Commenter Philosopher often mocks Bill Gates and other math Geniuses for lacking social IQ, recently stating:
Whenever I see gates in that pink sweater for big interviews i laugh as well. It reminds me of Terry Tao wearing that jumper on Colbert’s show. These people are missing a part of their brain.
This got me thinking: Is our choice of clothing a measure of intelligence? At first glance it sounds silly, but the granddaddy of IQ testing himself, Alfred Binet, included aesthetic judgment on his test, famously asking children to pick the prettiest face from each of three pairs.
This requires the same aesthetic judgement as picking what clothes look best on you. An important part of social cognition.
In 2015 Gates ranked as the 13th worst dressed billionaire on the planet. Of the 562 U.S. billionaires, Gates was the 9th worst dressed. This implies he’s in the bottom 1.6% of billionaire fashion, or 2.13 standard deviations below the billionaire mean.
How aesthetically intelligent is the average billionaire. When it comes to conventional IQ, self-made billionaires recently averaged IQ 133 (U.S. norms), though this number continues to fall as billionaires become more common. Of course only 2/3rds of U.S. billionaires are self-made. Billionaires who inherited their wealth likely average an IQ of 115, given the 0.45 IQ correlation an individual has with his spouse or child. Thus all U.S. billionaires combined likely average IQ 127. Meanwhile, aesthetic judgement has a g loading of 0.6 (see table 6.14) so we might expect them to average 0.6(27) + 100 = 116 in fashion sense.
Thus Gates being 2.13 SD below the average billionaire fashion implies an aesthetic IQ of:
116 – 2.13(15) = 84.
Of course one shouldn’t take these numbers too serious. Gates’s poor dressing might simply reflect a lack of social motivation or a mind with more important things to consider. But if the number is corroborated by other evidence of social obtuseness (i.e. Gates’s distracting hand gestures), it may serve as important proxy.
By contrast in 2005, Oprah was ranked as the third best dressed billionaire on the planet, behind only fashion moguls Giorgio Armani and Ralph Lauren. She was the second best dressed in America.
In 2005 there were 341 billionaires in America so Oprah’s second place fashion put her near the top 0.5%, or 2.53 SD above the billionaire mean. This implies an aesthetic IQ of:
116 + 2.53(15) = 153.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing Oprah’s overall IQ is higher than Gates’s. Overall Oprah is probably around 140 while Gates could be anywhere from 150 to 170.
But when it comes to abilities related to social IQ, Oprah’s off the charts, as even conservatives admit:
Pumpkin Person 
barry diller is gay so this list can’t be taken seriously. gay men have great fashion sense…ha ha ha ha
oprah is a lesbian and lesbians have no fashion sense.
No proof Oprah’s a lesbian. Before Steadman she had many well documented hetero romances in Chicago, Baltimore & Nashville, including with John Tesh and even had a baby at 15. And lip stick lesbians have great fashion sense.
let me guess. she drowned her baby?
john tesh is 6’6″. oprah likes her men big.
Yes, both Oprah and Gayle have stated they want very tall men.
I always thought the ideal IQ was somewhere between 125-135. Enough to have an advantage without feeling ostracized by society. Maybe a high IQ in conjunction with a low social IQ is the real problem and not cognitive IQ by itself. If the social and cognitive IQ’s don’t coincide then problems occur.
I haven’t thought too deeply about this. What’s your opinion PP? Is there an “ideal” IQ? Doesn’t high IQ usually lead to higher social IQ?
I think the ideal IQ is the point just below where you start questioning the conventional wisdom on self-esteem. It varies for everyone but 125-135 is probably the central tendency.
When you’re sorta mediocre and you no longer believe that you’re inherently highly valuable no matter what, life can become a constant mental scavenger hunt for your weak points if you can’t find a reliable way to shift your focus to other things. In other words, miserable.
And when you can’t tap into the value delusion naturally, which gives normal folks the courage to try risky things that—if done often enough—help you accomplish what you want, you have to use drugs to get you there. In my case amphetamines.
what do the two of you think the ideal penis size is?
Lol, good perspective, but stay away from adderall. It can cause micro-strokes and there’s a high risk of addiction. Ritalin is a lot safer and way more studied.
To ‘oprah thinks bigger is better’
As PP said down below “if there is an ideal penis size it’s probably incredibly large because no study I know of has ever found the point beyond which penis size offers diminishing or declining returns”.
Adderal is amazing. Its chsnged my life. I recommend it to everyone.
Y’all should look up how much the average CEO’s IQ is, between 110-125 in various analyses. It depends what you want to be successful in. Also, another article stated that good leaders have diminishing returns at 120. And substantially diminishing returns at 128. So no way is 125-135 optimal, especially not for leadership.
Also, socially intelligent people can have low intelligence or have high intelligence. You can either be a conman or a psychopath. Social intelligence has such a low correlation to and output for the usual type of intelligence that it doesn’t seem to have such a strong effect in a population either way. Maybe on an individual level, it would be different.
The self-esteem part is a good one because yes, each individual has to have an intelligence where it does not harm their sense of self. However, 125-135 is not it and that’s obvious.
I haven’t thought too deeply about this. What’s your opinion PP? Is there an “ideal” IQ? Doesn’t high IQ usually lead to higher social IQ?
There might be an ideal IQ. Too much of anything can be a problem, even the ability to problem solve itself. But if there is an ideal IQ it’s probably incredibly high because no study I know of has ever found the point beyond which IQ offers diminishing or declining returns.
High IQ does lead to high social IQ in most cases but there are a lot of exceptions thanks to conditions like autism and the fact that social IQ is not as g loaded as verbal IQ, math IQ or spatial IQ.
Having a high IQ can hinder your ability to care about certain things like close relationships, reproducing, and your reputation. They often delve into philosophies that leave them wondering why they should value those things. They’re all just ephemeral after all. These people can become too cerebral; caught in their own mind so much so that everything else just seems illusory. I think hitting the 99th percentile and no more is preferable, so 135.
Idk maybe my view is a bit naive. I often think of people like George Hotz when I think of geniuses who’s IQ has kinda led them astray. He could be doing so many other cool things but instead he’s obsessed with comma.ai, a self-driving car company, when Elon Musk already has technology so much better.
Do you know about George Hotz btw? He’s a very interesting person. He does livestream of himself coding and such.
This talk George Hotz gave is incredibly amazing. I know I’m asking a lot here, but if you have the time I would recommend watching it.
If you do, please share your thoughts.
Yes of course I’ve heard of George Hotz. Yes it seems a lot of super high IQ people are bored by the conventional path to success & just get distracted by other interests though unlike autistics, their interests tend to be diverse & constantly changing so they never make much progress at anything
I watched only part of the video so far but he makes a good point about a simulated universe being more probable than living in the real one
john tesh said he came up with this song while boinking oprah.
PP mentioned this back in 2015 I think, but I genuinely believe that there is a certain ‘X factor’ either inherent or absent in any given person that acts as the primary source of his/her value. Sort of like a g factor.
If you don’t have it, you can use learned behaviors, and lies, and fraud to cover it up, but the more X-factor-loaded anything you do is, the more obvious your inadequacy becomes.
Because having it or not is so discrete, it probably evolved out of the need for leaders and followers. Fewer people have it than not.
The whole idea of low self-esteem originating from childhood neglect is complete nonsense. It’s a rational response to a genuine deprivation.
It might be a (((racket))) to keep people from taking a deeper look at the true nature of society. Branden was a devotee of (((Rand))) after all.
I have serious doubts about Oprah Winfrey‘s social abilities. Of course, she is very good at dealing with the situation in the US where she is very famous and everyone around her is fawning her.
But she is unable to deal with the situation elsewhere, for instance in Europe where she is a) not particularly famous (Hollywood films are shown everywhere, but not shows like her, so only people with a particular interest for the US know about her) and b) billionaires‘ attitude of being something superior is much tolerated much less than in the US. Whenever she is treated just like a normal human being, not like a superior being, she makes a big scandal out of this and often even makes absurd claims about alleged racism.
Once in Paris, a luxury shop had closed due to normal opening hours being over. There were still some employees in the shop. She made a big scandal out of being treated like every other customer and only being admitted during opening hours.
A few years ago, she spent a few minutes in a luxury shop in Zurich. Somehow there was a communication problem, the shop assistant (a girl with roots from Italy) was hesitant to fetch a crocodile leather bag that cost about $30,000 from behind security glass and showed other bags that also cost thousands of dollars (or Swiss Franks). Of course, no one goes to that shop to buy something cheap, but most of the customers of that luxury shop also don’t want to spend $30,000 on a hand bag. The shop assistant just treated Winfrey like a normal customer of the luxury shop. But being treated as normal is a deadly offense for someone like Oprah Winfrey. She did not say anything and left the shop quickly, but afterwards she made ludicrous accusations about an alleged „racist incident“ in a shop in Zurich. Luckily, the shop owner stood by her employee.
I always find it strange when people claim that Oprah Winfrey is particularly intelligent. After all, she has a strong predilection for pseudo-science. Of course, intelligence, rationality, and support for scientifically sound theories are not the same, but these things still correlate to some degree, and it would be somewhat surprising that a very intelligent person has such a strong predilection for pseudo-science.
I cannot really assess her intelligence, but I think what is very clear is that here social abilities are severely deficient. The only situation she can deal with is in the US among people who are fawning her and treating her as a superhuman being. As soon as she is in Europe where most people don’t know her and she is treated just like a normal person, she often gets very angry and makes utterly ludicrous accusations about alleged „racism“ (in her view, being treated like a normal person means „racism“ and she always brags about her billions in a way that seems nauseating to most Europeans).
I suppose many billionaires can be somewhat difficult people, but I think most of them probably have an interesting personality, and I would probably be interested if there was an occasion for getting to know them – but not Oprah Winfrey with her deficient character and extreme arrogance.
I also think it is quite telling for the cultural differences between the US and Europe that someone with such an extreme degree of arrogance like Oprah Winfrey could be successful in the US. In Europe, people with such arrogant attitudes are rejected almost unanimously and can hardly have much success (except perhaps in some niches).
1) you’re assuming race wasn’t a factor in either of those scenarios.
2) someone may be petty, narcissistic, obnoxious & vindictive, yet still have a high social IQ. Indeed someone with such a bad personality would have to be even more socially intelligent to get so many Americans to fawn over her.
3) the sheer POWER of Oprah was shown by the fact that even in countries where she isn’t famous, the Swiss government apologized and the CEO of Hermes came on her show to apologize.
4) the incident in Switzerland dominated the news during opening weekend of her movie THE BUTLER, driving it to #1 in the box office
5) she also had an incident in a store in Rome:
Being humble is his ((Bill Gates)) downfall. As social animals, and competitive mammals, we need to signal our fitness as much as possible. Any failure to do so will lead to a dramatic backlash. So yes, Bill Gates may be socially intelligent in certain aspects but overall he’d be seen as being inept because he doesn’t use his wealth to show off his fitness, thus causing negative assumptions about him based on the fact that he doesn’t seem to have a high fitness and yet became a billionaire, when in fact, he’s just humble and wants to show off a lot less than the average billionaire.
Haha, I tend to wear the same clothing brands as Bill Gates does, particularly Lands’ End, having bought at least 80% of my percent of my clothes from there. Good brand, usually have really nice button-downs and pants that are nice but casual.
Also, billionaires are bound to have a significantly higher social IQ than non-billionaires anyways. Billionaires are going to have aesthetic quotients that will be a lot higher too.
Bill Gates doesn’t seem to be extremely socially inept, I’d just say his social intelligence is probably average, maybe a few points above or below.
The cerebellum receives information from the sensory systems, the spinal cord, and other parts of the brain and then regulates motor movements. The cerebellum coordinates voluntary movements such as posture, balance, coordination, and speech, resulting in smooth and balanced muscular activity.
————–
Aspergers like Bill Gates and Animekitty lack smooth muscle coordination.
Aspergers is not necessary a deficit in social IQ, its a motion disorder.
The brain evolved to move the body and detect motion.
I avoid people because I move weird not that I can’t understand others motion.
My perception is off but not severely because of coordination. Coordination is different from perception. I do not have problems with perception like some people with motion problems.
————-
You have aspergers now?
it’s on a spectrum
no one knows what it is (least of all Phil)
it is about being oblivious in some respect to a fundamental human quality.
aspies act like children because they are oblivious to human adulthood way of thought and behavior.
aspies are overly logical oblivious to how emotions play a role of theory of mind
but as said it is on a spectrum
there are dozens and dozens of ways of being oblivious
(I talk funny)(I move funny)(that’s it)(I am not mature in some respects)(that’s it)
You can tell with Gates he moves stiffly and is childish, honest / but also devious. My IQ 170 friend said Gates is a layer not a programmer. he cheats people and only looks friendly on the surface.
Gates and Animekitty both have something wrong with there cerebellum. This part of the brain coordinates the rest of the brain, makes everything smooth. But Gates and Animekitty are all stiff.
I have bad anxiety because I overcompensate for my deficits by trying to do harder things my IQ is not high enough for. If you see me talk in my videos on youtube you can see how much I struggle to not get stuck.
I get stuck and I am stiff/uneven –
This affects my theory of mind.
Anxiety decreases my theory of mind –
I am uncomfortable looking people in the eyes
Like I said: Autism is obliviousness to some fundamental human trait.
I meant Gates is a “lawyer”
Harvard is a lawyer school
I’m starting to wonder whether or not I have ADHD or Autism. Does it seem like I have ADHD?
You don’t seem to have ADHD or autism or anything, but you certainly are stupid. You don’t have any critical thinking abilities or anything. You clearly have too much self-esteem and seem like a spoiled brat.
It’s not your fault, though. Probably your parents telling you that you’re special and stuff.
Loaded: im pretty sure that’s the way you view yourself. Stop inoculating your misery.
Remember you scored an abysmal 88 on the Mensa matrix reasoning test? This indicates you’re a spoiled brat (average vocabulary skills due to good schooling; no abstract reasoning ability) raised in a fairly smart family but are the product of regression to the mean. You have the ability to communicate with your counterparts in a relatable manner, and might even come off as above average (good schooling) but you’re very ugly and people end up seeing right through you; you’ve realize the candid like ability of people seeing right through you is inexorable so now you reside here and annoy the living shit everyone. For whatever reason pumpkin person feels sympathy for you but I’m here to tell you everyone else in this world sees you as worthless manure.
I forgot to add.
Your parents think your a failure and are getting tired of paying rent. Show them your 88 matrix reasoning score; tell them you’re not capable of finishing college; then apply for a job at a place that would reduce your lifespan significantly.
Stop viewing your problem with quandary; follow these steps and you’ll contribute to this world and you’ll stop impeding other people; yes even Rahul is smarter than you just a bit more obsessive which you view as “stupid”.
Dude, you’re a fucking prick. Honestly, I feel bad for YOU, not the other way around. You sound like an incredulous bastard who has no real-world experience or knowledge. Plus, [redacted by pp, nov 10, 2019]
And it’s funny that you mention my IQ score…you little pussy. Who the fuck uses that to attack someone and make them feel insecure? ONLY LITTLE PUSSIES. I do not, nor ever will, care about an IQ score, you worthless little bitch.
Anyone who cares about their IQ score is clearly a fucking moron to begin with. That’s why I post the shit I do because I know it’s far more applicable to human life than a fucking IQ score or some bullshit about elites or whatever you guys talk about.
Plus, I scored really, really well on the only tests that matter in life, like the SAT, scored mediocre (24 iirc) on the ACT, had an average GPA of 3.8 in high school, and the list goes on. There was nothing I wasn’t good at.
A fucking matrix score from an online test? Like seriously dude? How many problems or issues are you going through in life to bring that up to try to knock other people down? First start with yourself, you moron.
On top of that, I can tell you’re just projecting. Not in a direct way where any of this applies to you. I’m sure you’re smart (you misused the other version of the word in one of your sentences) but you sound like a school shooter, man. Lay off the Adderall, that’s a first. Second, stop reading pick-up artist shit because that’ll take you nowhere. Stop posting on blogs that you know you’re wasting your time on. Get. A. Life.
notice 8 of the 17 are jews.
actually maybe reid hoffman isn’t jewish. just like philip seymour hoffman wasn’t jewish.
actually maybe reid hoffman isn’t jewish. just like philip seymour hoffman wasn’t jewish.
professor shoe demonstrating he’s an [redacted by pp, nov 10, 2019] once again.
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2019/11/good-and-bad-journalism-on-embryo.html
embryos are already screened for genetic diseases. now shoe wants to screen them for their polygenic score. this is pure satanism and must be banned globally.
the polygenic score is useful for people at higher risk of whatever, because these people can make environmental changes which will reduce their risk to normal or zero.
steve shoe wants to change people to fit a toxic environment rather than change the toxic environment to fit the people. this is satanism.
steve jones: “smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer for some people. so should embryos be selected for this trait? or should people stop smoking?”
It’s funny how he claims the Science author mentioning stuff not in his paper is misrepresenting his views, when he’s gone on record a billion times endorsing polygenetic screening for things other than disease risk.
Chutzpah.
steve jones: “we’ve found the gene for crime. it’s the Y chromosome. and men don’t live as long as women and are more subject to a host of diseases, therefore all parents should select nothing but girls? no.”
PP, oprah likely hires fashion designers to dress her up.
True, but you still have to know who to hire & who to listen to. Also why I compared her to other billionaires who can also afford such consultants
But you’re right, this might be meaningless. Just interesting how it confirmed subjective impressions of who is socially aware
Can you believe the gall that guy had to tell me that I’m a failure or whatever…I mean, he’s dead-on about people seeing through me, my parents’ views of me, my intelligence being severely low….but the one thing I’m not, at least not to myself, is a failure.
Like first of all, dude, you sound like a cuck and a mentally ill moron. You have no real-life skills except to serve the people you despise. I’m a leader (I’ve held various high-ranking positions in school, from clubs to volunteer organizations and even managed to attain class presidency one year), meaning I have the ability to get what I want.
This stupid cuckold will settle for half of what I can get right now. Who the fuck is he to talk to me like that?
Contribute something? Piece of shit, what do you know about contributing. I’ve contributed more to this world in my life than you could ever imagine doing. Hell, I’ve contributed just on this blog more than you could imagine doing and I’ve contributed more to this world than anyone here in their piece of shit, delusional lives would dream of doing. You fucking cucky little bitch.
Not to mention I only have a year left at my school, meaning I’ll be a college graduate very, very soon. From a very, very good school too. So don’t be so quick to criticize, “Coincidence.” Just learn from your mistakes and try to get better.
BC?
Nah, another school in Boston. You were close, though.
I think they’re in the same category as far as rankings go.
Puppy you just don’t get it. Since Oprah is one of the few female billionaires full stop, and one would expect a woman to dress better than the average nerd, then I don’t know what you’re trying to say by saying she’s well dressed for a billionaire.
There are literally monkeys in zoos right now with more social sense than Bill Gates. I guarantee a monkey would NEVER donate all his peanuts to Africa.
There are literally HUNDREDS of female billionaires, just not a lot of self-made ones like Oprah.
That said I have to admit, Oprah does have social skills that are superior to most people. Somehow Puppy takes this fact and confuses this with being the reason she is rich. Like I have said many times: Even if we assume Oprah has the IQ of a rocket scientist (hahaha) and great social IQ, what explains her wealth is clearly (((certain people))) who helped her throughout her entire career to this day. Oprah would probably be a single mother on food stamps with like 8 kids from 8 different men if it wasn’t for (((certain people))) picking her up from obscurity and pushing her.
You’re correct that black people would not be as wealthy if it weren’t for Jews, but that applies to all blacks, not Oprah in particular.
This is where your schizophrenia comes in. You seem to hallucinate a world where Bob Rubin rides around in his limo photographing random blacks in the ghetto & then conspires to make them rich or famous. Jewish influence is much more subtle than that. It works on the institutional level, not the individual level. Jews advocate for laws that prevent whites from shutting blacks out, and then the highest IQ & most opportunistic blacks (i.e. Oprah & Obama) skillfully exploit those opportunities, just like the highest IQ opportunists of every race exploit opportunities. Jews simply create more opportunities for them to exploit.
Even if America had no Jews, Oprah would still have become the richest black and Obama would still have become the top black politician (assuming all else equal). The only difference is instead of being a billionaire, Oprah would have been the first black centimillionaire and instead of being president, Obama would have been the first black governor. Jews simply created a rising tide that lifted all black boats without changing their relative heights. Black America is still every bit as much a meritocracy as the rest of America, which is not to say a complete meritocracy by any stretch, but a meritocracy nonetheless.
PP
In the “first gay, first woman, first black, first trans etc etc” era that we are so obviously living in I would hardly say that Obama’s presidency would have been an inevitability under different circumstances. Not saying he is not worthy of the position, in fact he is probably in the top half in terms of worthiness among US presidents( his lackluster presidency aside) however there is simply no doubt in my mind that he was a result of political correctness joining forces with equality of outcome advocates along with leftism finally seeping into the core of american culture(no thanks to Bush “the halfwit” Jr’s woeful political decisions). This is hardly what I would call meritocracy. Statistically speaking the odds of an AA becoming president are at the very best 1 in 8. Once we factor in a white majority of 70% and perhaps take IQ and other economic factors into consideration those odds would likely halve if not worse(assuming meritocracy is all we care about). This means that after the demise of deeply entrenched racism in the US (probably some time after the 80s or 90s depending on how you look at it) it would take 4×16 = 64 years before we would expect an AA president(some time in the 2040s or 2050s). Factor in most recent presidents serving double terms and it might have been another 100 years before it happened. The fact that we got one this early has much more to do with the current zeitgeist(for better or for worse) rather than actual meritocracy.
In any case just to be clear, I am all for an AA president or even any other race for president just as long as the reasons behind their rise to power are PURELY meritocratic.
I mean a within race meritocracy, not necessarily a between race one.
In other words, regardless of the cultural context, the most successful members of every race will average about 2 SD smarter than their racial mean.
So yes, Obama was lucky to have come of age just when people were finally ready for a first black president, but there was enormous meritocratic competition among blacks to get that position.
If he could come in first among blacks in this era, there’s no reason to doubt he could have come in first in a different era (assuming equal luck). Though in a different era, coming in first might mean only being the first black governor instead of the first black president.
Right, fair enough. I guess we fully agree on this issue. Might I add that it’s not always the case that the best candidate for the job gets the presidency let alone the fact that the best person for the job(in terms of temperament acuity and talent) probably doesn’t even consider running for president in their lifetime. In other words and particularly in today’s world we get the most popular among those crazy enough, driven enough, possibly even narcissistic enough to want the job which is a far cry from the person that has the most potential is most qualified and would do the greatest good.
Btw Byron Allen would beat the living shit out of you if he heard you saying (((certain people))) help blacks through their career. He claims just the opposite; the owners of big media conspire to keep blacks out of ownership positions and his case is being heard by the supreme court this week:
I’m not saying he’s right, but just as you have conspiracy theories to explain black success, blacks have conspiracy theories to explain black failure.
It used to bother me, but I actually like seeing folks like Allen stick their necks out and stand up for their people. Even if they’re wrong I think it’s admirable.
Let’s just say that blacks have as much skepticism for the system as whites do. Being on the schizo spectrum more than other races, they can rationalize their failures as a race by using very intricate ways to describe the situation they’re in and present information in a way that makes it far more believable too.
Alfred Binet looks like he has autism. I have no idea about his life, but the haircut and the expression on his face is quite apropos of autism.
it’s not a haircut. it’s a toupee.
By the way Puppy, I have never said Gates has autism. But I’ve never read a deeply researched book on Gates’ life the way I have Buffet. I never knew Buffet had autism until I read the Snowball by Alice Schroeder and picked up on a lot of the idiosyncrasies and tells. But based on what I’ve seen of Gates, he doesn’t have it.
Gates is basically a super nerd.
By the way Puppy, I have never said Gates has autism.
you’ve literally said it a hundred times, but if you no longer believe it; that’s interesting.
so where did you draw the line between nerdiness and autism? Is it just a matter of degree or do you see them as two different concepts?
I have never once said he had straight out autism.
Bill gates is nerdy, but he doesn’t have the personality traits of someone with autism imo. Although nerdiness and autism overlap a bit when it comes to social skills, from what I’ve seen of Gates he has interests outside of software engineering and nothing horrible like not being able to tolerate food touching on his plate or wearing the same jumper everyday.
I guess where I draw the line is the depth of social cluelessness and whether the person has other autistic traits like sensitivity, soft voice, terrible haircut etc.
do you agree with lion’s theory?
https://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/new-thoughts-about-autism-and-aspergers-syndrome/
Thats a very good post by Lion. Like Lion, I don’t see nerdiness as ‘autism lite’. I think its qualitatively different.
so if gates is a nerd rather than an autist, he would not be at risk for low social IQ, per lion’s theory.
No Lion also says nerds have terrible social IQ. But like me he says nerds don’t have weird interests like train schedules and they do show a desire to be social.
no he thinks they have at least normal social IQ, but become outcasts because physical weakness, ugliness, too smart, shyness, anxiety etc.
See his analysis of Elliot Rodger (who lion considers a nerd):
Up to page 24. Elliot is in the fifth grade. At this point in the autobiography, I am pretty confident that Elliot did NOT have Asperger’s Syndrome. Elliot had friends in elementary school, and he also had a pretty good understanding of the social status of elementary school, who was cool and who was not, and spent a lot of effort in trying to be more cool. Kids who truly have Asperger’s Syndrome don’t understand that stuff at all. Just because a kid is shy, physically small, and prone to anxiety, does NOT mean that he has Asperger’s Syndrome.
Actually I have a good story about the difference. When I was growing up there was a guy called ‘Tom’ (not real name), who had little social intelligence and many asperger traits (it later turned out he was an aspy but we didn’t know what that was at the time).
He used to hang out with me and a few of the others but eventually the others would ask not to include him or basically to ostracise him, even if they were nerds themselves.
Nerds don’t get that type of reaction from people. Lion is right that nerds include outcasts and weirdos in their social groups because their social standing is so low, but autists tend to be rejected by all social groups.
This is because its like half their brain is missing.
I read Elliot Rodgers book. Basically Rodger is not a nerd IMO as he doesn’t seem particularly bright and unlike nerds who accept their social standing, kind of despises his place in the world. He also doesn’t bother to interact with nerds.
The one thing that you could call nerdy is his liking of video games but I didn’t see enough in his book to say he was a nerd like Lion.
Elliot was a person who was bullied and developed into a psychotic state. IMO, Rodger may be schizotypal, like myself. Elliot basically is someone that never got psychiatric medications in time.
PP
I would say that I am in almost perfect alignment with Lion on this issue. What about you?
I really like Lion’s theory but I’m not entirely unconvinced, because prototypical nerds like Bill Gates do show some genuinely autistic traits like rocking back and forth, exaggerated hand gestures & unusual voice. But perhaps he acquired these from hanging out with autistics despite not being one himself, since Lion noted that autistics often end up in the same social group as nerds.
“But perhaps he acquired these from hanging out with autistics despite not being one himself, since Lion noted that autistics often end up in the same social group as nerds.”
Yes that makes a lot of sense, though it very well could also be that both nerds and autists develop some behavioral similarities but for different reasons. I would say that autists behave in some odd ways because they lack the social awareness to do otherwise while nerds act similarly because they see no rational or particularly compelling reason to mediate that behavior despite being perfectly capable of doing so.
For most of my life I have been able to see the value in trying to be one of the “cool kids” but the older I get the harder it becomes for me to rationalize adhering to certain social norms/ideals. Outside of reducing social stress by fitting in a lot of things seem completely trivial to me. In fact they always did, its just that adhering to them back in the day radically increased ones chances with the ladies.
PS I’ve pretty much held the same view as Lion for most of my life albeit through simpler heuristics.
Also I think that even more so than lacking the “copycat gene” that Lion is talking about I think that autists also genuinely have fairly low social IQs which makes them unable to traverse the social world with any real competence.
If you believe in neuroplasticity, you could argue they have genuinely low social IQs BECAUSE they lack the copycat gene. In other words if one has no interest in other people from birth (autistic infants don’t look at faces as much as normal infants) the social part of the brain may never develop.
Right, well it’s just that I don’t believe that their low social IQ can fully be explained by a lack of the copycat gene. It’s far more likely that the so called “copycat gene” is just one of several genes coding for social intelligence and autists lack that among other important genes. For example, having an interest in people is one thing, being able to imitate them is another and being inclined to imitate them is yet another. I believe there are subtle differences between these and while autists probably lack all three it is perfectly feasible for a non autist to have no interest in imitating people while being perfectly capable of doing so and maintaining a healthy interest in them.
For example I am not an obnoxiously disagreeable person(I try to base it on sound reasoning) but one particular way I am disagreeable is being a stickler for originality and authenticity. I really abhor being a copy paste of anyone in any obvious way. Of course I do use social norms and in many ways subscribe to several but only after thinking it through thoroughly and from first principles if I can. This can make me stand out to some people(though that is not my intention) and perhaps even make me seem odd(though I have ways of mitigating this). According to the above theory I may come off as marginally autistic for failing to be enough of a copycat though once again it is not because i cannot its because I see greater value in pursuing originality when I can and when it is the optimal play.
In any case, yes I do believe in neural plasticity to an extent.
For example, having an interest in people is one thing, being able to imitate them is another and being inclined to imitate them is yet another.
True but wouldn’t Occam’s razor suggest they’re more likely to have one deficit that causes the other two, rather than three independent deficits?
If you’re not interested in people, you won’t copy them nor will you develop the ability to be able to.
Now there will also be people who are interested enough to acquire copycat ability (or plastic enough to acquire it with limited interest) but choose not to copy for philosophical reasons. All kinds of variants could exist
“All kinds of variants could exist”
Pretty much the point I’m trying to make. Though there is likely a correlation between the 3(or more) I don’t think it is necessarily strongly causal. Like I said, it is perfectly feasible that one would have limited interest in people yet excel at picking up social cues and copycat brilliantly. Sure enough, being good at something requires serious dopamine(among others) and neural excitation and that in and of itself can cause someone to acquire an affinity of sorts for something they are good at but I still think the variability is far too great for us to be making strong, absolute, overly simplistic or uni-dimensional assertions about a complex and poorly understood condition like autism.
Though there is likely a correlation between the 3(or more) I don’t think it is necessarily strongly causal.
I don’t doubt that some people have great social skills despite not being interested in people, but in autism, impaired social communication & restricted repetitive behavior or interests go together (see 3:15 mark in below video).
I was simply suggesting a speculative theory for why they tend to go together.
Im not an expert on IQ test, anhd certainly not an autist obsessive like puppy, but from what I’ve read, it looks like they’ve made the tests easier over the past 20 years in order to help blacks score better than children? Is that right? Is the flynn effect the tests getting easier puppy?
Im playing the new zoo tycoon game and its really complicated for a kids game. I assume its a kids game anyway. You can customise whatever you want with about 100 different options.
Im actually a bit daunted by it. The old one was very easy and addictive to play.
Have to say wipeout for the PS4 is giving me a lot of problems. Some of these tracks are nearly impossible to complete. 😦
Its nice how a game series that started off from the original days of the PS1 is still with us though.
Are you still at Citi?
Yeah.
I normally wouldn’t question Trumps social judgements as he is far smarter than 99.99999% of the population in that regard…but his strategy of constantly arguing about every detail in the impeachment process actually might be worse than just being silent. The whole thing is boring to most people so I don’t know why hes drawing so much attention to it. Most people kind of accept that impeachment is a partisan act anyway.
I think matrices tests are very poor measures of abstract reasoning, anyways, especially the type of abstract thought I dabble in. Matrices tests seem to emphasize a person’s cognitive flexibility more than anything else and maybe abstract 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, and I emphasize reasoning, because it is reasoning, but not the production of abstract thought. If you look at my comments, they’re very, very abstract in thought and generate a lot of novel and synthetic arguments for how I believe the world works.
Also, tbh, I’m a great reasoner, just can’t reason abstractly. Definitely logically, though.
Can Autistic people be Intuitive (Myers Briggs Type indicator)
?
The condition as I understand it is about being unable to form representations of higher-order associations. In other words, they have trouble forming context around them.
Context is intuitive so it is not a matter of yes or no but rather in degree. Autistic people can be on the lower end of the continuum but it is not that they lack intuition just that they would be slower to acquire context.
Intuitives can be an autist. Slower to acquire context.
I mean, I’ve always been kind of a lone wolf. Never depended on anybody for anything. I’ve always made myself a successful individual by relying on myself. I haven’t had the luxury of a true friend or anyone to really help me out in a time of crisis. But that’s life, I suppose.
I’m especially a lone wolf on this blog. Seems to me like y’all praying on my downfall but it’s whatever. One day I’ll recuperate from it all.
Very amusing story
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/11/shakhtar-donetsk-taison-racist-abuse
eastern europeans are based and russia is still a richer country than chiner.
Why do blacks have so many sex scandals where they abuse whites? Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, MJ, the list goes on and on.
Becuase no one cares about black women, so it doesnt get reported.
On average, blacks are nicer towards white women than black women becuase they know they are not in their league.
You are obsessed with black men. They have minimal power and the little they have is almost always attenuated by superiors. The fact that you cant see how weak the average black man is, is evidence of your autism. I would go into more detail but pp would redact it.
Most people are governed by either compulsive or impulsive behaviors. They’re either going to do things by familiarity or try a new approach to building future compulsive behaviors. It’s a spectrum in and of itself.
If my abstract ability is low, this must mean my intuition is high because those are the only ways to come to conclusions such as this one.
It’s either one or the other, with the first being governed by taking new ideas and putting them together and intuition is taking whole parts and drawing conclusions from them, much like critical thinking.
Chorover on Binet (from Mensh and Mensh, 1991: 42-43):
“[Binet’s] basic design idea was to deign a test . . . on which children at a given age or grade level would do either well or poorly, depending on whether or not they were doing well or poorly in school. Preliminary versions of the test were administered to small groups of children whose scores were compared with their teachers’ ratings of classroom performance. In the process, items were deleted or added to bring about the closest correspondence between test performance and and educational age norms. In its final form, Binet’s test provided an index of scholastic performance based upon the prevailing standard of scholastic success.”
[…]
“Thus the relationship of a child’s score to the average score determined whether he or she would be classified as of average, superior, or inferior intelligence. This meant that, contrary to claims made for it, the test did not rank individuals in an objective way but according to an arbitrary standard. Because the test was conducted with scholastic-type items, the children from groups whose education was superior necessarily made higher scores—which upheld the prior assumption that different classes and races have superior and inferior intelligence.
Binet could hardly have been unaware that he had decided a circular method in which the assumption that school auxxez is a measure of intelligence is “validated” by a test whose covert criterion is school success. That he was troubled by this point is the only way to explain his proposal that he’d measurement be used to “confirm” the verdicts of mental measurement.” (Mensh and Mensh, 1991: 43-44)
Mensh and Mensh also have a long discussion of Gould’s writings on Binet in Mismeasure. Gould stated that the army tests data had a “rotten core” but then says, about the same data, that they were “pure numbers” and “As pure numbers, these data carried no inherent social message. They might have been used to promote equality of opportunity.”
Mensh and Mensh, of course, then criticized Gould for saying two different things about the same data, writing:
“In the many decades since the first army tests, a great number of gears have been interpreted from an environmentalist standpoint, yet there is no instance when the tests have helped to promote equality of opportunity. Nor could there ever be. It is paradoxical to maintain that IQ tests, which are inherently biased, can promote equal opportunity. The tests do what their construction dictates; they correlate a group’s mental worth with its place in the social hierarchy.” (Mensh and Mensh, 1991, The IQ Mythology, pg 30)
Lastly, Montague published a new analysis of the army scores in 1945. It’s interesting to note that the “selective migration” thesis was formulated to explain away the fact that northern blacks scored higher than southern blacks. (Remember the Klineberg citation?) Recall that Klineberg showed that differences in education were the cause, not selective migration.
In any case, after Klineberg’s four-state analysis, Montagu found that no stats existed for black draftees for 25 states, he calculated black and white median Alpha scores for 19 state and DC (along with means for the Beta). When he added the means for the Alpha, blacks from 4 northern states did better than whites from 9 southern ones. Beta scores correlated highly with Alpha scores. Ohio blacks outscored whites from 11 southern states, and that Ohio blacks did better than whites from 9 northern states. So what Montagu showed was that the lowest scores exist for both whites and blacks in the South. Montgua then wrote:
“The deeper the South the lower the score. Which can be attributed to school quality as Klineberg showed (and as Ceci does as well in On Intelligence).
“The [IQ] testers’ prior judgments are not about “individuals,” but about the classes and races they belong to.” (Mensh and Mensh, 1991: pg 41)
“number of gears”
“gears” = tests
“school auxxez”
“auxxez” = success
Damn autocorrect.
Being taller/shorter is associated with better/worse health at least for groups of human both in time and in social categories.
But if you look at the list of tallest people on wiki, 7 feet 4 for male and 7 feet for female, the average life expectancy is around 35 yo. So we could say that being at +2sd in height is pretty cool but at +5sd it is pretty horrible. Probably around 6.7 feet for male, it becomes more bad than good.
I wonder if for IQ, the 3.3 sd threshold (150 or 1 In 2500) isn’t a turning point when you start to get loads of mental issues.
But those were not biologically normal tall people. They likely had a pituitary disease
And the intelligence of individuals with an IQ higher than 150 isn’t biologically normal at times either, with mutations all over the place, particularly with diseases like Tay-Sachs, and other issues that’ll effect mental health and cognitive output as opposed to ability.
https://www.quora.com/What-was-Steve-Jobs-IQ
Hey have you ever done an IQ estimate for Steve Job’s. I havent read the whole Walter Isaacson biography but im pretty sure its in there. Regardless, Jobs is an interesting example of a guy who wasnt the smartest person in his cohort (Wozniak was) but was pretty successful nonetheless, (although nevef the richest in the world). His success and influence seems like it might be outsized relative to his IQ. What do you think
Puppy is working on his iq analysis of ‘macho man’ randy savage right now. Stop distracting him he needs to concentrate.
G-man, we had an interesting discussion about how blacks in America have significant Scotch-Irish admixture in the past. Do you think this has contributed to a black underclass? Basically, blacks who are descended from slave-owners being wealthier and better-off than those who have Scotch-Irish ancestry?
Would love to know your position on this subject.
. Do you think this has contributed to a black underclass?
No
And why not, Pumpkin? Don’t you think there are high-achieving African-Americans in parts of the United States, maybe even North America, when compared to all African-Americans as a whole? And doesn’t genetic input from various high-achieving or low-achieving populations contribute to this?
Blacks with Scotch-Irish genes might have relatively more psychopathy genes than those mixed with Southern English stock.
Haha @evopsychgoogle published a letter to the editors of Rushton and Templer’s melanocortin paper. He decimated the paper last week on twitter as well. About time this garbage ‘research’ is getting the critiques it deserves.
View at Medium.com
When chris Matthew’s says this stuff he makes baby jesus cry.
trump has torn the mask off media for more people. at least he’s done that.
It’s honestly kind of amazing that half the country thinks obviously fake and grammatically incorrect blog/social media posts changed the outcome of a national election.
And it’s also funny how liberals completely abandoned their push for campaign finance reform (a legitimate issue) after Hillary spent like 2x the money Trump did.
It seems as though social intelligence depends on the people you’re interacting with. Social norms are more fraudulent and the result of societal values than primary intelligence, so why is RR not all up in arms about the falsification that there’s a social IQ than he is about testing other cognitive abilities?
Bill Gates seems like a very socially intelligent person if he’s interacting with fellow “nerds” and geniuses. Yes, if he’s interacting with a layman, obviously he’s going to have problems but that’s not a necessity in his daily interactions.
The point about mimicry from Lion’s blog is an excellent one because if you’re not allowed to access a person’s lexicon and behavioral actions, you won’t be able to socially interact with them. This is interesting because it proves that intelligent people have the capacity to learn how to be just as “socially intelligent” as others but fail to have the life experiences and mental ambitions of others, leaving them socially behind.
In this way, I’m the RR of social intelligence, reporting my belief that it does not exist, because it is more culturally impacted than being born with innate abilities for it. Primary intelligence, as I like to call it, is far more innate than social intelligence, to say the least.
Its definitely innate. You can make an aspy go to 100 parties with really charismatic and cool people and they won’t become socially adept or charismatic.
Actually I meant its at least 50% innate. I think you can train yourself for it. Like the way in math you can train yourself through practice and rote learning formulae. But the innate ability will dictate how fast you learn and what your ceiling is imo.
Hmm, okay, then logically, you can’t deny that “primary” intelligence also exists innately because that’s far less impacted by environment than social intelligence. And this is aimed at anyone who denies it…you’d simply have to be a moron not to understand.
I agree with you, Pill, but that isn’t because of a strange phenomenon we can’t explain but simply because their brain wiring prevents them from absorbing the information necessary to become charismatic.
Anyways, glad you commented because I have an addendum to what I wrote and that is that certain IQs fit better with certain types of social intelligence than others. A low IQ will benefit a criminal far more than a higher one. A higher IQ will benefit someone in being sociable around certain groups of people and an IQ between 110-125 will focus on being charismatic towards everyone and pursuing social interests that will have the most positive returns for that person.
So there are sweet spots for IQs that can lead to social intelligence being represented at those levels. And usually, if there is not brain-malfunctioning,, peoples’ social intelligence will herd around what IQ they have.
Youve said more than 3 comments today.
Depends what time zone you’re in…
Pumpkin, why did you moderate me posting that article about Lucy and blood flow and brain size not being an important determinant of intelligence? Is it because you can’t stand to see your life work thrown to waste? Is there any goddamn scientific integrity left in this world!?
It doesn’t debunk the importance of brain size; just shows that a bigger brain needs more blood.
I moderated it because it’s grotesque & we’ve discussed it before
Whats so grotesque about it? Is there a picture or something?
It creates a mental picture of blood pouring over a brain.
Vladimir Putin was the Council of Foreign Relations bete noir because he took back the power and wealth of the (((oligarchs))). That said he has shown he works with some of them. People like Abramovich have held regional political positions under Putin.
My friend visited Moscow recently and saw a wealthy city. So what drags russian GNP pr capita down to malaysian level must be that rural russia is REALLY poor.
Moscow is a huge city of 25 million inhabitants. No way he went around the entire city. But yes wealth is concertrated in st peterburg and moscow, and some in the sweet warm weather of rostov.
Im trying to figure out whether the Deep State hates gentiles or more specifically Palestinians/Iranians more.
Iran under the direction of the council on foreign relations had a puppet shah who basically was a prostitute for oil companies and David Rockefeller.
Anyway, they got rid of the Shah and introduced hardcore Islamic rule instead of returning to a secular republic. Along the way Jimmy Carter got kicked out of office for dawdling about the hostages….
And for a period under George Bush II it looked like Iran was going to be invaded.
Nowadays Iran has secured itself a fairly tenuous position with buffer state Syria having been partially invaded by the Israeli empire (i.e US army) and basically Russia is guaranteeing its existence or stopping invasion.
The other thing I’d like to clear up is what the gameplan is on Europe. Obviously the EU is an attempt to introduce a Soviet government to Europe and make it easier to rule by a smaller group of people. I don’t know if (((they))) were involved. I doubt it.
Anyways, whats the end game? Let Africans/Muslims overrun Europe?
Its hard to see how useful Europe would be to [redacted by pp, nov 14, 2019]
I just don’t see the angle. Somebody help me.
The goal is to take over Europe & the entire Middle East. They can’t do that now because whites are too good at defending themselves so first replace whites with lower IQ groups who can be dominated
thinking can’t vote for bernie after reading gilad atzmon’s article.
bernie says he’s “a proud Jewish American” and “some criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination to Jews…”
but bernie thinks it’s racist to say one is “a proud white american” or to support the right of self-determination for europeans.
what a hypocritical douchebag.
http://www.unz.com/gatzmon/the-jewish-progressive-agenda-according-to-bernie-sanders/
In the game Borderlands 2, if you download the DLC you get to explore the mind of Claptrap. Its hilarious. Very good insight into the way Puppy thinks.
It’s funny, we keep repeating the same things over and over to Pill but he doesn’t seem to understand…Jews hate gentiles more because they actually committed atrocities against them whereas the Middle East is more of a holy war between Muslims and Jews for Jerusalem. there’s no real animosity between Jews and Arabs except for the religious circumstances that have arisen.
So basically we’ve learned from this comment you know hardly anything about mid east politics.
I mean, I’ve followed it closely enough when I was younger but I don’t really have a strong belief on anything besides the stuff that happens to be reported in the news. Regardless, I think Jews and Arabs have a lot of friction between one another mainly because of Jerusalem and proximity as opposed to actual need for domination of one another/competition for power and resources, I suppose.
It really depends on what your religious views are…if you’re a practicing Christian, there will be a fear of Muslims; if you’re a Jew, then it’ll be Christians; if you’re a Muslim, it will be Jews. Take away religion and you have ethnic identity politics. Arabs and Israelis can get along and eventually will for practical reasons anyways. Turks and Persians and other races in the Middle East, not so much unfortunately.
I don’t think Jews hate gentiles or whites. Jews especially ashkenazi Jews are themselves part white. I think they are more white than middle eastern.
Jews and MENA people are the same race as “whites” (Europeans): Caucasian.
But are they the same sub-race?
or not.
geographic barriers = med + bosphorus, caucasus, himalaya, the Central Asian northern desert.
easy to tell euromeds from MENAs.
I mean, Jews and Arabs are primarily the same people. They get along well on an individual level but I think Jews feel inferior to Gentiles because they’ll never be full-on white.
Seems like social intelligence can be amplified by primary intelligence quite a bit because you see in plenty of races, particularly African-Americans, where higher IQ actually leads to better functioning. If IQ and wealth are correlated then the assumption that intelligence is actually benefiting an individual in terms of social interactions must be true too. The higher the abstract ability of a person is, the more they are subconsciously in tune with the social world around them.
Currently watching Rain Man, Pill’s favorite movie hahaha.
Once again, we are treated to more funky math by none other than pumpkinperson.
How the hell do you go from
“Billionaires who inherited their wealth likely average an IQ of 115.”
to “Thus all U.S. billionaires combined likely average IQ 127.”
and then from that to “Meanwhile, aesthetic judgement has a g loading of 0.6 (see table 6.14) so we might expect them to average 0.6(27) + 100 = 116 in fashion sense.”?
That doesn’t look correct…
What the hell are you smoking, pumpkin? How can you even pretend to calculate a “fashion” IQ without knowing the regression equation between the two variables you are calculating? The correlation coefficient is not enough. Correlation and mean have nothing to do with each other. It seems to me like you haven’t yet mastered the most basic statistical concepts and you are adventuring yourself too much in fields you are not really experienced for. May one or two online classes on this subject help you in the future.
“Billionaires who inherited their wealth likely average an IQ of 115.”
to “Thus all U.S. billionaires combined likely average IQ 127.”
Because only a third inherited
and then from that to “Meanwhile, aesthetic judgement has a g loading of 0.6 (see table 6.14) so we might expect them to average 0.6(27) + 100 = 116 in fashion sense.”?
That doesn’t look correct…
What the hell are you smoking, pumpkin? How can you even pretend to calculate a “fashion” IQ without knowing the regression equation between the two variables you are calculating? The correlation coefficient is not enough.
Because when you impose a bivariate normal standardized distribution, the regression equation is simply Y = rX where r is the correlation
I finally came across a copy of The Development of Intelligence in Children (Binet and Simon, 1916) with notes marginal notes from Terman littered throughout the book.
I just got to the part in the book where they discuss these faces so here’s some background.(pg 202) (This was published by Goddard, originally in 1916.)
“Esthetic comparison. It cannot be denied that all young children have a sense of the beautiful, and that this sense may be made evident, if a problem is presented in a simple way, for example, by asking the children to compare and make a choice between two figures, one of which is pretty, and the other ugly; but the contrast between the figures must be very great. This question is very interesting from a philosophic point of view and one can easily demonstrate that there is no faculty found in the adult which does not already exist to some degree in the child.
This is our procedure. We use six drawings (fig. 5) representing heads of women; some are pretty, the others ugly, even deformed: we make the comparison by presenting faces two at a time, and say to the child each time, “Which is the prettier of these two faces?” It is necessary that the child should reply correctly three times. Care has been taken to place the pretty head sometimes at the right, sometimes at the left, to prevent the subject happening to be right simply because he had acquired the habit of always designating the figure on a given side. One must always be on guard against this automatic tendency to always follow the same direction; it is extremely frequent among children.
At six years children compare correctly the three pairs of faces; at five years they succeed very poorly, only half giving the correct reply.”
(Replied to the other by mistake.)
Sounds like a fascinating book. It’s interesting that there’d be such a jump just from age five to six.
It’s a good read. They wrote about many of the items and subtests they created. They have things from individual teachers on their assessments. Children they tested, what they did or didn’t do, what they got right or wrong. If you come across a copy somewhere you should pick it up. It took me a long time to find it, I found it in my uni library.
In terms of honesty and humility, it seems scientists seem to be the worst. Historians are on the other end of that spectrum for sure.
Scientists manipulate things for their best interests, far more than any other academic profession.