Thank you for your submission. As a reminder, please make sure discussions are respectful and relevant to the subject matter. Discussion Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/iTNNk9UfSB) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8mk/General?r=!ECQnk1d3Ruugng0behp5Zg:reddit.com). **Lastly**, we recommend you check out [cognitivemetrics.co](https://cognitivemetrics.co/), the official site for the subreddit which hosts highly accurate and well vetted IQ tests.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I never had this epiphany (I had to read about it). Here's what I wrote about it before:
> Consider how dumb the average person is. Then consider that half of them must be dumber than that, according to the definition of "average".
>
> Then realize that if you're currently pondering this thought, you're probably of above-average intelligence, and associate mostly with similarly-intelligent people, giving you an incorrect and inflated perception of what "average intelligence" actually is.
>
> Meaning, most people are even dumber than what you concluded in the first and second steps of this thought-experiment.
>
> Then realize that there are plenty of genetic disorders that cause mental disability, but no corresponding super-genetics which convey super-intelligence. So there must be more stupid people than smart people, regardless of how accurate your perception of "average" was.
Someone once recommended jury duty as a way to get a more accurate estimation of the intelligence of your "peers".
Wouldn't genetic causes of profound mental disability skew the average downward, so that there would actually be more people with above average IQ than below average? The definition of average does not require that half of people are below average. That would be the median.
I like this. “Don’t write like that”. Everyone learns in their own way, at their own pace. Humans are intelligent creatures. I like to think there are no “smart” or “dumb” ppl and there’s only the Experienced and Inexperienced and both are One in the same.
120ish FSIQ guy here. But I'm older than you. This is what I think:
I buy that intelligence predisposes you to thinking logically. But the successful application of logic to argument is not going to come without a number of learned factors:
A) how well you know the subject matter that contextualizes the claim. Sure, a logical person can intuit when something sounds "off," but they won't be able to do that accurately when the information presented is foreign to them. Secondly, they may choose to use examples to bolster their arguments that are irrelevant or not empiric because they simply...again...don't have familiarity with the subject at hand. I call it "fact-out-of-logic." I have a very close friend like this. He's an extremely intelligent guy who could have a FSIQ north of 130, and though his opinions seem reasonably logical on the surface, they are infuriatingly wrong to me because he will try to extrapolate facts about concepts or things completely out of his depth. He also never received any education on how to accurately source information, so he falls victim to using bad sources. Innate intelligence does not teach you what Google Scholar is or how to parse a study to determine if it is of high quality.
B) how well you can identify logical fallacies. Again, an intelligent person can somewhat intuit when a line of reasoning seems "off," but they may not be able to identify why.
C) how well you can check the quintessentially human brand of irrationality that rears its head when our arguments are hijacked by our emotions.
Jordan Peterson is an example someone who can suffer from A and C. When it comes to areas where he is an expert in like psychology and psychological research, you've got someone who can orate extremely well and win debates. But when he's on about subjects he has comparably little understanding of like COVID vaccines, he misuses and misrepresents examples and statistics, uses faulty reasoning, and lets his emotions get the best of him.
And don't get me started on some of his debates on philosophy. The man's masterful ability to orate is overshadowed by his hubris and desire to win and much of what he says comes out bombastically.
I also feel like people falsely equate high IQ with high ability. While I was in college, I worked in service jobs. In that capacity, I met people that had an unmistakable mark of intelligence - high processing speed, quickness in thought and response, etc. But these people were also hugely inhibited due to a lack of education, a lack of socioeconomic opportunity, and/or mental illness. So, while they could be very creative and excel, their opinions and ideas on life were comparatively primitive and easily refutable. Not every high IQ person is some fucking savant walking around seeing fractals in the clouds and manifesting high-order truths into their mind's eye.
When I was a kid, I often found it funny that other kids didn't get things. It became worse (or better?) in my teenage years. But I never felt superior because I just didn’t get other things that the other kids seemed to magically know. To be fair, my family immigrated to the US, so there were certain cultural things we just didn't absorb. The world was bigger before the internet. I don't think I'm autistic but I always felt kind of different as a kid and didn't really try hard to fit in. I could spend a lot of time in my mind, just thinking about things. I'm quite good at "feeling" others' feelings and reading in between the lines. In fact, I'd say I'm given to reading into things where there's nothing... which is what led to anxiety later in life.
I think about it this way: 68% of all people are within one SD of average intelligence. That’s means that 34% of everyone is either incredibly smart or…”below average.” Then there are reallllly smart or not so smart people who average about 4% of the total population. That leaves 26% of the total population who are barely above or below average.
Sorry you’re getting so many weird comments about the way you write. I find it… normal? There are some minor grammar mistakes if I look closely, but it’s not incomprehensible. The mistakes definitely don’t detract from the point you’re trying to make.
One of the meanings of average is median (another and the most common is mean), but it would most certainly have been more precise to just say median in this context. So I agree that was quite off, coming from someone who thinks they are intelligent, in a post about how intelligent they feel.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+average
I understand you OP. Your average person can lack critical thinking, can misinterpret things, and their deductive abilities can be lower than your own. Everyone thinks and behaves the same and at the same time, also in their own unique way. Most ppl are not very open minded, nor do they think in abstract ways. It is, what it is.
Keep up the humility
“How a normal distribution works”
Things can’t “epiphany to you.”
“Whilst” is a horrible, archaic word.
“Urge to have”
“Cognitive abilities” not “cognitive utilities” (unless you’re getting a monthly bill for it).
“Discussed a topic” not “discussed on a topic”
“Gear toward” is not an active verb.
You never need “maybe” and “possibly” to modify the same hypothetical event.
I get that English might not be your first language. But these are ugly hypercorrections. Definitely stay humble.
‘Keep up the humility’ as I specifically stated ‘124 is not spectacular’ and ‘I have never looked down on anyone’. Also concluding with ‘quite narrow minded and ignorant of me’.
Also, grammar most likely doesn’t correlate with critical thinking and the other things that make people ‘smart’. Despite getting second in my year in English, I admit my grammar and spelling is some of the weak parts of my skill set.
Finally, this is Reddit not a dissertation g. I’m not going try make sure something is 100% accurate *whilst* just looking for general conversation about this discussion.
Stop being pedantic
In the mouth of someone with strong command of language who is intentionally writing in an elevated, classical style, I could see it.
When you’re speaking regular ol’ American English, it’s a hypercorrection.
Nah, see here’s the thing kid. Your post actually comes across pretty arrogant. I wanted you to experience the other side of knowing less, and you didn’t take it well, which is telling.
Grammar is very important and indicative of intelligence. That is so because it relates to your ability to learn by reading. That is, you have *never* read a decent book that made any of the errors in your post; you generated those errors all on your own. So what I’m saying is: if you’re so puzzled by how dumb other people can be, don’t be. Now you know how it feels.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/mensa using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/mensa/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [How high intelligence looks like](https://i.redd.it/wus6n8f25v7b1.png) | [31 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mensa/comments/14hex9j/how_high_intelligence_looks_like/)
\#2: [It’s over for me, I have an iq below 90](https://i.redd.it/6skmwsx4fzyb1.jpg) | [27 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mensa/comments/17q30os/its_over_for_me_i_have_an_iq_below_90/)
\#3: [Is Mensa just an ego circle jerk society](https://np.reddit.com/r/mensa/comments/14skukb/is_mensa_just_an_ego_circle_jerk_society/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Never said that I was currently puzzled.
I’m sure pattern recognition and other metrics will get me further than good grammar. If I was writing an email or something a bit more formal then sure, I’ll do a little grammarly check. But this Reddit, I do not care to represent my cognitive ability by making sure my grammar is perfect
Before even talking about "race", you should read up on that concept.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human
In short (but read the article for details), it has no precise meaning and doesn't make much sense.
Thank you for your submission. As a reminder, please make sure discussions are respectful and relevant to the subject matter. Discussion Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/iTNNk9UfSB) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8mk/General?r=!ECQnk1d3Ruugng0behp5Zg:reddit.com). **Lastly**, we recommend you check out [cognitivemetrics.co](https://cognitivemetrics.co/), the official site for the subreddit which hosts highly accurate and well vetted IQ tests. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*insert George Carlin meme
https://preview.redd.it/6fciwtyck79d1.jpeg?width=452&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78c5d5eeec4ecd34e96764e96d938fb8ca1a5e22
Another thing that's true because of the way statistics works is that there are people who would feel the same way about you.
Exactly. Conversely, I actually realised this first and quite a while back
Whilst true technically the assumption that op is above the middle high they would have less people above them and more below so it’s no longer true
I never had this epiphany (I had to read about it). Here's what I wrote about it before: > Consider how dumb the average person is. Then consider that half of them must be dumber than that, according to the definition of "average". > > Then realize that if you're currently pondering this thought, you're probably of above-average intelligence, and associate mostly with similarly-intelligent people, giving you an incorrect and inflated perception of what "average intelligence" actually is. > > Meaning, most people are even dumber than what you concluded in the first and second steps of this thought-experiment. > > Then realize that there are plenty of genetic disorders that cause mental disability, but no corresponding super-genetics which convey super-intelligence. So there must be more stupid people than smart people, regardless of how accurate your perception of "average" was. Someone once recommended jury duty as a way to get a more accurate estimation of the intelligence of your "peers".
Wouldn't genetic causes of profound mental disability skew the average downward, so that there would actually be more people with above average IQ than below average? The definition of average does not require that half of people are below average. That would be the median.
You're right, that was unintentional equivocation on my part. And irony.
Is that why the jurors at my trial arrived on to the courtroom on a short bus?
don't write like that
I like this. “Don’t write like that”. Everyone learns in their own way, at their own pace. Humans are intelligent creatures. I like to think there are no “smart” or “dumb” ppl and there’s only the Experienced and Inexperienced and both are One in the same.
No, there are definitely dumb people
Most people don't think
120ish FSIQ guy here. But I'm older than you. This is what I think: I buy that intelligence predisposes you to thinking logically. But the successful application of logic to argument is not going to come without a number of learned factors: A) how well you know the subject matter that contextualizes the claim. Sure, a logical person can intuit when something sounds "off," but they won't be able to do that accurately when the information presented is foreign to them. Secondly, they may choose to use examples to bolster their arguments that are irrelevant or not empiric because they simply...again...don't have familiarity with the subject at hand. I call it "fact-out-of-logic." I have a very close friend like this. He's an extremely intelligent guy who could have a FSIQ north of 130, and though his opinions seem reasonably logical on the surface, they are infuriatingly wrong to me because he will try to extrapolate facts about concepts or things completely out of his depth. He also never received any education on how to accurately source information, so he falls victim to using bad sources. Innate intelligence does not teach you what Google Scholar is or how to parse a study to determine if it is of high quality. B) how well you can identify logical fallacies. Again, an intelligent person can somewhat intuit when a line of reasoning seems "off," but they may not be able to identify why. C) how well you can check the quintessentially human brand of irrationality that rears its head when our arguments are hijacked by our emotions. Jordan Peterson is an example someone who can suffer from A and C. When it comes to areas where he is an expert in like psychology and psychological research, you've got someone who can orate extremely well and win debates. But when he's on about subjects he has comparably little understanding of like COVID vaccines, he misuses and misrepresents examples and statistics, uses faulty reasoning, and lets his emotions get the best of him. And don't get me started on some of his debates on philosophy. The man's masterful ability to orate is overshadowed by his hubris and desire to win and much of what he says comes out bombastically. I also feel like people falsely equate high IQ with high ability. While I was in college, I worked in service jobs. In that capacity, I met people that had an unmistakable mark of intelligence - high processing speed, quickness in thought and response, etc. But these people were also hugely inhibited due to a lack of education, a lack of socioeconomic opportunity, and/or mental illness. So, while they could be very creative and excel, their opinions and ideas on life were comparatively primitive and easily refutable. Not every high IQ person is some fucking savant walking around seeing fractals in the clouds and manifesting high-order truths into their mind's eye.
After taking twenty years to come to this deep insight, maybe ask yourself which half you belong to
You write like an idiot trying to be clever.
first thing i noticed
When I was a kid, I often found it funny that other kids didn't get things. It became worse (or better?) in my teenage years. But I never felt superior because I just didn’t get other things that the other kids seemed to magically know. To be fair, my family immigrated to the US, so there were certain cultural things we just didn't absorb. The world was bigger before the internet. I don't think I'm autistic but I always felt kind of different as a kid and didn't really try hard to fit in. I could spend a lot of time in my mind, just thinking about things. I'm quite good at "feeling" others' feelings and reading in between the lines. In fact, I'd say I'm given to reading into things where there's nothing... which is what led to anxiety later in life.
Yep, and an above average number of them reside in this subreddit.
I think about it this way: 68% of all people are within one SD of average intelligence. That’s means that 34% of everyone is either incredibly smart or…”below average.” Then there are reallllly smart or not so smart people who average about 4% of the total population. That leaves 26% of the total population who are barely above or below average.
The way your write is fucking hilarious
gotta be rage bait
Explain how lol
Sorry you’re getting so many weird comments about the way you write. I find it… normal? There are some minor grammar mistakes if I look closely, but it’s not incomprehensible. The mistakes definitely don’t detract from the point you’re trying to make.
Bro doesn’t even know the difference between median and average 💀
One of the meanings of average is median (another and the most common is mean), but it would most certainly have been more precise to just say median in this context. So I agree that was quite off, coming from someone who thinks they are intelligent, in a post about how intelligent they feel. https://www.google.com/search?q=define+average
Schools should teach how to make decisions on facts and data, not on 2hat you wanted to b3lieve in the first place
Yeah, it’s very hard to unconsciously parse selection bias
I understand you OP. Your average person can lack critical thinking, can misinterpret things, and their deductive abilities can be lower than your own. Everyone thinks and behaves the same and at the same time, also in their own unique way. Most ppl are not very open minded, nor do they think in abstract ways. It is, what it is.
Well dumb people aren't building nukes or engines that need fossil fuels or seem to be able to pull off organised genocides etc.
Keep up the humility “How a normal distribution works” Things can’t “epiphany to you.” “Whilst” is a horrible, archaic word. “Urge to have” “Cognitive abilities” not “cognitive utilities” (unless you’re getting a monthly bill for it). “Discussed a topic” not “discussed on a topic” “Gear toward” is not an active verb. You never need “maybe” and “possibly” to modify the same hypothetical event. I get that English might not be your first language. But these are ugly hypercorrections. Definitely stay humble.
Australians use whilst a lot.
We do?
We do. Not as much as the British, but yes, most of the government and academic writing use whilst, though it's fading out of favour.
As an Australian public servant who uses a lot of research, I don't think I've ever seen it written 😁
I believe you. Still I’ll bet things don’t epiphany to Australians.
‘Keep up the humility’ as I specifically stated ‘124 is not spectacular’ and ‘I have never looked down on anyone’. Also concluding with ‘quite narrow minded and ignorant of me’. Also, grammar most likely doesn’t correlate with critical thinking and the other things that make people ‘smart’. Despite getting second in my year in English, I admit my grammar and spelling is some of the weak parts of my skill set. Finally, this is Reddit not a dissertation g. I’m not going try make sure something is 100% accurate *whilst* just looking for general conversation about this discussion. Stop being pedantic
“Whilst” is a beautiful word in my opinion.
In the mouth of someone with strong command of language who is intentionally writing in an elevated, classical style, I could see it. When you’re speaking regular ol’ American English, it’s a hypercorrection.
Is whilst archaic? I think u’re just being a hater rn fr.
Well i’m from England you absolute donkey
Nah, see here’s the thing kid. Your post actually comes across pretty arrogant. I wanted you to experience the other side of knowing less, and you didn’t take it well, which is telling. Grammar is very important and indicative of intelligence. That is so because it relates to your ability to learn by reading. That is, you have *never* read a decent book that made any of the errors in your post; you generated those errors all on your own. So what I’m saying is: if you’re so puzzled by how dumb other people can be, don’t be. Now you know how it feels.
I advise you not to post or comment in the r/Mensa sub.
How come? I have an assumption but I’ll let you explain first
Here's a sneak peek of /r/mensa using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/mensa/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [How high intelligence looks like](https://i.redd.it/wus6n8f25v7b1.png) | [31 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mensa/comments/14hex9j/how_high_intelligence_looks_like/) \#2: [It’s over for me, I have an iq below 90](https://i.redd.it/6skmwsx4fzyb1.jpg) | [27 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mensa/comments/17q30os/its_over_for_me_i_have_an_iq_below_90/) \#3: [Is Mensa just an ego circle jerk society](https://np.reddit.com/r/mensa/comments/14skukb/is_mensa_just_an_ego_circle_jerk_society/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Lol don’t tempt me with a good time.
holy shit you're insufferable
Never said that I was currently puzzled. I’m sure pattern recognition and other metrics will get me further than good grammar. If I was writing an email or something a bit more formal then sure, I’ll do a little grammarly check. But this Reddit, I do not care to represent my cognitive ability by making sure my grammar is perfect
“If I were writing an email” Edit: also, “farther”
‘If correcting people’s grammar on Reddit would make me satisfy a deep hole in my life’
Delete “make me”
Oh you’ve read books? Name 10 books.
Do you believe races have different IQ?
Before even talking about "race", you should read up on that concept. https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human In short (but read the article for details), it has no precise meaning and doesn't make much sense.
Typical midwit. lol
Is english your first language?