[IQ is such an epic predictor!] Reality: "IQ negatively correlates with adult income"

[Deleted member 26622]

having psychopathy and high IQ is the best outcome, no depression associated with high IQ, can take advantage of others, and your happiness will come from the lifestyle you have built out of deceiving others, rather than relying on other high IQ people to stimulate your brain

just be a psychopath theory

 

[Deleted member 27729]

With an high IQ you either reject the current system, try to overthrow the leaders of the current system, or attempt to create a new system altogther.

Bold of you to assume that the system isn't rigged and you'll get eliminated by the (((ones))) in power no matter what

 

[LooksOrDeath]

Bold of you to assume that the system isn't rigged and you'll get eliminated by the (((ones))) in power no matter what

Talking at the very low level, i consider starting a startup in a conventional way, trying to become a CEO, or overthrowing your business rival as overthrowing the leaders of the current system. Status quo is a better word tbh.

Of course, they will do anything to destroy you who dares challenge them.

 

[Deleted member 27729]

Talking at the very low level, i consider starting a startup in a conventional way, trying to become a CEO, or overthrowing your business rival as overthrowing the leaders of the current system. Status quo is a better word tbh.

Of course, they will do anything to destroy you who dares challenge them.

You're correct but you also need motivation , purpose and to feel like you have a reason for doing it , not many people can actually chase that path and keep walking towards it after falling multiple times

 

[Deleted member 25438]

keep using basic linear models for the most complex phenomenon known to mankind lmfao

also studies consistently show very little correlation between income and iq when specified properly

If linear regression explains the most amount of variance between IQ and Income, then its the most valid model lol. Do you have data for whether fixed effects, ordinary least squares, or any other form of regression explains more of the variance while passing tests for robustness to prevent overfitting?

 

[mogger123]

If linear regression explains the most amount of variance between IQ and Income, then its the most valid model lol. Do you have data for whether fixed effects, ordinary least squares, or any other form of regression explains more of the variance while passing tests for robustness to prevent overfitting?

goodness of fit is a complete meme. all that matters is predictive power, i.e. if your model can't predict new data accurately it's completely worthless. no one cares about muh r squared

do you not realise how fundamentally retarded it is to model a complex system as linear? we need to choose approporate models for the context and then adjust them based on our findings. not religiously use linear regression and torture the data until it gives us something of note (even completely random data will give you strong linear correlations occassionally)

“With data gathered from uncontrolled observations on complex systems involving unknown physical, chemical, or biological mechanisms, the a priori assumption that nature would generate the data through a parametric model selected by the statistician can result in questionable conclusions that cannot be substantiated by appeal to goodness-of-fit tests and residual analysis.” — Leo Breiman

 

[Deleted member 15302]

pattern recognition is one of the most useless forms of intelligence when it comes to making money. no worthwhile study uses “iq” as a measure of intelligence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081396/

 

[incel194012940]

@mogger123

thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 25438]

goodness of fit is a complete meme. all that matters is predictive power, i.e. if your model can't predict new data accurately it's completely worthless. no one cares about muh r squared

do you not realise how fundamentally retarded it is to model a complex system as linear? we need to choose approporate models for the context and then adjust them based on our findings. not religiously use linear regression and torture the data until it gives us something of note (even completely random data will give you strong linear correlations occassionally)

The way you test for the predicitive validity of a model (aka the robustness) a model is if it gives you similar percentages of variance explained for any given dataset of IQ and Income. How else would you test predictive validity of a model?

"My model is useful because it shows that IQ explains 30% of the variance in income, and that this is largely consistent no matter what the dataset is."

This is how predictive validity is operationalized literally anywhere where you can't do direct expirements lol. So again, my challenge for you is to find a model that explains more of the IQ income relationship while being robust.

There's nothing retarded about modelling the relationship betwen IQ and Income as linear. This is just your bias coming into play. Non-argument. No one is tortoring anything. If you have a better model propose the study and I will look into it.

 

[Deleted member 27441]

having psychopathy and high IQ is the best outcome, no depression associated with high IQ, can take advantage of others, and your happiness will come from the lifestyle you have built out of deceiving others, rather than relying on other high IQ people to stimulate your brain

90% of people who suffer from this are only high iq in their own mind, though

high iq translates to living life on god mode when it comes to school/academy and income (minus people who simply don't have money as their priority), so i cage hard at people flexing with it while having 0 accomplishments in that domain past the age of 7; it's equivalent to thinking you are a 9 lookswise while being a kissless virgin against your will at 35

 

[mogger123]

The way you test for the predicitive validity of a model (aka the robustness) a model is if it gives you similar percentages of variance explained for any given dataset of IQ and Income. How else would you test predictive validity of a model?

"My model is useful because it shows that IQ explains 30% of the variance in income, and that this is largely consistent no matter what the dataset is."

This is how predictive validity is operationalized literally anywhere where you can't do direct expirements lol. So again, my challenge for you is to find a model that explains more of the IQ income relationship while being robust.

There's nothing retarded about modelling the relationship betwen IQ and Income as linear. This is just your bias coming into play. Non-argument. No one is tortoring anything. If you have a better model propose the study and I will look into it.

my point is that explaining only 30% of the variance in something is so pathetically low that it is a joke to label it as "prediction". (social sciences moment). seriously, try predicting unseen data using a linear regression with an R^2 of 0.3. and I'm pretty sure different studies get wildly different R^2 values, so it's not like it's consistent either.

all of this is just noise.

that's not even getting into the circularity of iq as a measure. high paying jobs are usually conjoined with test taking (medicine, finance, law, etc), so all you would be showing is that being a good test taker means you are good at taking tests. it's nonsensical


a better approach for intelligence is algorithmic modelling and machine learning. match complexity with complexity. iq is a meme that needs to die already

 

[mogger123]

@mogger123

thoughts?

it's just culture. more homophobia and religion in lower social classes

 

[Deleted member 25438]

my point is that explaining only 30% of the variance in something is so pathetically low that it is a joke to label it as "prediction". (social sciences moment). seriously, try predicting unseen data using a linear regression with an R^2 of 0.3. and I'm pretty sure different studies get wildly different R^2 values, so it's not like it's consistent either.

all of this is just noise.

that's not even getting into the circularity of iq as a measure. high paying jobs are usually conjoined with test taking (medicine, finance, law, etc), so all you would be showing is that being a good test taker means you are good at taking tests. it's nonsensical


a better approach for intelligence is algorithmic modelling and machine learning. match complexity with complexity. iq is a meme that needs to die already

Why is 30% so pathetically low? This is just an arbitrary standard you’ve set for yourself. R^2 of .3 means that you can find alpha <0.001 with a sample as small as 32. It means that you can find alpha <0.05 in a sample as small as 14. It means that over a binary threshold using kendell’s tau you can predict at almost 80% accuracy. This is like me going “I will flip a coin and it will give me an 80% chance of landing on heads, do you want 1 to 1 odds?” and then you soy sneer and are like “screw social science, I want to know 95% of the time or you are useless!!!” This just belies the fact that you’ve never actually worked with stats in a rigorous manner your entire life. Also JFL at the machine learning comment. What do you think the basis of deep learning or multilayer perceptrons are? Before machine learning everyone learns statistical learning aka regression analysis. Machine learning and Predictive validity validation fundamentally work in different ways. Predictive validity analysis is fundamentally a black box problem, you are given an input and want to get an output. You predict what output you will get using a model that has a variance explained. Machine learning is going into the black box and deconstructing what is causally happening to the input to get the output, which you need to essentially reengineer intelligence. You don’t need to know the exact causal pathways for how IQ modulates income. It adds 0 predictive validity.

 

[mogger123]

Why is 30% so pathetically low? This is just an arbitrary standard you’ve set for yourself. R^2 of .3 means that you can find alpha <0.001 with a sample as small as 32. It means that you can find alpha <0.05 in a sample as small as 14. It means that over a binary threshold using kendell’s tau you can predict at almost 80% accuracy. This is like me going “I will flip a coin and it will give me an 80% chance of landing on heads, do you want 1 to 1 odds?” and then you soy sneer and are like “screw social science, I want to know 95% of the time or you are useless!!!” This just belies the fact that you’ve never actually worked with stats in a rigorous manner your entire life. Also JFL at the machine learning comment. What do you think the basis of deep learning or multilayer perceptrons are? Before machine learning everyone learns statistical learning aka regression analysis. Machine learning and Predictive validity validation fundamentally work in different ways. Predictive validity analysis is fundamentally a black box problem, you are given an input and want to get an output. You predict what output you will get using a model that has a variance explained. Machine learning is going into the black box and deconstructing what is causally happening to the input to get the output, which you need to essentially reengineer intelligence. You don’t need to know the exact causal pathways for how IQ modulates income. It adds 0 predictive validity.

are you poontang? mirin your knowledge

but ive seen enough of this technobabble throughout my studies to understand that most of it relies on very stringent assumptions that essentially never hold, making all conclusions close to meaningless. (I have a lot of respect for the social sciences btw, just not when they larp as physicists and use statistics like it's the Laws of Motion)

corrrelation for correlations sake is fucking stupid, and that's all iq is at the end of the day. muh test scores correlate, let's call it iq and show it correlates to things that are heavily tied to taking tests. >le science

 

[Sleeper]

"IQ negatively correlates with adult income In individuals from high class backgrounds"

This shouldnt be a surprise, the economic level you are born into is the one you are mostly likely to stay in, there is not a single country on the planet that is an outlier in this. If IQ made that much of a difference then we would see a lot of economic class fluctuation with rich people falling into poverty and poor people rising into success all as a result of differences in IQ. Instead there is extremely little fluctuation. Rich stay rich, middle class stay middle class and poor stay poor

 

[MentalistKebab]

The ideal range is in the Trump range where you are slightly above average but not intelligent enough to be a programmer, astrophysicist etc. (so 110-115). As long as you are born with a bit of privilege and networks, you can end up president of the planet. You are smart enough to manipulate dumber people into your followers, and not smart enough to become depressed.

People in the 130+ range (Mensa) often not only have aspergers or fall on the autism spectrum, they develop all sorts of mental disorders and depression from having to interact with people who are literal retards in comparison to their mental level (more than 2-3 standard deviations below their IQ) 24/7, everywhere they go.

Most extremely smart people like Nikola Tesla

this nigga said smart people like Nikola Tesla,

did not end up as billionaire businessmen. He married a literal pigeon, he played cards under a bridge with some homeless people and he died utterly penniless and schizophrenic.

Beside from all of these things you listed, he wasnt even good at his own field , and didnt believe electrons existed.

Its acceptable to be a socially fucked up as a high IQ autist, but its not acceptable to fail at the field you concentrated all your efforts into, he is a low IQ parasite, died like how he lived.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6060660/

View attachment 2155875
The vast majority of 130+ IQ children and teenagers will become depressed virgins when they grow up, because women just don't like extremely smart men for a variety of reasons (unless they also happen to be very good looking and socially capable, but most high IQ individuals are socially handicapped and not very good looking).

You want your child to be about 1 standard deviation above average in IQ, or about 115 maximum. He or she can excel in any job, hobby or profession in the world but they will also likely be socially capable enough to have a healthy dating life and be capable of starting a family.

Higher is better doesn't apply to IQ. You do not want a 140 IQ child. The world is a depressing prison for most of those people.

What I am getting at this is 140 IQ is not the bad thing, but the aspergers that usually comes with it is, so you might as well say you want nt son

 

[Gandy]

What I am getting at this is 140 IQ is not the bad thing, but the aspergers that usually comes with it is, so you might as well say you want nt son

Most neurotypicals are low to medium IQ.

And I would much rather have a middle IQ neurotypical son or daughter who is happy in life, than a non-NT depressed 130 IQ that spends 16 hours a day on solitary activities and is severely suicidal.

(I am actually having a child this autumn. I pray to heavens it turns out NT regardless of intelligence)

 

[APJ]

What I am getting at this is 140 IQ is not the bad thing, but the aspergers that usually comes with it is, so you might as well say you want nt son

This is going to sound very but it's not really the top-tier IQ but the willingness to relate to lowest-common-denominator normie culture. 'Aspies', in this case not genuine ASD sufferers but just introverted, geeky people, see it as a huge masking performance that is incredibly exhausting. The high-IQ people (men and women) I've seen who can integrate well with normie culture and groups seem to see it more as a fun game where they can use their smarts to manipulate others to get what they want. A related pattern I've noticed is in dating, where the more intelligent the woman, the more manipulative she is

 

[looksmaxxed]

low iq wall of cope thread. money making=high iq, plus low sentience, plus luck, plus mental illness. no other factors are involved

 

[Crusile]

@KingKthe9

education raises IQ (IQ test taking ability) https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/226739 and educational attainment raises income independent of IQ LOL. such an epic predictor.

GPA or education already measures test taking ability and obtained knowledge, IQist claim that predictive power as their own when its just a positive manifold that all must decently predict thus 30% is low

THE FLOOR FOR PREDICTIVITY CAN NOT BE CLOSE TO ZERO

 

[Crusile]

<em>g</em>, a Statistical Myth

Just so here: the myth of g legitimates a vast enterprise of intelligence testing and theorizing. There should be no dispute that, when we lack specialized and valid instruments, general IQ tests can be better than nothing. Claims that they are anything more than such stop-gaps — that they are triumphs of psychological science, illuminating the workings of the mind; keys to the fates of individuals and peoples; sources of harsh truths which only a courageous few have the strength to bear; etc., etc., — such claims are at present entirely unjustified, though not, perhaps, unmotivated. They are supported only by the myth, and acceptance of the myth itself rests on what I can only call an astonishing methodological backwardness.

The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind.

 

[Deleted member 25438]

<em>g</em>, a Statistical Myth

This is a dumb critique. We know that the predictive power of G is exogenous to it just being a function of the positive manifold because we have reliability measures that control for this.

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(87)90224-8

One example:

In this paper, Thorndike conducted a study
which was explicitly designed to test the
stability of a test’s g-loading in multiple batteries (i.e. if we put the same test in two different non-overlapping test batteries, and extracted that test’s g-loading from both batteries, how similar will the g-loadings be?). Thorndike started with 65 highly diverse tests used by the U.S. air force, he took a random 48 of them, and he randomly divided the 48 of them into 6 test batteries, with 8 tests in each, and with none of the 48 tests in more than one battery. Then, with the 17 tests not in any battery, they were inserted one at a time into all 6 batteries. The average correlation between g-loadings for all 17 tests was .85. From eyeballing the g-loadings in source Table 2, it also seems like the most g-loaded tests were the ones whose g-loadings were most stable across batteries. If a g factor extracted from one of the batteries was itself treated as a probe test to be inserted into the other 5 batteries, the stability of its g-loading would likely be much higher.

 

[Crusile]

This is a dumb critique. We know that the predictive power of G is exogenous to it just being a function of the positive manifold because we have reliability measures that control for this.

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(87)90224-8

One example:

In this paper, Thorndike conducted a study
which was explicitly designed to test the
stability of a test’s g-loading in multiple batteries (i.e. if we put the same test in two different non-overlapping test batteries, and extracted that test’s g-loading from both batteries, how similar will the g-loadings be?). Thorndike started with 65 highly diverse tests used by the U.S. air force, he took a random 48 of them, and he randomly divided the 48 of them into 6 test batteries, with 8 tests in each, and with none of the 48 tests in more than one battery. Then, with the 17 tests not in any battery, they were inserted one at a time into all 6 batteries. The average correlation between g-loadings for all 17 tests was .85. From eyeballing the g-loadings in source Table 2, it also seems like the most g-loaded tests were the ones whose g-loadings were most stable across batteries. If a g factor extracted from one of the batteries was itself treated as a probe test to be inserted into the other 5 batteries, the stability of its g-loading would likely be much higher.

We dont know if "g-factor" exists or causes anything. you can construct a non g-loaded test that measures what general intelligence claims to measure and is just as "predictive". IQ is a dying tool, the confounding association between income and IQ is going down(current estimates are outdated for 2023 onward), the "g-loading" of academic evaluations and standardized tests are going down. G is too concentrated on specific obtained knowledge and "following written instructions" to be a serious estimate of the claimed "GENERAL intelligence". If g-factor isnt causal/doesnt exist but correlates withsomethign, its confounded/fake

There already exists a holistic measure of ability: School performance (even subjective opinions of someone's ability should be ok)
teacher's subjective judgement is a better predictor
. and "innate "differences in intelligence is overall overstated and overrated by g-factor believers, intelligence can be improved.

Belief in IQ harms all sub geniuses who feel discouraged by the fake measure of the claimed general intelligence"g-factor". Most people believe in the myth of g but school performance is accepted to be mostly effort + interest. LOL.

When IQ debunkers say IQ is fake or that it isnt predictive you need to prove the existence of g, not its fake predictivity of outcomes and study replications which we already know must be true, even if g doesnt exist.
(impossible ask because g doesnt exist and intelligence cant be measured)

 

[Crusile]

Damn what a retarded post. Terman’s study on the gifted is less likely to find an association between IQ and income because they’ve already preselected for geniuses. His analyses didn’t replicate and the relation between IQ and income even non range restricted is still monotonic even in the terman samples.

idc, "g" doesnt exist. IQ Test taking performance negatively correlated with income at age 30, not lifetime income or wealth. they explained that, in this sample, blue collar trade jobs slightly outearned white collar jobs at age 30

 

[Deleted member 25438]

We dont know if "g-factor" exists or causes anything. you can construct a non g-loaded test that measures what general intelligence claims to measure and is just as "predictive". IQ is a dying tool, the confounding association between income and IQ is going down(current estimates are outdated for 2023 onward), the "g-loading" of academic evaluations and standardized tests are going down. G is too concentrated on specific obtained knowledge and "following written instructions" to be a serious estimate of the claimed "GENERAL intelligence". If g-factor isnt causal/doesnt exist but correlates withsomethign, its confounded/fake

There already exists a holistic measure of ability: School performance (even subjective opinions of someone's ability should be ok)
teacher's subjective judgement is a better predictor
. and "innate "differences in intelligence is overall overstated and overrated by g-factor believers, intelligence can be improved.

Belief in IQ harms all sub geniuses who feel discouraged by the fake measure of the claimed general intelligence"g-factor". Most people believe in the myth of g but school performance is accepted to be mostly effort + interest. LOL.

When IQ debunkers say IQ is fake or that it isnt predictive you need to prove the existence of g, not its fake predictivity of outcomes and study replications which we already know must be true, even if g doesnt exist.
(impossible ask because g doesnt exist and intelligence cant be measured)

Meanwhile:


"Intelligence contributes 48–90 times more than grit [perseverance of effort] to educational success and 13 times more to job-market success."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550620920531

 

[Crusile]

Meanwhile: "Intelligence contributes 48–90 times more than grit [perseverance of effort] to educational success and 13 times more to job-market success."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550620920531

another epic correlation LOL. "grit", like intelligence, can't be measured. IQ has a misleading confounding association with success because G doesn't exist and can't be proven to exist. You can post as many correlations as you want. That's what g is, "correlations" of tests that "correlate"

 

[Crusile]

No proven theory of the existence of g

 

[looksmaxxed]

Talking at the very low level, i consider starting a startup in a conventional way, trying to become a CEO, or overthrowing your business rival as overthrowing the leaders of the current system. Status quo is a better word tbh.

Of course, they will do anything to destroy you who dares challenge them.

high iq adapts and integrates into the existing system seemlessly and effortlessly and contributes to progress synergistically: low iq chimps out due to failing under every single possible environmental condition and their every action has the potential to remove hundreds of years of progress

 

[LooksOrDeath]

high iq adapts and integrates into the existing system seemlessly and effortlessly and contributes to progress synergistically: low iq chimps out due to failing under every single possible environmental condition and their every action has the potential to remove hundreds of years of progress

Low IQ chimps coordinated have accomplished great things in society tbh

 

[gribsufer1]

Mogged

Citation needed.

i got 92

 

[Shekelberg]

iq is fake, luck factors more in neurons firing to get the optimal thoughts in ur brain

So we could breed and kill off humans and eventually, by chance, get someone who can recite e.g. every document that is kept hidden in the vatican by memory? Or do you mean optimal thoughts as in better attitude?

 

[redfacccee]

IQ IS 65-80% HERITABLE MAKING IT ONE OF THE MOST HERITABLE TRAITS LET ALONE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS IN HUMANS. IQ HAS AN EXTREMELY HIGH CORRELATION CO-EFFICIENT WITH SUCCESSFUL LIFE OUTCOMES AND A PREDICTIVE VALIDITY LEAGUES ABOVE ANY OTHER MEASUREMENT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES.

there's a reason why there's controversy surrounding IQ and IQ tests. not all empirical findings and conclusions are fully supported by the evidence or accepted by the research community, the research methodology is not there yet, well-controlled experiments aren't possible. if anything you are coping with hereditarianism because you can't accept the fact that you were raised on the shit covered streets of Mumbai you tuberculosis ridden dog. the indian peak in life is being born and dying, because anything in between is knowing you'll have to inhale the smell of cow shit and bathing in your shit filled Holy river everyday for the rest of your life.

KYS indian

 

[Deleted member 16369]

IQ has a strong correlation with being financially successful. One study doesn’t debunk a long established fact.

 

[Deleted member 16369]

PEOPLE LOVE TO COPE ABOUT IQ EVEN ON .ORG ITS GENUINELY ONE OF THE MOST BLUEPILLED THINGS TO EXIST.

IQ IS 65-80% HERITABLE MAKING IT ONE OF THE MOST HERITABLE TRAITS LET ALONE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS IN HUMANS. IQ HAS AN EXTREMELY HIGH CORRELATION CO-EFFICIENT WITH SUCCESSFUL LIFE OUTCOMES AND A PREDICTIVE VALIDITY LEAGUES ABOVE ANY OTHER MEASUREMENT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES.


TIME TO STOP COPING YOU'RE NEUROLOGICALLY A SUBHUMAN PILE OF WASTE THANKS TO YOUR PARENTS JUST AS MUCH AS PHYSICAL TRAITS.

High IQ take.

 

[Struggler03]

So we could breed and kill off humans and eventually, by chance, get someone who can recite e.g. every document that is kept hidden in the vatican by memory? Or do you mean optimal thoughts as in better attitude?

Optimal thoughts dosent mean being a nerd who can recite documents, it means taking right choices to achieve overall success (not just academic) and happiness in life, there is no point in being a genius 200 iq astronaut if you cant even get basic things such as having a fulfilling social life and health right.

 

[Crusile]

Arthur Jensen (p. 367). As he notes, “What originally drew me into research on test bias was that teachers of retarded classes claimed that far more of their black pupils seem to look and act less retarded than the white pupils with comparable IQ.” (He is of course using ‘retarded’ in the technical sense.) Jensen continues, “the explanation lies in the fact that IQ per se does not identify the cause of the child’s retardation”.

I would recommend reading the relevant section of Jensen’s book in full, but I’ll do my best to summarise it here. In short, there are two types of retardation: familial and endogenous. The former comprises individual from low-IQ families that, due to the luck of the draw, happen to have particularly low IQs. The latter comprises individuals who have much lower IQs than their families due to some genetic condition or environmental trauma. These individuals typically have various behavioural problems and therefore “seem retarded”.

As Jensen notes, evidence at the time showed that most black people with retardation were of the familial type, whereas about half of white people with retardation were of the endogenous type. Studies published both before and since appear to support Jensen’s observation that familial retardation (the type not associated with behavioural problems) is more common among blacks. What this means is that most black people who score below 70 on IQ tests do not have any kind of mental disability.

How useful are national IQs?

NOTE: I now write for Aporia Magazine. Please sign up there!

noahcarl.substack.com

"What this means is that most black people who score below 70 on IQ tests do not have any kind of mental disability."
Epic predictor 2: IQ, invented for identifying mental retardation, fails at detecting mental retardation.
Psychologist moment

IQ has a strong correlation with being financially successful. One study doesn’t debunk a long established fact.

School performance correlates with whatever g correlates to that provides g its correlations. "g" claims to be the variable causing the correlations between tests scores and anti-IQers reject "g".

 

[thecel]

The ideal range is in the Trump range where you are slightly above average but not intelligent enough to be a programmer, astrophysicist etc. (so 110-115). As long as you are born with a bit of privilege and networks, you can end up president of the planet. You are smart enough to manipulate dumber people into your followers, and not smart enough to become depressed.

People in the 130+ range (Mensa) often not only have aspergers or fall on the autism spectrum, they develop all sorts of mental disorders and depression from having to interact with people who are literal retards in comparison to their mental level (more than 2-3 standard deviations below their IQ) 24/7, everywhere they go.

Most extremely smart people like Nikola Tesla did not end up as billionaire businessmen. He married a literal pigeon, he played cards under a bridge with some homeless people and he died utterly penniless and schizophrenic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6060660/

View attachment 2155875
The vast majority of 130+ IQ children and teenagers will become depressed virgins when they grow up, because women just don't like extremely smart men for a variety of reasons (unless they also happen to be very good looking and socially capable, but most high IQ individuals are socially handicapped and not very good looking).

You want your child to be about 1 standard deviation above average in IQ, or about 115 maximum. He or she can excel in any job, hobby or profession in the world but they will also likely be socially capable enough to have a healthy dating life and be capable of starting a family.

Higher is better doesn't apply to IQ. You do not want a 140 IQ child. The world is a depressing prison for most of those people.

This applies only to normies and above on the looks scale.

Higher IQ is better if you’re ugly. Having the ideal Trump IQ doesn’t fix a pancake maxilla and a midget height.

 

[Britmaxxer]

"IQ negatively correlates with adult income In individuals from high class backgrounds"

bullshit. midwits might able to get to a nice comfy office role, but a true high iq individual blows them out of the water. my iq is 115 but I doubt I will ever make as much as my 150 iq friend. he makes $9000 a month in his early twenties. sure I landed a good office job and am educated, despite the hellish past years, but I can only ever hope to top of the NPC pile.

 

[Britmaxxer]

having said that a lot of trannies are high iq. I think people with high iq are just as prone to misdirection and intelligence-independent failings, but when they fuck up, they fuck up even worse. high iq also needs greater extremes of stimulation, hence how a midwit can sit through any decent film or even reality tv, but high iq finds it torturous.

midwit = jerks off to some weird porn
high iq = takes estrogen and has 10 hour gooning session in the mirror.

 

[Deleted member 27109]

if you have a high IQ but not smart enough to use your intelligence to outsmart normies, you're not smart. IQ tests are flawed and that's why anybody who unironically says their IQ I assume they're in the average range of intelligence