly focused on their field to the exclusion of everything else.

Maybe it is simply that unconventional minds lack SOME of the boundaries that conventional ones take for granted, and that's what makes them unconventional. But they'll never be similar to other unconventional minds, much less conventional ones.

Which is frustrating! I imagine being truly brilliant would be a gift to many people if they wanted to realize a particular ambition or social good. But then, I realize that intelligence or "alpha" status is hardly pure advantage either.

Good post regardless. I wonder if unconventional minds are as comfortable with their minds as aristocrats are with their wealth...

Blogger Under Par December 26, 2016 7:10 PM  

VD wrote:I guarantee no 115 or 135 IQ INTP or INTJ thinks like the UHIQ do.

Yes, that’s exactly what I tried to say. My comments weren’t directed at you but other readers and some commenters that sounded like they were identifying people based on these things alone. I should have called that out. Sorry for the inadvertent diversion.

Anonymous 6184 December 26, 2016 7:12 PM  

"Edison's DC versus Tesla's DC"

Tesla's AC. There, fixed it, and now the train is fine.

Blogger Saxet December 26, 2016 7:44 PM  

One would think that the most intelligent people would end up with all of the money, but this is obviously not the case. In my experience UHIQ people tend to be detached in many ways. They also seem less able to focus on one field or area of interest and become jacks of all trades. (Though they may in fact become master of all trades.) What are your thoughts about being UHIQ and monetary success? Does the lack of a chip on their shoulder, due to feelings of intellectual superiority, keep them from reaching their earnings potential?

Anonymous RA December 26, 2016 8:45 PM  

I'm not VHIQ; I'm close. But when it came to the technical field I was in, I was so good at troubleshooting I had no peers for it wherever I went and I worked in some large outfits with a lot of bright people. Including more than a few with PhD's. So now I think I was close to UHIQ level there. Wasn't just the routine stuff, I knocked that out within the first year, it was the tricky stuff, the cases that flummoxed *everyone* else. I had a real knack for it. I'd get consulted long distance routinely. Had to admit a zillion times when I was wrong, learned to admit it and use it to find another line of inquiry quickly.

Further, I never cared about keeping the acquired knowledge to myself, I shared freely, all the time, mentored my colleagues routinely. I knew I was different, but I made it a point never to lord it over anyone. When I got into management, well that was a different ball of wax entirely. I did okay, but let's be blunt, I wasn't nearly as good as a manager.

Then I stopped liking it in the office environment. Got bored toward the end. Traveled a few years. Now I'm doing something that is more or less blue collar, but still involves troubleshooting. I was told this year that I now troubleshoot way better than someone who's been doing it 20 years or more.

Okay it may not be UHIQ level stuff, but by the descriptions of UHIQ offered here, not that far off. otoh, this isn't a hill I'm dying on. However, I was interested in the perspective offered here.

Blogger Casher O'Neill December 26, 2016 8:51 PM  

@187 Vox has posted on IQ and social success before and may have linked this ( http://polymatharchives.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html ).

As to universal vs. specific knowledge: It may be that the world judges jack's of all trades as smarter as much as the brilliant have an inclination to all areas of knowledge. Since we cannot be universal and know all that is to be known of everything, we ought to know a little about everything. For it is far better to know something about everything than to know all about one thing. This universality is the best. If we can have both, still better; but if we must choose, we ought to choose the former. And the world feels this and does so; for the world is often a good judge.

Aristotle tried to learn all fields. Pascal (quoted above) engaged in controversy among many fields. Von Neumann contented himself with very broad and deep knowledge within a few.

Blogger Thucydides December 26, 2016 9:04 PM  

I'm rather curious of there are ways of training your mind to get out of repetitive "grooves" and move in the direction of UHIQ type thinking.

Based on what I have read here and observed in other people, the really "smart" people are essentially like getting an upgraded laptop with a faster processor. They can do things faster and better, but are still essentially Windows. UHIQ people, because they observably think differently (although in ways which are not easy to describe) are like looking at a Linux machine. You are aware there are some very unfamiliar and efficient processes going on in the background, and you certainly accept the output, but have only a vague idea how they got there.

While I certainly don't think that knowing and understanding how UHIQ thinking works is going to change midwit Gammas into world class thinkers, it does seem that if there is a way to tap into that mode of thinking through training or some other methodology, there would be great advantages in unleashing more creative and "out of the box" thinking.

Blogger technovelist December 26, 2016 9:21 PM  

Saxet wrote:One would think that the most intelligent people would end up with all of the money, but this is obviously not the case. In my experience UHIQ people tend to be detached in many ways. They also seem less able to focus on one field or area of interest and become jacks of all trades. (Though they may in fact become master of all trades.) What are your thoughts about being UHIQ and monetary success? Does the lack of a chip on their shoulder, due to feelings of intellectual superiority, keep them from reaching their earnings potential?

Of course my sample is limited, but the ones I know don't consider money terribly important. They have no worry about ending up on the street, but they aren't billionaires either.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 9:25 PM  

I'm rather curious of there are ways of training your mind to get out of repetitive "grooves" and move in the direction of UHIQ type thinking.

No. Either thinking differently is a habit or it is not.

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot December 26, 2016 9:31 PM  

When wandering into a "Chinese room", I first take note of the various bits of decor: arrangements of chairs and desks, stacks of books, reference works opened to hopefully relevant sections ...

I then take in the "Chinese room" qua "Chinese room", noticing the subtle yet significant things such as the propositional wallpaper, the referential integrity, the various smells of sustenance consumed and only half-consumed.

And then I ask a simple question: how is the occupant obligated to remain in such a place?

It is only after this consideration that discourse begins.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 26, 2016 9:37 PM  

I wonder if unconventional minds are as comfortable with their minds as aristocrats are with their wealth.

Ouch.

Blogger Matthew December 26, 2016 10:06 PM  

Thucydides wrote:Based on what I have read here and observed in other people, the really "smart" people are essentially like getting an upgraded laptop with a faster processor.

No, but to expand on the metaphor:

It's the difference between having a high-powered PC (as many cores as you like) and having a vast matrix of FPGAs and an innate ability to program them.

Blogger Bogey December 26, 2016 10:15 PM  

A polite conversation with a family member went ballistic Christmas eve when I mentioned that there is a difference in IQ based on race and gender, I didn't think this would be a trigger for said family member until my nephews were standing between us trying to prevent a fist fight.

I remember being angry on a few occasions at some of your ideas Vox, but never as angry as that family member. The anger only gets worse knowing that the assertion is probably true. Finally acceptance. I may not have the highest IQ but I'm glad I can eventually discern the truth.

Blogger Akulkis December 26, 2016 10:15 PM  

@27

Now think of something which I, as a photographer and artist have pondered -- Is my mind's representation of red light the same thing that other people perceive in their mind when they see red? Or blue? Or green?

I first thought about this because my father is color-blind (red & green appear the same to him).

Anonymous SanityClause December 26, 2016 10:22 PM  

I said:
hut, one way to move from the VHIQ to the UHIQ camp is …

Christianity.

VD said:
No. Absolutely not.


Soooo...why?

What I am saying is that binary thinking (“I am right and you are wrong”) and assaulting a conceptual hill can be signs of pride. That means that if Christianity can remove that pride, that will make it possible to move from VHIQ territory to UHIQ territory. It may not happen, but it now can happen, although it may take a while (since you have to change your whole mode of thinking). It may take a lot of Christianity as well, that is, you will have to become a very good Christian (as different from a churchian), if you started with a lot of pride, it will take a while for you to change over.

Meanwhile, until you actually say why you said that, for obvious reasons your argument is not very convincing, since it totally lacks substance. You know, add reasons, data, that sort of thing.

Or are you saying that UHIQ is entirely genetic, even though you said it's opposite, that some have lower genetic IQ than others yet are UHIQ while those others are only VHIQ? I mean, it sure looks like if you add enough pride, you can turn any UHIQ person into a merely VHIQ person who will, in pride, stick with wrong ideas merely because they thought of them, or because they make them feel good in some way.

Possible data point, could it be that one of the reasons for the former flowering of science was the prevalence of Christianity, and the lack of progress in it lately is because of it's lack? I mean, we used to have less people, and thus less scientists, as well as less scientific instruments, yet did a lot and made much progress with few. By now, our progress should be many times what it was simply because of more UHIQ minds on the job (with better instruments), so, what would cause less UHIQ minds? It cannot be genetics, genetics don't change that fast, so, what? Are we now training people to NOT ever become UHIQ in their type of thinking? Could it be that, while being Christian may not make you a UHIQ, a great amount of non-Christianity or anti-Christianity (a prevalence of modes of thinking that are the opposite of Christianity) can reduce the number and quality of UHIQ individuals by making them think in non UHIQ ways? That would mean that, with less Christianity, we should now expect less UHIQ individuals to manifest, at the very least, we should expect them to not be allowed to shake things up with their new ideas any more. They may still be there (those that have not been trained out of it), but we will not see them any more since they will not be allowed into positions where they can manifest their unique abilities.

There are more people which should mean more UHIQ people, and more earth shattering ideas.
There are not more such ideas, there appear to be less.
It cannot be genetics, genetics demands more with more people.
What changed?

Possible reasons:
We are changing our culture, due to less Christianity, to more prideful ways of thinking, and thus we are training out the UHIQ way of thinking, which demands a certain amount of humility.
And/or, we are no longer allowing UHIQ thinking to be in positions where their thinking can have effect.

Data point: The oriental world is peopled by those with average IQ's of 105, not merely 100 as in the west. This should result in a higher instance of UHIQ thinking, they should have outstripped us. They did not, but stayed static for a long time, with little or no progress. Conclusion, something other than genetics was going on to reduce the number and effect of UHIQ thinking. When historians tried to reconcile this, the only thing that seemed to be different was, the presence of Christianity in the West . What is it about Christianity that changes the prevalence and effectiveness of UHIQ thinking?

Blogger Saxet December 26, 2016 10:22 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 – 200 of 247 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts