How 150+ IQ people don't wake up is beyond me

[Hojo]

knowing creates baggage if they identify with their iq they identify with science and math more than nothing.

If they knew nothing and were 150 iq they would know god

Edited May 30 by Hojo

[Husseinisdoingfine]

This is because the IQ test is a very niche and narrow test. Intelligence has many dimensions and is much more holistic.

High IQ, academic group think is still group think. The smartest thing to do with an IQ test is to never take one.

[Kuba Powiertowski]

On 30.05.2024 at 2:31 AM, Yimpa said:

How much IQ does God have? 

All

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, nuwu said:

Evidently intelligence is fictional, similar to how characters in a book are not considered individual sources of intelligence. However in sleepy states, assumption of ego theories and relative survival incentives may define perspective networks, or equivalent, as wave functions shaping top-down and bottom-up pseudo-constraints from which layered singularities accrete self-reflective qualia potentials. Even in this context, conscious growth may not be isolated by a quantitative approach subject to systemic bias of extrinsic confirmation | heterogenous knowledge graph inter-mappings | non-symbolic understandings | mismatch emotional valuation | failure to capture long-term potentials or local-extremum (of dynamics | organisms | systems) in multiple dimensions such as time (weighted bias in short-term adaptability and transfer learning of non-consequential closed systems such as puzzles, shadowing non-constructive cognitive functions with reduced effectiveness in processing language-based information transfer reinforcing negative cycles between neglected knowledge corpus and perceived utility thus eventually exclude the quality from traditional quotient models) and scale of organisms (globally inefficient compute structures at the expense of collective intelligence or awawareness expansion). Concretely, non-human primates have proficient visual working memory and significantly outperform humans on related tasks, whereas auto-regressive artificial models may vastly surpass human capabilities in various tests with debatable creative potentials.

@Reciprocality

 Do you understand this?

Edited June 1 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

38 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

@Reciprocality

 Do you understand this?

Alright kiddo, imagine you're in a big playroom with lots of different toys and games. Let's break this down:

1. **Intelligence is like a pretend game:** Just like how characters in your favorite storybooks aren't real people, intelligence is like something we pretend exists in a certain way, but it's not a real thing you can touch or see.

2. **Dreaming and ideas:** When you're sleepy or dreaming, you can think of all sorts of wild ideas and imagine things from different angles, just like a fun, twisty slide in the playground.

3. **Making sense of things:** We try to understand these ideas by putting them in boxes and rules, like sorting your toys into different bins. But sometimes, this doesn't capture the whole picture, just like sorting only by color misses out on which toys are your favorites.

4. **Growing and learning:** Growing smarter isn't just about counting how many things you know. It's more about understanding things deeply and using that knowledge well, like knowing not just the names of your toys but how to play with them in creative ways.

5. **Different ways to be smart:** People and animals can be smart in different ways. Monkeys might remember where their food is better than humans, and computers might solve puzzles faster, but being smart isn't just about one thing. It's like having a bunch of different superpowers.

6. **Learning together:** Sometimes, working together and sharing ideas makes us all smarter. It's like when you and your friends build a huge castle out of blocks together. But if we don't talk and share, we might miss out on cool ideas and fun games.

So, being smart is like playing in a big playroom with lots of toys, ideas, and friends, and finding fun and interesting ways to learn and grow together!

[PenguinPablo]

On 5/17/2024 at 5:13 PM, Leo Gura said:

IQ is a poor measurent of intelligence.

Intelligence has to be redefined so that it's also connected to level of consciousness and level of development. And even moral development should be a factor.

Boiling intelligence down to one's ability to do complex physics calcuations is, ironically, not very intelligent.

that would be a great video idea. i know youve talked about it. but expanding on it

[PenguinPablo]

Why doesn't everyone intelligent succeed in life? If they're so smart, wouldn't they easily figure life out?

[Yimpa]

25 minutes ago, PenguinPablo said:

Why doesn't everyone intelligent succeed in life? If they're so smart, wouldn't they easily figure life out?

They’ve figured out a small sliver of reality and become very successfully in that area.

[What Am I]

I think I'm just average in intelligence, but when I had my first taste of authentic higher consciousness, my mind was open enough to the possibilities that I was forced to accept spirituality being the actual state of affairs. It instantly flipped from a fuzzy agnostic "maybe, who knows?" to an undoubtedly true "obviously, how can others miss this?". There's people way intellectually superior to me who I'm sure have had way deeper spiritual experiences than me (through psychedelics or whatever), and in all likelihood, they'll remain staunch materialists for their entire lives.

So at least for me, I think the main factor wasn't IQ, but rather an open-mindedness and a willingness to step completely outside of what "everyone knows", once being blessed with evidence. There could also be hidden metaphysical reasons why a person becomes aware of spirituality or not.

Edited June 1 by What Am I

[Carl-Richard]

@Nilsi

I feel like a worker in an asylum.

[Carl-Richard]

Hey, I finally found an AI answer I agree with:
 

Quote

Question

Rate the communicative clarity of this sentence:

"Conscious growth may not be isolated by a quantitative approach subject to systemic bias of extrinsic confirmation | heterogenous knowledge graph inter-mappings | non-symbolic understandings | mismatch emotional valuation | failure to capture long-term potentials or local-extremum (of dynamics | organisms | systems) in multiple dimensions such as time (weighted bias in short-term adaptability and transfer learning of non-consequential closed systems such as puzzles, shadowing non-constructive cognitive functions with reduced effectiveness in processing language-based information transfer reinforcing negative cycles between neglected knowledge corpus and perceived utility thus eventually exclude the quality from traditional quotient models) and scale of organisms (globally inefficient compute structures at the expense of collective intelligence or awawareness expansion)."

 

Answer

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being extremely clear and easy to understand, I would rate the communicative clarity of that sentence as a 1. The sentence is excessively long, convoluted, and filled with complex technical jargon, making it extremely difficult to comprehend the intended meaning. Here are the major issues that severely impair its clarity:

1. Length: The sentence is extraordinarily long, spanning multiple lines. Such excessive length makes it challenging for the reader to follow the logical flow and retain the overall meaning.
2. Complexity: The sentence employs numerous complex phrases and technical terms, such as "heterogenous knowledge graph inter-mappings," "non-symbolic understandings," "non-consequential closed systems," and "globally inefficient compute structures." These terms are likely unfamiliar to most readers and contribute significantly to the sentence's complexity.
3. Lack of coherence: The sentence attempts to convey multiple complex ideas simultaneously, jumping from one concept to another without clear transitions or logical connections. This lack of coherence makes it extremely difficult to follow the intended meaning.
4. Unconventional punctuation: The use of the vertical bar (|) as a separator between parallel elements is unconventional and adds to the visual clutter, further impeding readability.
5. Nested parentheses: The sentence contains multiple nested parenthetical expressions, making it challenging to discern the relationships between different clauses and ideas.
6. Ambiguity: Due to the excessive complexity and lack of clarity, the sentence is highly ambiguous, leaving the reader uncertain about the precise meaning or intention behind the statement.

To improve the communicative clarity of this sentence, it would need to be significantly restructured and simplified. Breaking it down into multiple shorter sentences, using more common terminology, and providing clear transitions between ideas would greatly enhance its readability and comprehensibility. Effective communication relies heavily on clarity, conciseness, and the appropriate use of language tailored to the intended audience. In its current form, this sentence fails to meet these fundamental principles, making it extremely difficult for the reader to grasp the intended meaning.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Explain-this-text-d0WMuoy5QquJZ.wbtp5wug; https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Rate-the-communicative-7QVPg1KvQnSMtgPfgfKC7g

 

@nuwu Here is some general advice:

Grice’s Maxims of Conversation

• Maxim of relation
  • Be relevant to the aim of the conversation!
• Maxim of quantity
  • Be as informative as required (but not more)!
• Maxim of manner
  • Be clear!
• Maxim of quality
  • Be truthful!

Edited June 1 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

31 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Nilsi

I feel like a worker in an asylum.

pahaha  

[Nilsi]

25 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Hey, I finally found an AI answer I agree with:
 

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Explain-this-text-d0WMuoy5QquJZ.wbtp5wug

 

@nuwu Here is some general advice:

Grice’s Maxims of Conversation

• Maxim of relation
  • Be relevant to the aim of the conversation!
• Maxim of quantity
  • Be as informative as required (but not more)!
• Maxim of manner
  • Be clear!
• Maxim of quality
  • Be truthful!

i agree that this was a uniquely obscure and atrociously structured argument, but i disagree with the premise that what we’re doing here falls into the category of "conversational communication in common social situations," as your "maxims of conversation" imply.

if i wanted to have a "conversational communication," i would precisely seek out a "common social situation." i would step out on my terrace and have a chat with my neighbor, or meet up with my friends in a bar, not visit an online forum which mostly appeals to ubernerds.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Nilsi said:

i agree that this was a uniquely obscure and atrociously structured argument, but i disagree with the premise that what we’re doing here falls into the category of "conversational communication in common social situations," as your "maxims of conversation" imply.

if i wanted to have a "conversational communication," i would precisely seek out a "common social situation." i would step out on my terrace and have a chat with my neighbor, or meet up with my friends in a bar, not visit an online forum which mostly appeals to ubernerds.

I would argue this is a common social situation. We're chatting. But let's assume it's not: how do you think we would achieve effective communication in this situation?

[Nilsi]

37 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I would argue this is a common social situation. We're chatting. But let's assume it's not: how do you think we would achieve effective communication in this situation?

i don't know if you're arguing that this is just leisure, or that there is somehow a shared mission of "personal growth," or whatever, but i would claim it's mostly neither of those.

i would assume most people's actual (probably largely unconscious) motivation for coming here is having their identity validated, because they don't have any social structures in their everyday life that value traits like "consciousness," "intellectual sophistication," "moral development," or whatever. and i also suspect that many individuals here have developed these traits to the detriment of other, more generally valued traits, so of course people will try to signal these traits as strongly as possible to reinforce their sense of self-worth, which is the primary reason why they are here in the first place.

i guess your allegory of the insane asylum is actually not that far off from how to conceptualize this place, only that "insane" is, of course, a highly relativistic and loaded term. if foucault were still around to write a sequel to "discipline and punish," i'm sure he would have a lot to say about forums like reddit, 4chan, and our lovely place, as far as "neurodivergent" people being shoved to the recesses of society goes.

Edited June 1 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

i don't know if you're arguing that this is just leisure, or that there is somehow a shared mission of "personal growth," or whatever, but i would claim it's mostly neither of those.

I'm arguing that we're trying to communicate (I'm not being deliberately obtuse by the way).

 

8 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

i would assume most people's actual (probably largely unconscious) motivation for coming here is having their identity validated, because they don't have any social structures in their everyday life that value traits like "consciousness," "intellectual sophistication," "moral development," or whatever. and i also suspect that many individuals here have developed these traits to the detriment of other, more generally valued traits, so of course people will try to signal these traits as strongly as possible to reinforce their sense of self-worth, which is the primary reason why they are here in the first place.

I wasn't asking why you think people come here. I was asking how you think people would communicate in this place most effectively. I think the maxims I provided apply perfectly. If not, what would be your maxims?

[Nilsi]

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm arguing that we're trying to communicate (I'm not being deliberately obtuse by the way).

 

I wasn't asking why you think people come here. I was asking how you think people would communicate in this place most effectively. I think the maxims I provided apply perfectly. If not, what would be your maxims?

you assume people come here to "communicate," which i argue is not the case.

the medium is the message. and the primary message of most people here is "look how spiritual/smart/virtuous/etc. i am." whether the actual content of the communication is intelligible to others is only incidental.

i would even go as far as to say that such "simulated" communication, to use baudrillard's term, is the primary characteristic of social exchange in our postmodern society in general, and that your concern with "effective communication" is largely a nostalgia for authenticity, which is a rather reactionist stance to take.

Edited June 1 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

On 2.6.2024 at 0:06 AM, Nilsi said:

you assume people come here to "communicate," which i argue is not the case.

the medium is the message. and the primary message of most people here is "look how spiritual/smart/virtuous/etc. i am." whether the actual content of the communication is intelligible to others is only incidental.

Maybe that is why some people come here (or why you come here ), but be careful with projecting that too much 😅 I see many people trying their best to communicate effectively along the maxims I provided.

 

On 2.6.2024 at 0:06 AM, Nilsi said:

i would even go as far as to say that such "simulated" communication, to use baudrillard's term, is the primary characteristic of social exchange in our postmodern society in general, and that your concern with "effective communication" is largely a nostalgia for authenticity, which is a rather reactionist stance to take.

I can maybe see that, but also, on the contrary, I think the "expression without content" is actually sometimes an authentic expression, and that it often takes deliberate effort and practice to step out of that and more into effective communication. That was at least the case for me to a large extent.

And I see this dynamic in particularly Jordan Peterson. He explicitly answered "that is not my problem" to Alex O'Connor's question if he understood how people might misunderstand him due to the way he speaks. He seems to value his authentic expression over what others seem to call clarity, and maybe even quite deliberately.

After all, this "artistic" approach to verbal communication has some positive elements to it in that it engages and enthralls the listener, and it makes the listening experience an aesthetic experience as well as an intellectual experience, and in a sense it adds depth or provides ease of access in a counterintuitive way beyond mere concepts (the word I'm looking for might simply be "charisma"; that is, if I were to be concise. But should I be? 😉). Maybe it also allows your mind to go in places where it doesn't usually go and to connect different concepts more easily. Authentic inspiration is powerful, even though it can be murky and imprecise.

So maybe there are situations where you should deliberately avoid venturing into the realm of crystal clear communication and keep your listeners at the edge of their seat (and your mind at the edge of its capacity). But that said, there is a difference between doing that deliberately and doing that unintentionally. It's at least an invaluable skill to learn (effective communication), if not pursue passionately, not primarily for other's sake, but for your own sake. Communication is just thinking out loud. Even if you're letting some part of yourself die in the process of becoming clearer, maybe it's worth it.

Edited June 4 by Carl-Richard

[LSD-Rumi]

Intelligence is a multidimensional concept with multiple facets which exceeds the limitations of a single one dimensional metric like IQ.

If we see IQ as the raw engine power of a car, then higher horsepower doesn't necessarily  mean a better car. A Car is more than the horsepower of its engine. A  car performance and quality depends on a complex interplay of other components.

And a motor with a higher horsepower may not offer a higher performance either. An older model of a motor with higher horsepower doesn't mean it will provide a better performance, it may lack a lot of features that newer models have, like turbochargers for  example.

IQ is essentially how sharp your brain is, not what superior functions your brain could perform.

Edited June 3 by LSD-Rumi

[LSD-Rumi]

15 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

High IQ, academic group think is still group think. The smartest thing to do with an IQ test is to never take one.

IQ is still important. Nothing is like doing philosophy while your brain works at the speed of a ballistic missile.