Knowledge is not the same thing as intelligence, though it is often mistaken for intelligence, but a similar rule applies there. The less I know about something, the more I think I know. But when you figure out more, your realization of your vast ignorance grows, because you know more about all the stuff that you don't know.
That 85 to 115 is 68% of people. If you're 116 you're close to being in a club with the top 30%.
That makes 116 sound really low. And if you're 115 you're also close to being in a "club" with the top 30%. You can put the separation anywhere you want, and people do it in a way to flatter their own ego.
The easiest person to fool is yourself, and people make ample use of that.
Because you can have somebody who is completely fucking dumb in every capacity but if they've worked hard at something very specialised they would seem like a 200+ IQ genius if you didn't talk to them about anything else.
IQ is general intelligence. That's why you would have to not talk with him about anything else. And it's also why IQ tests include a variety of questions. You can also test IQ in ways that are very difficult for an ordinary guy to train, like the highly g-loaded reverse digit span.
There are definitely different types of intelligence I mean a great one to look at which schools and traditional education refuse to acknowledge is street smarts.
Street smarts is just 'wisdom', not intelligence. If you grow up sheltered, that does not actually decrease your intelligence, it just makes you incapable of dealing with anything.
Even if I satisfied my curiosity finally and went to get an IQ test and I did get something high at the end of the day it just seems like another dick measuring contest.
If you brag about it online, it really is. It's not an honest signal, of course, because whether you score 80 or 150, you can claim to be 150.
My understanding is that IQ and g are distinct. g is the quality that IQ attempts to (imperfectly) measure. Are there tests that present themselves as 'g' tests rather than IQ tests?
A higher capacity working memory is correlated with IQ, but chess skills are not (chess grandmasters have average IQ).
To those who have a high IQ
You should ask this question on Reddit or a Rick and Morty forum, not here.
what is it like? Can you pick up any book, read it, and understand the gist with minimal repetition?
Instead of asking people who delude themselves into believing that they have high intelligence, you could look at correlations with high intelligence. Reasoning seems to be most highly correlated. Things like vocabulary and memory (and even reaction time) are also correlated, but to a lesser extent. I can point you to a journal article by a noted researcher if you are interested.
What is something you are able to do that you know is because of your intelligence -- the proverbial 1,000 pound deadlift of the brain, if you will.
While noting that I in no way assert that I am 'smart', the only thing that gives me that impression is the stupidity of other people. And not the stupidity of holding 'bad opinions', but not noticing large inconsistencies in their own thinking or what they are told. Or not being able to figure out the simplest things. Left to my own devices, I feel neither stupid nor smart, but just ordinary.
That'll work.
Every single important politician was Chinese or was married to a Chinese or had Chinese in laws .
How do you have Chinese inlaws without being married to a Chinese?
I wonder if there are people like this at the Chinese Communist Party conferences.
Same in the EU.
People do it not to "defend a country" but to get a paycheck. I'm confident that very few in Europe would raise a finger to defend their "countries", mostly because they have ceased to be countries. They're dependencies of the US empire run by globalists who have no connection to the land or the people.
BTW, the RAF (the air force of this pathetic bleating sheep of a country) has refused to hire white people for a while. Under "Conservatives".
You could also compare to Orwell. Ingsoc had thoughtcrime, the modern West has "unconscious bias".
While Big Brother only claimed the right to police your thoughts, the globalists claim the right to police your unconscious.
I had the exact same thought.
Democracy is when they import savages to stab 10-year-old girls, and freedom is when they jail you for protesting it.
Not even continental Europa can match the evil that is the British government, even though they've been trying very hard.
Imagine this: the UK actually treats its people worse than the globalists in the EU.
Using nuclear weapons is national suicide and leads to extreme disfigurement.
I can't think of anything more 'queer' than that.
It's about the principle of the matter.
I guess brown dogs don't have the privileges brown humans have.
Such a hurtful insult. Again, you want to talk about anything except what you did, and you know full well what you did considering that you brought it up.
Topic Status: avoided by obsfucation
You're quite the master of obfuscation yourself, citing Wikipedia as a reliable source and then wanting to talk about anything but that.
Strawman, link it, quote it
You brought it up, so it seems like you know full well what happened.
Quote from the OP; "who wrote the sources that wikipedia used"
Yes, so he's criticizing it, as opposed to blindly citing it as you did.
More interesting than Wikipedia is the possibility that we might agree on the issue at hand: that an unbiased source might reflect the idea that jew Leo Frank tampered with and/or faked parts of his dead daughter's private diary to sell for a profit, and that this action happened to assist in perpetuating a status of victimhood among the jews, being that the resultant propaganda would be distributed to warn young white children about the horrors of white nationalism, in the context of it resulting in the Holocaust, for decades and decades.
Your delusions are not 'possibilities', and Hitler was not a white nationalist.
In the sense of, had they been occupied by the Nazis. 80 years is plenty of time for Nazi tyranny to change into something else, I can't imagine that by now it would be as bad as the British state is today.
Also, maybe Hitler didn't want war, but balance of power did. The British were not fools, not at the time at least, and they knew that a Hitler standing possessed of Alsace to the Urals would be unstoppable.
Everyone being even close to them is being imprisoned for 2-3 years.
It's J6, UK-style. The UK would probably be more free and a better country if it had lost WW2, even from the POV of someone who despises Nazis.
A guy who left a ham sandwich outside mosque was jailed for 1 year, and he "died" in prison.
The UK is more evil than China, Russia, North Korea and Al Qaeda put together. They imprison you for attacking the regime, which is far more limited than the speech offenses for which you will be imprisoned in the UK. And Al Qaeda has more principles than the British state.
Is he claiming that Wikipedia is wrong, or not? And if he is, how can you justify taking everything on there on blind faith as long as it fits your small-mustached ideology?
I'll eat my hat if your IQ is higher than 100.