Is the communication gap based more on ignorance than intelligence? Speaking strictly from a personal experience standpoint, folks that I regularly conversed with over 20 years ago - at least those still alive - simply have not had the experience I've had in the last 20 years by simply reading, reading, reading - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-height-of-ignorance-when-it-becomes.html?m=0 - reading a variety of sources has brought me into a world of reality, whereas many of my friends and family members are living in a delusional past which never existed but they fervently believe in it.
No. Not in the least. No VHIQ person wants to hear your take on the "world of reality". In general, the more intelligent one is, the less one cares about others agreeing or not.
Well - they wouldn't admit to being excited, due to the prevalence of i.q. bell curves in perception of observable reality. Knowing the need to hide one's power level from the prurient, cancel culture, wokist midwits, as well as from grok, who simply doesn't know how/why/when to shut up, is the mark of a brilliant mind, in my experience.
Deep down, we all crave connection with kindred spirits. The opportunity to debate ideas on their merits is all too rare. Opportunities to learn from greater minds. Opportunities to share knowledge with receptive fellows, eager to broaden their own worldview.
It's like explaining that China and Russia are doing better than the US in geopolitics to people that read Alt-media, but not the correct alt-media. They're slightly above regular intelligence, so they assume that what their preconceptions are, are correct. They believe Peter Zeihan's neo-con BS, and forget he's been wrong and don't check that the only reason that anyone's "demographic projections" about the US are correct are because of the Southern border, which messes up IQ, social stability, economics, and still has declining birth rates after a couple generations.
But you challenge them on that, and they see that they're more educated than the average person and think that makes them right. Now apply this across any number of fields or studies, and you just learn to pick your battles.
It's especially frustrating when you're more intelligent then the leaders; as a Bravo, trying to either convince people that are leading or push into leadership positions. They're informal positions, but I have one community leader that bulldogs his way around and one that seeks consensus opinions, and they both come with their own difficulties. Might be more trouble than its worth to take leadership, I haven't decided.
There is a concept of hierarchical leadership in the Old Testament, where there were such things "leaders of 10s," leaders of 100s," and "leaders of 1000s."
Sidepoint: IIRC not explicitly stated in the text was which class were higher in the hierarchy. I would assume the 10s were the "generals" the 100s their "captains" and the 1000s the "corporals", but the opposite could easily be true.
Main point: I've always assumed this hierarchy was based on perceived wisdom and intelligence, and this could prove be literary evidence IQ selection of leaders extending into ancient times.
Don't think it's linked to IQ. Some seem to pick up on the hierarchy without having a lot of mental acumen. Conversely, some with plenty of horsepower - especially introverted types - seem to have little idea it exists. Which is exactly why the initial Alpha Game blog was so powerful. Without that codification and the time to figure it all out, many high IQs never bothered to take the time to figure it out, let alone become a general, captain, or corporal.
I think it's the outright hostility from the normies hierarchy that is tiresome more than patience explaining it.
Like the Twilight Zone episode where the man on a plane sees a monster destroying the wing and only he can see it. He desperately is fighting it to save his own life and the lives of those around him but ends up committed in a straightjacket for his trouble. No one else can see the monster but him, so it must not be real, they say. They benefit from his lone labor and the man who can see and defeats the monster gets less than jack shit, he gets actually imprisoned.
Idiocracy would have been more on point with that if he were beaten and outcast for saying plants want water instead of merely being met with dumb unblinking gazes and corporate slogans. Re: Doctors using ivermectin and refusing to use ventilators because they could see the monster on the wing. They weren't just tired from explaining it, they were attacked and many lost livelihoods that cost 100s of $1000s in student debt to get licenses for.
Guess what the 'smart' thing to do is if you get put in a straightjacket every time you fight plane monsters? You stop going on planes and you stop mentioning monsters. Communication gap made manifest.
It occurs to me that there may be elements of r/K in the differences BTW alpha & sigma.
Is the communication gap based more on ignorance than intelligence? Speaking strictly from a personal experience standpoint, folks that I regularly conversed with over 20 years ago - at least those still alive - simply have not had the experience I've had in the last 20 years by simply reading, reading, reading - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-height-of-ignorance-when-it-becomes.html?m=0 - reading a variety of sources has brought me into a world of reality, whereas many of my friends and family members are living in a delusional past which never existed but they fervently believe in it.
No. Not in the least. No VHIQ person wants to hear your take on the "world of reality". In general, the more intelligent one is, the less one cares about others agreeing or not.
Well - they wouldn't admit to being excited, due to the prevalence of i.q. bell curves in perception of observable reality. Knowing the need to hide one's power level from the prurient, cancel culture, wokist midwits, as well as from grok, who simply doesn't know how/why/when to shut up, is the mark of a brilliant mind, in my experience.
Deep down, we all crave connection with kindred spirits. The opportunity to debate ideas on their merits is all too rare. Opportunities to learn from greater minds. Opportunities to share knowledge with receptive fellows, eager to broaden their own worldview.
Dave gets this exactly right.
It's like explaining that China and Russia are doing better than the US in geopolitics to people that read Alt-media, but not the correct alt-media. They're slightly above regular intelligence, so they assume that what their preconceptions are, are correct. They believe Peter Zeihan's neo-con BS, and forget he's been wrong and don't check that the only reason that anyone's "demographic projections" about the US are correct are because of the Southern border, which messes up IQ, social stability, economics, and still has declining birth rates after a couple generations.
But you challenge them on that, and they see that they're more educated than the average person and think that makes them right. Now apply this across any number of fields or studies, and you just learn to pick your battles.
It's especially frustrating when you're more intelligent then the leaders; as a Bravo, trying to either convince people that are leading or push into leadership positions. They're informal positions, but I have one community leader that bulldogs his way around and one that seeks consensus opinions, and they both come with their own difficulties. Might be more trouble than its worth to take leadership, I haven't decided.
There is a concept of hierarchical leadership in the Old Testament, where there were such things "leaders of 10s," leaders of 100s," and "leaders of 1000s."
Sidepoint: IIRC not explicitly stated in the text was which class were higher in the hierarchy. I would assume the 10s were the "generals" the 100s their "captains" and the 1000s the "corporals", but the opposite could easily be true.
Main point: I've always assumed this hierarchy was based on perceived wisdom and intelligence, and this could prove be literary evidence IQ selection of leaders extending into ancient times.
Don't think it's linked to IQ. Some seem to pick up on the hierarchy without having a lot of mental acumen. Conversely, some with plenty of horsepower - especially introverted types - seem to have little idea it exists. Which is exactly why the initial Alpha Game blog was so powerful. Without that codification and the time to figure it all out, many high IQs never bothered to take the time to figure it out, let alone become a general, captain, or corporal.
The cognitive profile of academia kneecaps its self-perception. Operating in a delusion bubble is structurally gamma.
It would be interesting to know what the intelligence distributions of the profiles are and if there are correlative patterns.
I think it's the outright hostility from the normies hierarchy that is tiresome more than patience explaining it.
Like the Twilight Zone episode where the man on a plane sees a monster destroying the wing and only he can see it. He desperately is fighting it to save his own life and the lives of those around him but ends up committed in a straightjacket for his trouble. No one else can see the monster but him, so it must not be real, they say. They benefit from his lone labor and the man who can see and defeats the monster gets less than jack shit, he gets actually imprisoned.
Idiocracy would have been more on point with that if he were beaten and outcast for saying plants want water instead of merely being met with dumb unblinking gazes and corporate slogans. Re: Doctors using ivermectin and refusing to use ventilators because they could see the monster on the wing. They weren't just tired from explaining it, they were attacked and many lost livelihoods that cost 100s of $1000s in student debt to get licenses for.
Guess what the 'smart' thing to do is if you get put in a straightjacket every time you fight plane monsters? You stop going on planes and you stop mentioning monsters. Communication gap made manifest.
That's a succinct and perspicacious way to describe the allure of reducing interaction.