Three years ago when I started HBD blogging I was nobody, a mere celebrity gossiping oddball, with a geeky interest in statistics.
Today I am a celebrity myself.
As of this moment in time, I am almost certainly the #1 blogger in the HBD-o-spere as readership spiked nearly 1000% in one night:
It seems marvellously symbolic that the new king of the HBD-o-sphere has an absolutely breathtaking IQ. After adjusting for old norms, my childhood score on the WISC-R is a dizzying 135, making almost certainly the smartest blogger in the HBD-o-sphere, with the possible exception of Robert Lindsay, Hsu, the Lion, and of course the man who paved the way for us all: Steve Sailer.
To quote my late hero, Forbes magazine journalist Daniel Seligman:
The connection between IQ and achievement has one positive implication. People who are at the top in American life, are probably there because they’re more intelligent than the rest of us, which is doubtless the way most of us think it should be.
Pumpkin Person 
Oh wow this is marvelous! How did you get so many views in one night?
Note to self: words like marvelous, wondeful, gorgeous, delightful, fabulous sound kinda gay. Only gifted high IQ bloggers can get away with using them. And homos like Santo (although he has to translate thru his Portuguese to xhinese to mexican to english translator).
I was linked to by various super high traffic web sites.
”It seems marvellously symbolic that the new king of the HBD-o-sphere has an absolutely breathtaking IQ. After adjusting for old norms, my childhood score on the WISC-R is a dizzying 135, making almost certainly the smartest blogger in the HBD-o-sphere, with the possible exception of Robert Lindsay, the Lion, and of course the man who paved the way for us all: Steve Sailer.”
I still think you’re a intentional self-parody.
The average person at IQ 100 is 1/2
135 is 1/100
If intelligence is pure calculation power.
IQ 135 can handle 128 times the information IQ 100 can.
IQ 135 handles 8 times the information I can.
Being able to do more means having a higher rate of aggregated resources.
Handling more information means more blog posts that bring new ideas up that could not have been thought of otherwise without connecting disparate dots together.
The recent David Duke think is probably why readership spiked.
Search algorithms would have raised that posts relevance in private/public results.
If Gondii [GayJam and ….. luver] stop to post your extremely important comments here, i wonder if the PP Kingdom will suffer harsh consequences.
StayhereGondii#
StayStrong#
Smarter than Hbd Chick**
HBD chick is very smart
more than you*
And what you don’t accept my comments to Gondii** [super important commenter]
Remember the reciprocity behavioral law.
You admit you’re gay so when G-man calls you gay it’s not a personal attack because there’s nothing wrong with being gay
However G-man’s use of the term “homo” makes me cringe.
Do you think i’m a full-retard PP*
I’m not talking about some-”one” calling me a ”homo”. I will have to show you the free provocation of this proto-human above*
I hope not.
Homo is just short for homosexual, that’s all.
Don’t be so politically correct! It’s the internet. And be proud of pumpkin’s achievement😃
”Don’t be so politically correct!”
And monk*
Are you Atheist pumpkinperson? or you are spiritual but not religious? because thats how I think I am, do you agree the Christian / Muslim gay bashing is nonsense?
Of course I’m an atheist. Yes gay bashing is nonsense.
Why?
If pumpkin can explain why bashing gays is ‘nonsense’ in the illogical sense, rather than ‘moral’ sense, I will be shocked.
Have a try Pumpkin.
Well the moral argument against bashing gays is that it’s cruel to bash people for that which they can’t control.
The logical argument against it is it will cause gays to feign straightness, thus wasting the lives of the women tricked into marrying them, and passing their gayness to the next generation biologically, and bashing gays hurts their mental health, making them less productive citizens.
I think theres a logical reason behind most instinct.
But jews and SJWs think there isn’t. The former because the lie. The latter because they’re lied to.
1. You realise homosexuality is impossible to be genetic?
2. You ever wonder why mens first response to a possibly homosexual son is to ‘toughen’ them up. Men weed out fey men from the supply of soldiers because the tribe would suffer from not having warriors. Homosexuality is environmental. Look at prison or the navy or upper class.
We don’t know for sure it’s NOT genetic
And genetic transmission != biological transmission (see greg Cochran’s theory)
YouTube never takes these videos down
They only take down hate speech.
(Google)
Very Gay Bro + #TheSecondVerse (Feat. CopperCab)
Rucka also makes fun of Milo Yiannopoulos for being gay
I am illuminaticat/Animekitty
I was shocked to find this video by Rucka (is somewhat gay)
I’m in the Illuminati (Shape of You PARODY) ~ Rucka Rucka Ali
My opinion is that gayness is genetic because I would never be gay
Jeez,
PILL is truly dumb. PP teaching him that we can’t attack people by no reasonable reason is… PATHETIC.
Now, after boring repetitions of the same subject he decide show us how stupid he can be in other matters.
And yes, the pilltard here still believe he is a PHILOSOPHER…
boo ”morality is illusion”
”1. You realise homosexuality is impossible to be genetic?”
So mutations is impossible.
Great teaching.
”2. You ever wonder why mens first response to a possibly homosexual son is to ‘toughen’ them up. Men weed out fey men from the supply of soldiers because the tribe would suffer from not having warriors. Homosexuality is environmental. Look at prison or the navy or upper class.”
Nothing about organism is entirely environmental, it’s just the nullification of organism itself.
”And genetic transmission != biological transmission (see greg Cochran’s theory)”
Theory or hypothesis*
I ALREADY said that a good and easier way to test this hypothesis is analysing the semen of homossexual and heterossexual men, prefferentially healthy homossexual men.
If supposedly the pathogen use the host to spread … their descendents to other organisms, so…. even in the semen of healthy homossexual men we will find them, isn’t* It’s make sense*
EVEN if this theory was proved, supposedly we live in the world where some people are ethical and IN THE END of day, have or not a pathogen that alter the sexual behavior is pale near to existential mistery of life, of ourselves, something that ALL real philosophers must be concerned.
Homossexuality is a result of sexual selection/ psychological diversification.
”and bashing gays hurts their mental health, making them less productive citizens.”
… making them less PRODUCTIVE citizens.
”The logical argument against it is it will cause gays to feign straightness, thus wasting the lives of the women tricked into marrying them, and passing their gayness to the next generation biologically”
So my dad is gay PP*
No P.P, genes are not passed only by DIRECT transmission but i thoughy you knew.
We live in the world where supposedly only ”gay” men think about other men, at least to be good-looking, because heteronormativity most straight men avoid discuss their feelings in the public sphere in the same way women do. All the time women are praising the looking of their friends of the same sex, even in insincere ways. And the physical proximity among them is higher.
But because women are much less directly interested in sex if compared with men, on avg, so we no have a explosion of lesbianism, but if women have the same sex-interest levels than typical men, well, i don’t know what could happen.
All traits varies
All sexual traits varies
in intensity
in type
in intra-variability [some bissex are more straight than homo; some bi are constantly bi; some homossexuals are hyper-sexualized, others are not..]
All straight men and All straigh women have at least some sexual interest in other person of the same sex, but the proportion tend to be very lower to have some huge influence on behavior.
There is a spectrum from the straight to the ”straight-or-exclusively homossex”, even within families. It’s a continuity from the regular to the extreme ranges. In the same time we have spatially brighter women we have sexually same-sex attracted men, period.
I don’t deny that homossexuality is a disorder but
– there is disorder AND disorder
– what is normal to you, maybe is not normal to me, AND it’s also objectively moral [to inflict unecessary suffering to other that don’t deserve it]
– what is order today, maybe will not be in the future [so-called ”lower” quantitative intelligence… the lower average ”IQ” in the human pre-history maybe has been the apex of intelligence]
…
Santo, I’ve never thought about a guy sexually. Ever
What i said, the proportion and or intensity of this feeling is weak for most of straight people, they simply don’t perceive they feel it, but it doesn’t mean this feeling no there and i very doubt you never analysed appearance of other men even to compare with yourself, AND think that some men are attractive, not exactly for you, but just attractive. Homossexuality come from heterossexuality. The pathogen theory simply say that no there such thing sexuality spectrum, it’s abruptly discontinuous and in my view it’s not.
What is intense or characteristic on homossexual men = be attracted to the same sex/ think other man attractive, exist at very lower levels BUT still existent on heteros. All men think some other men attractive as well women do .. as well unnatractive, but heteronormative culture and straight men itself deny it and blur the understanding of human behavior variation.
The idea that some traits cannot be passed because they are not, on avg, DIRECTLY transmissible, simply is revealing its own ignorance on very basic topics of genetics.
Homossexuality is virtually present in most human cultures, and in some them it’s well expressed and in other it’s not, as well schizophrenia for example. Clearly it’s seems a trans-cultural feature and logical because with the psychological diversity and with self-domestication men with feminized brain become more common.
Homossexuality tends to correlate with left handedness, a lot of mental disorders, but also with creativity, well, i’m only-one gay here and i’m the most creative here, even it doesn’t mean i’m a genius or something similar, i’m just very good in creativity and in some rudimentary pattern recognition.
Based on imprinted brain theory we may speculate if masculine homossexuality is a kind of over-expression of ”feminine genes” on men, but in more diverse or variable ways than for example a more extreme condition, and the same for lesbians, as well happen with Autism, a ”extreme [cognitive] brain”.
Hahaha. Its from a feminine upbringing, not a pathogen santo.
I think aspergers people always look for an objective reason for someone to be different like a bank account or things.
I can tell its the environment. It makes sense. Think about it.
I would say some people might be born predisposed to effeminacy. Or predisposed to developing like that.
But the explosion of gay males as a proportion of the population mirrors the change of society to a domesticated middle classish lifestyle. Thats why homosexuality is much more recorded among upper class males in european history than among working class men.
I never said men act like that do possible gay sons due to irrationality making society make less iphones. I said they do it to toughen up men for battle.
For the vast majority of history all young men were expected to go to war with the exception of the priests. Even aristocrats and lords were expected to be on the battlefield.
Human being select for warriors, not corporate employees.
People really believe in sexuality as or you are totally straight or you are totally gay. What on the left believe and complete was exactly what rigid behaviorally autist conservs never understood, that even we have men and women that never did and barely thought to do sex with other people of same sex, there are many people on the middle that yes, if not already did it at least thinked. It’s not 500 neo-gender denominations. But it’s not only two “gender-sex” neither.
Pumpkin, lion and Robert need to team up. Tag team
talk about a failure to adapt.
the main stream media just digs its hole deeper.
[redacted by pp, aug 13, 2017]
how can someone without a Y chromosome be “king”?
how can someone without a Y chromosome be “king”?
They can’t be, which is why I’m king and you’re not. 🙂
oh cmon… iq 135 is very good, but nothing superspecial… its one in 100 (mostly) idiots
Not everyone is a genetically superior nordic specimen with an IQ of 160 like you.
Congrats Pumpkin ! I like your blog very much.
Jews have a fight now trying to control the narrative around charlotte. Going to be tough with russia, denouncing damore and other alt right culture wars.
The illusion is crumbling. You saw me say it 6 months ago, I could see dinks of light through the cloud.
I was reading socrates/plato and I notice they are bigger fans of definitional arguments than underlying object arguments. Some of them I agree with. But generally I hate getting out dictionaries when debating.
For example, plato names a guy who could basically be myself arguing to be crooked actually gets you more in life and you can use the money to pretend to be great (kind of like what jews do) and silence critics.
Then socrates uses a very obtuse argument saying that a just city requires just citizens (true) and through a series of iterations which I wont go into concludes a good life requires a just person (false).
There has long been a problem in epistemology whereby the macro or meta level phenomenon is more than the sum of its parts. In the same way, most economists believe in agents rather than a hivemind, or many autists can’t see that reality is a purposeful creation by some entity because they are focused on the door handles.
Theres a problem with defintional arguing in that if, you think about things in shapes rather than labels, sometimes the size of the shape is bigger than the label or gives a different colour to what the object actually is. Short of creating a new label, something which Wittgenstein says is impossible, you are arguing on unsteady grounds just by dictionary logic.
To speak of a just city, people usually mean just in a different way to a ‘just’ person. Even if you use the word noble that is not the same as conscientious that Plato is more or less teasing out.
It would have been best to avoid the dictionary and just throw bare knuckle punches with the man and make overt logic arguments like – just men sleep better at night, can attract more friends rather than semantic logic.
Very rarely do I read a semantic logic argument – where the person spills water from this bucket to that bucket to get the water in the bucket he wants – that convinces me or I find insightful.
This is because labels are not logic. In the same way sheet music is not music. The actual noises are.
Gypsyman is a good example of a semantic logic thinker.
>Gypsyman is a good example of a semantic logic thinker.
Quite the opposite, and you’re just saying that because I roast you until you’re black enough to self-hate.
Oh yeah, and wayta re-explain the object – language distinction to a metaphorical room full of people with IQ 120 +, the only persons being edified are animekitty and yourself and to be honest I’m starting to think you’re in the same brain boat.
And like him, you need a new job from what I hear.
I think the edification I derive from commenting on pumpkins blog is a little more innocuous than philosophers reasons for his. (still going to talk to my therapist about getting a job)
by the way, does anyone know how philosopher found out that door handles are my favorite things.
>still going to talk to my therapist about getting a job)
Do it, less time commenting, more time making a living.
>by the way, does anyone know how philosopher found out that door handles are my favorite things
Same way he knows you forget to take off your coat indoors most of the time.
And holy shit.
“Short of creating a new label, something which Wittgenstein says is impossible”
Have you even read Philosophical enquiries? This is the literal opposite of what he thought.
Most people dont understand it. if you read most of the comments here, even Robert sometimes makes that mistake.
“Quite the opposite, and you’re just saying that because I roast you until you’re black enough to self-hate.”
I don’t think you are capable of seeing a to b or ponderous your thinking is. You can keep believing that though as I admit, this is an example of novelty for once!
>Most people dont understand it.
It’s you.
As for Robert, I’d be surprised if he can see through the blurry eyes of a once-promising drunken actuary to type his actual opinions.
>I don’t think you are capable of seeing a to b or ponderous your thinking is
Phil, I give you more credit than most here, which is to say I give you any credit at all. And because every so often I deign to roast you you presume to know the inner workings of my mind and make observations of me that are the literal opposite of how I think, what I think and so on.
It’s really remarkable! You manage to be wrong, EVEN when I’ve actually STATED my belief to the contrary on a previous occasion.
You talk up instinct, but yours are dull.
Remember Trump’s election? I bet on his victory and won, a small bet but one made with certainty, and you were defeated by your own ant-crawling mind despite yourself, you let your analysis defeat you.
A good way a psychologist could become famous is repeatedly surverying people on taboo subjects and posting the results on a blog.
Pumpkin has that background.
Idea.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/08/meanwhile-down-on-farm.html
Stephen Hsu says that the statistical deviation of these two traits is two times higher in men than women. (2 deviations higher)
# Discomforting others does not deter me from stating the facts.
# Receiving criticism from others does not inhibit me from expressing my thoughts.
Looking at all the atheist debate I have seen over the years, that vast majority of hard **** debates I have seen have been between males.
I am a very timid individual and intimidated easily. I really do not interact with certain people or groups or say what I really think because in the past I have had panic attacks. I would say I am closer to the statistical deviation of women than I am to men in these two traits. People online are sometimes shocked to know I am a guy and not a girl (because of other statistically average traits I share with females).
What site linked to you? And how can you “keep it up”, as it were?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/street-artist-sabos-facebook-page-shut-down-zuckerberg-stunt-1029102
Question: Why does oprah not have any children, or even adopted children?
Statistically speaking, the smarter the women, the less likely she is to be a mother, especially if she’s black. Although Oprah did have an unwanted baby at 15 that died in infancy, and she took that as a sign that she wasn’t meant to be a mother and the Universe had other plans for her. She never had that yearning to be a mother that so many females have, perhaps because she was not mothered well herself. But she’s become a mother figure to the girls at her school in South Africa.
In black culture, very few African American women are childless. Most of the childless are infertlie. Its very strange to me.
Maybe Oprah had a botched abortion as well or other birth complications that damaged her uterus.
My sense is oprah would have been a good mother actually.
It’s possible events surrounding the early pregnancy damaged her in some way, but actually one in six black women from Oprah’s generation are childless by their 40s so it’s not at all rare, and the odds almost certainly go way up for more career oriented women. Condi Rice, another super powerful black woman at her peak, also had no kids. Women need a man they can look up to, and while there are men richer than Oprah, or more powerful than Oprah, there are virtually no men who are BOTH richer AND more powerful than Oprah, especially black men. Also as Oprah got richer and more glamorous, some in her audience felt threatened, so she may have felt becoming a mother on top of her career success would have created too much jealousy. Got to give the audience something they can feel superior about.
There’s also the theory that she’s gay given her closeness to Gayle King, but that seems a bit unlikely given all the men she had sex with in her teens and the guys she was obsessed with in her twenties.
It could also be that black women are less maternal, which would fit Rushton’s r/K theory. They may have a lot of babies by accident, but fewer babies by choice since family planning is arguably a K trait.
Wow pumpkin is so logical in his analysis. He really seems to understand Oprah deeply.
Wow.
Educated black women complain all the time about not being able to find a “good” black man. I thought that was a well-known pop culture trope.
Question: How can pumpkin read steve sailer and still say the things he says. [redacted by pp, April 13, 2017]
I just am scatching my head trying to figure out how someone can respect Sailer and think like that.
Maybe you were being satirical?
Well Steve and I are the only two HBDers to make the leap from blogger to celebrity so for that reason alone there’s a mutual respect
But do you agree with him? Do you like his explanations?
I generally agree with Sailer intellectually, but I try to sugar coat controversial views to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. I’m not passionate emotionally about these topics, it’s purely an intellectual fascination for me.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154616302637
A huge Discovery for HBD
The effect on personality from:
(Dopamine, Serotonin, Testosterone, and Estrogen)
The Four Love Types: Explorer, Builder, Director, And Negotiator
Homosexuality ‘genes’ or whatever you want to call it, would be selected out violently by the population if they existed. Unlike blue eyes or recessive genes it would be even more robust anti selection.
The selection wouldn’t just work sexually. In most cultures, societies and so on, being homosexual got you socially ostracised and even violently reprimanded. So it would operate topologically.
Any genetic lean or predisposition to it would be eliminated.
There is no explanation for why homosexuality prospers other than looking at your parents bank account and how they raised one like a girl in your childhood. In this sense, the tyler cowen asperger eco mob is right, but not in the way they mean it.
I have no problems with homosexuals personally. I think they should be allowed marry, vote, run for office, and not be violently abused. But if my son was homosexual I would not be a happy camper and toughen him, up. You never see sons of football coaches, millitary men or athletes turning gay. If they bothered studying my theory, they would find most homosexual men were raised in an effeminate manner.
Homosexuality is encouraged by jews for the same reason transgenderism, magic negro and being a slut is. Its not that homosexuals are themselves bad, its that the larger social effects of it are negative and emasculating.
Homosexuality should be tolerated, not promoted.
http://www.rainbowromancewriters.com/node/796
Look at the difference between millitary Sparta and then Socrates more domesticated Athens. In Athens they embraced paedophilia. In Sparta they didn’t. Same gene pool Santo.
100/1 there were no homosexuals in the mongol horde.
Most if not all human cultures are retarded, fake philosophy.
Sparta gave for humanity nothing valuable. If we are only dependent to typical straight men to start fine arts wouldn’t be possible. Even the architects of the most beautiful churches and castles were artists too and not just engineers.
Maybe homosexuality is more like left handedness. Left handedness is not really a gene but inverted way genes express themselves. A gay person may have genes that epigenetically changed sexual attraction in the brain when developing. When gay men’s brains were scanned is was discovered that they have brains that look female. The explanation may not be genes but epigenetics.
(Does Mugabe still think I am a girl?)
iPhones Gay (Offspring Parody) ~ Rucka Rucka Ali
Do you still think you’re a girl*
Yes, basically a mirroring, a entire spectrum of probability of combinations or expression.
I don’t know how correlative is the female-like brain and homossexuality, seems, some or many men with female-like brains are not gays, OR not, because very afeminate men hardly is not at least sexually atypical.
When someone say, on avg, i tend to think in ~50% of population, but seems higher. The percent of women with female-like brains seems is higher than 50%, even there are discrete variations OR within-female-like brain variations. Maybe around 70%. And the same for men.
There’s nothing feminine about you except your lack of work. That’s the key. Real men provide for themselves and their family in some way.
No there such thing real man monk…
When black normies try to establish pernicious criteria about what is real or not they tend to be even worst than normies of other races. It’s sad!
Translated from mandarin and Mlabri
If self sufficiency is a only one criteria to define so called real m’an so most academics wouldn’t be real m’an because they are overly dependent from government to provide for themselves vital human resources symbolized this day by money.
Fact: men feel the need to be providers to some extent. Even if they’re sociopaths that provide by exploiting others.
No doubt some men provide by exploiting the government in some way whether through government dependent jobs or otherwise.
I already read in somewhere that in Sparta homossexuality was acceptable, but i’m not confident about it, even i no have sources to at least expose it.
Already there a sexual or psychological diversity among straight people. Homos are just the extreme or dead end of this psychological diversification aa well autism is to cognitive diversification.
Disorders is maintained because people no have genetics knowledge, because people even or specially in assortative mating marry choice their partners via phenotypical compatibility but not via genotypical compatibility because they we can’t see the entire genetic landscape of our partners namely to build families. Phenotype express part of genotype.
Yes, but after numerous iterations, the recessive genes would die off.
There are some genetic diseases like Huntington’s that don’t die off for very unique and interesting reasons, but homosexuality has no beneficial impact on the homosexual in a non jewish mind controlled society. Its is extremely dangerous in most places in the world to be homosexual.
Its not just ‘frowned upon’. Its an invitation to be beaten.
There is no religion in the world that endorses it, aside from Zionism’s endorsement of it in the West (and not israel).
The question is why are people of all races so hostile to it – ive given you my answer.
I once speculated that cruelty to gays was an evolved strategy to get gay genes to spread:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/06/08/is-gayness-a-green-beard-effect/
It’s a psycho-evolutionary-bubblette narrative
It’s don’t ”evolved”, in literal ways.
It’s just the probabilistic trends on evolution, in the random selective scenario, i mean, without monitoring.
Again, religion is more dangerous than homossexuality, and worst, it’s very good to hide his/its huge disadvantage, religion is a tool to perpetuate ignorance among average man. Homossexuality is just a minority of human behavior expression, religion is the mark of ”self”-ische human domestication as well lack of intellectual pedigree, a kind of real evolved and sustained ”psychotic-like” psycho-cognitive behavior expressable in many-to-most people. And so-called ”ideology” also have the same psychotic-like pattern.
We are dependent, not only to elite quality, but to average man/woman intellectual quality, specially in democratic or so-called demo-craptic societies, but even in non-democratic, indeed, ALL non-democratic societies exist specially because the victory of malignant group of people against ”bovine” masses, incapable to organize itself, incapable even to think itself.
If the average man is stupid enough to believe and internalize easily bullshit so he/she is easier to be controlled… and we will be fucked as indirect consequence, as is happening.
People of all races tend to be hostile because, as they are intellectually dumber, they can’t deal with complexity, even that trivial complexity as sexuality, and often they consult fake-religious-knowledge to how they will behave.
Homophobia as well real racism or hyper-tribalism are just expressions of human stupidity.
it would be interesting to know if sisters of gays are more fertile or if brothers of dykes are more fertile.
Yes, one theory is that some women are so sexually attracted to men that even their male siblings are sexually attracted to men, and these women have so many babies that it makes up for the fact that their gay brothers don’t have any, allowing a gay gene to thrive.
by “fertile” is meant “haveth childers everywhere”.
This theory seems was created by Italian researchers and the results were inconsistent at least in modern context. In modern context hyper sexual women tend to have lowest fertility seems. More aex you want more hedonist you are less responsibility you want foe you, long term ones.
The brother effects is one path to homosexuality. I’m the product of this brother effect. This seems explain less than 10% of cases.
the IQ cutoff for criminals would have to be what?
in order to produce this disparity?
i can answer this. peepee can’t.
sad!
The fact that you think there is a cutoff shows you’re not qualified to answer the question.
Why is there Social Stratification?: Crash Course Sociology #22
Will you still have time to do the short Ben Carson update?
Oh yes that’s very imminent. The reason I haven’t done it yet is because before I talk about Ben Carson specifically, I need to do a brief article on blacks and the SAT in general.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSNews/status/897254042178650113?p=v
They are aooooo pathologically altruistic isn’t??
PP,
You have a 135 IQ?
No way!
You are way more intelligent 🙂
I have seen many articles of yours and comments and debates and i think you are a supremely intelligent person. The way you carry out multiple debates…. with every single answer of that…. so-well thought i mean a person can often only carry out one or two debates with each answer being as good yours. But you seem to be able to do more than that. 135 IQ means IQ one in a hundred or one in a thousand right? if i am not mistaken. But no way you are one in a hundred or even one in a thousand, your intelligence is a ‘one in a million’ intelligence.
I have seen many articles of yours and comments and debates and i think you are a supremely intelligent person. The way you carry out multiple debates…. with every single answer of that…. so-well thought i mean a person can often only carry out one or two debates with each answer being as good yours. But you seem to be able to do more than that. 135 IQ means IQ one in a hundred or one in a thousand right? if i am not mistaken. But no way you are one in a hundred or even one in a thousand, your intelligence is a ‘one in a million’ intelligence.
Thanks K, but I think 135 (U.S. white norms) is really high. There are so many smart people walking the streets of developed countries that to be smarter than 99% of them is extremely impressive. To put it in perspective, if you’re taller than 99% of white American men, you’re 6’4″
The reason it doesn’t sound that impressive is so many people lie about or cherry pick their IQ scores, which cheapens high scores.
And ofcourse the way you write your articles too. Although not the topics you pick:)
https://mobile.twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/897170515529486338?p=v
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11345412/Inside-the-Chinese-boot-camp-treating-Internet-addiction.html
They are sooooooo smart
Less in emotional intelligence
Oops
It’s don’t exist
Teachings from hbba