"If you’re of average to sub-Mensa intelligence, in the range of 84 to 132 IQ, consider how much you enjoy talking to young children. You probably don’t hate it, you likely won’t go out of your way to avoid it, and it can even be enjoyable in small doses, but chances are that you’d pay just about any price to avoid doing it all day, every day, for the rest of your life."
Slightly off-topic: True, which is why VHIQ women need to be especially encouraged to have more kids. 1000 years ago a 150 IQ woman might have had 8 or 10. Now, none or one. Heck, few women above IQ 100 want kids. This has been the most successful propaganda campaign of the last 100 years, with the most pernicious effects.
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.
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.
It occurs to me that there may be elements of r/K in the differences BTW alpha & sigma.
"If you’re of average to sub-Mensa intelligence, in the range of 84 to 132 IQ, consider how much you enjoy talking to young children. You probably don’t hate it, you likely won’t go out of your way to avoid it, and it can even be enjoyable in small doses, but chances are that you’d pay just about any price to avoid doing it all day, every day, for the rest of your life."
Slightly off-topic: True, which is why VHIQ women need to be especially encouraged to have more kids. 1000 years ago a 150 IQ woman might have had 8 or 10. Now, none or one. Heck, few women above IQ 100 want kids. This has been the most successful propaganda campaign of the last 100 years, with the most pernicious effects.
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.
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.
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.