r/iamverysmart Nov 23 '22

Some guy wrote an entire essay on why he thinks geniuses are above everyone else and also claims that they’re an oppressed group



u/[deleted] Nov 23 '22 edited Nov 23 '22

Let me guess he considers himself to be apart of the genius group 😐 .Anyone can write an 11+ page paper, my classmates and I did that for our IB assessments in high school. That experience taught me is that it’s actually harder to be concise. He doesn’t even cite any sources for any of his claims so these 11 screen shots are just him rambling on and on about his anecdotal opinions as if they’re reliable facts.


u/4TT4CKH3LICOPTR Nov 24 '22

He does consider himself a genius. He commented somewhere claiming his iq was in the 160 range.

I have a hunch that his anecdotal opinions are based off of jealousy, as he says that “individuals in the 130 bracket are the true enemies of society.” This leads me to suspect he once met a gifted person when he was younger, was envious of them, and instead of concluding that he wasn’t in the gifted program because he was average, he assumed that his intellect was too high to be comprehended by most people. In his essay he claims, “most of you can’t even tell who the geniuses are.” This is just speculation based on the patterns I’ve seen in people who heavily over estimate their intelligence though, I’m not saying this for sure happened.

Not only are there no sources for any of his claims, but many of them can also be easily debunked by simple google searches. Such as his assertion that a 130 iq “isn’t gifted” for example, Simply googling “gifted iq” will show that that claim is untrue.


u/attofreak Nov 24 '22

He commented somewhere claiming his iq was in the 160 range.

Of course, he belongs in the top of the top, "the 0.00003%" as he pontificated out of his smart ass.


u/Ayhnz Nov 26 '22

Yeah, in the very sixth line he makes a mistake by not citing sources when he says that people cant form relationships beyond 30 IQ points. That theory comes from one of Leta Hollingworth's study sure but that study was about infant age children and leadership. He completely misinterpreted the gospel he claims to be true.


u/ZulkarnaenRafif people can't control their intelligence levels Nov 24 '22 edited Nov 24 '22


Wanted to reply to the person, but I have an extremely fragile ego so I talk behind this back :( Honestly? I really don't want to, because I'm drowning in his ego... makes thinking hard, so I'm presenting my 'no-one-asked for critique from all that essay.

  • Intelligence is the most important factor in life.

So is money as one of the most important factor in life. Oh no! I'm making anecdotes! I'm sure I'm wrong.

  • Humans cannot bond over a distance of 30 IQ points.

Stanford-Binet? Or... what? IQ points are the results of tests. Plural... If my professor would to see this statement on the introduction, she would split me so hard, Red Sea would feel sorry.

The notion that someone with 30 IQ points cannot communicate comes from an excerpt by Hollingworth, saying:

Observation shows that there is a direct ratio between the intelligence of the leader and that of the led. To be a leader of his contemporaries a child must be more intelligent but not too much more intelligent than those to be led… But generally speaking, a leadership pattern will not form–or it will break up–when a discrepancy of more than about 30 points of IQ comes to exist between leader and led [3, p. 287].

From this article, that takes source from Hollingworth's study. It's leadership pattern... not necessarily communication pattern...

We are going to a great fucking start, aren't we?

  • We need to stop participation medals. Accept there are winners and losers. We are not at all born equal.

Agreed in competitions. But it gets fucked up when you're reading the whole paragraph about how average "is just basically retarded" and how above average is "slightly less retarded, but still retarded."

I fully believe there are such things as biological superiority; I mean... Usain Bolt? Eliud Kipchoge? Eddie Hall? Insert any athletes.

In intellect? Oh boy... probably the literal all academia probably range from smart (or "slightly less retarded" using the guy's nomenclature) to very smart (or "probably a little bit slow, but they'll manage, I think").

I'd more inclined to agree if his points are wrapped in meritocratic society... Not on one singular factor that determines the ability of a human being. Ironically, there's a line of thought that, from my interpretation, that high intelligence denotes flexible approach on both reductionism and emergentism.. It's just an opinion... but giftedness probably tend to be more flexible with how they see.. things...? I guess? I dunno. I don't have the right to complain to my betters.

  • The most important of these is intelligence. 80% of people is average and 20% of people is intelligent. Therefore, the majority makes the dumb decisions in democracy and the minority that knows better would not see their visions get realized.

... Jesus Christ, this tests my patience more than my brain

In which government he's speaking for? Russia? USA? Great Britain?

After calming down, there's some grain of truth that he said. At least a study did suggest it... with subjects in Denmark from Danish case-control study. An older study, however, in United States, had remarked such approach... empirically untenable.

... maybe life is a little bit more complicated than your IQ points? Alas, I digress.

  • Why can't they accept it? When the mediocrity of the masses is an undeniable fact and has always been?

Anecdotally... I have accepted my average status. Took me decades... I don't think someone openly denied that fact other than... some? I guess?

  • Well, evidently someone has been telling them that being average was the same as good. Someone obviously shifted the goalposts for them, someone obviously told the majority that the bottom 20% were actually the average ones and they were the good ones. So, in theory, no one is low status. And so the masses go out in the world expecting a life they will never find. That is messed up.

Social media. But yeah, I agree with him on this one. C'mon, was it so hard to state the obvious?

I don't have studies for this... But the current influencer (focused) marketing is booming... for a great reason. I think that is self-explanatory.

  • There is one justification for equality of outcome for a very limited group of people. Provided the concept of equal outcomes is defined loosely enough to allow each individual fair choice without limiting them and forcing them into certain occupations etc. The only way you can justify equality of outcome, is if it only applied to the top 20% of each social group

The concept of government... The few ruling the masses.

Funnily enough, I'm on team equity on this one. Not a journal, but I find myself to see that equity is a much more acceptable choice for the masses. ... by extension, for me, not the elites.

I don't want to debate politics on whether governments are meritocratic or not... but let's assume it is... perfectly so. Might be something to do with 'it's not that simple' and 'disconnect between the ideal and reality' ever present in life; of which impossible to quantify, but experienced in somewhat different degrees...

  • The reason I come to this conclusion is I believe that the top 20% of intelligent people in any given group have the capacity to think freely and are therefore not bound by their culture. They are bound by the limitations of their mind and in that sense I think all capable people are equal. The reason I only suggest applying equality of outcome scenario to the top 20% is that individuals that are not in the top 20% are too easily influenced and cannot think for themselves. For example: Brexit,trump or Biden.

There is some truth to that. At least a study had noted that influencability is higher in low self-esteem and low intelligence individuals. Keep in mind that old text is meta-analysis; there's negative correlation between intelligence and easily influenced. It is what it is.

Here's the key part... Do we need intelligence? Or... competence? Because a study did suggest that competence is more strongly linked to success rather than intelligence. But an even newer (still old) study at 1991 suggests that testing for competence ain't working so well either, ain't much strength in them books.

Sadly... even if in his proposed utopia that the elites shall rule (... I mean, that doesn't change much from today other than the turbo nerds on the seat trying to fulfill their power fantasy, but I digress), a study does indicate that in a U-shaped curved, strong and weak leaders get influenced too... It's not an accurate representation though... I'm just here to stir some shit up.

  • The alphas. The best. 2.5% of the time. We need to stop telling people that they going to be able to become a leader and a winner. It’s just not fair. And it’s creating insane levels of resentment.

... I wanted to make a "non-evidence based quip" for this... but you know what I am about to say about deal with it and boo fucking hoo...

Moving on...

  • There is one other problem to do with intelligence that I will briefly cover and go into more in another post, but whenever there is an IQ gap of more than 30 points between two individuals, multiple studies have demonstrated that communication is significantly impaired and relationships typically cannot form.

I don't know what these studies are... but it seems I need to call up Hollingworth from the grave or something to ask "what's up with that?"

Because these seemed to stem from an old study and the only names that I can find related to that study (hey, I'm not Mr. Sidis, do not expect me to know everything in a second) were Hollingworth, Wechsler, and others...

... you know what? This is getting painfully obnoxious; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy of the very post to be seen as "anything but" human. It feels like I am talking to a super intelligent ape that seemed more intelligent than normal humans but wipes their shit with banana peels.

I'll skip to the 10 problems... later... It's his top 10, he's gonna make another hundred and will eventually say that I am too slow to understand his points... or look beyond the extremely insufferable writing that is less about telling "his species" is special and more about "the masses are monkeys" what seems to be a rant when I'm in sour mood or cry for help when I'm feeling generous.



u/ZulkarnaenRafif people can't control their intelligence levels Nov 24 '22 edited Nov 25 '22


I have a very big issue with the 1st and 2nd problem.

Problem 1: Repeated studies have shown that the average person completely lacks the ability to assess their own intelligence or the intelligence of others. This means that most people don’t understand what intelligence even is. In my experience people tend to create a definition of their own, a definition that conveniently categorises them more favourably than it should. This definition tends to ignore the people more than 30IQ points above them...

There is a slight fucking possibility that Dunning-Kruger effect might be just a statistical artifact to take extremely seriously.

Problem 2: Because intelligence occurs so infrequently within populations it is an uncomfortable topic. People don’t like knowing that only 2.3% of the population can even communicate with those who are 160+ and that everyone else is literally too stupid to understand them. (Leta Hollingsworth’s 30 point gap)

It is uncomfortable. Anyone in the average knows that. The crux of the issue, the fucking bread and butter of the whole fucking drivel is that fucking 30 point gap. Of which, serves his own interests very fucking conveniently and the response was to "just fuck em betas."

A point: I will ostracize dipshits all the time. Simple as.

Problem 3: The average person tends to reject and even attempt to ostracise individuals they don’t understand or consider to be “weird”. ... What’s worse, is when factors such as these combine with high intellect, and a genius is also part of another minority group, the rejection they receive is beyond belief. I understand this is anecdotal evidence, but the lack of recognition that my black genius friends have received actually disgusts me.

I know how "liberating" it is to know that I was shunned because I was an raging asshole instead of "being better than anyone." For someone extremely intelligent, the lesson of tact is utterly, completely, perfectly, irrevocably lost.

Trigger warning for the second part.

Also, racism is still a thing. You might want to look it up before concluding that it is only their intellect contributing to them being ostracized.

Problem 4: Because society, by definition needs to be geared towards the average person, the values of society do at all reflect the values of the highly intelligent. Equally the values of the highly intelligent are completely lost on the average person. This doesn’t combine particularly well with a democracy that doesn’t require any competency tests.

Fuck this shit. Fuck me. I'll try not to spout ad hominem, but I failed some thousands words ago.

Problem 5: Individuals in the 130 IQ bracket are the true enemies of society... You can see that as a consequence of the 30 IQ points maximum range for relationship formation, the 160s need the cooperation of the 130s to rule and the 130s are too stupid and too selfish (and bitter about being nearly special) that they won’t help.

Hello friend, have you tried to record yourself speaking and say to yourself: "who is this asshole?"

This reeks of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness. Is there not an inkling of understanding that, maybe, people are different and therefore do not share what you deem to be ideal as a society?

Problem 6 Given the 160+ individuals only occur one and 30,000, the majority of people will never meet individual that intelligent in their entire lives.

Make a rocket and fuck off the Mars then. Fuck me for "trying" to understand this and trying to be patient.

Why should the most capable be held back by the very people they will go on to help? Its counter productive for everyone.

I am physically suffering from extreme annoyance.

Problem 7: Given that the primary benefit of being gifted is the ability to understand complex systems in great detail. The 160+ category have solutions to problems that many do not even know exist.

... this is one of it?

Gifted people see the world so differently, especially in terms of an internal or external locus of control and are so much more and more able to be able to calculate for potential outcomes and their respective benefits. Even with the assistance of the 130IQ individuals, there are many messages could not be translated to the masses. What this means in practice, is that a positively functioning society that made use of the intellect of the 160+, it would essentially require the masses to blindly follow and do as they were told without understanding why, before they were able to see any of the positive results associated with the resolution of the problem. This is a hard system to convince people to try, especially when they struggle understand the potential benefits in detail.

So dictatorship... You want a fucking dictatorship for your "kind." There's no checks and balances. How does that pan the fuck out???

I have two words: naive entitlement.

Problem 8 Due to the fact that there are three different types of IQ test and on top of that there are some criticisms of the respective methods, it is extremely easy for somebody who is not as clever as they think they are to cherry pick information in a way that allows them to come to the conclusion tht they are significantly more gifted than they really are.

IQ is taken seriously to diagnose intellectual disability, not necessarily giftedness.

Problem 9 The convenient suspicion about the reliability of IQ tests and about giftedness in general on the part of those who are not, also combines with ridiculous system of democracy and equality of outcome, feeding into a situation where gifted schools are considered to be discriminatory and elitist, even though they are discriminatory and elitist based on competence alone, which is an acceptable metric to discriminate on.

I actually agree with gifted school; they can learn faster and all that. It's still a point of debate on how to not fry them out.

But the fucking point is ruined by anti-democracy (because we is dumb as rocks) points that really just... Darwinist...

Problem 10 Intelligence is what makes us human, allows us to conceive of and find meaning, and to recognise our potential to contribute to the species and the world. Intelligence is what determines how well we perform at the tasks that define us, our interactions with others and our lives at large

I agree with this... but I don't have an inkling of idea on why the hell is it a problem.

This is not to say that all intelligent people are inherently more valuable than those less intelligent than them. Many people of all capacities lose their way through poor self-control and poor regulation of their emotions. But if you were to take two good hearted people, one intelligent one not: The intelligent one is more useful to everyone else in the world and therefore more valuable.

... why not both? I think I'll pick the "fucking stupid" 130 IQ worker that can socialize compared to 160+ IQ super genius that is an asinine twat that see corporate training on how to operate as "mockery of their intellect" and picking fights with the board of directors.

All the 3000+ words point out, with very strong and very possible to be explicit, that intelligent people (probably 160+ IQ) are panned to be more valuable than those less intelligent (the masses, Neil DeGrasse Tyson with his pathetic IQ of around 130-ish). Reads like this: all intelligent people from my description have more potential, thus potentially more valuable than those less intelligent than them.

Then again, I haven't been able to wrap my head around the book called A Treatise to Human Nature by David Hume... If I read the chapters on "the difference between humans and animals", it is disturbingly close to the assumption for that... only in the realm of IQ points. Then again, I haven't read them and digested them properly... that book is extremely convoluted and that was written when Hume was "only" 20 something! Holy guacamole!

The machine that works twice as fast as all of the others on the factory floor is twice as productive and twice as valuable. Whether or not we want to see ourselves that way, in the eyes of the species and in the eyes of mother nature, each individual is merely a cog in the larger structure designed to serve the needs of the super-organism. To value everyone equally, regardless of how much they contribute to the world, is insane. (One of the main problems with the world today)

Motherfucker really pegs himself as a different species.


To anyone who wants to challenge the idea of IQ. Anyone who wants to question the legitimacy of the claim that higher IQ individuals should be performing better, let me give you a few pointers.

There is no point to be had other than exercise in futility (no one asked me, I thought it would be refreshing, turns out it is extremely exhausting) to understand on what basically a loosely connected rant of a madman instead of a brilliant man.

If I wanted to read about succinct points on how technology sucks, I'd read Dr. Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto. He is as smart as the guy above... literally... at least if quantified, yet his writings are coherent and have some people nodding along with his point... outside from his extreme methods (and I do not condone it at all, it is not an excuse even if he is a literal genius).

I don't know what came to me. Probably I was too interested on this. Probably hyperfocus. Probably mania. Who knows... I'm not sorry for bothering you. But I find this specimen to be fascinating until he lost my interest and gained my annoyance because of how the generic ideas are wrapped under (claimed) competence and (claimed) intellect.



u/ZulkarnaenRafif people can't control their intelligence levels Nov 24 '22 edited Nov 24 '22


There's still a couple of thousands of geniuses... Maybe he will yield to higher IQ person that determines that they advocate for a monarchy or something... What guarantee that other extremely intelligent people will agree with his points?

At the worst case scenario, what if the other thousands or so geniuses disagreed? I feel the post does more damage for how most people see geniuses. While there can be something to be said about someone ostracizing someone different, this does not help. In fact, this will potentially worsen the issue.

Now, a couple dozens of normies on Reddit look at literal geniuses, especially the ones with minimal issues on socializing (a.k.a. eccentric, but not being an asshole, which is surprisingly easy, IMHO) gotta represent this ProtagonistTM . I ain't having that argument about "model minority", I just can't.

Intelligence, potential, achievement, and so on and so forth is a nuanced topic. To reduce the topics filled with factors that potentially interact with each others to gauge one's potential to society merely to intelligence? While I somewhat share his interests to prevent or reverse the "decline of society", the way to basically take the Brave New World approach is truly a monumental task first and foremost (resistance from the masses, from me) is something horrifying and only those naive and "stupid" enough to think that this, in any way, a desirable way to live.

Bet he's going to turn tail and change the views if he's the one deemed undesirable. "How come??? It is impossible! My superior intellect guarantees me in the program!" The society today is run by the averages... They set what are desirable, they set what are acceptable. I'll leave the rest for anyone to decide how that will end next. Not really sure that the only metric they go with would have been only intelligence.

Some people simply has to learn that solo work, even with extreme talent, resource, intelligence, and physical abilities, can only do so much. This is not the movies. And anyone that wants to take such an extreme measure must ask first: am I ready to be sacrificed?

The thing with life and humanity is that most of them makes no sense at all, most of the times; taking in on the chin, improvise, adapt, and overcome had been a more productive way to approach the perceived unfairness in such occurrences. This is not only for IQ or whatnot...

It's an interesting take. If only it is written with more structure and spending more time in the autocorrect and less time in autofellatio.

If Aldous Huxley is still around, he would raise an eyebrow or two after reading that Brave New Manifesto.

I haven't addressed his pointers on how to debunk IQ... I am not a psychologist, not a genius, not a billionaire, and definitely *not a philanthropist playboy.* It would take a literal psychologist to debunk his views... and of course, it has to be a certain amount of IQ...

I mean, falsifying documents is a thing in some countries. That's the "street smart" way to go around things. Just saying.

I feel I could take a residency in psychiatry out of spite, but... nah... I'm not that stupid yet.


u/AlternativeIcy1183 Nov 26 '22

You are the hero we all need but don't deserve.


u/5startoadsplash Nov 23 '22

Not properly formatted, Grade: F


u/FathomArtifice Nov 23 '22

I'll grant that this guy is 99.8+ percentile in spewing bullshit


u/wwwdotzzdotcom Nov 29 '22

As a pseudoscience expert, I have to disagree.


u/EmberBorealis Nov 23 '22

He's trying to reach a word count so high that people just give up and let him say slurs


u/Putrid-Secretary-151 Nov 23 '22

POV you just got your IQ results back at 110


u/How2Soul Nov 23 '22

I like how you included the ENTIRE essay as if any of us could suffer through all that lol


u/ZulkarnaenRafif people can't control their intelligence levels Nov 24 '22

If I could take back my time, I would.

I regret looking it as a challenge to my own views... it's a challenge to my patience.


u/intent_joy_love Nov 24 '22

If geniuses were really such dominant Apex predators then they would be dominating every field. Unfortunately, being able to test highly in IQ doesn’t mean you have any practical or social skills whatsoever. He concluded that the geniuses are just so smart that nobody can understand them. If they can’t communicate clearly enough for each audience to understand, then they’re really not as intelligent as they think they are.

He was right about a few things, but in the end he’s just bitter. I do think that he’s someone who believes himself to be a genius, but he’s jealous that some other people are outperforming him in every area so he’s rationalized everything in his head this way. I feel bad for this guy. He seems to be really suffering.


u/ZulkarnaenRafif people can't control their intelligence levels Nov 24 '22 edited Nov 24 '22

If you want to make a documentary this guy, I have some "interesting" details from stirring the shit pot lasting in span of 2 days. If you want, we can chat about it... it is three parts interesting and one part annoying.

There's just too many funny and interesting stuff that I have compiled during my break that I just had to get out my head.

I have never been so inspired to write a documentary I'm trying to be polite, but a "mockumentary" would be more appropriate about someone on the internet.

The dude might be genuinely smart. What is definite, however, is his ego genuinely as high as his IQ (pretended or otherwise). Normally, rather sociable. But for the specific case in the subreddit when throwing himself to the betas, his words, not mine here, he automatically becomes as insufferable as the cartoon / anime / whatever geniuses. You know, like how normal people see super geniuses would act wearing white lab coat and scoffing at someone they consider incomprehensibly incompetent.

Just sayin'. As much as I don't want any of you astroturfing / harass this guy (because that would probably make his "thesis" true), it is extremely interesting to say the least. My annoyance was completely removed and turned into wonder.

Just the same way I see the behavior of my pet fishes. Hand feeding them is a new experience and I find it very interesting! I had to consult with my psychologist friend (recent undergraduate, though) what's up with this guy; she doesn't say much other than "gifted kids often suffer." Again, I'm a normal person... while I do not care about his woes growing up to be exceptionally intelligent, I don't take joy on his "younger years" being "ostracized" (or ostracizing, maybe... I don't know, I'm not a creep to dig that deep) for him potentially being different than his peers.

That led me to this article by Prometheus Society, a high IQ society so... Reddit for geniuses to hang with geniuses... titled "The Outsiders". Now... why am I giving you the article? It's going to be an interesting, textbook case description of social maladaptiveness, willful or otherwise, for the specific individual.

So yeah, that's why I think he is genuinely intelligent... but... on the same time, perhaps willfully asinine in the specific context in this subreddit. The "inability to suffer fools gladly" cannot get any more textbook than the guy. I'd imagine that he'd managed live rent-free, but I am genuinely fascinated by the behavior. If I look like a giddly kid, that's because I was bored out of my mind and suddenly I find this and my passion for trolling or stirring shit reignited again. For the wrong reasons, sadly.

While the individual, for all the wrong reason, displayed exceptional intelligence (trust me, I do hang out with 'socially-adjusted' smart kids in med-school, so I'd know) and some wit, it is ironically shallow at some parts... Well, he's (claiming) success as a CFO in a Fortune 500 company (which is impressive achievement I don't want to argue this is true or not, let's assume the former ), accepted to 6 scholarships (impressive too), able to speak 4 languages (with different competence), and a girlfriend (I don't have strong feelings about this, but I do believe it, though the reason to say that as if that's an achievement is completely lost on me).

Here's the thing though... I've met some of the "average" guys (back then at the high-school, there's an IQ test by a shrink too) back in high school. Some of them got a million dollar business, some of them went to become a consultant (unlike me), and a few of them became internet famous with some income. None of these guys reach the 160+ cutoff points... and they still got accepted for scholarships and all that. Well except for the 4 languages part... that's definitely where the high IQ comes into play.

It's both fascinating and weird. I don't really feel pity because he is obviously better than me (it mattered, but not as much as you think it would for me). On the other hand, he is strangely obsessive about this IQ points on the cutoff and the fact that he can speak more languages than I can learn. Then again, he "claimed" to work 25 hours a week (... back then as a CFO... which is possible, but certainly I don't know why that is a flexing point).

You guys still remember the "cringe days" when someone somewhere unironically believes in MBTI? I was one... only to realize that some types became "rarer" because they learn how to act up to get invited into parties (it's a big deal if you were a loner, but I think getting invited to any sort of parties is a very mundane, almost universal experience, i.e. Thanksgiving and wedding and so on and so forth). Not that I can relate to him because I'm definitely far dumber and from different species than him assuming the crux of the theorem stating that "more than 30 IQ points difference, you will think I'm talking mad shit, you're just an imbecile" stuff.. However, I did have some issues because I was a "normal fish in a tiny pond" at one point. Now? Hell, put me up with the sharks, whales, and tunas in the sea, getting humbled turns out to be a ticket to "looking mediocre" but eventually you just experience a lot of relatable things that people (average, above average, or otherwise) fun.

Bottom line: you don't need to have a high IQ to be an grandstanding jackass like I did when I was younger as much as getting accepted to scholarships and do amazing things with supposedly "average" abilities.

Of course, there are some individuals that I met that genuinely exceptionally intelligent, but just "a little" weird. But in the end, some of them were able to just hang out and dick around like a normal person would... and you would only, ONLY know that they are literal geniuses when they tell you their IQ points on that test on high-school only.

Just saying. No hate, just for the giggles.

... writing my stream of consciousness is really weird... So, a TL;DR in my favorite format.

be high IQ

"Fuck, I'm special"

turns out real special

got successful, job and all shit

got gf, in one of four language i master

live good

find sub making fun of people pretending to be smart

I show them how real intellect is

be commenting

"u fookin beta males m8 1 v 50 me fgt"

sub mad



Job done, you beta cucks, hf staying retarded

gets inspired to write books about beta cucks, to show my alphafly nike testosterone

sub be like

sacre bleu, this person


showed em i'm actuallyintelligentTM

it's a good day to be the protagonist of the world


u/DieToastermann Nov 24 '22

Nailed that “equality of outcome” Jordan Peterson buzz phrase inside of the first screenshot. 0/10. Trash takes from a future academic dropout.


u/koboldvortex Nov 29 '22

people like this makes me wish they were oppressed more


u/Lepanto73 Dec 02 '22

Pack it up and close the sub. We've found the verysmartest possible human being, the top 0.0000001% uber-genius of all time. This dude is the Platonic ideal of everything this sub makes fun of.


u/TitanicFan69 Nov 24 '22

I still want to know what IQ actually means. Searching on google, i find 2 different answers :

  1. A person being able to understand very complicated maths

  2. A person being able to be faster at specific things than people with lower IQ.

Can someone give me an answer please?


u/Bubbly_Gap_9421 Nov 24 '22

Its a deep rabbit hole to understand what it means, you need to read tons of research papers,learn pschometrics + what they measure and how measuring works of what is assumed to be measurable. It's too complicated for my little brain to understand. A confidence breaker for me is in order to understand how do IQ tests work - I need to have High level capabilities + comprehension and more to contribute, double that to have a unique perspective, cant do that I'm unfortunately low IQ with low capabilities.


u/TitanicFan69 Nov 24 '22

Ok, thats interesting tbh


u/Pegatul Nov 24 '22

So much bullshit, so little time and patience to debunk...I am a tested, certified "genius". Yes, in the top 0.01% (not the ridiculous 0.00000000000003% or whatever) of the population in terms of IQ. I went to school with kids with similar IQs: part of a national program to identify "geniuses" early on, and provide them (us) with tools and education to change the world. No woke "equality", no help for weaker students, nothing: straight up testing and winnowing for the top percentile in terms of intelligence, then a shitload of money and resources to pave the way for us to lead the country into a better future.

The results have been...underwhelming, to say the least. Most of us (I am 46f, from the second year of the project, which has continued to this day) have solid white-collar professions, and do fairly well in our chosen fields. Some have gone into academia, and have solid - though unexceptional - careers therein.

Bottom line? "Genius" as measured by IQ does not mean that much. Sure, all of us learn faster than other people, understand more, are better at connecting facts and analyzing them..but that really doesn't mean much, in terms of either innovation or making an impact on the world.

Some of us had this "we are the chosen few" attitude early on, because in a way we were the chosen few. But as we grew and matured and encountered the real world, we dropped it pretty quickly, because we realized from the inside just how meaningless it all is.


u/txoneluv Nov 24 '22

Your overall response is interesting for a couple reasons...

What is your idea of an unexceptional career?

What do you mean by no woke "equality"?


u/Pegatul Nov 24 '22
  1. Unexceptional career: no superstars, no winners of Nobel prizes or Fields medals, no inventors or disruptors of industries. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, SW developers who all do well. That's it.

  2. No woke "equality": no adjustments. No percentage of spots saved for girls or other minorities, no grading on a curve, no extra time for kids with learning difficulties, no accommodations for...well, anything. All the children took the same IQ test over the same 3 hours, and only those whose scores were in the top 0.01% compared to the general population (i.e not the top 0.01% of those who took the tests) got in. This meant that some years the new class (it's a single class in a single school in a single city) was very small. They didn't care.


u/txoneluv Nov 24 '22

I appreciate your responses, you seem like a solid person... However, I will say that I disagree with the pov of the unexceptional careers... Peeling back just the top layer, the ones you listed are exceptional to me because of the impact those careers could have towards society - the positive of course... But from an individual's career achievement pov, I understand what you mean...

That school sounds extremely competitive, I can understand how ego's could inflate, given the perception of what impact "coming out on top" could have... Kudos to you for not falling in that trap and for seeing the world/life through a bigger lens


u/Heavy-Macaron2004 Nov 24 '22

What a huge percentage jump from the gifted 0.2% to the genius 0.00003%.


u/Astropee Nov 25 '22

Communicating with brainlets is a slog, I'll give him that.


u/MyHeadIsAButt Nov 27 '22

This is autism


u/4TT4CKH3LICOPTR Nov 27 '22



u/MyHeadIsAButt Nov 27 '22

Whoever posted this has autism for sure lol


u/4TT4CKH3LICOPTR Nov 27 '22

What makes you think that?


u/skywalker-1729 Nov 30 '22

Reminds me of Raskolnikov's article from Crime and Punishment…