Although the vast majority of studies suggest that the black-white IQ gap has been about 15 points for the last 100 years, a major outlier in the data was the mass testing that occurred during WWII where the black-white IQ gap jumped to a record high of 22 points. On a scale where U.S. whites average 100, U.S. blacks averaged a disastrous 78, instead of the more typical 85 they’ve been average since WWI.
Charles Murray’s theory
This mysterious outlier has inspired two very different theories. Scholar Charles Murray argued that black IQ only became 85 after WWII, and that in the first half of the 20th century it was 78 because of the abysmal environment blacks suffered during that era. He dismissed the IQ of 85 found in WWI as sampling error, arguing that WWI excluded many of the 70% of African Americans who lived in the rural South and had little or no schooling. Why rural Southern blacks would be excluded is a question Murray ignores.
Rushton and Jensen’s theory
Piggybacking on Murray’s theory, scholars J.P. Rushton and Arthur Jensen came up with a terrifying theory. They agreed with Murray that the black IQ might have been 78 during the first half of the 20th century, however unlike Murray, they didn’t stop there. They argued that the black IQ might still be 78, and that low IQ blacks are still being excluding from studies because today they live deep in the inner city where professional testing seldom takes place. The WWII testing was perhaps the most representative sample of U.S. blacks ever tested so it was the rare case where the low IQ segment was included.
Although I love the idea of a secret black underclass that is so dysfunctional, psychologists are afraid to test them, I don’t think this is the case. For starters, this underclass would probably need to have an average IQ around 70 to drag the entire black average down from 85 to 78 and I don’t think such a low IQ black underclass exists in the U.S.. Even homeless blacks average IQs around 80, and the homeless seem like the lowest of the low.
Secondly, the sampling done by the WAIS-IV is far too meticulous to have overestimated the black IQ to such a large degree. The blacks they include in their norms must have the same distribution of education and occupational status as blacks in the U.S. census, so it’s very hard to see how a large class of super low IQ blacks could be systematically excluded.
Pumpkin Person’s Theory
So how do we explain why blacks scored IQ 78 in the mass testing in WWII but have averaged 85 before and since. My theory is that it’s because the WWII testing was not an official IQ test like the Army Alpha or the WAIS, but a test of crystallized academic knowledge like the SAT. I believe these tests are especially sensitive to the cultural environment so in the first half of the 20th century, when blacks attended segregated schools, they were especially penalized on a test calling for academic knowledge, especially one like the Army General Classification Test which emphasizes mechanical knowledge (since blacks tend to do worst on spatial tasks). Bill Cosby, the high IQ centimillionaire who got a combined SAT of only 500, is an example of how even very bright blacks from that era performed disastrously on achievement tests.
“I had never studied,” joked Cosby. “Anything!”
Despite his abysmal SATs, Cosby attended a school for the gifted.
“You’re very smart,” folks would say.
“YES I AM!” Cosby would shout.
“Well do you know anything?”
“NO I DON’T” Cosby replied.
So I agree with Murray that blacks performed worse on mental tests in the first half of the 20th century, but unlike Murray, I believe this was only true of achievement tests like the SAT, AGCT and ASVAB. On actual IQ tests, blacks have performed consistently at about 85 for the last 100 years.
This is yet another example of how ACTUAL IQ tests are superior measures of innate ability compared to achievement tests.
A combined SAT of 500? You can’t explain that away by lack of academic ability. Pretty obvious there was a motivation problem in taking the test.
The tests don’t line up well with your theory, at least by my knowledge of their content. The AGCT doesn’t emphasize mechanical knowledge; as best as I can determine, only a specialized part involves such knowledge. Also, the Army Alpha is more like an SAT than a WAIS, as it’s dominated by tests of vocabulary and quantitative ability. On the other hand, the Army Beta, intended for illiterates, was much like a WAIS.
Apparently the Army determined that WAIS-type tests are more valid for the illiterate and low IQ populations. When it comes to evaluating higher levels of ability, they resorted to the SAT-type instrument. That corresponds to my impression of their relative strengths today.
My understanding is that the Army Alpha is very similar to the WAIS verbal scale and the Army Beta is very similar to the WAIS performance scale. Yes the Army Alpha had quantitative problems but I assume they are much more like the WAIS Arithmetic subtest than like the SAT math scale. I could be wrong though.
IQ tests are based off of the original army aptitude test so there is a similarity.
Since we are dealing with theory here, then let me throw out another obvious one.
The army in WW1 was segregated. Whites didn’t like fighting alongside blacks. Blacks left in units on their own were dysfunctional. So blacks weren’t ‘encouraged’ to be conscripted by officials. Hence IQ requirements were doctored to make sure to keep them away.
But my theory is nullified by the fact that all countries/civilisations send their lowest social status subjects to die for their aristocracy in wartime and blacks would in this order of things, be the first offered to Aries as tribute.
A more realistic hypothesis is that many blacks failed the tests on purpose instead of dying for a country that treated them as less-than.
And could pumpkin tell us more about the eugenic/dysgenic implications of army tests that send the brightests to die on battlefields and leave the dullest at home, free to procreate without competition.
In regards to Bill Cosby, achievement tests proved he was an underachiever.
What did he do that was significant, besides being an entertainer, and now being ruined by a scandal? The same argument I’ve been make regarding African Elites in America (we’re talking about Sub-Saharans from West Africa). They don’t create anything significant.
I cannot find an African eatery in Manhattan (except for Ethiopian food), and NYC is a global village. The same goes for Montreal, only East and North Africans are the business owners.
http://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=nigerian+restaurant&find_loc=New+York,+NY&start=30
http://www.villagevoice.com/restaurants/our-10-best-west-african-restaurants-in-nyc-6559972
If you want some suya, jollof rice or fufu, the above links may help you.
If you want to meet African business owners, go to a barbershop/hair salon. These are far popular investment sectors for africans than eateries.
Most black and or Puerto Rican and Dominican barber shops I’ve been in have sold a lot of drugs and have been covers for a lot of illegal activities.
Call the police.
Race realist, Well it’s a good thing anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean shit.
It’s possible. Jensen cites a county of children in Georgia with the black kids having IQs of 71 and the white kids having IQs of 102. Jensen writes on pages 496 and 497:
THE g FACTOR The Science of Mental Ability
So it is possible. Richard Lynn also says that those with more African ancestry, i.e., those from the South, have lower IQs due hardly having white admixture.
I find it plausible that this is the case. Blacks do certainly act worse in the south The South is also where the most violent crime happens.
So it’s safe to say that there is a nice underclass of blacks with lower IQs that are so dysfunctional that psychologists are afraid to test them.
Race realist, At what IQ score does “dysfunctional” suffice as a proper description of the individual in question? And at what IQ do blacks cause psychologists to be too afraid to test them? According to this paper The average IQ of a black prisoner should be around the mid 70’s.
Oh I forgot to mention That I had assumed that the mean inmate score of 90 was also equivalent to the mean score of a white inmate however, there are more blacks incarcerated which could change the numbers significantly.
Thanks for the link.
70 to 75 would be dysfunctional enough IMO.
Keep in mind, the 90 is average (lets say 90 for ease of conversation). Of course, 50 percent fall below.
Why may this be? Lower IQ? Fact of the matter is, we know that minority populations are more violent on average, and have lower IQs, on average.
So the lower the IQ, the worse the impulse control is, leading to more violent acts of criminal behavior.
Lower IQ is a cause for crime, in all populations.
Except white collar fraud, which are committed by above average IQ individuals.
Race realist, You’re welcome. 70 is also the IQ of Sub Saharan Africa which I thought was interesting.
Also, no offense but why are you stating the obvious? It just felt like you were trying to convince me or something.
JS, “Except white collar fraud, which are committed by above average IQ individuals.”
Which would explain this: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp
Racerealist
Low IQ is certainly a factor, but the much bigger factor has to be testosterone which encourages risk taking behaviours, wild overconfidence, aggression and short tempers.
For example, native americans have lower IQs but their reservations never turn into ghetto OK corral type scenarios.
It is ridiculous to seperate IQ out as the only dimension worth studying the various human races and sub-races on without also looking at physiology, personality (clannish v affective empathy), sexual dymphormism and a host of other biological variables.
The Philosopher, I agree Low IQ doesn’t cause criminal behavior it’s just correlated with it. It makes much more sense for testosterone to be the major cause.
I have heard that faster reaction times are associated with higher IQ from pumpkin person but I just don’t think this is actually true seeing as how there are so many black players in sports like basketball, football, and sprinting. Blacks are actually weaker than whites when it comes to pure strength tests which puts rest to the idea that blacks only dominate sports because of “more mass”
@The Philosopher:
Of course. Low IQ is correlated with high testosterone as well.Blacks have 2.5 to 4.9 percent higher testosterone than do whites, which along with the 2 repeat MAOA-L gene being in the American black population at 5.1 percent and the 3 repeat MAOA-L gene being in their population at 57 percent IIRC, this is enough to account for the racial disparities in crime, in my opinion. Numerous studies have been conducted in prison populations showing that testosterone is a cause in sex crimes and violent crimes. It makes evolutionary sense as well.
They actually do have higher crime rates than the average per capita.
Of course. But IQ causes a huge difference in crime and controlling for it causes this:
So controlling for IQ (100) cuts the black-white difference in incarceration rate by almost three-quarters. We can see that IQ is a big mediator in racial crime differences.
@meLoisanHbderandit’spronouncedmellownotme-lowyoufuckingjackass
Lower IQ is associated with higher testosterone as well. With lower IQ peoples living closer to the equator, and vitamin D being a steroid hormone, not an actual vitamin, this increases testosterone in these populations as well.
Men with lower intelligence may be more likely to resort to evolutionarily familiar means of competition for resources and mating opportunities, and not to fully comprehend the consequences of their criminal behavior.
Those with lower IQs don’t think of their actions beforehand like those with higher IQs do.
It is true. Rushton and Jensen, 2005, pg. 245:
These differences persist anywhere you look.
This is due to differing muscle fiber types between the races. East Asians and whites have slow twitch fibers, which leads to being better for strength-based tasks, i.e., the World’s Strongest Man, which a white man has won every year since 1974. Blacks (West Africans and their descendants like those in the Caribbean) have a higher prevalence of the gene ACTN3. This allows muscles to fire off quicker, but they tire quickly. East Africans are better distance runners as they have a higher prevalence of slower twitch fibers.
I agree. But they do excel in sports due to higher testosterone and better athleticism due to long limb length as well as their muscle fiber typing. You’re also talking about the best of the best.
Blacks do excel in football but when it comes to baseball they fall short because they lack reaction time in comparison to white players.
Racerealist, “Lower IQ is associated with higher testosterone as well. With lower IQ peoples living closer to the equator, and vitamin D being a steroid hormone, not an actual vitamin, this increases testosterone in these populations as well.”
Yes but testosterone is still the underlying cause. You can be stupid and docile but if you have higher testosterone than normal more you will likely be more aggressive making you more impulsive in return.
“Those with lower IQs don’t think of their actions beforehand like those with higher IQs do.”
You can still be impulsive but not have the actual balls(testosterone) to do anything.
Besides that, doesn’t your sentence imply someone with a low IQ would have a high reaction time? impulsivity is defined as:
“behavior without adequate thought, the tendency to act with less forethought than do most individuals of equal ability and knowledge, or a predisposition toward rapid, unplanned reactions to internal or external stimuli without regard to the negative consequences of these”
“East Asians and whites have slow twitch fibers, which leads to being better for strength-based tasks, i.e., the World’s Strongest Man, which a white man has won every year since 1974. Blacks (West Africans and their descendants like those in the Caribbean) have a higher prevalence of the gene ACTN3. This allows muscles to fire off quicker, but they tire quickly.”
So blacks just have higher movement time, not reaction time?
“East Africans are better distance runners as they have a higher prevalence of slower twitch fibers.”
So who are the better long distance runners east africans or europeans?
“best of the best.”
Do they usually have a high IQ?
I’d suspect, at least to a certain extent, since the correlation between intelligence and ‘worldly success’ is 0.40, that many criminals, aren’t economically competitive, and hence have to resort to crime, to a certain extent, of course.
of course, that moderate (positive) correlation, lends itself to other potential causes.
i.e., oppression.
http://www.airlats.com/testosterone/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/05/21/what-is-it-with-our-obsession-with-iq-and-raw-intelligence-in-ch/
Stuart little rich is too angry with the ”same bullshit” arguments against their GOD ”iq”.
just because this arguments are RIGHT dude!!
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2007-0028
http://www.bustle.com/articles/101104-people-with-high-levels-of-testosterone-and-cortisol-are-more-likely-to-cheat-says-new-study
Pumpkin person, Is there a noticeable difference in intellect between a guy with an IQ of 95 vs a guy with an IQ of 100? How much of a difference does 5 points make in relation to how well you do in life or how well you do in school?
No there isn’t. Five points wouldn’t really matter much in terms of life outcomes either.
So when does it start to matter? A ten point difference would matter right?
Individual differences cannot be mediated only by ”’iq””, it’s relatively ridiculous. Of course, this personal information tend to be important too, why**
because the civilization world IS the work/laboral world par excellence in the same way a farm is a work world too, specially for enslaved non-human animals.
because iq tests tend to measure reasonably well the ””cognitive potential”’.
We are as cars. Without a human being, the car can’t move. A complicated personality tend to influence cognition.
Features of the car is to cognition/iq.
Human being is to personality.
Cognition separated from personality (hormonal balance, physical traits, brain features, etc) mean that you are treating people as they were machines.
That’s why.
This explain why so much ”higher iq” people are not faster nor perfeccionist on their long term reasoning/thinking (real world) skills, basically think-to-act rationally.
For example, if reasoning skills and higher iq were completely inter-correlative in the REAL/always immediate world where we live then MOST of people who score higher in iq tests will become anti-(mass) immigration, fundamentally in current western (developed) nations.
MOST of people who score higher in iq tests will become more cautious about anti-race(ism) narrative.
other explanation.
avg iq 120 tend to correlates with the predominance of certain types of personalities who are rarer among those with avg iq 90.
Seems, the % of the vulgar urban criminals among ”higher iq” people is very lower. But this doesn’t mean that the % of criminal minds among them will be lower.
Two individuals with same iq level, and even, the same iq profile, can be completely different one each other.
And again, critics about iq and many of current criticism are right and for rational ones this doesn’t mean that iq is completely invalid.
Differences in IQ scores may be relevant to the joey average (in terms of statistical prevalence and nature characteristic) of each iq fringe. There may be joeys avg for each fringe,
95 iq,
96 iq,
97 iq,
The problem, again, is that those systematizers half autistic / half sub-sociopath psychometricians, many of them, and especially the hardcore ones, simply despise those cognitive components that are more common in the ”female” side.
Psychometrics is the ” engineering ‘of psychology, both in the number of neurotypicals men working there, and psychology that prevails, the masculine psychology, proto-scientific, logic (but not rational) and with pretensions to be neutral. but…
human story is a history of slavery and not a history of evolution.
human being= driver, 😉 durrrrrrrrrrr for me, plis
Two individuals with same iq level, and even, the same iq profile, can be completely different one each other… because the relationship between personality type with cognition type, ”maybe”, even same psycho-cognitive profile can result in completely different individuals OR not…
a cognitive ”twins”*
Would upvote this if I could.
On a macro level, East Asians have about an average 5 point higher IQ than whites (despite much much poorer nutrition) but haven’t achieved much compared to whites over the past 1000 odd years due to plummeting testosterone and a strong autistic/quant bent in their intelligence.
In fact, when a person says IQ, that isn’t as enlightening to me as compared to knowing whether it skews quant or verbal. It can mean a completely different set of life trajectories. The correlation between both is middling. Physicists seem to have both.
My theory is that people with too little verbal intelligence but very high quant/spatial cannot generate hypothesis or see the big picture as to how everything relates…but for a given problem, ‘set up’ nice and neat, or especially coded in math or programming language, they can analyse pretty easily.
And of course, not being able to understand why people do things is a big hindrance in life and unfortunately means you cannot be a philosopher, like me.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/12/22/worrying-linked-to-high-verbal-iq/78985.html
philosophy is nothing to do with verbal iq, a priore.
In the universities, specially literature departments that will be very correlative and needed to the verbal cognition.
Philosophy is about the use of rationality to follow, search and if you can, produce wisdom/harmony. Of course there are other sides of philosophy like phenomenology, the study of phenomena, generally, subtle and abstract or meta-physical (unknow physical/reality per se).
excess of verbal intelligence can be problematic to the philosophy, producing verborragic than clean and objective thinkers.
Santo
To be fair, philosophers like Zizek or Kant are torrid to read because english is not their first language. I’m sure Santo is quite lucid in Portuguese.
students or graduates of philosophy ARE not philosophers.
most of them are PSEUDOS.
”Brilliance” of the ”genius” is not the ultimate goal of the REAL philosophy.
philosophy don’t need flourish vocabulary, need clean and objective thinkers.
”Perhaps that explains you:)”
planet earth, please
come back to the earth and just look for the mirror before accuse someone to be incoherent.
i can be incoherent because mein non-englische, but this don’t mean that i’m incoherent in my narrative. otherwise than you, but, the level of this blog is so lower that i thought you’re in the right place, 😉
Philosopher,
explain where/parts of my argument that you don’t understand.
Santo
In my opinion you have to be at least 130VCI per WAIS-IV to be a good philosopher, in the same way you need to be at least ~140-150 in spatial or math intelligence to be a good physicist (I personally find that verbal tests are much more harder to create than spatial/math ones because at the higher end of test takers, the question options can be ‘bent’ or meandered into other options pretty easily**…the WAIS-IV is the best attempt at measuring all components I think).
There are exceptions of course.
In my experience, people with enough verbal intelligence tend to have much more varied intellectual interests and curiosity than average which means:
(a) more data gathering, better qualitative understanding of existing data
Quants who are at the other extreme (low V, high ‘logic’) tend to be obsessed with narrow concerns and particularly physical objects or things that ‘fit into categories’ neatly.
Having high V also means you follow legal and other rules (not social norms/manners) a lot less. You could write a whole book as to why this is the case, but it just is. (For example low V East Asians spit on the street, are very brusque, and watch children get run over by cars and walk by, whereas following some arcane rule in the Communist party rulebook…feels good).
(b) breaking rules is important to creating new paradigms.
I also find people with high V also believe less in the inherent goodness of humans, which means darker topics like morality, historiography, political theory in philosophy or ‘hurtful’ subject areas like racial differences, the reasons for violence, economic inequality, deviance/alt lifestyles or the sexual market can be considered.
(c) Ability to discuss and explore murky topics is important to a full understanding our world.
A lot of philosophy is based on life experience, meeting diverse people, arguing and refining ideas under challenge and exploring aesthetics which quants or a person with only logical ability don’t really get due to poor communication and lack of interest in people.
(d) Life experience breeds more maturity and depth in pattern recognition
Do you agree with a-d?
This is deductive however.
I used a barbell approach to take extremes of the intelligence spectrum to explain my beliefs on this topic, which you may or may not agree.
To be inductive:
I think the best experiment is to find people with aspergers (low verbal, high logic) and see what they’re capable of thinking. Give them a random newspaper article (even a science article) and ask them to comment on what he sees and how it relates to other things.
Then control against a random segment of the population and see if V predicts better thoughts. They need not be lucid or expressed beautifully.
I think you’ll find its a pretty barren exercise.
Analytical ability is helpful but not when you can’t see how everything flows into everything. To be sure, people that can combine both are better off than either alone. But, V is necessary whereas, Q is not.
Wittgenstein, who is the only known philosopher with aspergers, had a philosophy basically that involved analyzing the use of language to make claims. Its a pretty damning indictment that he is basically a semanticist, which you seem to abhor.
I agree with your sentiment however that objective, rational (humans are not rational by the way, even aspergers) and easy to follow clean thinking is needed more than bullshitters, reject poets and semanticists in philosophy.
Those things are process though. The core is ability which is what you’re inquiring of me.
Humans judge genius – de facto – in the ability to adapt to any environment. This is pumpkin’s maxim of intelligence, which I believe is a fair comment. If you can make the case that philosophy is explaining the environment and our adaptation to it, then you will see that verbal intelligence, which predicts ‘environment adaptation loaded’ abilities like power and control of wealth, is a large part of this.
**Bending ideas is an important ability in philosophy
Philosopher,
i’m not denying the verbal COGNITION role in the self-awareness.
Seems one of the most self-aware human beings tend to become or have talent to become a writer, a poet or a philosopher, or a combination between this three.
But you can agree with me that is not ALL verbally smart people who become OR who are naturally more self-aware…
just look for humanities where higher verbal cognition is required. It’s basically the epicenter of leftism, one of the most erroneous human cult ever. (of course, there are many interesting and ulterior’ly correct aspects ”of” leftism or better, of humanities, but specially in their core, we know that new left or gramcism is hediond’ly stupid, just a new clothes of emperor/king).
All natural philosophers (not necessarily thinkers, vaguely speaking) have some common psychological trends and probably verbal cognition will be important, specially because we understand the world via words and its meanings.
But there some trait among them, (us*) that is a founder effect-psychological disposition, and in my opinion will be higher self-awareness. Most-to-virtually all of philosophers are at least above average melancholic and exactly this beautiful sadness that make them think in higher intensity and constancy.
BUT what made a philosopher is not higher verbal cognition but the higher thinking activities, ruminations, and specially holistic ones, and self awareness about life, reality, living beings, etc…
Real and talented philosophers are hyper-realistic.
You understand me*
Verbal cognition = self awareness = philosophy is a quasi-false positive
in the same way ”mormons = religion = higher cognitive/operational intelligence
verbal cognition seems to be a trunk of human intelligence because words work very well to expand our knowledge about things via symbol-meaning associations.
the cognitive epicenter that virtually all philosophers (hyper self aware human type), known or unknown, have is the expanded self awareness while verbal cognition appear secondarily.
Pumpkin person believe that intelligence IS ONLY the capacity to adapt…
first, define ”to adapt”…
most people to do very little effort to adapt because the world was created to use/serve them.
adaptation is not exactly the same than conformation
most people conform.
to adapt seems indeed the capacity to adapt the world for yourself, most people simply can’t do it.
domestication produce conformative individuals.
even the adaptation in the natural world tend to happen at collective levels
like
”species X adapt to the cold environment”
rarely, individuals adapt.
intelligence IS also the capacity to adapt but we live in abstract and concrete world where there are many ways to perceive intelligence, human world is a hybrid world, between nonhuman ”animal” world and a ”very” human world, purified than ”nature”, exclusively humane.
Pumpkin and others hbds are the exact opposite of other side of psychology.
the other side USE ”multiple” cognitions/”intelligence’s’ to political/cultist ends.
Hbds and many psychometricians use ”iq” as counter argument.
Both are relatively right,
and will be very right if they to join.
But in my opinion the fundamental concept of intelligence, human is not, is what I already link here, the concept of the intelligence of ravens.
Intelligence is to do the right thing in the right place in right time. This concept nail this discussion. “capacity to adapt” is inside this “raven intelligence concept”. Any other concept can be regressed to him. Is what intelligence is, whatever how she will manifest. And self awareness appear as very complementary.
”human or not”
Objective and clean thinkers tend to have higher self awareness specially because this type tend to have hyper-holistic approach, given fundamental importance to the uber-existential stuff.
Someone who define itself as ”philosopher” and defend (negative) totalitarian/bloodly regimes is not a real philosopher because if philosophy mean in their core concept ”wisdom”, ”socialism/comunism” will be far to be wise, astute** very likely, but astuteness tend to be the dark side of wisdom. a incomplete wisdom.
think wrong and persist in this errors is a inexcusable sin to the real thinker.
Objective and clean thinkers tend to have higher self awareness specially because this type tend to have hyper-holistic approach, giving fundamental importance to the uber-existential stuff.
Someone who define itself as ”philosopher” and defend (negative) totalitarian/bloody regimes is not a real philosopher because if philosophy mean in their core concept ”wisdom”, ”socialism/comunism” will be far to be wise, astute** very likely, but astuteness tend to be the dark side of wisdom. a incomplete wisdom.
”think wrong” and persist in this errors during a entire life is a inexcusable sin to the real and *philosophical* thinker.
Most of astute people are intensive thinkers.
thinker is just someone who are engaged to think more than others can or want to do.
a philosophical thinker is a specific category of thinker.
Where you see that i dislike semanticists*
Sorry i must answer point by point, i will try in the next.
Just taking a few points:
1. Self-awareness is indeed correlated with verbal cognition, as is neuroticism and mental illness. Just like many mathematicians are autistic, many philosophers may struggle with mental illness. But while these correlate, they do not cause good philosophy per se. I think a better word you may be reaching at may be ‘introspective’ or thoughtful. I think there is diminishing marginal utility in being an isolated thinker personally. Your thoughts have to be challenged for refinement. Hence, the Socratic method withstands the test of time.
2. Conforming is type of adaptation. Many high IQ people may have to conform at some point in their lives. Many ‘believed’ in religion for hundreds of years. Some really believed in it and had to find ways to rationalise the absurdity and cognitive dissonance (Newton was a recognized leading theologian for instance). Humans are social creatures in the end. Being high IQ doesn’t absolve you of your feelings toward your tribe, family and community. It just means your argue better for them in many cases.
3. Verbal intelligence seems to be very g-loaded predicting other types of intelligence. My hunch is that being very high V will rope in enough adequacy in other types of intelligence which will help good philosophy. I’ve never heard of a ‘verbal aspergers’ for instance. Its a very good predictor for basic all roundedness in memory, quant, abstract thinking etc.
4. You can be a philosopher and believe in totalitarianism and state sponsored violence. You can also believe in anarchy. I could argue for either extreme right now on the basis of pragmatism or efficiency for instance. If those are your goals. My historical knowledge means I could pick good examples to back either position.
The last thing about philosophy is to be humble. It isn’t scientific falsification so you cannot be totally correct either, always.
Sometimes you are right that democracy works (high trust citizenry, racial and ethnic homogenous), sometimes you are right that state control works (e.g wartime, early civilisation). Then variables and time plane become jumbled. Even the idea of an optimal system in all occasions is obviously objectionable. The idea that you are a rational person who is rationally free of early childhood socialisation in a democracy and culture is assailable too. Do you love your teddy bear? We love the things we grew up with no matter how little utility they still provide. We are human.
Even the idea that we can hammer the algorithm into a better happenstance is debatable. If you believe in Humean causality, then the result will always be the result.
Philosophy is beautiful because in my mind if feels like working with liquid, the more you try to squeeze it or define it for all times, or develop a universal coda on something, the more it rushes through your hands to the next layer of enigma and so on.
I think verbal people are better with working with liquid.
Math/logic feels more like laying bricks and working with solid objects that have exact weight and definition. You design a plan like an architect and you execute through analysis. Thus the literal fascination with objects and solidity of people that think strongly like that.
IQ differences have more importance when you go up in the bell curve.
Someone with a 90 IQ will have similar outcomes than someone with a 95 and even 100 in life.
but 125 and 130 are already very different.
And 135-140 are more different than 125-130.
The higher you go, the harder it is to climb (the more 1 IQ point means).
I’d suspect so……
for instance, 30th percentile, versus 35th
35/30=1.1666666666666666 maybe 5 points
an IQ of 145 (maybe, one in 1000) versus 140
0.5/0.1= 5
that type of crude estimation does say something…
unknow physical/ ( physical reality – reality per se.
I’m verborragic but i must would use the term ”incoherent” where verborragy will be a agravant, what happen with some pseudo-intellectuals here, 😉
But the fact that i like to try to explain things in their minimal details (or not so…) don’t mean that i’m classically verborragic. There are a lot of famous ”thinkers” who are hard to understand and difficult philosophy can be marvellous or just ”pretend to be philosophy”.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/05/intelligent-stupidity/
I still try to understand where my english is indecipherable or is just a recorrent and perceived efficient way to insult my person.
”In the universities, specially literature departments that will be very correlative and needed to the verbal cognition.”
For example, this sentence.
even this sentence is very incorrect (like this now) is understandable, and the context (should) help a lot.
Verbal cognition is fundamental in ”higher education” where a greater vocabulary and knowledge about language will required.
the better philosopher is not someone who write wonderfully. If you think like that, so you just don’t understand nothing about philosophy at least in their core aspect.
”must would”
Summarizing
my english is
super horrible
but
understandable
any excuses about its quality will be a deviation from the topic of the text (I run the topic several times, truth must be said).