Intelligent People More Likely To Suffer From Mental Illness

[Prosper]

^ This Prosper guy seems to be the epitome of the "fake-tough" authoritarians that Peat despises and considers to be of sub-normal intelligence. Why is he on RPF? Lol.

I don't think you understand what an authoritarian is. You berating me without providing any counterarguments or even half-meaningful content is more authoritarian than anything else in this thread.

I speak 100% freely and urge others to do the same. I do confess to being a natural ***hole. For that I won't grant you an apology. If you happen to experience negative emotions while surfing the internet from the safety of your own bedroom, it's the mirror you have to point your finger at. Not some imaginary villain on an internet forum.

 

[Prosper]

You're right. Internet IQ tests are much more comprehensive.

You're interpreting it wrong. NEITHER is particularly comprehensive.

 

[Dhair]

You're interpreting it wrong. NEITHER is particularly comprehensive.

I won't argue with that. I take your point about the important of pattern recognition in general, I'm just saying that some IQ tests (and they are inconsistent, which is part of the problem) have specific sections that are questionable.

 

[Prosper]

I won't argue with that. I take your point about the important of pattern recognition in general, I'm just saying that some IQ tests (and they are inconsistent, which is part of the problem) have specific sections that are questionable.

I give you that. However, of all possible sections an IQ test can have, pattern recognition is the least questionable way to measure intelligence. Every other way of measuring is easily influenced by cultural and societal background. Extrapolating universal shapes from series of other universal shapes is as objective as it gets.

 

[fradon]

to smart to be happy

or...

happy being unhappy.

 

[Travis]

I think part of the problem is semantics, or—who gets to define the word "intelligence"? What IQ tests measure is something more inherent—metabolic intelligence, and a few coordinations (physical links) in the nervous system which had been made prior. But this isn't necessarily how the Central Intelligence Agency would define the word.

I think its difficult to talk about without breaking the word into bits, or by introducing modifiers in some way.* Nobody will argue that we're more intelligent when we're alert, so perhaps a cup of coffee and a cigarette would automatically increase intelligence by 3 points. Most IQ tests do have a time limit.

*Perhaps other languages already make such distinctions? The Japanese language might be the one to check first, since they seem to be the smartest. The Eskimos have the most words for snow.

 

[Drareg]

Nor should he. Your linguistic competence is only as high as the complexity of the most difficult language you can communicate in. Being able to speak somali, ebonics or other loose garbage-tier language adds roughly 0% intellectual bragging value to the assets of anyone who can also speak English, Spanish or any other comprehensive language. Me being able to learn basic English is no feat, but rather an inevitability, due to my native language being dozens of times more complex than yours. Do you think I had to deliberately STUDY english? HA!



More accurate than what? IQ test excels precisely at what it sets out to measure: pattern recognition. When other cognitive aspects remain identical, the one with superior pattern recognition capability is superior in ALL aspects of life compared to the one with inferior capability.



Do you think Bobby Fischer being better at chess than the ones who originally engineered the game somehow invalidates the point of the game? Do you have to be the tallest man in the world in order to determine the second tallest one? In order to measure anything, the only point that matters is how individuals perform in relation to others within the system, not how they perform in relation to the creator of the system. That is irrelevant.



A better question is: what would drive you attempt to measure the cognitive capability of someone who you know to be cognitively deficient? What is there to gain? Just tick the retard box, put them on welfare and forget about it!



Yes, this IS amusing. But not for the reasons you think. This is an unfortunately deranged equivalence. If you are not ashamed, I urge you to be.


Your general sentiment is right: IQ hardly matters. Don't feel bad about your perceived lack in IQ. That's not nice. Cultivate drive instead of excuses and you will easily over-perform any ****88 up sub-genius.

You ignore the main points I make.
I think it’s clear you are hung up on your "high"IQ score hence th emotional rant and false humility around what it can test,you’ve even admitted you do nothing with it but watch conspiracy theories all day.
Bobby Fischer was better at chess because he took a pathological interest in it,look at how he ended up,deranged,was it the psychopathological leaning that caused the increase in chess playing abilities or the high "intelligence" that caused the illness? The people who invented chess were dead long before bobby Fischer came along,your high IQ pattern recognition abilities let you down here,add in the Flynn effect might help you here. The question I was asking is how is the test is put together,nobody rearranges the game of chess before each game,nor is it adjusted for the Flynn effect,the IQ tester is the issue,its Not 100% unambiguous.

Lingusitic competence requires pattern recognizing abilities,it’s testing intelligence, clearly.
Making tea and walking test pattern recognition,urinating also,this is why alcohol which can lower IQ scores can have similar effect on making tea,walking and urinating,regress to "g" why don’t you.

People with mental disabilities are acknowledged by the parents before they take a test,the test isn’t needed,observing them during basic activities is how people deduce this,using an IQ test is for removing money from the parents pocket,also you ignore my point about how an IQ test is given to a kid with severe mental health issues, I would like to see a video on this to take note of the test takers behavior.
Welfare culture is just that a culture spin off from modern capitalism,your deranged equivalence is highlighted here and your contempt for those with said issues,through observation in the environment of those with issues we can deduce what they can do,IQ test is redundant and about taking money from people.

Please clarify how you don’t see the issue of "high IQ nations" and the murder rate,over 85,000,000 died in WW2 alone over a 6 year period,from the gospel of wiki a few more "statistics" List of wars by death toll - Wikipedia

Supposedly the high IQ nations are represented more in medicine as the years pass,at this point we can look at iatrogenics,if we establish the amount of doctors present and correlate that with iatrogenic statistics within said establishment we get 20 million folks made worse by the medical establishment and 142,000 deaths in 2013,all high IQs here folks,Spurious correlations? but that’s all we get with IQ test shills,"their" definition of intelligence and "their" test the best.
Are you going to attack grammar next?

 

[Thoushant]

I'm actually Mensa eligible. I considered wearing a fedora hat, but ultimately it revealed itself that my katana sharp wit can cut through any peasents. My IQ is 2 deviations squared over the median.
I just hate how these bros and their ordinary subpar intelligence get all the money and the girls. you will never bore with me, we will talk about Gilbert Ling and Gargoyl all night long. I should be CEO, I offered that Tesla guy, in a conference full of people, and he laughed me off, what a douche.
I watch mahuisen , Shaneryo Mahaito is my favorite producer, no one can tell stories about late teen girls fighting octopus' better than him. pff pathetic you watch House of cards.
Society is messed up, if only they would listen to my enlightend atheistic englighenment. Sam Harris I love you.
You think you know better because you're a doctor??? I teach you low grade biochem, pfffff pathetic

 

[Drareg]

I'm actually Mensa eligible. I considered wearing a fedora hat, but ultimately it revealed itself that my katana sharp wit can cut through any peasents. My IQ is 2 deviations squared over the median.
I just hate how these bros and their ordinary subpar intelligence get all the money and the girls. you will never bore with me, we will talk about Gilbert Ling and Gargoyl all night long. I should be CEO, I offered that Tesla guy, in a conference full of people, and he laughed me off, what a douche.
I watch mahuisen , Shaneryo Mahaito is my favorite producer, no one can tell stories about late teen girls fighting octopus' better than him. pff pathetic you watch House of cards.
Society is messed up, if only they would listen to my enlightend atheistic englighenment. Sam Harris I love you.
You think you know better because you're a doctor??? I teach you low grade biochem, pfffff pathetic

And in spite of high intelligence the low intelligent types still touch a few subconscious nerves when we bring girls into it,what about discussing correlations relative to penis size,anything under 5 inch girth no matter what race will be shown to be insufficient to "fully satisfy" the "pleasure zones" of the vagina.
If we then subscribe the natural selection paradigm it seems larger penises are preferable as natural selection is selfish and generally just wants us to empty our balls and die. Remember girth is the main player imo,sperm shoots out/ejaculate/ejects for most.....wider girth should favor natural selection by widening vaginal canal and allowing straight run to the target,if a penis is to thin the sperm is like an x fighter in the final scene of Star Wars.

 

[Constatine]

It seems many of us have lack humbling experiences.

 

[Peatful]

It seems many of us have lack humbling experiences.

+1

 

[Thoushant]

And in spite of high intelligence the low intelligent types still touch a few subconscious nerves when we bring girls into it,what about discussing correlations relative to penis size,anything under 5 inch girth no matter what race will be shown to be insufficient to "fully satisfy" the "pleasure zones" of the vagina.
If we then subscribe the natural selection paradigm it seems larger penises are preferable as natural selection is selfish and generally just wants us to empty our balls and die. Remember girth is the main player imo,sperm shoots out/ejaculate/ejects for most.....wider girth should favor natural selection by widening vaginal canal and allowing straight run to the target,if a penis is to thin the sperm is like an x fighter in the final scene of Star Wars.

..

 

[Prosper]

you’ve even admitted you do nothing with it but watch conspiracy theories all day

As if I had the mental fortitude required for that kind of menial work. You must confuse me for someone else.

Please clarify how you don’t see the issue of "high IQ nations" and the murder rate,over 85,000,000 died in WW2 alone over a 6 year period,from the gospel of wiki a few more "statistics"

Enlighten me. What IS the issue? What's your angle? Are you suggesting that clash of multiple large civilizations should not result in massive death toll? Are you suggesting that war is not high IQ behavior? Are you suggesting that high IQ makes people extraordinarily unempathetic? Of course I will ignore every point you fail to make. What else could I do? I'm not a seer, and I hope you realize this in spite of my profoundly illuminating output.

The question I was asking is how is the test is put together,nobody rearranges the game of chess before each game,nor is it adjusted for the Flynn effect,the IQ tester is the issue,its Not 100% unambiguous.

Well, yes and no. You're stuck pondering the validity of the specific absolute value of the measurement that taking the test results in. The results would of course be ambiguous in isolation. But that's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how the test taker performs in relation to other test takers. That's how percentile is determined. It doesn't matter what kind of system you engineer or what symbols you decide to express the results with when the implications of the results are 100% relativistic and therefore 100% unambiguous for as long as there is enough data to compare to.

Supposedly the high IQ nations are represented more in medicine as the years pass,at this point we can look at iatrogenics,if we establish the amount of doctors present and correlate that with iatrogenic statistics within said establishment we get 20 million folks made worse by the medical establishment and 142,000 deaths in 2013,all high IQs here folks,Spurious correlations? but that’s all we get with IQ test shills,"their" definition of intelligence and "their" test the best.

Once again, what's your point in midst of all this ceaseless rambling? That high IQ people make poor doctors? Or that high IQ people are not immune to stupidity? That high IQ people are too trusting of established science? Or that they are too dismissive of it? You state legitimate facts. I don't dismiss the facts you bring up, but I'm not interested in them either until you're willing to provide interpretational context for them. Facts are not points or arguments in themselves.

You seem to be under the impression that my claim is that IQ = intelligence. No. That's not what I'm trying to imply. My view is that IQ = significant part of intelligence. And I think deep down you agree.

 

[Travis]

That high IQ people make poor doctors? Or that high IQ people are not immune to stupidity? That high IQ people are too trusting of established science? Or that they are too dismissive of it?

I think the term "high IQ people" could be misplaced concreteness. Not much thought is given to the temporal aspects of intelligence:

• Schuerger, James M., and Anita C. Witt. "The temporal stability of individually tested intelligence." Journal of Clinical Psychology 45.2 (1989): 294-302.

What is perhaps surprising to some is that after ten years, about ten percent of people's scores varied by 15 points (Table IV). This number represents those who were tested at age 18 and then 28. There is more variability for people initially tested younger.

Intelligence shouldn't be considered fixed, especially since biochemical factors can play such a large role. There would probably be an even greater time-dependent variability if it weren't for the dietary stability which most people exhibit—the propensity of most people to continue eating like they always have.

The tests are useful for some, but not for understanding the biochemical and socio-psychological aspects of intelligence. I think these are the primary drivers. Genetically-determined intelligence is similar to eugenics, or The Divine Right of Kings—a way to justify the uncompromising and undemocratic nature of the ruling class (or simple paternalistic pride, in some cases.)

 

[lollipop]

Intelligence shouldn't be considered fixed, especially since biochemical factors can play such a large role.

+1

 

[Drareg]

As if I had the mental fortitude required for that kind of menial work. You must confuse me for someone else.


Enlighten me. What IS the issue? What's your angle? Are you suggesting that clash of multiple large civilizations should not result in massive death toll? Are you suggesting that war is not high IQ behavior? Are you suggesting that high IQ makes people extraordinarily unempathetic? Of course I will ignore every point you fail to make. What else could I do? I'm not a seer, and I hope you realize this in spite of my profoundly illuminating output.


Well, yes and no. You're stuck pondering the validity of the specific absolute value of the measurement that taking the test results in. The results would of course be ambiguous in isolation. But that's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how the test taker performs in relation to other test takers. That's how percentile is determined. It doesn't matter what kind of system you engineer or what symbols you decide to express the results with when the implications of the results are 100% relativistic and therefore 100% unambiguous for as long as there is enough data to compare to.


Once again, what's your point in midst of all this ceaseless rambling? That high IQ people make poor doctors? Or that high IQ people are not immune to stupidity? That high IQ people are too trusting of established science? Or that they are too dismissive of it? You state legitimate facts. I don't dismiss the facts you bring up, but I'm not interested in them either until you're willing to provide interpretational context for them. Facts are not points or arguments in themselves.

You seem to be under the impression that my claim is that IQ = intelligence. No. That's not what I'm trying to imply. My view is that IQ = significant part of intelligence. And I think deep down you agree.

I didn’t think you were saying that,Im more interested if anybody else sees the correlations I speak of here,I’m not saying individuals will be psycho,I’m using the group as an example as the psychologists do when speaking of IQ tests and their prediction capacities.

The reality is everything tests intelligence,we know when we look at others going about day to day problems who is with it or not,even kids see this,many elements involved yet humans sense it intuitively,this is the point I am trying to make,IQ is stuck in its own paradigm,all psychologists believe in it,the token gesture argument is if it’s fixed or not over a lifetime,fixed relative to the other test takers,my understanding here is the IQ does increase on an individual scale from 10 years old to 35 for example but not relative to the the group,promoting this info so the public can get a better understanding is helpful yet it doesn’t make it there and that’s telling,kids committing suicide and getting depressed because of this test and educational systems worldwide is wrong when we consider what "successful life outcomes"are in store for them,mortgage,job,more debt,in many cases and of course death,now mental health issues when it’s promoted that higher IQ - better health....

"It doesn't matter what kind of system you engineer or what symbols you decide to express the results with when the implications of the results are 100% relativistic and therefore 100% unambiguous for as long as there is enough data to compare to".

That’s the point I’m making about the dysfunctional society and the relativity of standardization to others,The argument goes that IQ at an individual level is not good at predicting much however within the group it predicts much more,from GDP to "successful life outcomes" ,we then apply this to the high IQ nations keeping in mind many believe IQ is fixed (relative to the group) we then look at Europe’s history and Chinas for psychopathological behaviors. We can’t use the excuse of it was all the politicians fault,these societies had average IQs over 100. Many historical IQ tests were also done with army recruits as mentioned,they are recruited to kill let’s be honest,most leaderships paradigms come from supposedly high IQ academics via economics,philosophy or religions which atttact many high IQ types also to preach/teach it not necessarily the believers. Also keep in mind as it stands Europe,America and China are not stable financially in particular Europe,there is still potential for chaos,these areas of the world and let’s not forget the UK have caused nothing but trouble on the planet for centuries,we can speak of inventions and positives but this can be argued against easily,it seems we have stacks of bodies lives cut short outweighing the good.
So to answer the above,the extremists in society will say the likes of Darwin,survival of the fittest,this is intelligence, however it’s not intelligent when it’s a different ethnic group...... is it also intelligent to now have nuclear bombs flying around,think Kimmy in North Korea and geniuses within the manhattan project.
To speculate further we could call the Flynn effect the psycho/psycholess effect,as IQ scores increased we became more psycho,IQ scores increasing may correlate with times of psychopathic behavior,they’ll say survival of the fittest etc

Mensa want you over 132 to get in,132 is considered a score where you can do anything you put your mind to,the definitions change but that’s the implication of said score,a score of 90 is below average intelligence yet in society we can’t see this drastic effect,we are told what "successful life outcomes are" and must go along accordingly,for me if the IQ was the closet thing to overall intelligence testing those in the 132 range would see the world as it is and would realize it’s highly financial and spend a few years making enough for a very early retirement or money for more choice in life which is a need for anyone more so for the "highly gifted"types.this is what the 132 range implies,this should be the case in the majority,Mensa is the perfect place to study this yet it’s not done.
Is it really that hard to make 10 million with such intelligence? You need 10 million humans to give you €1 and whatever to cover taxes because paying taxes at the rates we do now in a system set up by high IQ types in academia is an example of "successful life outcome",balanced and intelligent folk are happy to pay taxes, investing in the "legitimate stock market" another way to get the cash,all this not ”Peaty" but we’re arguing from within the academics paradigm/definitions of reality.
The above is what the 132 range implies,this should be the case in the majority of high IQ types,Mensa is the perfect place to study this yet it’s not done.

I’m asking for example how do the ceilings work,who constructs them,for some reason we still need a human to administer the test,the computerized are not good enough they say,it sounds a touch too artistic for me and wide open to corruption, if I look at shapes on a screen and I have to guess the pattern I get this sure,the pattern has to "mean" something,who creates the "meaning",these topics need to be pulled up and discussed more but within the psychology paradigm this doesn’t happen,mortgages need to be paid,the financial tennis ball that went on for years between the fixed and not fixed camp is highly profitable,James Flynn done very well from his book sales,this has relevance to the ignorance of the more obvious blind spots imo. About 10 years ago compressed sensing which is a more advanced form of information theory was discovered,it’s breaking ground in everything including genetics,Claude Shannon mentioned when he created information theory that it’s is not their problem to deal with meaning,just getting the information across was the point,correct,what it means though is still crucial to those on the other end,now unless the IQ test creators have access to the fabric of reality that "means" the same to all this test is more flawed than what is currently stated,we can talk about spatial reasoning etc but apply this to the observer effect in quantum physics but more importantly to meaning,we can’t claim to have an understanding of one unified culture which eliminates bias when cultures are "created" and are a form of "creativity",this is the reason we keep creating new cultures over and over even on an individual level,IQ tests don’t test creativity.
I think the test could be similar to how we define animal intelligence,a border collie is seen as intelligent because it is more obedient to human desires,other breeds are not intelligent because they are less obedient however a wolf is not considered stupid nor is a Lion,the housecat also understands reality quite well,use humans for food and then does what it wants,it’s not herding sheep for you anytime soon because it has right it’s exercising.

 

[Such_Saturation]

tfw too intelligent

 

[Vesi]

High IQ can circumvent denial of death/reality, which often leads to mental problems.

Why my interest in denial?
Theory (long)

edit some more:
MIND Reviews: Denial
The Evolution of Denial - by Ray Grigg - Tide Change

 

[Prosper]

IQ tests don’t test creativity.

I disagree. Fundamentally IQ tests are creative problem solving tests. The better you are at coming up with ways with which a shape or a pattern can be gradually manipulated, the more competent you are at determining the logical next shape in the sequence. IQ = the amount of connections you're able to perceive between concepts, contexts, patterns, frameworks etc. Creativity = the ability to form new connections between existing concepts. They are almost the same thing.

As for your optimism towards people with high IQ, beyond a certain point it becomes relatively easy to grow completely disillusioned with not only the surrounding society, but the reality itself. The more intelligent you are, the harder it is to care about the things most of the general public cares about. The harder it is to relate to other people. The harder it is to find activities that appear purposeful and worth the effort. What you refer to as "seeing the world as it is" tends to translate to a series of existential conclusions and value judgements that result in either pessimistic nihilism or self-centered zen, not a desire to make millions. Since high self-awareness leads to high capability for self-validation, for most highly intelligent individuals simple personal pursuits become more meaningful than anything else, and these interests rarely align with what is commonly defined as success. The only societally impactful outcome can occur when the high IQ individual decides to embrace the society by dedicating their life to helping it in any way they can. Yet that seems to be rare.

Me and one of my friends consistently test between 130-135 on various IQ tests and both of us are classical losers from the perspective of any western society. We are unemployed, poorly educated loners. Neither of us cares about our reputation in the eyes of the society. It's simply meaningless. Would you care how a middle schooler perceives you? As pretentious as it sounds, that is close to how it feels. We have our own simple pursuits that make us happy. Reading, arts, simply existing, what more do you need? Most pursuits are based on delusion in one form or another.

 

[Such_Saturation]

onsistently test between 130-135 on various IQ tests and both of us are classical losers from the perspective of any western society. We are unemployed, poorly educated loners. Neither of us cares about our reputation in the eyes of the society.

There are heads of state and CEOs that score higher lmao!