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

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Gamma stalker fail

Camestros Fellatrix is still butthurt over being depantsed in the midst of his attempt to pose as a master of Aristotelian rhetoric that he's been commenting almost nonstop about me ever since. (shakes head) Gammas are nothing if not predictable. Anyhow, it's more than a little amusing to see him try to figure out how he can try to figure out how to produce a justification for calling me stupid while simultaneously undermining the significance of IQ:
In Vox Day’s case, his claim is this: the difference in IQ score between man-who-made-Vox-grumpy (MWMVG) and Vox is >50 IQ score points. If we assume the MWMVG is at least in the average range (90-109) Vox is claiming an IQ score of >140 and possibly >159. Note that the upper end of just ‘average’ IQ has Vox claiming to be pretty much at the limit of meaningful IQ scores on the most generous reading of IQ and even at the lower end well above the boundary which most reputable IQ test stop bothering to classify (around 130 IQ points). An informed (and presumably smart) person shouldn’t make a claim any more precise than ‘greater than 130’ – beyond that the figure as some sort of intrinsic property of a person that would be consistent across multiple methods of quantification doesn’t make sense EVEN ASSUMING IQ MAKES MUCH SENSE ANYWAY.

Put let’s take that figure of 130. Let’s say Vox is taking a more grounded view of his own IQ and is seeing himself as 130. A 50 point difference would put the MWMVG at an IQ of below 80. For comparison, an IQ of below 70 is used diagnostically as evidence of intellectual disability. An IQ of 80 to 70 is likely to represent somebody who would struggle with school and many cognitive tasks (assuming the score was representative). Which would be an odd thing for Vox to claim – after he is attempting to write a point-by-point rebuttal of what the MWMVG and struggling to do so, claiming that he is struggling to counter an argument from a person with an IQ lower than 80 would be tantamount to claiming he really doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Aaron doesn't make me grumpy in the slightest. I find his determination, shared by a few similarly stupid File 770 headcases, to stake his reputation on my being wrong every single time in all circumstances, to be downright funny. It is always a pleasure to see one's expectations met so reliably.

Especially considering how his fixation led him to publicly conclude that LEEEROY JENKINS was the greatest battlefield commander in military history.

Anyhow, Cammy has unnecessarily occupied himself with trying to assess "a more grounded view" of my IQ, in that its lower limit is a matter of public record. I was a member of Mensa, so obviously my IQ is above 132. More importantly, I was also a National Merit Finalist prior to the 1993 renorming of the PSAT, so it is equally apparent that my IQ must also be above 140. Therefore, the minimum estimated IQ for Aaron is 90, which is in the average range, and may actually be considered a little generous in light of the obvious silliness of his expressed position on tactical matters.

And then, of course, there is the perhaps-not-entirely-irrelevant fact that I already posted it.

We have now reached the point at which you should feel free to:

  • Explain why you reject IQ as a metric for intelligence. Preferably at length and with personal anecdotes.
  • Lecture us on the 34 different types of intelligence, as well as which ones are best.
  • Tell us how you were out partying the night before the SAT and you were totally hungover when you took it and besides you don't care.
  • Brag about your 800 IQ.
  • Inform us of your Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago!
It's totally going to fool everyone. I guarantee it. No one will ever be able to ascertain your true motivations. We've never seen or heard anyone do anything like it before.

Anyhow, this is nothing more than Vox's First Law in action: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.

Labels: , ,

237 Comments:

1 – 200 of 237 Newer› Newest»
Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 11:51 AM  

I find people who differ by much more than 1 SD in IQ don't enjoy each other's company.

As for MENSA, it's cutoff is about 1 in 50, which explains why most people who stick with it are a lot like the obnoxious kids you recall from high school, the poseurs who thought they were smart but were hardly exceptional.

I don't notice much intellectual horsepower until you get at least to Colloquy Society or Triple Nine Society (1 in 200 and 1 in 1000, respectively.) Even there, some bone headedness persists...must be like Original Sin.

Blogger Caladan June 26, 2016 11:53 AM  

I like to think of IQ in terms of processing power, in chips.

For example, an average IQ would be a Pentium while a higher one would be a Skylake chip.

However, you actually have to use your chip for meaningful intellectual pursuits.

Your Skylake chip isn't worth shit if you're going to be sitting around doing the intellectual equivalent of playing Tic Tac Toe while Mr Broadwell is working away hard on an invention.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 11:54 AM  

Few people recognize their own limits. This inability peaks around 105-120 and tapers off a little as you pass 140-145. I don't know enough 145+ people to comment on that group. It must be fun, though, to be naturally gifted to do almost everything easily at that level.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 11:56 AM  

High IQ is like having a broader range of potential. Only discipline lets a person hew to the higher limits of that potential.

This is why I think parenting matters, despite claims to the contrary.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 12:06 PM  

High IQ is increasingly necessary to rise above the level of scutwork in IT.

My youngest tells me that his job requires him to see the big picture, how programming changes will affect a vast array of subsystems in the household name firm for whom he works.

People like him decide how to structure the program, then the actual coding is offshored to India on the cheap.

He has to know how to code, and do it well. But like the builder who knows how to use a shovel, he pays less-skilled people to do the low level work.

Even what lots of people think is high tech is being turned into a commodity (or being automated out of existence.)

Without having a test handy, but estimating from a "1 in ?" metric, I'd guess his iq is 140-150.

Blogger Orville June 26, 2016 12:14 PM  

So Vox -50 = Poo Flinging Monkey.

Anonymous Cameltoe Faceplant June 26, 2016 12:17 PM  

The aliases were the best thing to come out of that depantsing encounter.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 12:24 PM  

What is the verbal IQ threshold for understanding the Bible?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 26, 2016 12:30 PM  

I would like to feed Cammy to the vibrant diversity. How much IQ does it take to believe in that crap?

Blogger Bard June 26, 2016 12:35 PM  

UNoC! Stated twice. Perfect and hilarious.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2016 12:38 PM  

> And then, of course, there is the perhaps-not-entirely-irrelevant fact that I already posted it.

Believe it or not, I read that post at the time and missed the fact that you had included yourself in the listing.

I knew you were at least in the high 140's. It's nice to have a figure.

> What is the verbal IQ threshold for understanding the Bible?

Which version? They vary widely.

Anonymous VinnyBoomBatz June 26, 2016 12:38 PM  

'An IQ of 80 to 70 is likely to represent somebody who would struggle with school'

Given that at least 40% of American blacks fall in that range he's tacitly admitting that he knows it's not 'institutional racism' that prevents them from succeeding.

Anonymous It's 2015+1 June 26, 2016 12:38 PM  

sunsets...

I find your observation to be similar to my experiences. IQ is most definitely potential. All of the higher IQ folks that I have known, including family and some close friends, had an absolute innate ability to just "get" things. Even the math/music genius types can, with much effort, become cunning with words (at least when compared to the general population).

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 12:49 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> What is the verbal IQ threshold for understanding the Bible?

Which version? They vary widely.


I leave that open-ended. I just want to know what portion of the population is physically capable of the necessary reading comprehension to discuss it intelligently.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 12:50 PM  

You can assume best-case translation, which in my opinion is the Modern Literal Version, if that helps. KJV is both flawed and convoluted, but poetic and traditional. I'm not asking about Ye Olde English.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 12:51 PM  

I'm asking about semantic load.

Blogger residentMoron June 26, 2016 12:55 PM  

A moron was defined as equivalent to an IQ of 51 to 70.

I'm easily capable of constructing a better argument than this guy, so if he's 50 points down from me then he's got bigger problems than he knows.

This is not unusual for SJWs, however.

Anonymous FisherOfMen June 26, 2016 12:56 PM  

>>I don't know enough 145+ people to comment on that group. It must be fun, though, to be naturally gifted to do almost everything easily at that level.

Tested 154 here. It doesn't go the way you think it does. The extra "processing power" allows you to see what can and will go wrong, and allows you to gauge the gamble on any endeavor very easily. The problem? EVERYTHING is a huge gamble-- running on game theory, the odds of any endeavor working out is a MUCH WORSE risk than just getting a job driving a garbage truck.

So that's your biggest obstacle... being able to compute the odds pretty well. That's why so many people who DON'T have superhigh IQs get so far in life, whereas superhigh IQ people tend to go bubble up in a university where there's a steady paycheck. The cost/benefits ratio there is very smart... but it's unlikely you'll accomplish as much as a Trump, or even as much as a guy who builds up a successful lawncare business.

Mark Twain said it best: "All you need in life is ignorance and confidence, and success is sure." The first thing every high IQ entrepreneur does is stop computing the odds. Or you have to be so arrogant that you assume the odds don't apply to you (this was my way out. :) )

Blogger S1AL June 26, 2016 12:58 PM  

In my experience, even literal retards can understand 100% of the moral issues of the Bible. Higher theology (Job, Romans) is a different issue.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 1:06 PM  

I'm not asking about basic moral feelz (retard-accessible) or arcane theology (ivory tower), but applied relevant stuff such as who's right or wrong in your typical internet debate with real-world tribal implications (culture war).

I.e., the threshold required to parse the debate and pick the right side, thus avoiding divine smiting.

Blogger jandolin June 26, 2016 1:10 PM  

Please get rid of the anal sex obsession and metaphors. It's disgusting.

Anonymous kfg June 26, 2016 1:14 PM  

" . . . LEEEROY JENKINS . . ."

I had to look it up. Perhaps I need to get into the basement more.

"Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity."

I have long said the same thing, but with a different aphorism as the base.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is a paranoid schizophrenic.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 26, 2016 1:14 PM  

I just realized that a great way to describe the Count to the Eschaton series would be "Dragon Ball Z with IQs instead of power levels".

This comment > 9000.

Blogger Phelps June 26, 2016 1:16 PM  

@13 It's 2015+1: That's because the whole "types" thing is misleading. It all comes back to the general intelligence factor (g) which is highly heritable. A musical genius is a genius who has applied all of his attention to music. As soon as he starts on a new endeavor, that g is now applied to that field.

All tests test for g. Every single one. Some of them correlate more strongly, some less strongly, but once you find g for a person, that will correlate with their results on any test.

Blogger szopen June 26, 2016 1:18 PM  

IIRC 130 = 2-3 in 100 (smartest in your class)
145 == 1 in 1000 (smartest in school)
155 == 1 in 10000 (part of university elite).

Higher general intelligence lower error rate (but does nt mean one does not make errors), makes learning faster, solving problems faster, grasping difficult concepts faster and so on.

All my life I discussed with people with different kind of intelligence and I believe "one can go well with people within 1SD" is false. I can discuss with both average and very intelligent people (though one have to use completely different jokes, language, ideas, even words, and though of course its much more satisfying to talk with more intelligent).

Also, from my experiences, the worst kind of intelligent people are those who mostly interact with idiots. They simply have no interaction with people on their level of intellectual ability, which causes them to assume they are always right, even when they are obviously wrong.

IMO VD is one of that case: extremely intelligent guy who whol his life was surrounded by idiots, and hence is now unable to recognize when he is wrong/right, because whole his life he was mostly right.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 26, 2016 1:22 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:I don't notice much intellectual horsepower until you get at least to Colloquy Society or Triple Nine Society (1 in 200 and 1 in 1000, respectively.) Even there, some bone headedness persists...must be like Original Sin.

Smart people have trouble navigating this contradiction due to pride:

1) I'm smarter than most people.
2) MPAI.
3) I'm so damn impressive.

The way to resolve this contradiction is to realize that being relatively intelligent is not the same as being absolutely intelligent, and the way to really drive this home for most smarties is to familiarize oneself with the writings of obscenely accomplished intellects like Euler.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 26, 2016 1:23 PM  

jandolin wrote:Please get rid of the anal sex obsession and metaphors. It's disgusting.

Concern troll is concerned.

Anonymous Faceless June 26, 2016 1:28 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:You can assume best-case translation, which in my opinion is the Modern Literal Version, if that helps. KJV is both flawed and convoluted, but poetic and traditional. I'm not asking about Ye Olde English.


This of course is a loaded question, with the answer from the scriptures themselves being, if you lack the appropriate inspiration, there is no minimum that gets you to understanding.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 1:31 PM  

Question regards necessary conditions, not sufficient. Question ignores heart and spirit, referring only to mind.

Anonymous Smile Of The Shadow June 26, 2016 1:32 PM  

In the past week I've been called "Moron" "idiot" "feeble brain" "stupid "incapable of comprehending" when insane leftists post incendiary crap about Daddy President, and then get butt hurt when they are challenged on it. I always start out rational, they ALWAYS devolve into name calling.

I always respond by offering to compare IQ and academic credentials. They ALWAYS flip their shit at that point (and never once, oddly, have I been taken up on it). Liberals are retards and mentally deranged. There's no more to it. And it is always the case.

Anonymous rienzi June 26, 2016 1:33 PM  

18. Fisher of Men, is right on the money. Here: 4+SD IQ, National Merit Finalist, highest SAT in history of high school, etc. etc.

You can see what can go wrong, so you hold back. Whereas the less intelligent, but still very bright, forge ahead. For most of them it does go horribly wrong, but a few are spectacularly successful. Good for them. They are the people that keep the rest of us out of poverty and barbarism.

Being out at the far right reaches of the bell curve is not the picnic you may think it to be. It can be an extraordinarily lonely place. Think Tom Hanks in "Castaway". Forever.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 1:49 PM  

@ FisherOfMen you nailed it. I could easily buy a substantial business or a franchise but what stops me is exactly the calculation you describe. I'm happier taking the "keep what I have" route.

OTOH, my wife and I reasoned our way as parents and the outcome is frankly unmatched. There's a decided benefit to being >140 even if it doesn't necessarily yield 99.99th percentile wealth. It does, however, usually make you pretty abrasive to most average people, would you agree?

I figure half of Vox' incitement of rage in midwits is the belt-sander abrasiveness introduced by a couple SD's difference in IQ.

Blogger szopen June 26, 2016 1:50 PM  

@32, @18
Another thing is that sometimes you are right when your teachers are wrong, which may harm your grades and social relations.

I am not that far right on bell curve (I was never professionally tested, by my achievements I think my IQ is in very wide range of 125-140), but there were at least two times I remember discussing against a teacher and a whole class (and I was right, they were wrong). It took me a while to learn how to behave in order not to be taken for a total jerk.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 1:51 PM  

Arrogance that others' limitations didn’t apply to me cost me 6 figures 16 years ago. I forgot that I still had limitations, and that arrogance is a leading cause of blindness.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2016 1:53 PM  

> You can assume best-case translation, which in my opinion is the Modern Literal Version, if that helps. KJV is both flawed and convoluted, but poetic and traditional. I'm not asking about Ye Olde English.

OK. I am not a linguist or even a teacher, so this is strictly the best guess of an informed layman. Mos of the Bible is actually fairly simple if you ignore things like what the parables actually meant. I'd guess a 90 IQ could grasp the majority of it with no problems, and an 80 IQ significant chunks. Below that it gets dicey.

> KJV is both flawed and convoluted, but poetic and traditional.

Everything we make is flawed. :) I'll stick with the poetic and traditional every time.
> IMO VD is one of that case: extremely intelligent guy who whol his life was surrounded by idiots, and hence is now unable to recognize when he is wrong/right, because whole his life he was mostly right.

You don't know us very well, do you? And you know nothing about the people Vox associates with.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2016 1:56 PM  

> It does, however, usually make you pretty abrasive to most average people, would you agree?

I've found that if you let people be and keep your mouth shut, you usually don't have any problems. And you can learn things from pretty much anyone.

Blogger Were-Puppy June 26, 2016 1:57 PM  

@31 Smile Of The Shadow

A high IQ lefty means they can more efficiently fling poo, with less effort.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2016 1:58 PM  

> Another thing is that sometimes you are right when your teachers are wrong, which may harm your grades and social relations.

Oh yeah. And given the IQ of teachers nowadays, that doesn't take much. :)

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 2:02 PM  

szopen, musical ability is not g, any more than is basketball abilty. I've seen crossover, but music, dance, athletics are as I understand it grouped differently.

Your experience is markedly different from mone. Stupid people resented the hell out of me because I threatened their advancement. Mid-to-above-average people (the kind commonly found in major US corporations like where I worked) took any higher level discussion or larger vocabulary as competitive "I'm smarter than you" signals rather than just discussion of hobbies & intetests.

Perhaps I'm older than you, or have a different set of experiences, but in my view your view is not supported.

If you wish to tell me that I could still be happily married after 34 years if my wife was the cutie she was at 18, but had an IQ of 100 or even 115, I'll know you're clueless.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 2:07 PM  

Reinzi, it's surprising how often someone on the Colloquy Society (140+ IQ) mail list is unemployed and having trouble getting a job.

IQ isn't everything, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to be stupid.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 2:10 PM  

szopen, my middle son graduated with 4.0 in mechanical engineering and only did so because he was able several times to prove mathematically that his answers were right on tests in things like Fluid Dynamics and the professor's were wrong.

I credit Math Team in high school.

Anonymous DiscipleofSheiko June 26, 2016 2:11 PM  

MENSA does (did?) accept a remarkably low LSAT as qualifying. Average score at U of Minnesota low.

That said personal wealth seems the better metric. Also weeds out the objectively brilliant but socially hopeless crowd.

Unrelated - they should have a MENSA but for wilks. 380 and above maybe. Now that would grab attention on a resume.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 2:11 PM  

James Dixon wrote:Mos of the Bible is actually fairly simple if you ignore things like what the parables actually meant. I'd guess a 90 IQ could grasp the majority of it with no problems, and an 80 IQ significant chunks. Below that it gets dicey.

I don't think this answers the question I intended to ask. I'm not asking about salvation or moral uprightness. 90 IQ shouldn't be participating in online debates over real-world culture-war issues.

Here are some examples, ordered by cognitive challenge:
1. Refuting SJW heresies - mostly too easy, but high real-world relevance
2. Catholic vs Protestant debate - theological but not esoteric
3. Predestination vs free will debate - getting esoteric, thus of fading relevance here
4. Apocalyptic eschatology - esoteric to irrelevance

There is an underlying quality of Biblical reading comprehension that mediates participatory competence. Important parts of the Bible have non-trivial semantic load. What is the relevant verbal IQ threshold?

I think Protestants find this question uncomfortable because it undermines Sola Scriptura. They shouldn't: pastors exist for a reason.

Blogger szopen June 26, 2016 2:14 PM  

@40 dc,sunset
"szopen" is not "chopin", it's because of my hair style when I was younger.

My experiences are that when I was younger, I _was_ resented and quite often kids would attack me for no reason and calling me names like "stupid brainy" (brainy was a nickname from popular smurfs cartoon). It took me long time to learn how to change that, but right now I had no problems with having a friendly chat with, for example, construction workers, fathers of other children in school, gardeners and so on. Yeah, sometimes you have to remember to limit your vocabulary and omit some topics for discussion, sometimes also you have to discuss utterly boring things or laugh at stupid jokes, but it's quite easy to get along while you grasp it.

I am not saying about more intimate relations like friendship or romantic, but I was under an impression that by "enjoying each other's company" you meant something less than "marriage" or "friendship". If that was your intention, then yes, you are right.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar June 26, 2016 2:16 PM  

Like the rest of science, IQ is only relevant when it benefits them. Sure Psychometry has a reliability of over .7 and some would say .8, but reliability for them has everything to do with supporting their beliefs.
George W. Bush must have had a low IQ because he wasn't a democrat. Going to Harvard and Yale are irrelevant to his party affiliation. And of course Obama must be superintelligent because he's the Democratic President. His reliance on scripts put on a teleprompter have no bearing on this belief.
Some say IQ isn't the end all and be all of life. It also takes hard work and discipline. Those are not all IQ, almost but not all. Environment must be almost five percent of it, depending on the case. That five percent is all they have.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 2:16 PM  

Aeoli Pera, smart people too often believe their own PR. All of us steep in our own ignorance, no matter how intelligent or learned.

The more I know, the less of the sum of all possible knowledge I possess. It's a paradox I never forget.

This is why the arrogance of "experts" so tires me.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 26, 2016 2:38 PM  

DiscipleofSheiko wrote:That said personal wealth seems the better metric. Also weeds out the objectively brilliant but socially hopeless crowd.

Based on personal observation, wealth has almost nothing to do with IQ. Besides myself, the highest IQ I know is a physically disabled Navy vet living on a disability check. The richest person I know personally is a 120 IQ or so guy who lucked into an early management position with McCaw Cellular, and wound up banking about $2B. The next is a 125 or so IQ (((PhD in economics))) who works for an international banking corporation. His sister made $2M or so getting a secretarial job early at iShip.com. The next richest is a 110 or so IQ with obvious mental health issues.
None of these people made their money by being the smartest. They made it by being in the right place with the right connections.

Blogger VD June 26, 2016 2:38 PM  

IMO VD is one of that case: extremely intelligent guy who whol his life was surrounded by idiots, and hence is now unable to recognize when he is wrong/right, because whole his life he was mostly right.

That is amusing. It would be very hard for you to be more wrong. I probably lived in the highest average IQ dwelling of anyone here after college; the lowest was mid-140s. The highest was mid-170s.

I'm not always right. But it tends to look that way, because unlike most people, I tend to keep my mouth shut if I don't have a high degree of confidence in my opinion on a specific matter. Also, I'm not inclined to express any opinion on matters of little interest to me. It always surprises me how quick most people are to opine in admitted ignorance.

Anonymous VFM #6306 June 26, 2016 2:43 PM  

I am begining to think that your estimation of Camestros' IQ is unfair.

Surely it can't be higher than the IQ of that crafty rake he keeps stomping on.

Anonymous Anonymous June 26, 2016 2:47 PM  

His line of argument is reasonable - now you're both living in each other's heads.

It's bad rhetorical calibration to toss off flip remarks about '>50 IQ points' to this kind of guy.

OpenID anonymos-coward June 26, 2016 2:49 PM  

When people say 'intelligence' they mean one of three things:

a) Know-how. (Knowing materials science, the C++ standard, grammar rules of Sanskrit, etc.)

b) Logic and reasoning. (Including formal logic and puzzles.)

c) The ability to learn new skills quickly and the ability to respond to changing circumstances.

IQ tests can be gamed if you're good at b), or if you're drilled to death by someone that is good at b). This is why Asians get good IQ scores, not because they're particularly intelligent.

Blogger stevo June 26, 2016 2:55 PM  

Adam Carolla's line "I never argue unless I'm right"

Blogger Human Animal June 26, 2016 2:56 PM  

Intellectual Honesty begins at home.
The gutting of family and fatherhood has done a lot to sabotage the natural wealth of intellect in the west.

Blogger Sheila4g June 26, 2016 2:58 PM  

I've been calling myself a high mid-wit, but by purely test metrics (National Merit Finalist back in the '70s), I suppose I must be above 140. I'm fairly skewed toward the verbal side, though; my husband was not NMF and sometimes surprises me by not being familiar with certain words I use, but he's still no slouch verbally and is far better at math than I. Our older son got the best of both and was tested at minimum 150+. Different IQ tests have different ceilings so we don't know precisely what his IQ is, just that he's damned smart. However, he lacks certain ambition and long-term preferences (never did well on long-term projects in school) and, because so much comes so easily to him, doesn't really work that hard unless something really matters to him. Also, problems noted by @31 rienzi (world can be an extraordinarily lonely place) and @33 szopen (deal with others without coming off as a jerk) have hampered him.

He gets long pretty well now with a huge variety of individuals - as the son of my husband's friend reportedly said, he's still the smartest guy he's ever met but he doesn't need to prove it. Thing is, he never was trying to prove anything - as a little kid he just loved learning and sharing what he learned, and others sometimes took that as boasting. Even when other kids didn't and he got along great with them, their parents resented the hell out of him because they wanted THEIR child to be the best in the class.

Right now he's really at loose ends, because for a long time the only thing he really wanted was to be a soldier, but today's US military is no place for him and he's getting out. The only thing in recent memory he ever worked really hard at was Pathfinder School - and he was then really bummed when he passed and various SF guys he greatly admired didn't. He's also got his share of musical and artistic and physical ability, but he's often not a very happy guy and it breaks my heart.

Blogger Mom June 26, 2016 3:00 PM  

The thing is, as Vox has pointed out IIRC, people with IQs at his level think in a different manner than people with lower IQs.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2016 3:02 PM  

> I don't think this answers the question I intended to ask. I'm not asking about salvation or moral uprightness. 90 IQ shouldn't be participating in online debates over real-world culture-war issues.

In that case, I don't know, and I'm sorry for having wasted your time. You might try asking a professor in theology.

> The more I know, the less of the sum of all possible knowledge I possess. It's a paradox I never forget.

Here be words of wisdom.

> Based on personal observation, wealth has almost nothing to do with IQ.

Individually you are correct, but I believe studies have shown that in the aggregate that's not the case. I'd have to do some searching to try to locate the information though, and I don't have time right now. So take it for what it's worth.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 3:09 PM  

I will take a stab at answering my question. Based on this Mega chart, the verbal IQ threshold for Biblical reading comprehension sufficient for culture war competence* is at least 125 - beyond the average manager, teacher, accountant.

Maybe the average 125 professor is technically capable, if not willing.

Under real world conditions of FUD and jamming, I think the "Eminent professor, editor" 132-137 class is a more reasonable minimum.

*By which I mean, able to avoid joining a side that irritates Jehovah.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2016 3:10 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:I think Protestants find this question uncomfortable because it undermines Sola Scriptura.
Which definition of Sola Scriptura? One of the several written definitions which can be found, or the way it can be practiced? Is it possible you're confusing "Sola Scriptura" with "Solo Scriptura"?

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 3:21 PM  

wrf3 wrote:Is it possible you're confusing "Sola Scriptura" with "Solo Scriptura"?

I'm not familiar with the distinctions you're drawing. I meant the common apparent Protestant/Evangelical attitude that everyone should read his Bible and interpret it himself.

Blogger LurkingPuppy June 26, 2016 3:22 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:My youngest tells me that his job requires him to see the big picture, how programming changes will affect a vast array of subsystems in the household name firm for whom he works.

Without having a test handy, but estimating from a "1 in ?" metric, I'd guess his iq is 140-150.

If he does that job well, he's probably closer to 180.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2016 3:22 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:What is the verbal IQ threshold for understanding the Bible?
Assumes facts not in evidence, i.e., that IQ is correlated with understanding. Vox, for example, is a high IQ Open Theist -- but Open Theism is based on misreading Scripture. I (and I assume Markku) are high IQ Calvinists. And we all know how well that goes over with some people.

These kinds of things aren't limited to Theology. I always enjoy the disputations between scientists as to whether or not String Theory is, or is not, science (it is) and which flavor of Quantum Mechanics (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, De Broglie-Bohm, ...) is correct.

High IQ people can, and do, get things wrong all the time.

This should inform you that "divine smiting" isn't based on one's correct understanding of doctrine.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 26, 2016 3:22 PM  

DiscipleofSheiko wrote:they should have a MENSA but for wilks. 380 and above maybe.
Can't find anything that defines "wilk" that fits in this statement.

VD wrote:I'm not always right. But it tends to look that way, because unlike most people, I tend to keep my mouth shut if I don't have a high degree of confidence in my opinion on a specific matter.
Like creation/evolution, where you have persisted for many years in deliberately ignoring the evidence and dialectic behind evolution and instead attacked the Marxist-imposed violations of the scientific method behind official denials of HBD, etc?

Also, I'm not inclined to express any opinion on matters of little interest to me. It always surprises me how quick most people are to opine in admitted ignorance.
Doesn't stop you from pronouncing sentence on thousands of devoted scientists living and dead, from paleontologists to molecular biologists to geneticists, many of them smarter than you, that they were wrong about their specific field of study and you are right.

You're fascinating anyway and right far more than you're wrong, but this is a HUGE blind spot of yours.

Blogger S1AL June 26, 2016 3:23 PM  

@Neanderserk - I agree with the above statement regarding Sola Scripture. It's not even applicable here.

As for "a side that irritates God", my guess would be that you are dramatically overestimating the degree to which He cares how correct an individual is about the degree to which the Son was mortal. Granted, I'm not Him, and maybe that's a way bigger deal than it appears.

But to answer what looks like your primary question: someone once observed that a person with an IQ of about 130 can do almost anything with enough effort and practice. Let's set that as an upper limit for comprehension of anything practical use (i.e. not A-B theories of time and their relationship to prophecy and free will). Then set aside interesting but ultimately futile questions like "what was the point of Elihu?"

At that point, what is the single most difficult scriptural issue you can find?

Blogger Human Animal June 26, 2016 3:24 PM  

anonymos-coward mentioned gaming IQ tests.
Public schools are meant to prep you for university... test taking. And in that environment, knowing 'C' is the likely answer to most questions isn't unlike knowing that 'Diversity is Strength' and 'Immigration is an act of Love' as shorthand for high social status.

Culture war aside, how much of our school system is dogma kids are gaming? The history of science, especially, seems to be assumed or implied more than actually taught.

Blogger S1AL June 26, 2016 3:25 PM  

@Mr Rational -

TENS =/= general evolution. Reconcile that and most of your statements become absurd. Unsurprisingly, this is true of most anything atheists say.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2016 3:30 PM  

> I meant the common apparent Protestant/Evangelical attitude that everyone should read his Bible and interpret it himself.

Which is nowhere near as common as you seem to think.

Blogger VD June 26, 2016 3:30 PM  

Like creation/evolution, where you have persisted for many years in deliberately ignoring the evidence and dialectic behind evolution and instead attacked the Marxist-imposed violations of the scientific method behind official denials of HBD, etc?

I haven't ignored any of the evidence or the dialectic. Quite to the contrary. The honest evolutionists admit that my questions are pertinent and unanswerable, and that my objections are serious.

Doesn't stop you from pronouncing sentence on thousands of devoted scientists living and dead, from paleontologists to molecular biologists to geneticists, many of them smarter than you, that they were wrong about their specific field of study and you are right.

That's correct. The weight of the current evidence and logic SUGGEST that they are wrong and I am correct. But as I have often said, the jury is still out, it's just looking increasingly bad for them.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2016 3:31 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:wrf3 wrote:Is it possible you're confusing "Sola Scriptura" with "Solo Scriptura"?

I'm not familiar with the distinctions you're drawing.

Solo Scripture is that Scripture, and Scripture alone, interpreted by the individual, is the sole source of truth.

I meant the common apparent Protestant/Evangelical attitude that everyone should read his Bible and interpret it himself.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, as one example, sets forth Presbyterian understanding of doctrine. It affirms that everyone should read the Bible, but it also affirms that correct understanding is not solely a private affair.

Having said that, Protestants do a horrible job of explaining epistemology and how it fits in with their particular worldview.

Blogger OldFan June 26, 2016 3:38 PM  

The primary reason the SJWs always oppose the concept of measurable IQ is rather simple: if it could be tested and then used as a criterion for admission into their hallowed institutions of learning (or of government) then the WRONG KIND OF PEOPLE MIGHT GET IN!!

They are wedded to a totally subjective selection process because it enables their self-selecting Gramscian 'march through the institutions' that make political reliability the most important selection criteria. The injection of real 'out of the box' thinkers would be a political disaster for most modern academic institutions - there would be no Party Discipline, you see.

The fact that they denigrate the existence or importance of IQ while desperately & continually signaling how 'fabulously smart they really are' is just another example of the bizarre, contradictory mental state called 'socialism' by some.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2016 3:43 PM  

> The Westminster Confession of Faith, as one example, sets forth Presbyterian understanding of doctrine. It affirms that everyone should read the Bible, but it also affirms that correct understanding is not solely a private affair.

As I understand it, that pretty much the case with all denominations. I'm sure someone can find an exception or two though.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 3:46 PM  

@53 wrf: See my previous, e.g. @29.

@61 S1AL: "my guess would be that you are dramatically overestimating the degree to which He cares how correct an individual is about the degree to which the Son was mortal."

I didn't estimate it.

"a person with an IQ of about 130 can do almost anything with enough effort and practice."

Not true. Rather, almost everything people commonly do can be done by IQ 130s. Similarly, almost nobody lives past 130 years.

"At that point, what is the single most difficult scriptural issue you can find?"

I am talking about comprehending matters such as Jesus' "rabbi, rabbi" speech. Or the dispensational difference between pre-crucifixion Kingdom and post-crucifixion Church. Not rocket science but not perfectly straightforward either. Adequately comprehending the Bible requires clearing multiple such hurdles.

I define adequate understanding as, "Minimum necessary intellectual level able to avoid the class of offenses that provoked negative divine reactions in the Bible, while still fully participating in the current culture war."

I think the failure to understand the question may in itself be an answer to the question.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 3:55 PM  

If he does that job well, he's probably closer to 180.

I am biased of course, but walked the razor's edge while raising my sons between highlighting their intelligence (and the responsibility that accompanies it) and avoiding the self-destructive arrogance that can arise. They are not geniuses in the way I define(d) the term.

I'm loath to identify them, but suffice it to say that the youngest finished college at 20, and has already been awarded two company-wide awards, both of them projects that every American sees commercials for practically every evening on TV.

He just turned 25, didn’t much like school and was a PITA as a teen, including buying an engine lift and removing the engine from a used 3000GT (without my permission), adding huge twin turbochargers, converting the auto trans to a 5-speed manual and lowering the suspension, entirely by reading and conversing at an on-line forum.

Love him dearly but happy he's grown and on his own. Every family gets an adventurous kid.

Anonymous LastRedoubt June 26, 2016 3:58 PM  

dc.sunsets @

There's a decided benefit to being >140 even if it doesn't necessarily yield 99.99th percentile wealth. It does, however, usually make you pretty abrasive to most average people, would you agree?

I find the ones I have the worst time with aren't "average" - sure, I have to talk "different" - but they recognize "smart" and usually understand you're reaching out. And most decent competent people have something they're good at that's not your specialty, or like guns, or SOMETHING, so there's still stuff to talk about. Far from perfect, and enough jealous idiots, but less issues than with midwits.

No, it's the 115-125 types that know they're smart but - as alluded above - aren't smart enough to recognize their limits, or that some people are even smarter, but have that condescension to people "below" them, that I have the worst issues with.

And project that condescension onto you when they realize you're talking above them. Accuse you of trying to show them up.

I'm not trying. I'd have to work harder to dumb things down to their level.


@VD

I'm not always right. But it tends to look that way, because unlike most people, I tend to keep my mouth shut if I don't have a high degree of confidence in my opinion on a specific matter. Also, I'm not inclined to express any opinion on matters of little interest to me. It always surprises me how quick most people are to opine in admitted ignorance.

This.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2016 4:07 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:@53I think the failure to understand the question may in itself be an answer to the question.
Why do you think we misunderstand your question? I understand it. I just think it's a very misguided question, because a) it assumes facts not in evidence (that IQ is correlated with correct understanding), b) equivocates on the meaning of "negative divine reactions" and c) assumes that divine "smitings" (whatever you think those are) are delivered because of incorrect doctrine on the part of believers.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 26, 2016 4:09 PM  

LastRedoubt wrote:No, it's the 115-125 types that know they're smart but - as alluded above - aren't smart enough to recognize their limits, or that some people are even smarter, but have that condescension to people "below" them, that I have the worst issues with.

Exactly.
Janitor wants to talk football? I can talk football, basketball, whatever. My opinion's as good as yours and it's all fine. Besides, I worked as a janitor for 3 years. But you get the 125IQ climber who's desperately insecure and got his college degree that he clings to like a security blanket? Him I can't talk to.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 26, 2016 4:11 PM  

wrf3 wrote:it assumes facts not in evidence (that IQ is correlated with correct understanding)

Given the commonness of Atheism among moderately-high IQ types (mid-wits), that is a seriuos assumption.

Blogger szopen June 26, 2016 4:13 PM  

@52 sheila4g
because so much comes so easily to him, doesn't really work that hard unless something really matters to him
This.

It was so easy to get good grades in school, that when I went to technical university I failed few exams at the first year. It no longer was enough to read material few hours before to pass. I still remember the shock - I had to read the same thing several times and then ponder about it in order to understand it!

Again, this may be one thing which stops some above-average intelligent people, when they do not meet enough intelligent competition - they do not learn to work hard, because everything comes so much easy.

The same with my daughter and my son. They do not learn and I cannot convince them they should learn, because (usually, there were few exceptions) they get almost perfect grades without almost any effort.

Dumbing down school curriculum is to blame, too - and to think about it, this is another bad side-effect of dumbing down school curriculums.

Anonymous Type 5 June 26, 2016 4:14 PM  

Back in 1977, I received a certificate telling me I was a National Merit Scholar. I thought, "That's nice." I stuck it in a folder somewhere and forgot about it.

Very recently, I discovered that the program hands out scholarships. Evidently you write some essay about how you're going to change the world and send it off with a transcript to a committee.

I've been wondering why no one ever mentioned that to me. My working hypothesis places great weight on the fact that I ran over the principal's mailbox the previous summer.

Blogger Scott June 26, 2016 4:18 PM  

People like him decide how to structure the program, then the actual coding is offshored to India on the cheap.

LOL

Blogger Noah B June 26, 2016 4:26 PM  

800 IQ: Yeah I derived warp theory without having any math background and built a functional warp engine, but I decided humanity wasn't ready for it, so now I mostly focus on aromatherapy.

Anonymous SciVo June 26, 2016 4:31 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:The more I know, the less of the sum of all possible knowledge I possess. It's a paradox I never forget.

The bigger my amoeba of knowledge and understanding, the greater the surface area of my interaction with the unknown. Where my mind's tendrils extend the furthest, there my awareness of ignorance is at its greatest.

Average people hate to admit ignorance, because it takes them back to school and feeling embarrassed when they were called on and didn't know the answer. I've always just taken it to mean that I don't know yet.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 26, 2016 4:35 PM  

One thing I've noticed about discussions of IQ where most of the participants are above average (and I doubt there are many where they aren't) is that we tend to forget how rare high IQs are, how fast the curve drops. Pretty soon people are saying this or that field requires or averages 140, 160, 180, which gets ridiculous.

On the 15 points=1SD scale, a 160+ only appears in 1 of 31,500 people. That means in my not-particularly-high-tech town of 50,000 people, there are probably only 1 or 2 people that high in the entire town -- and a decent chance of zero. It's estimated that the average person physically meets about 10,000 people in a lifetime, so the average person who doesn't work in a high-IQ field is more likely than not never to meet a person that smart. If you jump up to 180 -- one person in 20 million -- then to most of the population, that might as well be Bigfoot as far as the likelihood goes that they'll ever meet one.

Point is, really high IQs aren't the norm in any field, because there just aren't that many of them to go around. Even fields like higher mathematics are going to have some truly high IQs, but also a lot of people with high math and low verbal who don't score that high overall.

Blogger VD June 26, 2016 4:42 PM  

It was so easy to get good grades in school, that when I went to technical university I failed few exams at the first year. It no longer was enough to read material few hours before to pass. I still remember the shock - I had to read the same thing several times and then ponder about it in order to understand it!

See, that's the difference between the 1-2 SD and the 3SD+. The former breeze through high school and then are surprised to learn they have to learn how to work in college.

The 3SD+ show up at university and are surprised to learn that everyone warning them that they would really, truly, finally have to learn how to work are wrong again.

As my son once described his elite math course, "Most people can't even begin to climb the mountain. A few of us can follow the path that our professors show us; it takes us a while, but we eventually get to the top if we stick at it. Two or three don't need the path and can climb straight up on their own. And M - the smartest kid in the course - just turns on his jet pack and flies right to the top."

Blogger Scott C June 26, 2016 4:45 PM  

Why give him the attention, Vox? You're just egging him on. Now he'll post even more inane stuff about you.

Blogger VD June 26, 2016 4:46 PM  

The same with my daughter and my son. They do not learn and I cannot convince them they should learn, because (usually, there were few exceptions) they get almost perfect grades without almost any effort.

Throw them into a university course online. If it's too easy, throw them into a harder one. Break them of their intellectual pride.

Blogger VD June 26, 2016 4:47 PM  

Why give him the attention, Vox? You're just egging him on

I am kind.

Blogger residentMoron June 26, 2016 4:48 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:wrf3 wrote:Is it possible you're confusing "Sola Scriptura" with "Solo Scriptura"?

I'm not familiar with the distinctions you're drawing. I meant the common apparent Protestant/Evangelical attitude that everyone should read his Bible and interpret it himself.


Sadly, you're probably right.

My bible, for example, says: "In the multitude of counselors there is safety" but I'd concede that probably few Christians know of this text or why it is there.

But that's because a lot of people who claim to believe in Sola Scriptura don't do enough of the first bit ("read his bible") to make the second bit ("interpret it himself") workable.

Too many Christians are just like everyone else: looking for someone else to to the hard work ad just give me the easy answers. That's the deadly allure of the argument from expertise; be it theological, political, economic, scientific, etc.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 26, 2016 4:51 PM  

My struggle with IQ is its relationship with maturity and wisdom.

Blogger VD June 26, 2016 4:54 PM  

My struggle with IQ is its relationship with maturity and wisdom.

It doesn't have one. There are smart fools. There are wise retards. Always trust the latter instead of the former.

IQ is like caliber. It may provide more firepower, but wisdom is what lets you put it on target.

Anonymous SciVo June 26, 2016 4:57 PM  

Sheila4g wrote:I've been calling myself a high mid-wit, but by purely test metrics (National Merit Finalist back in the '70s), I suppose I must be above 140.

If you took the SAT, you can narrow it down further with this handy automated converter. (The most commonly cited IQ score is Wechsler, so assume that if unspecified.) Another site has a conversion table, which is a little clunkier, but it also has some explanation and links.

Anonymous SciVo June 26, 2016 4:58 PM  

@88: correction for the first link

Blogger Human Animal June 26, 2016 5:05 PM  

Average people hate to admit ignorance, because it takes them back to school and feeling embarrassed when they were called on and didn't know the answer. I've always just taken it to mean that I don't know yet.

We fail to appreciate how untalented people see the world. Imagine being two months behind your rent, plus another month each year. The guilt and shame and desire to avoid your landlord snowballs.

People who have never known joy in their work, in progressing in a skill fall easily to a cult like Women's Studies, if only for the certainty it offers.

Blogger Noah B June 26, 2016 5:07 PM  

Projects are good ways to break up the monotony of learning through reading. For me, a key moment of inspiration was when I learned that the trajectory of a cannon ball could be calculated mathematically, as opposed to simply being discovered blindly through trial and error. There are thousands of things like this that you know and your kids don't, and something is bound to spark their imagination and reinforce the importance of learning.

Blogger Human Animal June 26, 2016 5:15 PM  

The 3SD+ show up at university and are surprised to learn that everyone warning them that they would really, truly, finally have to learn how to work are wrong again.

Confirm.

And thinking it over from a "shared hardship breeds friendship" angle, I wonder if the athletic to academic balance of the ancient schooling system wasn't more healthy for social bonds.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 5:22 PM  

wrf3 wrote:Why do you think we misunderstand your question? I understand it.

wrf3 wrote:a) it assumes facts not in evidence (that IQ is correlated with correct understanding),

If those who understand correctly have IQs above zero, then IQ is correlated with understanding in the threshold sense relevant here. Which is not even relevant, because the previously explicitly stated "necessary, not sufficient" logical relationship necessitates only the most tenuous aforementioned correlation.

Demonstrably not understanding understanding, you unquestionably misunderstand my question. Don't whine, it's Pauline.

Blogger tublecane June 26, 2016 5:26 PM  

@59-If string theory is science, what isn't?

Blogger S1AL June 26, 2016 5:33 PM  

@Neanderserk - Ask better questions.

Anonymous BGKB June 26, 2016 5:39 PM  

knowing 'C' is the likely answer to most questions isn't unlike knowing that 'Diversity is Strength' and 'Immigration is an act of Love'

Common core will only make it worse.

OT: Clinton climbs 12 points higher than TRUMP in a poll probably taken in a Chicago bathhouse
• The public by 66-29 percent think he’s unfairly biased against groups such as women, minorities or Muslims.

• Americans by 68-28 percent think his comment about Judge Gonzalo Curiel was racist. Regardless of whether or not it was racist, 85 percent say it was inappropriate.

• While most Americans disapprove of Clinton’s handling of her email while secretary of state (34-56 percent, approve-disapprove), they’re equally disenchanted with Trump’s handling of questions about Trump University (19-59 percent, with more undecided).

• Most generally, the public by 56-36 percent, a 20-point margin, says Trump is standing against their beliefs as opposed to standing up for their beliefs
https://gma.yahoo.com/clinton-opens-12-point-lead-trump-two-thirds-130147301--abc-news-topstories.html#

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 26, 2016 5:41 PM  

JaimeInTexas wrote:My struggle with IQ is its relationship with maturity and wisdom.

A couple of decent heuristics to get you started:

Wisdom ~= IQ * pain
Maturity ~= Social skills * time

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 26, 2016 5:44 PM  

Moral of the story: praying for wisdom like Solomon seems like a good idea but just be aware the process usually isn't fun :-).

Blogger Cail Corishev June 26, 2016 5:44 PM  

And M - the smartest kid in the course - just turns on his jet pack and flies right to the top.

Most people assume the smartest kid in class learns twice as fast, or maybe a few times as fast as the others, which is why they believe the others can keep up with him if they just work extra hard. The truth is more like this: Kid A reads the lesson, listens to the teacher explain the lesson, does some exercises, does some more later as homework, listens to the teacher review it again the next day, does some more exercises, rinse and repeat for a couple weeks until he has it down.

Kid B looks over the lesson while the teacher is calling roll, thinks, "Okay, that makes sense," and he's got it.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 26, 2016 5:52 PM  

VD wrote:As my son once described his elite math course, "Most people can't even begin to climb the mountain. A few of us can follow the path that our professors show us; it takes us a while, but we eventually get to the top if we stick at it. Two or three don't need the path and can climb straight up on their own. And M - the smartest kid in the course - just turns on his jet pack and flies right to the top."

Fun story. When I was taking partial differential equations there was a 16-year-old kid in the class named "Tong Tong". Looked younger. Sometimes the professor would get lost in one of his proofs and Tong Tong would help him out, one time walking him through several steps. zmurt.

He was also in my probability class, where once in a blue moon I could complete a combinatorics problem faster than him because my magic genius brain would rephrase the question into a simpler version. But even though Tong Tong was not a magic genius brain, he will probably accomplish a great deal more in his creative endeavors simply because his IQ is ~50 points higher.

Anonymous Bosch2000 June 26, 2016 5:53 PM  

Part 1

I've been tested three times in my life: 142, 145, 150. I tend to split the difference if asked but I rarely bring it up, because I know the most-likely reaction is a combination of jealousy and fear, and what naturally follows is passive-aggressive attempts to disqualify your intelligence, either by:

- combing your words for the one grammatical or spelling error that invalidates your entire argument;
- shaming you for your vocabulary if you use your natural, comfortable language, ( the most common accusation being an accusation of wilful pretention: ‘you’re just using a thesaurus to sound smart!’);
- shaming you for your perceived arrogance, (usually coupled with deconstructing the very concept of IQ itself);

- making outlandish claims as to their own intelligence, one much higher than your own, (a Textbook Gamma work subordinate doing low-level IT work recently-claimed he ‘thought’ he was ‘around 180’, which would make him about 1 of perhaps 2 people in my entire country).

Based upon my experiences, I have three observations on this:

- Low intelligence, (-95), is very, very suspicious of higher intelligence. Imagine a hungry dog, pacing back and forth as it sizes up a competitor for a kill.

Anonymous Bosch2000 June 26, 2016 5:55 PM  

- Midwitted intelligence (roughly 95-120) thinks they’re the natural rulers of (-95); struggles to think-independently; shows no interest in self-directed, independent learning; shows no natural curiosity to learn because they already ‘know’ everything that is to be known about any topic worth knowing about already; needs structured, dictated learning with constant validation of their thought and learning by an authority figures to be reassured that they’re’ correct’ and thereby ‘intelligent’ ; thinks credentials ‘prove’ intelligence; is simultaneously arrogant and insecure about their intelligence whilst - in classic doublethink fashion - being unable to conceive of higher intelligence than their own; hates faith because of the implication something out there is greater than them; create Gnostic Worlds of their own design in which they are the Supreme Being, which is why they react with fury when you challenge their Constructed Reality because you are commiting heresy against them ; is obsessed with rules and structures and procedure so no-one outshines them; and produces mundane, joyless art concerned with the social instruction of children and the mental lessers they believe they rule over.

High Intelligence (120 up) seems to be where people start learning independently for their own pleasure. They recognise rules and processes as being the mental straightjackets they are. They’re open to the possibility that those teaching them might be wrong about something, and know when to remain quiet on a topic, recognising when they have no knowledge or understanding to contribute. They’re generally aware of when someone is more intelligent than them, (though this is influenced by social status fears, personality types and social-sexual ranking). As intelligence rises, recognising higher intelligence is usually a humbling experience, coupled with the thrill of what knowledge you might learn from them, particularly, exactly how you might be wrong about something, and, as such, the older they get, the more open to possibility they are, meaning, some form of higher faith seems to kick back in.

Once you rise about 145, the difference in capacity of thought starts getting scary. Although the numerical distance sounds the same, the difference between 145 and 160 is far grander than 130 and 145. A 160 friend of mine just has instant comprehension of any situation, and I’m touched that he bothers taking the time to then break it down into the steps necessary for me to arrive at his understanding.

Note that both him and I were born Rural and Working class, and both present as sub-95 thugs to remain socially-accepted by the Low Crowd, whom we understand has the capacity to be feral and dangerous, and socially-invisible to the Midwitted-crowd, whom we find tedious as they’re incapable of being taught to think independently, which is why they’re ripe for indoctrination.

Knowing where I fit in, knowing my capacity for thought and understanding in relation to both those higher and lower than me, seeing how quickly Vox can articulate complex and abstract thoughts on the fly when presented with random information, and that he sometimes give me pause for thought, I’d roughly place him above 150.

I’ll write about the predictable Accusation of Insanity when a Midwit tries to comprehend an intelligence far beyond their mental capacity to do so when I have more time, later today. Just quickly: it’s only two standard deviations - thirty IQ points - difference.

Blogger Human Animal June 26, 2016 5:58 PM  

Kid B looks over the lesson while the teacher is calling roll, thinks, "Okay, that makes sense," and he's got it.

If you're Orson Welles, you don't need film school.

If you're Donald Trump...

Anonymous ScarletNumber June 26, 2016 6:11 PM  

@40

I don't know why you are surprised. They are more high-IQ people than jobs for them. Plus many IQ people are low EQ

Anonymous Sagramore June 26, 2016 6:13 PM  

It must be fun, though, to be naturally gifted to do almost everything easily at that level.

As long as you buy everything online and can handle your intelligence being insulted from "professionals," yes.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 6:22 PM  

Thank you, Bosch, Cail, dc.sunsets, rienzi and FisherOfMen, for sharing thoughts that have gladdened and enlightened more souls than mine.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2016 6:47 PM  

@94: loop quantum gravity.

Anonymous Sagramore June 26, 2016 6:52 PM  

@49 Funny you mention that, since I used to work for a standardized test gaming company. (The one with the university it has both affiliation with in the name.) That's why IQ is useful but not very important. My tests have ranged from 135 to 160.

@18 All you need is a good wife, all the rest is bonus.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 26, 2016 6:55 PM  

S1AL wrote:TENS =/= general evolution. Reconcile that and most of your statements become absurd.
The modern theory and the observations which support it are not orthodoxy laid down by St. Darwin in 1859.  Refusing to recognize that is why all your statements are absurd.

Unsurprisingly, this is true of most anything atheists say.
Dogmatists of every stripe have an amazing amount in common, particularly their ability to ignore troublesome facts and their tendency to respond to them with denial and anger.  This applies to fundamentalist Christians, Marxists and Muslims quite evenly.  There appears to be a common defect in cognition which underlies this.  Maybe we can call this "original sin", because if thinking around it was easy people would stop doing it.

As a more neutral example of dogmatic denial, take the genetic proof that Native Americans are NOT descended from any of the tribes of Israel, which conclusively debunks one of the key dogmas of the LDS church.  Has LDS admitted its basic dogma is wrong, thrown it out and re-joined normal Christianity?  It is to laugh.  LDS is a tribe, and its shibboleths are a condition of membership.

The problem is when the shibboleths produce a disadvantage in dealing with reality.  The left's shibboleth of human equality is one.  The right has its own.

VD wrote:The honest evolutionists admit that my questions are pertinent and unanswerable, and that my objections are serious.
If memory serves, I've seen you demand a specific list and sequence of mutations required to transform species A into species B, when the genomes of neither species are available for sequencing (due to them being extinct long before Homo sapiens arose) and the question of order and intermediate changes lost before the final state not being determinable without regular sampling.  Such questions are unanswerable because they are constructed to be.  They are not honest or serious.  They are rhetoric, information-free.

As a way of protecting the shibboleths of one's tribe from questions and maintaining unity, this is skillful work.  As a way of finding the truth, it is a total failure.

Blogger Gaiseric June 26, 2016 6:58 PM  

That link is a fun blast from the past. Sometimes I miss Porky and Tiny Tim.

The problem with the concept of estimating IQ based on one or two surrogate data points is that if you get more data points, you may get a bigger spread. According to my late 80s PSAT score, I'm in the upper 120s. According to my SAT score, I'm in the low to mid 130s. According to my ACT score, I'm comfortably in the 140s.

I can't even remember my GMAT score, and I had really stopped caring by then anyway.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 26, 2016 6:59 PM  

szopen wrote:this may be one thing which stops some above-average intelligent people, when they do not meet enough intelligent competition - they do not learn to work hard, because everything comes so much easy.
This is a generalization for which I have a specific example.  The past couple of weeks I have been digging into some physics, and the math behind that physics, for something I'm writing.  I have had to re-visit math I last took decades ago, go down a few blind alleys and correct a bunch of errors before I got anything I could have confidence in.  This is most definitely WORK; I spent a bunch of time last night trying to understand if a result I was getting was realistic or me not supplying the correct inputs to a formula.  (Turned out it was right, when I finally understood why.)

Most people wouldn't have gotten through the first bit of algebra, either because they have been mis-educated or dis-educated in the subject (a friend of mine was a victim of dis-education in algebra), or they're just too lazy to work things through and see where they go.  Maybe some of them can do simple algebra but can't factor a polynomial.

FWIW, I've taken a full IQ test (a very long affair) and my IQ calculated from SAT jibes with it:  150+, top 0.04%.  Doesn't make me right about anything, but it does make it easier to figure out when things don't add up.  When they don't add up, I have this nasty habit of asking questions.  Makes me unpopular some places, it does.

ScarletNumber wrote:They are more high-IQ people than jobs for them. Plus many IQ people are low EQ
True, and true.  When your thought processes are so different from others' it's often impossible to explain how you arrived at what you're saying, and the current general suspicion of knowledge only makes that social distance harder to bridge.

Nothing to be done about that.  Speaking the truth is a necessary condition for getting anywhere.

Anonymous DiscipleofSheiko June 26, 2016 7:03 PM  

For real impact, the ideal is likely a happy medium - smart enough to get into the right schools but not so smart as to be the rainman. Social aptitude and flat-out physical beauty playing important roles as well. Companies will turn down an otherwise qualified but dog-ugly applicant. I've done it!

I certainly know more than a few AB/IB folks who thought perfect resume = perfect life. In the end would they'd have been better served cultivating other talents/their looks.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2016 7:08 PM  

@109: "Such questions are unanswerable because they are constructed to be. They are not honest or serious. They are rhetoric, information-free."

Simulate them. "This sequence to that sequence through these intermediate steps which don't lead to organism failure" is much better than "this sequence to that sequence through unknown stages because the Theory has to be true."

Blogger Avalanche June 26, 2016 7:10 PM  

@25 "I can discuss with both average and very intelligent people (though one have to use completely different jokes, language, ideas, even words, and though of course its much more satisfying to talk with more intelligent)."

After 6yrs active duty as a Navy officer (late '70s), wherein I had to constantly 'monitor' my 'talking-level' (after mentioning the "vagaries of the road" and being met with: "I don't know what that is."), I discovered I had massively but not entirely consciously censored my word and topic choices!

By happenstance, I was invited to the wedding of a girl (I'd met on a flight home) who had boarded with my (retired opera singer) mom while she did a master class as part of her Master's program in cello. (!)

Suddenly, I was in a crowd of intelligent and articulate folks -- talking about everything under the sun, and only then realized how *blunted* I had been for so long! Being with people around whom I did NOT have to stifle my interests and word choices -- to set my interactions to their level -- was a real eye-opener, because I had not realized till then that I HAD been stifled!

(I remember once, we were moving a barge into a dicey position (I was a tug master and ran a shipyard tug division) but it involved lots of "wait" time (for the tide to slack off). So, the engineer for the crew, and my chief engineer who happened to be out with us, and a couple of the line-handlers all crowded into the pilot house, and I was telling them the tales (the plots!) of Hamlet and Macbeth!)

Blogger VD June 26, 2016 7:11 PM  

Knowing where I fit in, knowing my capacity for thought and understanding in relation to both those higher and lower than me, seeing how quickly Vox can articulate complex and abstract thoughts on the fly when presented with random information, and that he sometimes give me pause for thought, I’d roughly place him above 150.

It's amusing. When people find out what my tested IQ is, normal people say "yeah, that makes sense." The midwits say "it can't possibly be THAT high". And those with high intelligence quite often say "hmm, my perception is that it is higher."

It isn't. That being said, it's always important to keep in mind that IQ is a combination of several different types of intellectual capabilities, and I am quite literally retarded with regards to the spatial relations portion.

Anonymous Hapax Legomenon June 26, 2016 7:17 PM  

@32 "There's a decided benefit to being >140 even if it doesn't necessarily yield 99.99th percentile wealth. It does, however, usually make you pretty abrasive to most average people, would you agree?"

1. There's a point where "good enough is good enough" and "don't let the quest for perfection inhibit you from knowing when good enough is good enough." Evolution itself proceeds along a good-enough, jerry-rigged principle, and doesn't wait for a six-sigma solution before proceeding.

2. Being intelligent and knowing how not to be abrasive about it requires a social intelligence that many quasi-autistic genii lack.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2016 7:17 PM  

> Nothing to be done about that. Speaking the truth is a necessary condition for getting anywhere.

Well, not necessarily. You could become a politician.

Blogger Were-Puppy June 26, 2016 7:18 PM  

@98 Aeoli Pera
Moral of the story: praying for wisdom like Solomon seems like a good idea but just be aware the process usually isn't fun :-).
---

Tell me about it.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2016 7:19 PM  

Neanderserk @93: "If those who understand correctly have IQs above zero, then IQ is correlated with understanding in the threshold sense relevant here."

You might find this (spurious correlation does)instructive. As well as Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Blogger Were-Puppy June 26, 2016 7:19 PM  

@99 Cail Corishev
Kid B looks over the lesson while the teacher is calling roll, thinks, "Okay, that makes sense," and he's got it.
---

I remember the first time I had to really start paying attention in a class was in college in statistics.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2016 7:21 PM  

> And those with high intelligence quite often say "hmm, my perception is that it is higher."

WRT to the subjects you discuss here, it seems higher to me (around 160 or so, I'd guess). But the subjects you discuss here interest you and you've studied them.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 26, 2016 7:31 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> And those with high intelligence quite often say "hmm, my perception is that it is higher."

WRT to the subjects you discuss here, it seems higher to me (around 160 or so, I'd guess). But the subjects you discuss here interest you and you've studied them.


If visuospatial intelligence is retarded, then something else must be higher to bring the average back up to 151.

Blogger Were-Puppy June 26, 2016 7:32 PM  

@114 Avalanche

That was a great post. I do the same.

Blogger Avalanche June 26, 2016 7:33 PM  

@65 "The weight of the current evidence and logic SUGGEST that they are wrong and I am correct. But as I have often said, the jury is still out, it's just looking increasingly bad for them."

Vox, is there a place where you have written on this? I struggle with some of the great gaping holes, and the wee niggling gaps in 'std' evolutionary theories, and would be interested to read your take.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 7:39 PM  

You are the one who brought up correlation, not me, wrf. Impressive.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2016 7:51 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:You are the one who brought up correlation, not me, wrf. Impressive.
That's how you answer "threshold" type questions, which is what you originally posed @8: "What is the verbal IQ threshold for understanding the Bible?"

At least 15 points above whatever your verbal IQ score is, or Ecclesiastes 9:11. Your choice.

Anonymous Camestros Felfapton June 26, 2016 7:58 PM  

MWMVG is saying LEEEROY JENKINS *isn't* the greatest tactical mind ever?!? Wow. Just Wow. I can't even...

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 8:00 PM  

The 3SD+ show up at university and are surprised to learn that everyone warning them that they would really, truly, finally have to learn how to work are wrong again.

The difference between my sons and me. College was still easy and (like high school) I still didn't care about it. My sons just elbowed a higher class of mediocre aside and excelled.

I didn't grok school until grad school.

I successfully steered my kids away from the stupid stuff I did. I insisted they find their own stupid stuff.

Blogger LP9 Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra June 26, 2016 8:03 PM  

Wow and wow, the issue of gammatudes and gamma males constantly live in their heads, never ever let things go, its like they are emo hoarders, as in emotional hoarders. They cannot let things go - My gammatude situation turned into having the police called on me for rejecting the gammatude for a date, this guy attempted to pull psych warfare games and I was forced to admit the issue; I cannot date you for this invective reason. (Undisclosed matter per rules of blog), the gammtude did exactly what Vox is chronicling here. Gammas are so predictable. And I feel slimed when I am around a man I can vibe out his ranking as gamma/beta.

I like the confident distant delta, the sometimes (scary in that I mean boldness and dynamism) alpha sigma in dad with his comments, I admire the strength and endurance of real men as their endurance uplifts me to never despair as I lose my partiach I am commanded to look to our heavenly father, love the good, love the beauty, love the light.

115, excellent reply, I dont mean to invoke MPAI but they are jealous of you (vox) for being superior to their mental gymnastics, its awesome, instructive to read how you manage these average intel types.

We have seen countless Doc'ed or documented examples of other who attack our host for being a genius, for being productive, for just letting critics know he is a AWCA, for not giving a care and never ever apologizing.

(I have not been able to talk with dad for 2 weeks but dad and mom (not all the time but as often as they could, they'd read Vox, Dad loves Chatuea and alphagame, dalrock, zerohedge and much more) my dad began using Vox's quote of, "Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity."

It blows the nursing homes' minds, its epic hilarity!)

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 8:07 PM  

Smart kids should definitely start college by 15, maybe earlier. My youngest started C+ at night school sophomore year HS.

It was very educational for him to be in a class with mostly adults, and be the best student there. Graduating HS with 19 credit hours of inexpensive community college classes catapulted him forward at a time when his peers and college advisers all encouraged him to party, screw around and basically waste his irreplaceable time (and my money.)

The whole thing is a scam.

Blogger LP9 Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra June 26, 2016 8:18 PM  

Edit since dad went blind in 2014 I read to him a great deal.

Anyhow we are reviewing the usual phenomena of sjw, gamma, etc., whom dont want Vox or anyone to be elite or smarter than they are or have anything. Also the non stop talking about Vox and others here for being very smart, genius level IQ's, they want everyone to stupid, miserable and screwed up like they are case in point Camestros Fellatrix.

I bet or didn't probably see that Camestros Fellatrix blocked Vox - Camestros Fellatrix won't even have a conversation with Vox via skype cus he's that gammatuded.

Will Camestros Fellatrix talk with/debate with Vox at skype? Come Camestros Fellatrix, many know your kind can't let anything go.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 8:26 PM  

wrf3 wrote:That's how you answer "threshold" type questions

No, you idiot. A necessary minimum is a threshold. You brought up correlation, irrelevantly denying it exists. I pointed out that 1. That's false, and 2. That's irrelevant. Then you said the correlation is spurious, contradicting yourself and continuing to argue an irrelevant point. Then you cited an irrelevant verse about statistical noise. Go ahead and irrelevantly award yourself a billion IQ points, nobody cares.

Here's what you should've said: "Hyper-Calvinism is complicated, so competently defending it requires a verbal IQ of 130." Done.

VD wrote:I am quite literally retarded with regards to the spatial relations portion.

I used to make a similar disclaimer to offset my verbal ability. I based this on my raven matrices faceplant. But then I watched two minutes of a YouTube raven matrices training video, and to my surprise found it quite easy.

The problem was that my verbal overreliance prevented me from picking up the unexpectedly simple initial visuospatial relationships. After missing the first few rungs, I had no hope of climbing the rest of the cumulative ladder.

I'm sure your subscore technically qualified you as retarded if extrapolated. But I don't believe it reflects your biological ability. I doubt you drive like a woman, for example.

Difficulty with knots might reflect the same problem. I theorize that a bit of pure nonverbal mental training would overcome this verbal mental overreliance. (I consider visuospatial to be more purely nonverbal than math, since math can be approached via both word-like symbols and visualization.)

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 8:28 PM  

VD: That being said, it's always important to keep in mind that IQ is a combination of several different types of intellectual capabilities, and I am quite literally retarded with regards to the spatial relations portion.

My GRE verbal was 98th percentile, analytical 99th percentile but I hated math from algebra on and it showed: 71st percentile.

I find this is intolerable and am currently remediating my entire math curriculum on Khan Academy through integration, differentials and calculus based statistics. I figure I'm two months into a 10 or 12 month process.

Spacial stuff I'm good at. In 1985 a navy recruiter offered me a slot in nuclear engineering (but I lacked the required course in calc-based physics.) I had just taken the test for aviation officers candidate school and wanted to fly. (The test was like an SAT plus spacial orientation based on what you'd see out a cockpit canopy.

The description of deployed duty washed me out. I was married, with a kid, and I just didn't want to fly THAT badly. And I sure as heck had no interest in subs.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 8:34 PM  

I classify intelligence based on whether a person can grasp the difference between printed banknote money and credit money, and also grasp why once the political system goes Full Fiat, the more the government spends, paradoxically the greater the perception of wealth.

By definition, this makes every professional economist a moron.

Blogger LP9 Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra June 26, 2016 8:37 PM  

Yikes, I reviewed the older link within the post on this person/topic...

it remains an absurdity that dia and rhe cause trouble because gamma cannot grasp it so attacking Vox whom is trying to educate gamma went this far.

So educational: "Aristotle's fundamental distinction between dialectic and rhetoric, as well as the purpose of the latter. He's rather like a tactician who doesn't grasp strategy, as he seems to have a basic knowledge of the technical aspects without understanding their basic purpose or how they can be utilized"

Blogger S1AL June 26, 2016 8:42 PM  

"The modern theory and the observations which support it are not orthodoxy laid down by St. Darwin in 1859. Refusing to recognize that is why all your statements are absurd."

This has absolutely nothing to do with my statement, though it is a fairly accurate description of how some people view the guy.

Rather, I'm referring to the pretentious habit atheists have of assuming they can jump straight from "evolutionary theory" to atheism while bypassing abiogenesis, the start of the universe, probability of life, method of evolution, and every other issue in between. And, of course, nobody is going to notice it because SCIENCE.

And your reply to Vox is *exactly* the kind of thing a dogmatist says. "Devoted" scientists, indeed.

Anonymous LastRedoubt June 26, 2016 8:52 PM  

@dc.sunsets

I didn't grok school until grad school.

Even college wasn't a big deal. I had some issues with Matrixes and a few derivatives, and vastly overcomplciated one programming project because the "you'd never do this in real life but it's a learning excercise" instructions made for some interesting limits, but had absolutely no issues with digital logic, physics, or chemistry.

Never memorized the formulas, I'd figure them out as needed from understanding them.

The first time I was - somewhat - challenged, was nuke school in the Navy. Even so, I basically took notes, did the "homework (1hr / day)", and reviewed my notes once a week. Then went off to grab a drink while the rest of the class finished. Others were logging (had to sign in) 20-40 hours a week.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2016 8:53 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:wrf3 wrote:That's how you answer "threshold" type questions
No, you idiot. A necessary minimum is a threshold. You brought up correlation, ...

And how do you know what a necessary minimum is unless you somehow correlate the two things?
... irrelevantly denying it exists.
Yes, I'm denying a correlation between IQ and understanding of Biblical truth. Understanding comes through the work of God's Spirit, not though our abilities.
Then you cited an irrelevant verse about statistical noise.
Why is that verse irrelevant? Understanding about God comes through the work of His Spirit. And Jesus said, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Sure sounds like "statistical noise" to me.
Here's what you should've said: "Hyper-Calvinism is complicated, so competently defending it requires a verbal IQ of 130." Done.
Why would I say something that isn't true? Calvinism is trivially easy to understand.

Anonymous rubberducky June 26, 2016 9:04 PM  

Wait, Vox got this guy to endorse Leroy Jenkins as a battlefield commander? Oh what have I missed! LOL

Blogger tim June 26, 2016 9:17 PM  

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/interpreting-hermeneutics/

It's all about hermeneutics.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr June 26, 2016 9:38 PM  

My early childhood IQ scores were extremely high, SATs put me ~145. Not that it matters, I've found there are people who only think inside the box, people who think outside the box....and those who don't recognize there WAS a box. I tend to be the latter

Anonymous Moonbear June 26, 2016 9:38 PM  

As someone with above 130 IQ I can fairly easily tell when someone is smarter than me, and they are very likely to have a higher IQ score as well- Usually I grade those with great verbal skills higher than I otherwise would as I have some deficiencies in my verbal skills, I suppose that is a common error because the male brain is inherently autistic so most people with a higher IQ score tend to be lacking in social skills.

If you have children who are smart, you definitely need to challenge them because the schools certainly will not and they will likely get bored and not do as well as they should. I would find some practical skills for them to learn, certainly building things tend to be lacking in school so you would give them a broader view of the world and help ground them in reality.

Blogger Lazarus June 26, 2016 9:45 PM  

VD wrote:That being said, it's always important to keep in mind that IQ is a combination of several different types of intellectual capabilities, and I am quite literally retarded with regards to the spatial relations portion.

But how do you manage to successfully play Calcio, then?

Blogger LP9 Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra June 26, 2016 10:06 PM  

Wow or woe unto me, I missed a MAJOR issue. Chicago. ChiCag says it all!

All we need to review is the reception that Milo, our Lil' dear Nero received in IL. Surreal.

Vox would have to offer remedial lessons in critical thinking, reasoning, deduction, and much more for a gamma-IL to grasp what Vox is trying to teach him.

People think Vox is so evil, so awful not really, he and many others here are natural communicators and teachers to those whom deny reality an logic., then again gammas dont or wont get out of their minds to be open to that which challenges their errors.

Blogger Neanderserk June 26, 2016 10:09 PM  

When I look at a gnarled, crippled, twisted hunchback, my bones ache in sympathy. Reading wrf's latest feels the same way.

Satori - picture another's mind as a physical body. Where his bones are merely snarled, most have few or none at all. Bitter grok.

Box a whole man, and he tightens his guard. But a blob can't.

Concern for credibility must be for distinguishing oneself from blobs, just as wearing business clothes is to distinguish oneself from vagrants.

I have always wanted to err faster and iterate faster, but that is ungenerous. It is better to demonstrate a sound skelature upon which others may lean.

I have assumed, because my legs are long and straight, that it is only the height of the climber on the stairwell that varies. Not so.

To show pity, it is first necessary to accept that the cerebral sponge is set like teeth.

Anonymous SciVo June 26, 2016 10:25 PM  

Were-Puppy wrote:I remember the first time I had to really start paying attention in a class was in college in statistics.

I will never understand why I had to pass a class in voodoo in order to get a degree in math. I will grant that it was an interesting branch, but still. Voodoo.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 10:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2016 10:32 PM  

LastRedoubt, I honestly hope there are numerous people of your caliber among the officers in the military. From your description I don't play in your league.

The closest I came was reading 5 SF novels the weekend before exams in virology, biochemistry and, I think, another subject. I had a system for recalling all the details (a typical question was "diagram the reproduction cycle of a retrovirus," IIRC). I was proud of it.

It doesn't sound as cool as nuclear engineering now.

Blogger Unknown June 26, 2016 10:48 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Sheila4g June 26, 2016 10:48 PM  

@128 and @130 dc.sunsets: We looked into starting our son in college early - he had the opportunity - but he really, really didn't want to. Even now, he bears a certain animus against us for skipping him 2 grades in Christian school (he started a new school in 6th grade at the age of 9 1/2). Academically, he had no problems. Socially, it became an issue - particularly in 7th - 10th grades, when other kids became interested in the opposite sex.

The other issue is that college today isn't in any way as it was when I attended. He took a few classes at the local community college, and it was like 13th grade. Same make-work "assignments" and attendance policies. When I was in college, if you turned in your papers and passed the midterm and final, that was all that counted. When it comes to self-directed learning, he's fine - still reads widely on his own and is always up for learning something new, but just will not conform to today's academic expectations. Of course, he's pretty tired of being poor right now - so perhaps one day he'll be ready to settle on something else and really focus on it.

I suppose the first time I was truly challenged was grad school (second one after I didn't finish my Masters in the UK) - but it depended on the subject. I didn't take a math class after calculus (which I passed by the skin of my teeth) in high school, so my GRE math score 7 years later was pretty poor. I didn't enjoy my requisite econ classes, but I did okay. Since I learned to write properly from a truly eccentric teacher in high school, college papers in any subject really weren't a problem for me. I've always "tested" well - seems my son inherited the same - and when I passed the Foreign Service exam the first time I took it it pissed off a lot of grad school classmates who had been taking it almost as an annual ritual since college. I genuinely didn't see what the big deal was.

Blogger Goldeneye June 26, 2016 10:54 PM  

Hey Vox, long time reader, first time commentor. Thanks for the blog, I learn more here by simply reading the comments than I do pretty much any where else.

I have two questions for the Dread Ilk and Vile Faceless Minions.
1. I got the Trachtenberg System of Speed Mathematics to improve my basic math skills. However, I want to improve some of the higher level mathemeatics as well. What would book(s) or system(S) would you recommend for algebra, statistics, and calculus? I took algebra, statistics, and calculus, but they never quite clicked with me and what I was taught seemed incomplete. I assume they were incoimplete and crap because I took in the modern school system.
2. What would you recommend for an accurate IQ test? This is for my intellectual curiosity.

Blogger Scott June 26, 2016 11:03 PM  

Smart kids should definitely start college by 15,

YES.

My kid, now 16 just finished sophomore year, is finished with all college level Calc classes. Luckily her school (private) provides a couple of upper level math courses to keep her on track. She's in senior level ap classes and she's bored; she hates school. The thought of two more years of this bullshit crushes her spirit.

Colleges should be more accommodating for kids in her situation.

Anonymous Goldeneye June 26, 2016 11:22 PM  

Hey Vox, long time reader, first time commentor. Thanks for the blog, I learn more here by simply reading the comments than I do pretty much any where else.

I have two questions for the Dread Ilk and Vile Faceless Minions.
1. I got the Trachtenberg System of Speed Mathematics to improve my basic math skills. However, I want to improve some of the higher level mathemeatics as well. What would book(s) or system(S) would you recommend for algebra, statistics, and calculus? I took algebra, statistics, and calculus, but they never quite clicked with me and what I was taught seemed incomplete. I assume they were incoimplete and crap because I took in the modern school system.
2. What would you recommend for an accurate IQ test? This is for my intellectual curiosity.

Anonymous quamuri June 26, 2016 11:26 PM  

VD - from an exchange in the previous (Public Figure IQ) thread:

>>Perhaps Feynman was a freak, but a childhood IQ test, reported by his sister, does not at all establish that his adult IQ was not extremely high, especially for a boy.

>It most certainly does. Your IQ doesn't magically change.

But in fact it does. This is one of the best established results in behavioral genetics. (Look at Plomin et al 2016, "Top 10 Replicated Findings from Behavioral Genetics", if you haven't been following the research and want to catch up. Finding 5.)

For a long time psychologists testing children were able to get some results with low narrow-sense IQ heritability and some shared-environment effect. Other studies found higher IQ heritability and low or no shared-environment effect. What they finally realized was that, as with height, phenotype is variable during development, but when developmental growth is complete the phenotype is highly heritable. All IQ researchers now agree that the heritability of IQ is very high (at least 0.6, maybe as high as 0.8 according to Panizzon 2014) in adulthood, and there is no shared-environment effect at all.

But if IQ heritability peaks in adulthood (the 0.8 people will claim IQ, and heritability, keep going up until age 27) that implies that some people who are in the top percentile of childhood IQ at age 8, or 12, or 16 are just early developers and do not actually have a high genetic IQ; so we expect to see mean reversion for some of these people as their peers continue to develop.

Knowing someone's PSAT scores is certainly better than nothing, but if two siblings score in the 123 and 124 on a childhood IQ test and then later go on to become physicists, one award-winning, I would put my money on the heritability of intelligence increasing throughout their development.

> And those with high intelligence quite often say "hmm, my perception is that it is higher."

I often have the impression that very-high-IQ people use me as a sort of random-pattern-generator; draw inspiration from the unexpected sounds I make; and then attribute the insights they had while listening to my sounds to me, personally. Of course, it then becomes frustrating because, as far as they're concerned, the smartest things I say are no more or less valuable than the stupidest things I say.

Anonymous LastRedoubt June 27, 2016 12:14 AM  

@dc.sunsets

Oh, I was smart. I devoured books, etc.- I had some critical weaknesses though

Thank god I joined the navy as it was at the time, and was humbled. Not an officer. That said - there are some amazingly practical-smart guys back there in M-div, E-div, and RC-Div.

I wasn't as bad as one guy who could barely tie his shoes, etc. - my dad taught me basic car mechanics, and his readers digest books on that and home repair, plus summers spent doing practical things like splitting wood laid groundwork for "maybe you have some things to learn"

But I was still an arrogant ass, and courtesy of other family issues, had some serious gamma-ish tendencies I still struggle with. And even nuke school and prototype were more a challenge in staying awake.

It was fucking maintenance that nearly did me in.

I could not simply tear shit apart while looking at the manual, no, I had to get my head completely wrapped around it first, and compared to anyone else it took me forever - the first time I did it. I was also a perfectionist, not willing to try and fail, afraid of failure, and a little rules snot.

Add a fucking chief who was a snake... and decided not to invest time in my getting caught up... *shrug*

THAT said, done once, I was up to speed. After enough different jobs I had both gotten "good enough" beaten into me and could leverage my practical experience. Ran the training program on the boat, was the A/C guy there and at my following command.

And being thoroughly outclassed at something other than sports - which I used to look down on, no more, though still not a spectator guy - something I took pride in, for the first time in my life, taught me humility, and perspective.

if anything, my life is a textbook example of "the smarter the kid is, the more effort you need to take to present a challenge and teach humility"

Anonymous LastRedoubt June 27, 2016 12:20 AM  

@dc.sunsets

Also - got out 15 years ago. Have no idea how it is now. Back then even the forward "A" gang machinists - more often than not "nuke waste" were not dumb, if not quite good enough to get past power school. And odds were pretty good you could have a several hour discussion on the ins and outs of the pacific conflict in WWII at the charging station while on shutdown "gauge" watch.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 27, 2016 12:36 AM  

wrf3 wrote:Simulate them. "This sequence to that sequence through these intermediate steps which don't lead to organism failure" is much better than "this sequence to that sequence through unknown stages because the Theory has to be true."
That would not answer the (equally dishonest) question "how do you know it happened THAT way, and is that possible in nature?"  Even managing abiogenesis in the lab would not leap that hurdle.

Setting up impossible evidentiary standards is one of the ways that clever people defend positions they did not arrive at through rational inquiry.

James Dixon wrote:Well, not necessarily. You could become a politician.
Excuse me, I made a crucial omission:  only way to get anywhere good.

dc.sunsets wrote:Smart kids should definitely start college by 15, maybe earlier.
Irony.  I took college algebra/trig at 14.  Guess what's kicking my ass right now?  Trying to analytically solve a trig equation.  I have an old CRC manual with a huge section of trig identities and such, I'm going to look there when I get some space to spread out.

Or maybe I just need to rack my brain a bit more and see what falls out.  I've already surprised myself with what I had forgotten that I once knew.  It's like archaeology, but digging through long-inactive neural paths instead of dirt.

S1AL wrote:This has absolutely nothing to do with my statement, though it is a fairly accurate description of how some people view the guy.
It is only how constructors of strawmen view the guy, IOW creationists.  Darwin's written works are of only historical interest to actual scientists.  OTOH I gather that some of the samples he gathered, e.g. finches, are still being studied.  Like Morton's skulls, they can be misrepresented but it doesn't change what they are.

I'm referring to the pretentious habit atheists have of assuming they can jump straight from "evolutionary theory" to atheism while bypassing abiogenesis, the start of the universe, probability of life, method of evolution, and every other issue in between. And, of course, nobody is going to notice it because SCIENCE.
I can refer you right back to the habit self-righteous creationists have of ignoring the inconvenient fact that if this had been a universe in which intelligent life was impossible, there would be no one to wonder why.  The puddle will always be a perfect fit for its depression.

Napoleon 12pdr wrote:and those who don't recognize there WAS a box.
This drives some mid-wits crazy.  I've done it to more than a few of them.

LP9 Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra wrote:Vox would have to offer remedial lessons in critical thinking, reasoning, deduction, and much more for a gamma-IL to grasp what Vox is trying to teach him.
I think most of the left is going to need years of cognitive-behavioral therapy to get them out of the emotional-reactive trap they've been brainwashed into.  They should certainly not be given any management responsibilities or voting rights until they're done.

Blogger residentMoron June 27, 2016 12:37 AM  

Dear Mr Rational:

Regarding "The modern theory and the observations which support it ... "

It's not the observations which support it that are the source of serious questions as to its verity.

That is so obvious only a genius could overlook it.

Parenthetically, the *search* for supporting observations is the death of the search for truth.

When you find time in your busy schedule to address the observations that don't support it, then you might find yourself and Vox discussing the same things. There's a word for that; what was it again?

Oh, yeah.

Conversation.

Anonymous JAG June 27, 2016 1:26 AM  

I have never actually taken an IQ test so I have no idea what mine may be. Doesn't really matter though as I am aware of my shortcomings and faults. I can see through the left's bullshit so I figure that makes me better than average, lol.

Anonymous Ellipsis Lacuna June 27, 2016 1:39 AM  

Re: Bible translations

I always preferred interlinear literal translations. You can match up each Greek or Hebrew (Aramaic) word with its rough English equivalent, then go to concordance for lots of details about each word, its history, how it's used elsewhere (very telling, often) etc.

Anonymous JAG June 27, 2016 1:43 AM  

Mr Rational posted: I can refer you right back to the habit self-righteous creationists have of ignoring the inconvenient fact that if this had been a universe in which intelligent life was impossible, there would be no one to wonder why. The puddle will always be a perfect fit for its depression.

Ah, the Anthropic Principle. This is the modern scientist equivalent of "cause God made it that way". It is an irrelevant "what if" cop out. Modern eggheads love using it because they believe it sidesteps quite natural questions. It doesn't.

Here are some physics koans for you.

1) The universe cannot have always been here (infinite past). If it were, we could never arrive at this moment. You would need to demonstrate the ability to count to infinity to prove it. Appeals to calculus won't save you as math has never been proven to be anything more than an invention of the human mind. As far as we can tell physical infinities do not exist.

2) Did the first life form to appear in the universe have the ability to evolve? If it didn't then evolution would be on very shaky ground. If it did then how did it acquire this ability? If you claim it as a "cosmic accident" then you require faith to believe in such as there is no way to prove such is the case conclusively.

Anonymous Moonbear June 27, 2016 2:26 AM  

@158 "I can see through the left's bullshit so I figure that makes me better than average, lol."

There are plenty of incredibly intelligent people who believe what the left tells them.
A whole lot of seeing through their bullshit is knowing they are trying to brainwash you in the first place, I don't care how intelligent you are but if you don't have the correct information you will never reach the correct conclusion. The left seems to be very aware of this and avoids reporting on something that could give people certain information that would lead them to conclude that they are being brainwashed. This brainwashing is giving people cognitive dissonance meaning they may never correct the false information they have been fed their entire life and in fact they are likely to find other irrational things rational, high IQ != infallible.

Of course seeing past available facts can occur but those moments are rarely correct, even with incredible intellect.

OpenID d31b21b0-3c34-11e6-8c2f-bb614f7b9f50 June 27, 2016 3:03 AM  

Based on SATs, etc., I was 160±2 around the time I finished high school (2nd half of 80s), though I feel like I've lost a bit due to chronic sleep deprivation. Plus knock of another 10 points for the PhD I got…
Although I do still have that problem of answers being obvious, and being annoyed at having to explain or show how I know.

Blogger Neanderserk June 27, 2016 3:44 AM  

JAG wrote:Here are some physics koans for you.

1) The universe cannot have always been here (infinite past).


This is a variation of Zeno's Paradox. Crossing a stadium requires crossing an infinite number of spatial points, which is impossible. Eternal existence of a universe requires an infinite quantity of time, which is impossible. Argument also disproves the existence of an eternal god.

JAG wrote:2) Did the first life form to appear in the universe have the ability to evolve?

Yes, and even before that. See the thermodynamics of abiogenesis.

Those interested in reconciling evolution with reason should couple the above link with Stabilization Theory, which makes Vox's critiques of Darwinism look like romantic foreplay.

Blogger residentMoron June 27, 2016 4:16 AM  

"Those interested in reconciling evolution with reason ..."


I'm just going to leave that right there.

Beautifully done.

Blogger S1AL June 27, 2016 5:57 AM  

"I can refer you right back to the habit self-righteous creationists have of ignoring the inconvenient fact that if this had been a universe in which intelligent life was impossible, there would be no one to wonder why. The puddle will always be a perfect fit for its depression."

Quick! Which self-righteous creationist said, "the universe looks suspiciously like a fix"?

Also, questioning the dogmatic treatment of evolution does not make a person a "creationist" in the sense that you using the term.

Anonymous hardscrabble farmer June 27, 2016 6:38 AM  

Curiosity seems to have gotten the short shrift. There is a world of difference between an answer and a solution.

A person of average intelligence who is curious about the world makes for a far more capable human being than an exceptionally intelligent one who has little or no interest in the underlying construction of life.

I have lived in both an Ivy League Ivory Tower community and among rural farmers and homesteaders as one and I can promise you that between the two there is not even a close call as to which one demonstrates that which I would consider "intelligence". People who must rely on themselves rather than on a system or organizational structure solve problems as a matter of their daily existence. Those who inhabit a world of mere thought lack the requisite drive that leads to deeper understanding of the mechanics of life although they almost always "know" the answer. A professor who has a PhD in fluid dynamics still calls the plumber when his faucet is leaking. The plumber may not have the vocabulary to discuss it, but he understands how water works.

Of course this is a generalization, but it has held up as a truth over the course of my lifetime and that's good enough for me.

Anonymous SciVo June 27, 2016 6:44 AM  

Neanderserk wrote:JAG wrote:Here are some physics koans for you.

1) The universe cannot have always been here (infinite past).


This is a variation of Zeno's Paradox. Crossing a stadium requires crossing an infinite number of spatial points, which is impossible. Eternal existence of a universe requires an infinite quantity of time, which is impossible.


No, that is not the same. There is a rather obvious difference between an infinite length and infinite subdivisions of a finite length.

You would be better off arguing for a static universe where time is an illusion created by it existing in an intertemporally consistent state, as it always has and always will. (Not that I believe that, just a suggestion.)

Argument also disproves the existence of an eternal god.

The Creator of the universe exists outside of His creation and is not bound by it.

Blogger wrf3 June 27, 2016 7:41 AM  

Mr. Rational wrote:wrf3 wrote:Simulate them. "This sequence to that sequence through these intermediate steps which don't lead to organism failure" is much better than "this sequence to that sequence through unknown stages because the Theory has to be true."
That would not answer the (equally dishonest) question "how do you know it happened THAT way, and is that possible in nature?"

Having at least one simulated pathway would be an existence proof that the pathway is possible. Right now, all you have is a nice sounding story. "See, we have this mechanism that introduces change, and we have this mechanism that conserves fitness so that's how everything works." It's a wonderful just-so story. Evolution isn't any different from chess. If you're going to claim that you can checkmate your opponent, you actually have to show that from your current position that you can, in fact, checkmate your opponent. To paraphrase Jerry Maguire, "show us the pathways."
Even managing abiogenesis in the lab would not leap that hurdle.
Having an existence proof is far better than having only naked assertion.
Setting up impossible evidentiary standards is one of the ways that clever people defend positions they did not arrive at through rational inquiry.
Asserting that all critics are dishonest is a way charlatans defend positions they did not arrive at though demonstrable evidence. Asserting that a conclusion arrived at through "rational inquiry" is correct and therefore critics are irrational is handwaving. Lots of incorrect scientific theories are arrived at by rational inquiry. They're still wrong (see, e.g. the evidentiary disproof of quantum loop gravity).

Blogger James Dixon June 27, 2016 7:48 AM  

> If visuospatial intelligence is retarded, then something else must be higher to bring the average back up to 151.

What's strange is that Vox says that's his limitation, but what is the primary aspect of soccer but the spatial relationships between the players, taking into account their speed and accuracy?

> Excuse me, I made a crucial omission: only way to get anywhere good.

:)

Blogger Neanderserk June 27, 2016 8:08 AM  

SciVo wrote:No, that is not the same. There is a rather obvious difference between an infinite length and infinite subdivisions of a finite length.

I have a Triple 9 IQ. I'm aware of the difference. Here is the similarity:

Infinite spatial subdivisions may be crossed because time "simultaneously" infinitely subdivides. Likewise, infinite time may be crossed by the expedient of infinite time. If the first infinity is logically conceivable, so is the second. You are doing nothing more than disproving the concept of infinity by demonstrating that one cannot count to it.

God is certainly bound by the strictures of logic, since they delimit intelligible meaning, not anything of substance.

Jehovah is not served by bad philosophy. Such arguments in the mouths of His servants only cause blasphemies to increase in the camps of the opfor's cognitive elite. Let us shred each others' arguments, that we may not give the enemy occasion to boast.

Anonymous Rick67 June 27, 2016 8:22 AM  

... a National Merit Finalist prior to the 1993 renorming of the PSAT, so it is equally apparent that my IQ must also be above 140.

That caught my attention. How do you know National Merit Finalist must have IQ above 140? (I had an accident with brain injuries recently. During one of the evaluations the neuropsychologist apparently measured IQ. My whole life have been the "really smart guy", yet that was the first time someone gave me an official number.)

Blogger James Dixon June 27, 2016 8:29 AM  

> God is certainly bound by the strictures of logic, since they delimit intelligible meaning, not anything of substance.

Really? How would you go about proving that?

I can't think of any obvious reason that the fact that we're bound by the logic inherent in the universe would have any bearing whatsoever on an existence outside of it.

Blogger Neanderserk June 27, 2016 8:49 AM  

James Dixon wrote:Really? How would you go about proving that?

By demonstrating the class of all alternative statements reduces to unintelligibility.

Blogger S1AL June 27, 2016 9:01 AM  

"I have a Triple 9 IQ. I'm aware of the difference."

Since the latter does not follow from the former, one can only conclude that the former is a boast.

It also demonstrates that intelligence is not sufficient for coherence.

Blogger James Dixon June 27, 2016 9:03 AM  

> By demonstrating the class of all alternative statements reduces to unintelligibility.

You can only do that for this universe, not for anything outside of it. None of our rules can be assumed to apply outside of our universe.

Blogger Neanderserk June 27, 2016 9:16 AM  

No S1AL, it was a handshake connection upgrade request. James, A=A not applying is unintelligible. Think whatever you like.

Blogger S1AL June 27, 2016 9:44 AM  

Ohhhh, this explains so much.

Blogger James Dixon June 27, 2016 10:08 AM  

> James, A=A not applying is unintelligible.

To us, and in this universe, yes. There's no reason that needs to be the case outside of it.

> Think whatever you like.

Oh, don't worry, I will.

Blogger Neanderserk June 27, 2016 10:22 AM  

It establishes that slowness frustrates me and that I take care to express this frustration without false claims of inerrancy.

Adding the caveat "outside the universe" does not give meaning to the unintelligible, any more than "on a house" or "with a mouse" does.

Blogger James Dixon June 27, 2016 10:40 AM  

> Adding the caveat "outside the universe" does not give meaning to the unintelligible, any more than "on a house" or "with a mouse" does.

You really don't understand that the basic laws of physics and reality as we understand them are limited to our own reality, and my not apply outside of it? Okay, I can accept that. I'm somewhat at a loss that something that's obvious to 5 year old children is beyond you though.

Blogger Zaklog the Great June 27, 2016 11:05 AM  

Does anyone know an inexpensive, reliable IQ test? I'm just kind of curious. I did very well on both the SAT and the GREs, but I took them both after the date at which they are apparently no longer correlable with IQ score, and I'd kind of like to know where I stand.

Blogger S1AL June 27, 2016 11:09 AM  

@Zaklog - Triple 9 still accepts ACT scores (and the cutoff is what makes the above exchange so amusing to me). A simple method is to make a percentile comparison of your GRE and SAT scores to the test-taking population. That should give you a reasonable rough estimate. Modern SAT scores still correlate highly with IQ, just not well enough for most intelligence societies.

Blogger Neanderserk June 27, 2016 12:33 PM  

Why be passive aggressive about it, James? If you think I am as stupid as a 5 year old child, say so. Otherwise, ask a question.

As it happens, your abysmal ignorance of academic epistemology has you undermining the rational foundations of Christendom. If otherworlds can be anylogic, then there is no epistemological basis for anything. E.g., this world might double-secretly be one of those anylogic worlds.

S1AL wrote:"I have a Triple 9 IQ. I'm aware of the difference."

Since the latter does not follow from the former, one can only conclude that the former is a boast.

It also demonstrates that intelligence is not sufficient for coherence.


Enough with your content-free passive-aggressive stupid bitching.

The two statements are simple, separate and coherent. That you read them as logically connected boasts rather than carefully separated plain facts is the projection of your guileful preening soul.

Moreover, it does follow that a Triple 9er should be presumed to notice the difference between an infinity and infinite subdivision, so you're lying.

The only incoherency here is your own. Was my statement a coherent boast or a false correlation? Either way, you're screwed: A false correlation is merely wrong, not incoherent! There is no possible manly straightforward reading of your words.

Blogger Sheila4g June 27, 2016 12:41 PM  

@182 Zaklog - I don't know what would be considered truly reliable that you can take yourself. When we tired of hearing our son was merely an "early bloomer" and that all kids' ability evens out, I did some online searching and found a woman who works with gifted kids and does testing for private school admissions. She administered the WISC (Wechsler for kids 6-16) since he was reading (age 6 when he still loved school and learning). This has a ceiling of 160 and of 19 in the subtests. Our son got 19 in 7 of the 10 subtests, and was assessed at 154 overall - but again, due to the Wechsler's ceiling, don't know what it would have been with the Stanford Binet. He took the test again at 12 (early in his years of defiance and hating school)and did not do as well, and the examiner (same woman) noted he tended to rush at times, didn't check his work, and made some careless errors. His IQ then was assessed as 142, which we do consider low for him due to his attitude and adolescent angst. His ASVAB rough IQ equivalent (age 17) was 146, and he generally assumes he's 145-150. He never took the Stanford Binet, however, and only took the SAT in early 7th grade (at age 10) as part of the Duke talent search, so we can't use that for comparison. My personal opinion is it's better to look at a variety of scores over time, rather than take one test and call it "definitive." Here's a table comparing IQ tests and what is considered "gifted" by each.

Blogger S1AL June 27, 2016 1:30 PM  

"Enough with your content-free passive-aggressive stupid bitching.

The two statements are simple, separate and coherent. That you read them as logically connected boasts rather than carefully separated plain facts is the projection of your guileful preening soul.

Moreover, it does follow that a Triple 9er should be presumed to notice the difference between an infinity and infinite subdivision, so you're lying.

The only incoherency here is your own. Was my statement a coherent boast or a false correlation? Either way, you're screwed: A false correlation is merely wrong, not incoherent! There is no possible manly straightforward reading of your words."

Are they separate or are they coherent? Not that it matters, since the comment coherence was directed at your demonstrated inability to phrase a question a meaningful, comprehensible way (wrt IQ and comprehension of Scripture).

That was why there was white space between the two points. The first point, that you are simply boasting, is accurate. Intelligence is not sufficient to understand the difference between two similar but distinct versions of a pure abstraction. One also requires background knowledge.

Furthermore, you have a pedantic obsession with minor doctrinal issues. There's a verse about that. There are also several verses explaining what is necessary for salvation, and very few instances of smiting in the New Testament. None of them are due to doctrinal errors.

You have, thus far, demonstrated nothing more than a propensity for the use of unwarranted jargon and a desire to appeal to IQ regardless of its applicability or relevance.

Is that plain enough, or do you require IT metaphors?

Blogger James Dixon June 27, 2016 1:32 PM  

> Why be passive aggressive about it, James?

Was I? I guess you think so. I doubt anyone else reading it would agree.

> If you think I am as stupid as a 5 year old child, say so.

Hint. I don't think 5 year old children are stupid.

> Otherwise, ask a question.

What makes you think I have any questions for you? I've been disagreeing with points you've made, not asking you for information. So far I haven't seen any evidence you have any useful information to offer.

> As it happens, your abysmal ignorance of academic epistemology has you undermining the rational foundations of Christendom.

I never claimed to know anything about "academic epistemology".

However, I notice the above is your opinion, as pretty much everything else you've posted is. The fact that you want us to accept your opinions as demonstrated facts is your problem, not ours.

> If otherworlds can be anylogic, then there is no epistemological basis for anything.

Really? And what experience of/evidence from other realities do you base this on?

> Enough with your content-free passive-aggressive stupid bitching.

Again with the passive-aggressive complaint when someone disagrees with you. Project much?

Anonymous Michael Kingswood June 27, 2016 1:55 PM  

@LastRedoubt

"Also - got out 15 years ago. Have no idea how it is now. Back then even the forward "A" gang machinists - more often than not "nuke waste" were not dumb, if not quite good enough to get past power school. And odds were pretty good you could have a several hour discussion on the ins and outs of the pacific conflict in WWII at the charging station while on shutdown "gauge" watch."

19 yr submarine officer here, though I've not been on a sub in a few years (the vagaries of command screening and the like). I've spent a lot of time in the training side of the nuclear Navy, and it's still the way you describe. A lot of really smart guys (and gals). The fun part was going from dealing with Nukes as a JO to dealing with torpedomen as WEPS. Whole different breed there. ;)

That's one thing I'm not particularly looking forward to about retiring next summer. In the Navy, at least the parts of the Navy I've dealt with, you tend to be surrounded by smart people. Getting out and working in the real world, where MPAI, is probably going to be a huge culture shock.

Guess we'll see. Should be fun. :)

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2016 1:59 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:Adding the caveat "outside the universe" does not give meaning to the unintelligible, any more than "on a house" or "with a mouse" does.

God Himself, has revealed through scripture, that He is, literally, unintelligible to us.

On the other hand, the laws of logic can be thought of as the thought patterns of God. Logic applies to this universe which He created because they are inherent in Himself.

Logic and reason do not bind God. They are of God

Blogger Rusty Fife June 27, 2016 2:08 PM  

SciVo wrote:Neanderserk wrote:JAG wrote:Here are some physics koans for you.

1) The universe cannot have always been here (infinite past).


This is a variation of Zeno's Paradox. Crossing a stadium requires crossing an infinite number of spatial points, which is impossible. Eternal existence of a universe requires an infinite quantity of time, which is impossible.


No, that is not the same. There is a rather obvious difference between an infinite length and infinite subdivisions of a finite length.

You would be better off arguing for a static universe where time is an illusion created by it existing in an intertemporally consistent state, as it always has and always will. (Not that I believe that, just a suggestion.)

Argument also disproves the existence of an eternal god.

The Creator of the universe exists outside of His creation and is not bound by it.


SciVo agreed. Big fat ignoring of the most proved hypothesis in modern physics; entropy.

Either there is an infinite source of order in the mechanistic universe or the universe had a beginning.

Anonymous SciVo June 27, 2016 4:45 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:Infinite spatial subdivisions may be crossed because time "simultaneously" infinitely subdivides. Likewise, infinite time may be crossed by the expedient of infinite time. If the first infinity is logically conceivable, so is the second. You are doing nothing more than disproving the concept of infinity by demonstrating that one cannot count to it.

No, infinite subdivisions can be crossed because they're fictional. Conceptual. Irrelevant to the continuous, analog physical reality.

Anonymous SciVo June 27, 2016 4:54 PM  

Rick67 wrote:... a National Merit Finalist prior to the 1993 renorming of the PSAT, so it is equally apparent that my IQ must also be above 140.

That caught my attention. How do you know National Merit Finalist must have IQ above 140?


Until that year, the PSAT score had a statistical correlation with IQ that was known, and the cutoff for a National Merit Semifinalist corresponded to an IQ of about 140. It isn't the best way of measuring IQ, since the correlation isn't perfect, but it's better than guessing.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2016 5:36 PM  

I remember way back in High School, when we took the NMSQT. I placed highest in the school, both Math and Verbal, despite not having taken any higher-level math classes. The resident Math Whiz was furious, demanded I be investigated for cheating. Thing is, it was a test of mathematical reasoning, not of specific techniques. Anybody with a familiarity with quadaratics and trig could handle the calculations. Calculus was NOT needed to answer the questions.

Blogger SirHamster June 27, 2016 6:04 PM  

Neanderserk wrote:What is the verbal IQ threshold for understanding the Bible?

Neanderserk wrote:I leave that open-ended. I just want to know what portion of the population is physically capable of the necessary reading comprehension to discuss it intelligently.

Neanderserk wrote:... but applied relevant stuff such as who's right or wrong in your typical internet debate with real-world tribal implications (culture war).

I.e., the threshold required to parse the debate and pick the right side, thus avoiding divine smiting.



Would like to add some Biblical cites to this topic.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever."

"But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak."

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."

"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; "

Wrong questions. Obey God, and we will have what we need for the moment, be we elite or childish in our brainpower. Let us not fan pride in intellect when God delights in something else.

Judging from what is transpiring in our churches, our bottleneck is not verbal IQ, but courage and conviction to challenge and defeat Churchian heresy and associated modernist/feminist ideas.

Anonymous LastRedoubt June 27, 2016 10:40 PM  

@Michael Kingswood

That's one thing I'm not particularly looking forward to about retiring next summer. In the Navy, at least the parts of the Navy I've dealt with, you tend to be surrounded by smart people. Getting out and working in the real world, where MPAI, is probably going to be a huge culture shock.

Yeah, subs can be unforgiving in the best of times. People with no wisdom or ability to acquire it tend to not do well in small ships.

Glad it's still reasonably sane. For submarine standards of sanity, anyway.... I'm sure you've heard stories as weird as mine, and most likely far weirder. I know some of the more unusual bubblehead stories, probably some guy from the "Lost and Confused" (aka "Lewis and Clark"), inspired John Ringo to write "A Ship Called Francis."

Nothing beats Missile Techs for anal retentive procedural compliance though.

Anonymous LastRedoubt June 27, 2016 10:42 PM  

@Michael Kingswood

Insofar as getting out, it's survivable. Yeah, MPAI, and yeah, even a bubblehead "idiot" was a grade better than average.

Blogger Neanderserk June 27, 2016 10:48 PM  

S1AL wrote:Are they separate or are they coherent?

They are separate and coherent, in the same sense that, "I have a house. I have a gun," are.

S1AL wrote:Not that it matters, since the comment coherence was directed at your demonstrated inability to phrase a question a meaningful, comprehensible way (wrt IQ and comprehension of Scripture).

That was why there was white space between the two points.


Thus demonstrating that you lack mastery of the pronoun antecedent rule.

S1AL wrote:One also requires background knowledge.

The odds are vanishingly small that a T9er lacks basic definitional background knowledge of infinity and subdivision. You are still lying.

Since you cannot speak honestly and intelligently in small matters, I have no desire to discuss great ones with you.

James Dixon wrote:What makes you think I have any questions for you?

Upon encountering the obviously incongruous, asking before insulting would've spared you foot in mouth.

James Dixon wrote:Again with the passive-aggressive complaint

You cannot even grasp the difference between passive aggressive and aggressive aggressive. It's no use speaking to you either.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:God Himself, has revealed through scripture, that He is, literally, unintelligible to us.

No Jehovah is not literally unintelligible to us. He speaks with perfect clarity, and describes Himeslf at length. Inability to know a thing fully is not the same as that thing being unintelligible. He is not even ineffable, since He has described himself to Moses. Look up the definition.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Logic and reason do not bind God. They are of God

I don't care how you phrase it as long as the restrictions apply.

Rusty Fife wrote:SciVo agreed. Big fat ignoring of the most proved hypothesis in modern physics; entropy.

I argued against logical inconceivability, not physical impractibility. Ibid SciVo. Obviously no argument for physical impractibility is 100% certain, since physics changes.

SirHamster wrote:Wrong questions. Obey God, and we will have what we need for the moment,

That is obviously false, unless you wish to attribute to Jehovah's mouth every error of Christian apologetics in the last 2000 years. Luke 12 was spoken during the same dispensation in which the disciples needed neither scrip nor purse. You will do about as well now without IQ and preparation as you will without a wallet and luggage.

I seem to have touched the hidden egalitarian nerve of Protestantism. It should be obvious that defending Christ in your daily affairs is different than doing so online. Just because you have the Holy Spirit doesn't mean you should publish in academic journals either.

Anonymous Ken June 27, 2016 10:55 PM  

Rusty Fife said, "Big fat ignoring of the most proved hypothesis in modern physics; entropy.

Either there is an infinite source of order in the mechanistic universe or the universe had a beginning."

The either/or proposition here is a limiting and unnecessary box. The answer can be both.

You can reason this one out and even visualize it in a rudimentary form. We'll start with the Big Bang, the beginning of our particular time and space.

Big Bang > all energy radiates out from one point > 14 billion or so years later, here we are > expansion continues to a point where the very matter itself breaks apart into its primary energy components; down to molecules > atoms > the parts of an atoms called quarks > whatever if anything is beyond the quarks > at this point, the universe is spreading out into a vast space of the tiniest particles of energy possible; pure entropy > it slows, approaching Absolute Zero > Absolute Zero is IMPOSSIBLE > so all of these little particals of energy are vibrating back and forth in a tick tock manner > given enough time, the energy eventually slows to their absolute energy state, which is, again, above the theoretical dead state, never reaching absolute entropy > the tick tock back and forth vibrating energy particles eventually sync up, and when they do, an arc of energy of sorts connects them to each other and pulls them together into a singular point > BANG!

For Eternity.

Big Bang > Entropy > Big Bang > Entrophy

And this all happens in Time, which exists as a wave allowing for infinite properties within each Big Bang created universe, allowing for infinite possibilities.

God's House is HUGE!

That which survives into the "World to Come" are only that of which is Of God.

1 – 200 of 237 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