proxy70

________
/ \
/ \
| UNDER |
|CONSTRUCTION|
\ /
\________/

Please wear a hard hat when reading this page.

IQ (intelligence quotient) is a non-perfect but [1]still kind of useful
measure of one's intelligence, it is a numeric score one gets on a
standardized test that tries to estimate his intellectual ability at
different tasks ([2]logic, [3]memory, language skills, spatial skills,
...) and express them with a single number. The tests are standardized and
the scoring is usually tuned so that the value 100 means average
intelligence -- anything above means smarter than average, anything below
dumber than average. IQ is a quite controversial topic because it shows
intellectual differences between [4]races and sexes and clashes with
[5]political correctness, there is also a great debate about "what
intelligence even is" (i.e. what the test should measure, what weight
should be given to different areas of intelligence), if it is even
reasonable to simplify "intelligence" down to a single number, how much of
a cultural bias there is (do we really measure pure intellectual capacity
or just familiarity with some concepts of our western culture?) and the
accuracy of the tests is also highly debated (which can be an issue if we
e.g. start using IQ tests to determine who should get higher education and
who shouldn't) -- nevertheless it's unquestionable that IQ DOES correlate
with intellectual abilities, IQ tests are a tool that really does
something, the debates mostly revolve around how useful the tool is, how
it should be used, what conclusions can we make with it and so on.
Basically only people with the lowest IQ say that IQ is completely
useless. The testing of IQ was developed only during 20th century, so we
don't know IQs of old geniuses -- if you read somewhere (including this
article) that Newton's IQ was 200, it's just someone's wild guess.

IQ follows the normal [6]probability distribution, i.e. it is modeled by
the [7]bell curve that says how many people of the total population will
fall into any given range of IQ score. Though this has been challenged
too, one of the basic laws of human stupidity says that the probability
that someone is stupid is independent of any other of his characteristics
(education, profession, race, sanity, ...). There are various IQ scales,
almost all use the Gaussian (bell) curve that's centered at 100 (i.e. 100
is supposed to mean the average intelligence) and have [8]standard
deviation 15 (but other have been used as well) -- this is what we'll
implicitly suppose in the article from now. This means that about 2/3rds
of people will fall in the range 85 to 115 but no more than 1% will have
IQ higher than 145 or lower than 55. Sometimes you may also encounter so
called percentile which says what percentage of population is below your
IQ.

Average global IQ is decreasing, according to
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/ it dropped from 91.64 in
1950 to 88.08 in 2020. Reasons for this may range from wider spread of
[9]capitalism, [10]feminism and similar brain diseases to rapidly
increasing poverty as well as more brainwashing (ads, [11]soyence
propaganda etc.) etc.

It's been observed that the higher IQ a man has, the more sexually
perverted he will likely be.

TODO: more details, history, where to measure (web vs Mensa vs SAT etc.)

* Ada Lovelace * Hitler * Miley Cyrus
* Donald Trump * Lassie * Knuth * Goethe * Kim Ung-Yong
* Bill Gates * Neil De Grass * Charles Babbage * Terence Tao
* Adam Smith * Elon Musk * Bjarne Stroustrup * Unabomber * Grigori Perelman
* Steve Jobs * Pikachu * Einstein * Jara Cimrman
--------------capitalists----------- * Terry Davis
----------------blacks---------------- * Britney Spears * ChatGPT * Chomsky * Kasparov
------------------women (white)--------------------- * Richard Feynman * William Sidis
----------CEOs------------
-trees- ----------webdevs---------- ------janitors----- ------------true programmers------------
-rocks- --soldiers-- ------apolitical/centrist/confused------ --------LRS--------
-bacteria-- ------------coders------------ ------teachers------- ---------mathematicians------
---feminists-- ---dolphins-- ----geeks-------- -----type A/B fail----
--chimps--- -------atheists------ -------------------nerds--------------------
---------------------------------------------whites-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------asians-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------jews-------------------------------------------------
----------likely called genius--------
-------fascists----- ------likely called retarded-----
--influencers-- _.---._
.' '.
.' '.
| | | | | | .'| | |'. | | | | | |
| | | | | | _.' | | | '._ | | | | | |
| | | _|_____.|..---'|' | | | '|'---..|._____|_ | | |
+----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+----+
| | SD 6 | SD 5 | SD 4 | SD 3 | SD 2 | SD 1 | SD 1 | SD 2 | SD 3 | SD 4 | SD 5 | SD 6 | |
0 10 25 40 55 70 85 100 115 130 145 160 175 190 200

-----idiot--|-imbecile-|--moron--| |-dull-|
----mental retardation-----------|
(official medical terminology) |---68.269%---|--------------------------------------1 in 6.3029----------
|----------95.4499%---------|-------------------------------1 in 43.9558---------
|------------------99.73%-----------------|------------------------1 in 740.7956--------
|------------------------99.9936%-----------------------|-----------------1 in 31574.4272------
|------------------------------99.999942%-----------------------------|----------1 in 3488550.5770----
|-----------------------------------99.999999802%-----------------------------------|---1 in 1013594327.1152-

IQ distribution along with approximate placement of certain groups and
individuals. Notice how interesting people are either far to the right or
far to the left. Also notice how the smartest you've rarely heard of while
you've heard of all the dumbest.

IQ and [12]race and [13]sex: IQ is correlated with race and sex. The
following is a comparison of average IQs of groups with various
combination of the two factors:

men (Jew) > men (Asian) > men (White) > men (Brown) > women (Jew) > women
(Asian) > women (White) > women (Brown) > men (Black) > women (Black)

If you think you're smart, you are dumb, see the infamous [14]Dunning
Kruger effect -- becoming smarter comes with feeling dumber and dumber,
becoming more humble and less self confident as you just see all the new
things you didn't even know you don't know -- Socrates, one of the
greatest philosophers of all times and possibly the smartest man of his
time, famously summed this up by saying "I know that I know nothing". A
fool thinks he is close to knowing everything -- he admits he doesn't know
everything, but he thinks he knows like 90% of what the smartest people on
Earth know because he didn't even step over the borders of obtaining the
basic knowledge, that border is as far as he can see and he doesn't know
beyond it lies an infinitely large plain of knowledge into which some
managed to get kilometers ahead of him, they are so far away he has no
idea anyone can even get that far. It's similar to how the better we
explore the space, the more we see how tiny we are -- not long ago we
might have thought our galaxy was the whole Universe, now we know it's
just a tiny speck in a cluster that's itself just a small speck in the
observable Universe which is a nothing in the scale of the whole infinite
Universe. Self confidence implies extreme stupidity. Also note that
feeling dumb doesn't imply being smart but admitting retardedness is a
prerequisite for being smart.

Is IQ a useful measure and if so, how important is the score? Firstly if
you are insecure about your own IQ then just stop that shit -- you know
yourself, you know if you're good at math or writing or whatever else you
try to do, do you need a piece of paper patting you on the back or
something? That's completely pointless, the only thing worth of discussion
is IQ as some standardized tool of estimating intellectual abilities of
other people on a bigger scale, e.g. as some kind of filter in education
(with small groups you can really just interview the people and see if
they're dumb or not, that's also more reliable than IQ tests). In this of
course the question of the validity of IQ is a controversial one,
discussed over and over. Modern "inclusive" society dismisses IQ as
basically useless because it points out differences between [15]races
etc., some rightist are on the other hand obsessed with IQ too much as it
creates a natural hierarchy assigning each man his rank among others. True
significance of IQ as a measure seems to be somewhere in between the two
extremes here. As it's always noted about IQ, we have to remember the term
"intelligence" itself is fuzzy, there doesn't and cannot exist any
universal definition of it, so we have trouble even grasping what we're
measuring and however we define intelligence, it usually ends up hardly
even correlating with "success" or "achievements" or anything similar, so
firstly let's see IQ just as what it literally is: a score in some kind of
game. Furthermore intelligence is extremely complex and multidimensional
(there is spatial and visual intelligence, long and short term memory,
language skills, social and emotional intelligence etc.), capturing all
this with a single number is inevitably a simplification, the score is
just a projected shadow of the intelligence with light cast from certain
angle. IQ score definitely does say a lot about some specific kind of
"mathematical" intelligence, though even if designed to be so, even in
this narrow sense it isn't anywhere near a perfect measure -- though a
minority, some mathematicians do score low on IQ tests (Richard Feynman,
physics Nobel Prize laureate had famously a relatively low score of 125).
It's perhaps good to keep the "IQ tests as a game" mindset -- intelligent
people will be probably good at it but some won't, performance can be
increased by training, there will be narrowly focused autists who excel at
the game but are extremely dumb at everything else etc. Having IQ score
predict what we normally understand to be "intelligence" is like having
height, weight and age predict how good of a soldier someone will be --
there will be some good correlations, but not nearly perfect ones. Some
general IQ range will be necessary for certain tasks such as
[16]programming, but rather than +5 on an IQ score things such as
education and personality traits will play much more important roles in
actually achieving something or creating something good; for example
curiosity and determination, the habit of thinking about everything in
depth, nonconformity, a skeptical mind, all these are much more important
than being a human calculator -- remember, the cheapest calculator will
beat the smartest man in multiplying numbers, would you say it is more
intelligent?

{ Also consider this: even if you're average, or even a bit below average,
you're still [17]homo sapiens, so as long as you're not a [18]feminist or
[19]capitalist you'll always be the absolute top organism in intelligence,
a member of by far the absolutely most intelligent species that ever
appeared on [20]Earth, your intelligence greatly surpasses great majority
of living organisms. If you are able to read this, you already possess the
great genius, you mastered language and are among the top 0.1%, there's no
need to compare yourself to others and aim to be in 0.01% instead of
0.02%. Rather think about what good to do with the gift of reason you've
been given. ~drummyfish }

{ It's still more and more complicated the more you think of it, even for
example success in mathematics may sometimes depend less on pure math
skills and more on non-mathematical kind of intelligence, e.g. that of
observation skills and communication -- that's what academia is about.
Yes, you need some creativity, but the ability to quickly understand ideas
of others may sometimes be superior, an idea you "steal" from someone else
is as useful as idea you came up with yourself, you need to catch many
ideas of others and connect them together; on the other hand struggling
with communication is sometimes simply like not speaking a common language
at all. Thinking back I for one have always been quite retarded at
understanding what others wanted to say, even simple things, so in classes
I frequently wouldn't understand what was being taught while others
understood, but it wasn't because I wouldn't understand the concept
itself, I rather didn't understand the way the teacher explained it
because (I think) I think differently about things. When we were given
tasks to solve on our own, I usually beat my classmates because that was
only about creative intelligence, not communication, and in this I think I
was better than most of my peers. I didn't go for PhD later on while some
of my classmates did -- TBH I don't think it's because they were
necessarily more intelligent in general (many of them for sure were), but
because they felt better in this world of communication, sharing papers,
talking to others, understanding their ideas and collaborating, they had
the "better mix" of intelligence for today's academic world -- this I
always had problems with, so it contributed to my decision to not go
there. This is just to show that this world is quite complex. ~drummyfish
}

Fun fact: in some US countries idiots and similar low IQ level classes are
legally prohibited from voting :D

It's been observed that the IQ of a group is roughly equal to the IQ of
its least intelligent member divided by the number of group members.

Why are rich people dumb and smart people poor? Let's clarify this because
there is a very common misconception, purposefully established by
[21]capitalist propaganda, that rich people are smart and vice versa,
while the opposite is always true. Firstly succeeding on the market is
basically just lottery, it's more about luck than anything else -- no one
can predict the market, it's literally about betting on the right card and
then being in many right places at right times. At best if anything gives
you better odds, it's having a starting capital, knowing someone in the
business, living in a good location etc., but not being smart. No matter
what anyone tells you, business is at best an educated bet and a
businessman is at best as smart as your average slot machine addict. Now
of course, just by statistics, the few people who win the lottery are
likely to fall in the majority, i.e. around the average IQ. This is
additionally further biased towards lower IQ because success in business
is actually favored by lower IQ for a number of reasons. One of them is a
stupider man is going to make just plain stupid big risks, have the
capitalism-aligned short term mindset, and making stupid risks is how you
more likely win the game -- it is also how you more likely lose, but no
one cares about the losers, these just disappear. It's like seeing what
kind of people survive running through a minefield -- you will find only
retards make it because only a retard would attempt it; many of them will
die but some manage to run through by sheer luck, while all the smart
people just retain from even trying to run through the mine field. That's
why so many of the famous rich guys always made some hilariously risky
moves like selling everything they had and putting it into their business
-- that's just extremely retarded, only 1 in a million will succeed like
that, but of course by survivorship bias you will only hear about those
who succeed like this so they look smart (plus they will pay for their own
propaganda painting them as smart), but no, it's still incredibly stupid.
Furthermore success in business is about lack of morality to which
intelligence is an obstacle -- an intelligent man sees that investing in
some business will e.g. lead to someone in the third world dying, so for a
smart man doing business is literally as if he had to murder people for
money, which most normal people wouldn't do, but with the extra layer of
indirection stupid people can't see the harm they do to others and they
happily murder people without even realizing it. Again, this is why the
rich guys are incredibly stupid assholes behaving like angry aggressive
chimpanzees to their employees, like for example [22]Steve Jobs or
[23]Elon Musk, they just lack brain cells that you need for empathy. Yet
another reason why smart people aren't rich is simply that they see that
pursuing money is incredibly retarded, it's just satisfying low material
and social needs, it's just like overeating, drug addiction or gambling,
it's an arbitrarily set unhealthy goal that achieves nothing but waste
one's life on counting pieces of green paper while doing bullshit and
immense harm as a side effect, smart people see through this, they want
something more from life, they want to spend time with their family,
create something that helps others, make art and so on, so they just won't
go after money and they even turn down money if they can have it (see e.g.
Grigori Perelman). And that is not all still, a stupid idiot may have
further advantage in business because he can better predict behavior of
idiots as he himself is an idiot, he thinks like one and so knows what
idiots (most of population) wants better than someone who is smart.

{ Coincidentally after I wrote this I saw some "REAL STUDY" (as in peer
censored etc.) which concluded income is slightly positively correlated
with IQ, which is probably true around the average middle IQ (a slightly
smarter wage slave will make a bit more money by pressing buttons on a
computer than a wage slave moving crates), however the study also noted
that by far the few richest individuals that took part in the study
(probably some CEOs, they were literally sky high in the graph) were all
quite significantly BELOW 100 IQ :D So now it's also official. ~drummyfish
}

Can you increase your IQ?: Though they're not supposed to be trainable, IQ
tests CAN be trained like anything else -- you can train for the tests
themselves, they often have the same types of questions -- if you just
practice 4 hours making IQ tests for a month before taking an actual IQ
test, you'll probably score at genius level, but that's kinda [24]cheating
of course, it's better to REALLY train you brain skills by just doing
various diverse intellectual challenges like [25]programming, learning
languages, playing puzzles, board games or reading books -- this will
actually make you smarter. Some studies have shown that playing video
games increases IQ, however it probably matters what sort of game it is,
mindless grinding in [26]WoW or cybersexing in Roblox will probably have
the opposite effect, you rather want to play puzzle games, strategy games
and so on. There was one specific memory game that was shown to really
increase IQ scores, though only temporarily (for a few months) -- in the
game you saw symbols appearing on the screen and you had to press a button
every time a symbol appeared that was the same as a symbol that appeared N
steps back; you start at N = 1 and keep training yourself towards higher
values, and this basically boosts your short term memory. { Can't find the
paper now but I swear I've seen it, I even played the game for a while.
~drummyfish } There are also things like the "Mozart effect" which says
that listening to Mozart's music increases your IQ score, but who knows if
that's bullshit or not.

TODO: smartest man?

Real Genius VS Pseudogenius

Most people are called a genius nowadays -- any recent so called "genius"
(such as [27]Steve Jobs) is in fact most likely of below average IQ; just
barely above mediocre idea someone comes up with by chance will be
celebrated as that of a genius, real genius ideas will be met with
hostility; real genius ideas are too good and too far ahead and
unacceptable to normal people. Furthermore success in [28]business
requires lack of intelligence so as to be unable to see the consequences
of one's actions. Your cat watching you solve Riemann hypothesis will not
even know what's happening, to it you are a retard wasting time on sliding
a stick over table, on the other hand the cat will judge a monkey capable
of opening a can of cat food a genius. Society is composed solely of
idiots, they can only see if someone is a tiny bit better at what they do
than them, and those they celebrate, if you are light years ahead of them
they don't even have the capacity to comprehend how good you are at what
you do because they can't even comprehend the thing you do. This includes
even [29]PhDs and people with several Nobel Prizes, everyone except the
few supporters of [30]LRS are just blind idiots playing along with the
system, some lucky to succeed in it and some not. This is why shit
technology is prospering and [31]LRS is being overlooked. It's just
another confirmation our ideas as superior.

Consider this analogy (yes, analogies are good): in a race you can only
see those who are plus or minus 20 meters away from you, you can assess
everyone else's position only by someone else telling you, so if someone
is 50 meters ahead of you, you can know but only by someone ahead of you
telling you that someone ahead of him told him he saw him there way up in
the front. Now since there are many fewer of high IQ people, they have
lower probability of being recognized, simply because there are few people
capable of recognizing them -- in mainstream places like Universities you
still likely will be recognized as there are smart people around, and the
knowledge of your genius will be chain propagated to the mainstream
monkeys, but if you're a genius outside a mainstream place, the chance is
almost zero you will be recognized (and if you're smart you will probably
also not try to be recognized, only retards do that). With this mainstream
will simply lack information about your intelligence, they will only see a
question mark above your head -- they know you're not average, because
averages get recognized very quickly, everyone can assess those -- so now
they know you're either really smart or really dumb, and since you don't
fit the false, twisted idea of mainstream pseudogenius (being rich,
famous, ...), they will conclude you belong to the latter class, i.e. that
you're a retard. Note that the same effect manifests also with the
pseudogenius, just in the opposite way -- the dumbest people, like
[32]CEOs, are too far away from the average (now towards lower values), so
the mainstream isn't sure about their intelligence; here however the CEO
applies manipulation, he has the money to pay for a biography book that
paints him as a genius, he can pay someone to write him speeches so that
he appears to say smart things, he pays people to invent things signed by
his name, or he simply steals them with the power of money (Edison, Jobs,
...) etc., so he ends up being taken for genius, despite actually being
dumber than many animals (even a dog has enough brain cells to feel for
example empathy, something way too complex for a CEO).

{ The short story Country of the Blind by H. G. Wells is a nice story
about this phenomenon of too much competence being seen as a lack of
competence, illustrated on a story of a completely healthy man who finds
himself in a village of people who are all blind. ~drummyfish }

Quick IQ Estimates

If you are [33]American (or just someone else who happened to take the
test), your [34]SAT is basically your IQ, it has been shown that SATs
highly correlate with standardized psychologist IQ tests. Just take your
percentile on SATs and convert it to IQ and you have your IQ.

If you play [35]chess and your [36]Elo rating (in any of the popular
pools) is X, it's been stated that your IQ is at least (X - 1000) / 10.
This is only a lower bound, it will approach your real IQ only if you
dedicate great deal of your life to chess and reach very close to your
true potential. But yeah, this kinda funny and super inaccurate.

IQ is a predictor of achieved education, so if you were good at school --
e.g. won some physics competitions -- you can draw some conclusions. If
you went to University, you can kinda estimate your IQ, though not that
accurately. If you have a degree in [37]math or [38]physics your IQ is
most likely at least 130, 135 and 140 for bachelor's, master's and [39]PhD
respectively. This is similar for other "hard"/"STEM"/math-like fields
like mechanical engineering, chemistry or [40]computer science (webdev,
software engineering and so on don't count though) -- maybe just subtract
5 or 10 from the lower bound here. This doesn't hold for shitty meme
"universities" like those in India and for meme studies like "IT
management" or "computer security without math" where they just teach you
how to install antiviruses. For humanities and "soft" shittier fields like
psychology or arts a degree says your IQ is maybe above 110. Also these
estimates don't hold for degrees given to [41]women or minorities after
they year 2000, sorry -- they now give degrees to women and blacks just
for showing effort, you'll have to estimate your IQ another way. If you
have a degree in [42]gender studies, your IQ is below 30.

The LRS test: Here is a quick but extremely accurate IQ estimate. Let x be
the approximate amount to which you agree with [43]LRS, expressed in
percents. You IQ (SD 15) is approximately 2 * x. If you can't compute
that, subtract 200.

DISCLAIMER: The previous paragraph is suitable to everyone. The following
is a binding legal and health advice: STOP [44]CAPITALISM.

{ NOTE: There used to be a joke about me being the smartest being on the
planet by this test but I removed it because I realized it was probably
[45]egoism masked as a joke. ~drummyfish }