This is neither here nor there, but I don't think leftists are low IQ.

Most of them are of course, but I'm talking about the liberal media types, colledge types, the twitterati, or many of the ones setting, policing, and parroting the narrative online and on social media.

They're above average, around 110. I know, weirdly specific number, but somwhere at the top-end of one standard deviation above the norm.

Smart enough to notice patterns, but not smart enough to see broader connections. Makes them especially receptible to programming and primed for believing in convoluted theories-of-everything.

We tend to think "low IQ bad" without giving much thought to psychological tendencies. Look closer, and it's more apparent - at least to me - that the source of all of this is midwits. Low IQ is indeed subotimal, but also manageable.

This midwit status also explains so much more, like how they develop a sense of superiority because they have actually very plausably been the smartest in their group, or the unwawering sense of confidence which is so particular to this group. At or below the norm, or above one standard deviation above the norm, it's very rare to find people who are convinced of some conceptual truth.

Really, if you think about it, the problem isn't the low IQ at all. Societies that are predominantly low IQs seem to be fairly (dys)functionally stable, and the low IQ will mostly go along with anything, no matter what the dominant culture or narrative may be, even if it's directly aginst their interest.

They get violent when they are agitated to violence. And the agitators are midwits.

This is neither here nor there, but I don't think leftists are low IQ.

Most of them are of course, but I'm talking about the liberal media types, colledge types, the twitterati, or many of them ones setting, policing, and parroting the narrative online and on social media.

They're above average, around 110. I know, weirdly specific number, but somwhere at the top-end of one standard deviation above the norm.

Smart enough to notice patterns, but not smart enough to see broader connections. Makes them especially receptible to programming and primed for believing in convoluted theories-of-everything.

We tend to think "low IQ bad" without giving much thought to psychological tendencies. Look closer, and it's more apparent - at least to me - that the source of all of this is midwits. Low IQ is indeed subotimal, but also manageable.

This midwit status also explains so much more, like how they develop a sense of superiority because they have actually very plausably been the smartest in their group, or the unwawering sense of confidence which is so particular to this group. At or below the norm, or above one standard deviation above the norm, it's very rare to find people who are convinced of some conceptual truth.

Really, if you think about it, the problem isn't the low IQ at all. Societies that are predominantly low IQs seem to be fairly (dys)functionally stable, and the low IQ will mostly go along with anything, no matter what the dominant culture or narrative may be, even if it's directly aginst their interest.

They get violent when they are agitated to violence. And the agitators are midwits.