Intelligence and IQ Levels

[Maia]

My own ability to visualize varies depending on the context, but a lot of the time it's kind of like tunnel vision. I can't see a whole fully detailed object all at once. I can see the overall structure (like a silhouette) with some detail, or I can zoom in on parts and see little bits of detail at a time, but never a very detailed object in full detail all at once.

Interesting, because when I imagine shapes and spaces it's not from any specific position.

Now that is interesting. I feel like, no matter how I imagine something, it's inherently relative to a position. Especially visually, because I don't think there's really a such thing as a visualization that isn't from a particular perspective - I don't think you can have vision without it being <from some point of view> - but even if I try imagining the 3d shape of an asymmetric object without using images, there's always a side that's closer to me or further from me - it's always from a relative position for me.

I can change that relative position, I can rotate the object or move around it, but yeah, that relative position is something I can't avoid or get rid of.

I suppose it also depends on why you're imagining something. So, for example, if I'm walking somewhere, and I know the route, I'll have the whole thing in my mind, but there's no reason why I couldn't change it to just one part of it, almost always without even thinking about it.

[Maia]

Maybe I had major connectivity issues in my brain, and reached a breaking point. Maybe it was long-time brain inflammation. Maybe my abstract thinking over-evolved and burned out my visual thinking, because it was holding me back. Maybe I never could visualize to begin with. I don't know which of these, if any.

Have you ever had a CT scan of your visual cortex?

No and I don't even want to do a CT scan. They would probably find more than one weird thing.

I don't blame you, they're not very nice.

[Atla]

Have you ever had a CT scan of your visual cortex?

No and I don't even want to do a CT scan. They would probably find more than one weird thing.

I don't blame you, they're not very nice.

It's not just that. I seem to have some bad issues and good issues, including a 1-in-a-million blessing, but I'd rather keep it hidden.

[Maia]

No and I don't even want to do a CT scan. They would probably find more than one weird thing.

I don't blame you, they're not very nice.

It's not just that. I seem to have some bad issues and good issues, including a 1-in-a-million blessing, but I'd rather keep it hidden.

That's ok, I understand.

On the subject of blessings, though, I think I've been very fortunate in life, and definitely have nothing to complain about.

[commonsense]

Have you done any studies correlating IQism with racial intimidation?

No, what do you mean?

BTW, I don’t have an average or below average IQ, and yet I don’t conform to your theories.

How do you not?

You might say I meant to say that if you haven’t conducted studies yourself linking IQ to racial intimidation, are you aware of any such studies conducted by someone else?


None of the following—your words—apply to me despite the fact that I am a Lefty:

hypothetically, the higher the IQ, the more inclined it would be to brutalize, subjugate, "hate upon", and diminish the lower and lowest IQs. Not coincidentally, this presumption tends to come from the Liberal-Left again. It is most likely a conclusion to their presumptions about human intelligence and its differential abilities.

[Wizard22]

As opposed to what? The blind faith in the authority of an idiot Philosopher (such as yourself) who tells me that I shouldn't use effective medicine?

It's obvious you don't know what effective medicine is or is not.

Of course do! I am a scientist. It is in my nature to doubt both sides of the story so I doubt the optimists and the pessimists concurrently and I figure out who the idiots are based on evidence. This is what intelligent people do.

What idiots do is this....

You have shown no evidence for "doubting both sides". Until then you do, you're spinning your wheels here.

You have helped my case in how 'Normies' exude blind-faith in "Scientific Authorities" without 1) understanding Science and 2) recognizing Authority.

[Wizard22]

You might say I meant to say that if you haven’t conducted studies yourself linking IQ to racial intimidation, are you aware of any such studies conducted by someone else?


None of the following—your words—apply to me despite the fact that I am a Lefty:

hypothetically, the higher the IQ, the more inclined it would be to brutalize, subjugate, "hate upon", and diminish the lower and lowest IQs. Not coincidentally, this presumption tends to come from the Liberal-Left again. It is most likely a conclusion to their presumptions about human intelligence and its differential abilities.

Are you a Liberal-Lefty? How far?

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =213822184

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/us/h ... women.html

https://atascaderonews.com/news/califor ... equitable/

[Wizard22]

Education vs Propagation

The ideals of "inner monologue" and "self-consciousness" are both very rare in the human specie. I believe the vast majority of humans have neither of these intellectual functions. Their brains may not even be 'wired' with the hardware allowing for it. Thus it cannot be 'educated'. This is the failing of the Liberal-Left's approach to intelligence and genetics. Because the Liberal paradigm presumes that "anybody can be taught anything with the 'right' process of nurturing". But this is meaningless in reality. Or, what it would hypothetically mean is that, high-quality human education can be greatly wasted on raising the lowest level of students a few points higher. Rather than the alternative, high-quality human education should go to those students with highest range of potential (increase of IQ).

Because what's the point of "Educating" the young if not to increase their intelligence, or physical abilities?

The answer would be: Indoctrination of the Church, Propaganda of the State, both competing to fill the minds of the masses with toxic garbage, falsities, lies, and outright degrade intelligence as a whole, to create disparities by which the poor and middle-class cannot compete against the (Highest) Education of the rich youth, students, and pupils. In other words, 'Education' is reserved to the Wealthiest and most Elite of humanity, while everybody else has their heads filled with garbage.

This becomes apparent on this forum, in these threads, by how virulent, and vigorous the Indoctrinated & Propagated are to defend their Systemic Lies.

People would rather die for the Lies they've been fed, than to realize after 40, 50, 60 years of life...that their entire life's knowledge is Debased, Wasted on Lies and Falsities. This is as true for the far-right Religious mind, who believes in a False God and Religion, versus the far-left Secular mind, who believes in 'Scientific' and Technocratic lies..."What is a Woman?"

[Wizard22]

Monologue

This idea of "Inner"-monologue is redundant; because the Greek term means "One Voice" as your own voice.

Because who else is speaking except you? Most books, writings, text, and literacy is based on Monologues. Rarely are there Dialogues or full conversations with multiple interlocutors. Because people have trouble following arguments and parameters beyond two people.


So the phrase "Inner-Monologue" connotes a different meaning, which is integration of dialogues directly into the Rationalization and Logic circuits of the human mind. This is how people intuit meaning in conversation and communication. It is how points and arguments are made. It is how contradictions and hypocrisies are discovered. Text is applied direct to "Reality", to determine whether statements are True or False. Every person and group of persons in human history have slightly different 'Mannerisms' of doing so. For example, some humans are far more-or-less Rigid, Strict, Thorough than others as to the validity and veracity of contextual statements. Those who are most rigid, require much more effort of persuasion and convincing than those otherwise taking others "at their word". This leads to matters of Trust and Believability.

Speaking for myself, my "inner"-monologue began at a young age, when I quickly learned that adults and "educators" around me could not suffice my curiosity, on top of my ability to find contradictions and hypocrisies in what most people say and believe. This leads to cognitive dissonance. Is it me who is crazy, or is it most people, who willingly and openly contradict themselves, even about what hypothetically "matters most" in life? How about God? How about Meaning of Life? How about Reality and Nature? It wasn't until I went through teenage adolescence and my young adult years, that I realized that almost every person I've interacted with, got their ideas and beliefs from somewhere else, or more appropriately, somebody else. These ideas are Sublimated into the sub-conscious, which is why people are not aware of who, why, or how they hold the beliefs they do hold, and act upon.

Suffice to say, most people do not have such levels of Cognitive Dissonance, because most people are not made to 'Think' much about contradictions, hypocrisies, irrationality, and illogical/inconsistencies. In these areas, they always, and often, defer to "The Authorities". When pressed on their "Sources", they refuse to give them up, or if they do, their "Authorities" are un-impressive. This lack of sufficient reasoning, goes along way. It can travel and ruminate throughout an entire society. In other words, there may in fact be nobody to trust at all. People routinely fall into vast 'circles of lies', which they demonize as "Conspiracy Theory", because in the end, Higher Cognitive thinking and logical consistency is "not their problem".

Thus they do not require an "Inner-monologue", nor do they over-stress are build anxiety around logical inconsistencies of Reasoning.

Why should they? That is not their function, not their 'purpose' in life, and definitely find no meaning in such hypothetical 'consistency'.

It's beyond them.

[Skepdick]

As opposed to what? The blind faith in the authority of an idiot Philosopher (such as yourself) who tells me that I shouldn't use effective medicine?

It's obvious you don't know what effective medicine is or is not.

Sure seems like you don’t even know the difference between philosophical and a scientific questions.

“What is effective medicine?” vs “Which medicine is effective?”

It’s obvious that I have a method for finding out the answer to the latter question.

It’s also obvious that you don’t have a method for finding out the answer to either.

You have shown no evidence for "doubting both sides". Until then you do, you're spinning your wheels here.

Q.E.D you don’t understand that doubt is a priori evidence.

A posteriori evidence there is no longer a need to doubt both sides.

A posteriori evidence you only have to doubt the idiots who ignore the evidence.

And if you are still doubting both sides then you are the type who is ignoring the evidence - classic both-sideism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

You have helped my case in how 'Normies' exude blind-faith in "Scientific Authorities" without 1) understanding Science and 2) recognizing Authority.

Based on your own definition you do seem like a Normie.

You appeal to “evidence” without understanding how to use it. You are cargo culting science.

Frankly you seem so incompetent in dealing with pragmatic issues I wouldn’t be surprised if your IQ is 160+. Tautologically defined “intelligent” people are often very stupid in practice. In fact most philosophers fit the bill of “intelligent but stupid.”

[commonsense]

You might say I meant to say that if you haven’t conducted studies yourself linking IQ to racial intimidation, are you aware of any such studies conducted by someone else?


None of the following—your words—apply to me despite the fact that I am a Lefty:

hypothetically, the higher the IQ, the more inclined it would be to brutalize, subjugate, "hate upon", and diminish the lower and lowest IQs. Not coincidentally, this presumption tends to come from the Liberal-Left again. It is most likely a conclusion to their presumptions about human intelligence and its differential abilities.

Are you a Liberal-Lefty? How far?

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =213822184

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/us/h ... women.html

https://atascaderonews.com/news/califor ... equitable/

I’m a centrist who leans left, but I have voted for as many Republicans as Democrats in presidential elections.

[Wizard22]

Sure seems like you don’t even know the difference between philosophical and a scientific questions.

“What is effective medicine?” vs “Which medicine is effective?”

It’s obvious that I have a method for finding out the answer to the latter question.

It’s also obvious that you don’t have a method for finding out the answer to either.

Effective medicine prevents, cures, or improves the general health of the patient.

Covid Vaccines the government admitted 1) does not spread of Covid infection and 2) does not prevent Covid.

By the end of the Pandemic, they had to admit that Covid vaccines were for "dampening symptoms and illness", and even that was/is a lie.

Q.E.D you don’t understand that doubt is a priori evidence.

A posteriori evidence there is no longer a need to doubt both sides.

A posteriori evidence you only have to doubt the idiots who ignore the evidence.

And if you are still doubting both sides then you are the type who is ignoring the evidence - classic both-sideism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

In Philosophy, it is expected even and especially among the Amateurs and hobbyists, that you can "Steelman" the opposition.

You have not demonstrated such. You also have a bad habit of going too far off-topic.

Based on your own definition you do seem like a Normie.

You appeal to “evidence” without understanding how to use it. You are cargo culting science.

Frankly you seem so incompetent in dealing with pragmatic issues I wouldn’t be surprised if your IQ is 160+. Tautologically defined “intelligent” people are often very stupid in practice. In fact most philosophers fit the bill of “intelligent but stupid.”

[Wizard22]

I’m a centrist who leans left, but I have voted for as many Republicans as Democrats in presidential elections.

...so by your admission you are not so much the Liberal-Lefty that you claimed, right?

[Skepdick]

Effective medicine prevents, cures, or improves the general health of the patient.

Covid Vaccines the government admitted 1) does not spread of Covid infection and 2) does not prevent Covid.

By the end of the Pandemic, they had to admit that Covid vaccines were for "dampening symptoms and illness", and even that was/is a lie.

Dampening symptoms and ilness; and preventing death is what I call "effective".

But hey, if you are sticking with the Nirvana fallacy... that's only strengthens the case for your idiocy.

In Philosophy, it is expected even and especially among the Amateurs and hobbyists, that you can "Steelman" the opposition.

Of course. Unfortunately the steelman in this particular case is that the oppositio are idiots who ignore the evidence.

[commonsense]

I’m a centrist who leans left, but I have voted for as many Republicans as Democrats in presidential elections.

...so by your admission you are not so much the Liberal-Lefty that you claimed, right?

I use the terms liberal and lefty interchangeably. My apologies if they are not. I was focusing on my leaning when I used the terms.

Sorry for misleading you.