Long, 15 pages.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I will explain in detail later why I think American women prefer aggressive men compared to say European ones, but in short we are a younger, more libertarian, more barbaric and less settled society than Europe. I think, and I could be dead wrong here, but Russia women value brains more than American ones, even though Russians in general are more aggressive.
American culture does not value intelligence. It loves to reap the benefits of high IQ types, but we never glorify them for their intellect, only for their achievements and impact. That is, it values the effect, not the cause. In fact, I dare say American culture and society almost wishes it could have the effect without the cause at all!
This is evidenced in the elite universities’ admissions process. They even make SAT scores optional know. To them a 1550 is just as good as a 1600. Not in the Soviet Academy, it’s not. They take “holistic” approach which means. “How rich are you or how socially adept are you?” Exactly the two things women care about the most.
Women, like the Ivy Leagues, want a man have a minimum degree of intelligence, neither suffer fools after all, but past a certain IQ, they view it as a handicap rather than as a desirable trait.
Cunts.
Bit by bit.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS:I will explain in detail later why I think American women prefer aggressive men compared to say European ones, but in short we are a younger, more libertarian, more barbaric, and less settled society than Europe.
I think this must be it. Are Australia, New Zealand, and Canada the same way, though? They’re not. Is it because they never rebelled and stayed connected to the mother ship UK?
It’s not just youth. We are more libertarian and barbaric than either of those places.
I’m not sure about less settled or how much it matters.
Sometimes I think that American Revolution was the stupidest thing we ever did. Just think, if we never had that idiot revolution, we could have ended up halfway civilized like Canada. Instead we had that revolution and it turned us into barbarous, backwards fools, mostly conservatives. Because conservatism itself is barbarous backwards by definition. There’s no other explanation for it.
Of course, the Cultural Left is now just as stupid. It’s not barbarous or backwards, though it’s definitely stupid. It’s too smart and advanced for its own good. The Left is addicted to continuous “progress,” come Hell or high water. Always full speed ahead and more stuff to get liberated. Yet at some point you end up with a sane society that’s about as liberated as it can get. Then you start getting into what Lenin talked about in, “Leftwing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder, change-addicts who start attacking all of the accumulated wisdom of ages on the grounds of
If it’s old, it’s bad.
This is in part the idiocy of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which actually reached near-conservative levels of backwardsness and barbarism.
These are the models of modern liberal-leftism:
Forward change yesterday, forward change today, and (especially) forward change tomorrow!
And instead of
(Most) everything your grandma said was right.
It’s
Everything your grandma said is wrong.
What your grandma said, assuming she was sensible as mine was, boiled down to the accumulated wisdom of humankind.
So what they are really saying is
The accumulated wisdom of mankind is garbage.
I guess because it’s old, and old = bad.
Which is almost breathtakingly stupid but it’s not not backwards or barbarous as conservatism. People on the Alt Left kept trying to say that Wokesters were “regressive” and called the Regressive Left, mostly because of the support for backwards Islam. I kept arguing with them that they were wrong. One brought up that Woke Culture was against the Enlightenment, and that is true in a sense I suppose. That still doesn’t quite hit the nail. The problem here is literally going too far forwards, not backwardness. How is trannyism backwards and barbarous? Get out.
The liberal-Left has nowhere to take change anymore but into insanity, as most of the oppression has been dealt with.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I think, I could be dead wrong here, but Russia women value brains more than American ones, even though Russians in general are more aggressive.
I’m not so sure about that. I met a couple of them on the Internet, and they both wanted to fuck me. One said she was going to New York in a year or two and wanted me to meet here in a hotel there for sex. I asked them if they wanted clothed pics or nudes, and in the confusion of their poor English, they ended up saying both. So they got them.
They both acted shocked, but they stuck around. An American woman would have left. I explained and apologized, they both started gushing, verbally and probably bodily, about how huge my cock was and how much they wanted it right the fuck now. It’s bigger than average – 1 1/2 inches bigger, but it’s not that big. One went on about how some American guy came over to see her in Russia, but he had a small dick. She also said he wouldn’t listen, which to her was about on the level of having a small cock.
Presumably to orgasm.
I want a man with a big cock!
They both kept saying over and over. Perhaps it is not only in brains that I am gifted.
She was great – beautiful and smart.
She was a cool chick. Once I went to talk to her and said,
Ahhh, I just got through masturbating.
A problem was that her English was so convoluted and bizarre that it was almost impossible to talk to her. There was something about the rhythm and “layout” of her sentences that just seemed bassackwards or completely messed up. Often her sentences seemed to literally circle around themselves. I found my mind going around in circles as I was reading her prose. A lot of it ended up making no sense. Yet she was proud she could speak English.
I do get the impression that Russian women like those hypermasculine men though. There’s a video of a hot Russian woman walking around her dilapidated village with a sign, “Husband wanted.” I saw a video she made, and she said he had to be “masculine.” Russian men are hypermasculine of course, as are Ukrainian men, as Ukrainian culture in some ways is just the culture of Southwestern Russia with some weird add-ons.
Perhaps they do value brains though. I have no idea.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: American culture does not value intelligence. It loves to reap the benefits of high IQ types, but we never glorify them for their intellect, only for their achievements and impact. That is, it values the effect, not the cause. In fact, I dare say American culture and society almost wishes it could have the effect without the cause at all!
Well, of course. This is an extremely anti-intellectual society. Sure it loves the benefits of brainy people, but obviously we never glorify them for their intellect. Though there are a few Americans who value this sort of thing.
Right, achievements are valued but not intellect per se, It is interesting that intellect per se without any achievements was highly valued in the European ghettoes of old. It was a garbage culture, but that’s not to say there was nothing good about it.
Chinese culture is much the same way in valuing intellect. Interestingly in both cultures, the women are some of the most high-IQ women on Earth, and those are two of the rare groups of women who actually value the smartest men as the best men of all. The smartest guy in the village is the man all the girls want to marry in both Jewish and Chinese culture. Which is of course baffling to most of us men.
I’ve had a lot of friends in my life, and a few of them remarked on my brains or knowledge (they’re sort of the same thing, but they’re also different). They acted shocked, stunned, and completely blown away by both. One friend said:
Everyone says that. Everyone I know says they can’t believe how smart you are. They’re all just blown away.
I had an audiologist recently tell me I was the smartest guy he knew.
And that’s a compliment because I know a lot of doctors and lawyers. And you’re smarter than any of them.
I’ve had girlfriends say it too, but I always got the impression that it didn’t make them wet between the legs. It almost seemed like it dried them up or at least their pussies reacted with indifference. I’m not sure how a pussy reacts with indifference, not having one of those convoluted organs, but I suppose it can, since it has a brain of its own just like our cocks.
I dated an 18 year old girl when I was 59 years old though, and often when I started talking, she would tell me how horny she was getting.
She also mixed up the feelings of “horny, my pussy is wet” with “getting emotional” and “falling in love.” I’m not sure how often those feelings get mixed up in women, but I imagine it’s more often than we men think. She would say:
Oh my God! I can’t believe how smart you are! I’m starting to get emotional again.
Which always meant she was
- Starting to fall in love with me.
- Getting physically horny, that is, her pussy was getting wet.
So there’s the definition of a sapiosexual.
I’ve also had a woman who said one reason she had fallen in love with me was because, according to her, I was a genius. I made her really horny too, horny as Hell, all the time.
Now I make zero women horny, 100
Come to think of it, that 18 year old girl was horny all the time too, like every minute of every day. I figure it was because she was in love with me.
And I’ve had other women who fell in love with me suddenly get wildly horny much or all of the time, much more so than usual. So it’s possible that love turns on the female sex drive, or love makes their pussies wet.
Another woman said she wanted to literally fuck my brain or fuck my mind, which meant she wanted to fuck me but in part it was for my mind.
And a 20 year old woman wanted to have my baby a few years ago. She was also absolutely blown away by my mind. She kept saying:
Your mind…Your mind…I can’t believe how smart you are.
At the end she dumped me because somehow she thought I was a pussy, and I have no idea why she thought that. She said I had turned from an exciting, dominant guy into “some old philosopher.” She did acknowledge my mind:
Well there is your mind, but…
See that “but?” In other words my mind was very attractive, but it wasn’t enough to overcome the turnoff of the passivity or lack of masculinity or whatever confounded thing was upsetting her about me and making her think I was a pussy. She said:
I want a dominant man! Let me know when you feel like acting like a man!
But, yeah. Americans are anti-intellectual.
I’m probably one of the most interesting people in this whole damn city you could possibly talk to. Not only am I smarter than anyone but 50-60 people in town, but I also know more stuff about general knowledge than most people will meet here. You would think people would want to talk to such an interesting guy who’s smarter than and knows more stuff than about anyone in the city, but nope! Literally nobody wants to talk to me.
Well, a few do. Usually men from 30-60. Some people place extreme value on brains, knowledge, and what you achieved with them. As a rule, as people get higher in IQ, the more interesting they find an intelligent and especially knowledgeable person.
Most people here are what I consider borderline idiots. The problem is when you’re saddled with a stratospheric IQ like I am, even a lot of people with normal intelligence (Which is just fine!) seem like morons. I figure the average IQ here is ~92? Supposedly that’s enough to make a civilized society, but if you drive around here for a while, you might question that.
Most people in the 90-110 IQ range have no use for intellectuals at all. They see them as useless, boring, and annoying. Below 90, intellectualism is probably a liability.
I suppose some ego-defense kicks in there too, because if you’re average intelligence, every time some high IQ type opens up his mouth, he’s making you look like a total idiot, and the obvious ego-defensive reaction to that is going to be hostility. The deep meaning is:
How dare you make me feel like an idiot!
with the corollary of:
I know I’m an idiot but I’m blinding myself to that fact.
This sort of internal thinking is poison to the ego, obviously, so what’s going to come out is:
High IQ people are totally useless and annoying!
They’re always putting on airs and bragging about how smart they are!
Who cares about your damned IQ score!
It’s considered a social error to even mention anything mildly indicative of essential intelligence. What’s valued is knowledge of a practical sort, money, and prestige.
I hate your guts for suggesting that you’re smarter than any of the rest of us!
You trying to act like you’re better than me?
Brains and non-utilitarian knowledge are completely useless and in fact they are a sign of marked inferiority. Being slow and stupid is cool, and it’s the hip way to be. Plus it gets you laid because women love morons.
Beyond the few who think brains and knowledge per se have any value, everyone else reacts with hostility, bafflement, apathy, disinterest or some combination like annoyance, hostility and indifference, to such things, probably to defend themselves against feelings of inferiority. And other cultures are not like this at all, especially European ones.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: This is evidenced in the elite universities’ admissions process. They even make SAT scores optional know. To them a 1550 is just as good as a 1600. Not in the Soviet Academy, it wasn’t.
That’s not what’s going on here. This is all a result of Woke Culture, Political Correctness, SJWism and Identity Politics.
The problem here is that the races differ markedly in intelligence. Of course as a liberal, I’m very unhappy with this state of affairs as it makes society almost impossible for govern and make work.
Basically no one believes this obvious, endlessly proven fact. It’s barely controversial in the field anymore, and I was acquainted with some of the top names in the field like Jim Flynn. And if you mention it, your job, career, and name will be ruined. So this is one more of society’s insane phobias and taboos where if you speak science, truth, or facts, your job, career, and name get cancelled for all of time.
Modern antiracist insanity is predicated on the notion of equity. “Equity” means literally that all races should be present at equivalent rates in every prestigious profession or admissions to all universities.
It’s interesting that they don’t demand that this be the case for ordinary or unprestigious positions.
By equivalent rates, I mean if Blacks are 4
I say if possible, because if Blacks are fewer than 13
There are many reasons for this, but most of them boil down to the fact that Blacks as a group are far less intelligent than Whites; in fact, they are almost a full standard deviation lower.
This one fact (a ~13 point difference in intelligence) is probably behind a lot if not most of the racial disparities in our country. In order to figure out the extent to which intelligence factors play a role in racial disparities, you’d have to do a factor analysis and factor out everything else that might be causing any given disparity. Or take a group of Blacks and Whites with equivalent IQ’s – say 100 IQ – and compare their achievements.
It’s illegal to state this obvious or similar social fact for that matter such as the extremely high crime rate, high rates of all sorts of dysfunctions, and terrible anti-intellectual ghetto culture among Blacks as a group, all of which obviously play a role in these other disparities. On the other hand, to what extent does the lower intelligence differential literally cause the high rates of crime, other dysfunctions, and the idiotic, anti-civilizational ghetto culture?
However, in our insane modern society, all differentials between races can always and only be caused by only one thing: racism. No other cause is entertained and indeed the mere thought that there may be another cause is grounds for cancellation right there. The fact that “racism is the cause of the racial disparities” is utterly unfalsifiable and beyond that, probably a tautology, is of no matter.
Consider the tautological snake eating its tail below:
Why are Blacks dysfunctional? Because of racism.
What is there racism? Because Blacks are dysfunctional.
This is starting to look suspiciously like an dog of an argument chasing its tail around the living room, sorry.
Hence if admissions or hiring were done on pure merit, Whites and Asians would be admitted and hired at far greater than their percentages in the population and Blacks would be represented at far lower percentages than their population. According to modern anti-racist theory, the over-representation would not be due to merit but i but instead because of Whites and Asians being preferentially preferred due to “White Supremacy” for both Whites and Asians.
The only way to even this up, ever, is to weight the scale in favor of in favor of Blacks as a group and hire less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites and Asians. Logically, this is an injustice if we follow Locke, Rawls, and Rorty (Rawls in particular) and the general tradition here in the West that evolved from that thinking, but since Whites and Asians are oppressors, injustice against them is well deserved and even required.
Note that Asians are now themselves “White Supremacist” because, since they are high achievers, they are automatically like Whites, and all Whites are White Supremacist. Hence, Asians are Whites Supremacist-adjacent or White-adjacent. Apparently any group that starts achieving a lot becomes White Supremacist and White-adjacent by default so God forbid any of you other minorities do well for yourselves.
I know it makes no sense. Don’t blame me. I didn’t make up this idiot bullshit.
Since merit will always result in “racist” outcomes or outcomes with serious racial disparities, according to modern antiracism, this somehow means that merit itself is racist. You see a lot of articles saying just this right now.
Of course that can’t possibly make sense, but never let reason get in the way or a Wokester’s brain. This is the common Woke knowledge that everyone must subscribe to now. The reason is that everything that causes racial disparities is objectively racist, including IQ tests, SAT scores, and merit-based university admissions and prestigious job positions.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: They take a “holistic” approach which means, “How rich or socially adept are you?” Exactly the two things women care about the most. Women, like the Ivy Leagues, want a man have a minimum degree of intelligence. Neither suffer fools after all but past a certain IQ, they view it as a handicap rather than as a desirable trait.
Women may indeed care about social adeptness. It’s been a long time since I’ve been socially adept, probably due to a mental disorder, so I have no way of knowing. And the Ivies are still indeed hiring “legacy admissions,” shorthand for rich offspring of graduates.
Women don’t suffer fools? One thing to watch out for is lying to a woman. Women are the masters of the universe when it comes to lying, sort of like Jews I suppose, so the principle is that you can’t fool an expert. Even Schopenhauer remarked on this. Women are therefore always uncovering our lies except those they don’t want to believe. Of course we men lie to you women all the time because if we don’t, we’ll probably never get laid, but never mind, and let’s change the subject, ok?
I would say women have contempt for a man they can fool. Of course at my age that’s the only kind I attract (psychopathic women out to cheat, steal from, and fool men), so I should getting more misogynistic in my old age, but I’m not probably because I had so many great experiences with females.
As a man, you’re supposed to act like
No woman can fool me.
or
You can’t fool me, woman. Don’t even try.
I’m not sure if women actually view my brains as a handicap. Of course some do but those are all dumb working class women. Possibly the most common reaction I’ve gotten other than utter indifference (I think most women are simply indifferent-to-annoyed or a mixture of annoyance and indifference by brainy men) is
Your brains blow me away but they sure don’t make my pussy wet.
Something along those lines. Not quite a handicap but definitely not something that’s going to get you laid, except, as noted above, in some cases. Yes, there are female brainfuckers and mindfuckers out there, but I think there are not so many of them, though I’ve definitely run into a few.
First, let me say I take issue with your definition of conservatives as being barbaric retards. I’m conservative and I’ve found it is the liberal Left who are retards and pretty barbaric. They are never intellectually challenged so they are intellectually lazy and their solution to everything is to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.
The independent-minded conservative is who built this country. Whether it was the pioneer who was always looking over the next mountain or had the gumption to cross unknown expanses of prairie to find a better life or the entrepreneur who bets it all on an idea that becomes a thriving industry. Liberals just wait for the best among us to create then they swoop in and using the force of government take it away and dole it out to their constituents to buy votes. All the while denigrating the producers who risked everything to make it.
I agree that many young women find an older man who can carry on an intelligent conversation refreshing.
Lastly, I’m very smart and I don’t think anyone finds me boring. I’m opinionated, love a lively discussion, have a great sense of humor, and can talk on any subject intelligently. Which by the way I find even older, jaded women find fascinating.
Actually the founders were remarkably liberal for their times, with the exception of that asshole Hamilton and his Federalist dicks, but screw him. Andrew Jackson was remarkably liberal also. Liberals brought universal education to our country. Conservatives hate education, everywhere and always.
See? You think you’re better. You think you won or you’re a winner. That’s why you’re a conservative.
Liberals also are responsible for such at one time quintessentially American things as public libraries, town squares, New England town meetings, etc. – all of them weakened to nonexistent in our current reactionary era. Conservatives were the Monarchist Tories against whom the American Revolution took place.
Yes, conservatives have no use for libraries at all and hate all public spending on construction or architecture. In the last reactionary mountain town I lived in, there was a huge furor because the county wanted to put sidewalks in the busy streets of town. You know, those evil things called sidewalks.
Regarding town meetings, you can’t have those unless you have a government, and conservatives don’t even want towns and cities to incorporate!
Actually the city above was not even incorporated, as there was the biggest fight about that too. This is how conservatives think. If they had their way, we’d have no sidewalks and no towns or cities would be incorporated. If you wanted a sidewalk in front of your home or business, you could build one yourself. Or you could get together with neighbors and adjacent businesses and pay for a sidewalk in front of all of you.
This doesn’t really work though. In that same town, some roads were county-owned and others were private roads. As a rule, the private roads were complete shit and were even downright dangerous. On the contrary the public roads got fixed pretty quickly, especially things like potholes. The reason the private roads were crap is quite simple. All of the neighbors are going to get together to fix the road, and they’ll never get to together to spend that money. You could spend the money to fix the road right in front of your house of course, but why do that? You’d only fix a tiny part of the road.
So if conservatives had their way, there’d be no sidewalks, or incorporated towns and cities and on top of that, all the roads would be complete shit.
And people wonder why I’m a man of the Left! You see why we call conservatism backwards and barbarous.
Yes I think I know how to act around these idiots though but it’s very depressing.
Of course White liberals have no respect for elders at all. I don’t think any White Americans do. Americans don’t engage in elder respect anymore.
,
Actually my part is quite conservative. I met this girl the other day from Kansas and she told me she could never live in my state because it was too liberal and America-hating and she was an America-loving farm girl. This girl had been suggesting that she wanted to fuck me earlier, but when she found out my politics, it was over. Conservatives really hate liberals! She was young but perfectly legal so I assume she would be ok for sex?
Yes this area is mixed. It almost went Democrat the last time around. A rightwing Republican barely won, but it was very close. All the Whites here are conservatives. The Mexicans are more liberal but they simply don’t vote.
.
No, we have a city government here and we have plenty of sidewalks. I was referring to a town in the Sierra foothills where the conservative Whites refused to incorporate or build sidewalks. Pretty typical of small rural conservative White towns in the US.
Yes they believe that metropolises should be incorporated because they’re liberal.
Thank God! Contemporary architecture is hideous an getting worse by the decade. Any conservative effort to stymie new buildings propose by liberals as a great thing! It’s not the intended purpose of the building I’m against, only it’s design. The only good architecture I see is pre-war stuff, the odd mid century modern gem that hasn’t crumbled to the ground, or neo-traditional housing built for wealthy people but never for public use.
Architecture now is the physical manifestation of wokeness. You average fat tattoed multi-pierced undergrad woman has an analogue in the building arts.
The problem is conservatives are too stupid to take over academia and come up with a new form of architecture that doesn’t suck. All they can offer is rehashed neoclassicism, which is kinda boring if I am to be frank, but at least it’s not offensive. No other ornate form of architecture gets built because it’s cost prohibitive. So we are stuck with neoclassical or postmodern grotesque for public works and large private projects (think hospitals or skyscrapers).
Robert, what do you think of architecture? You never talk about it. I’m genuinely curious what an Alt Leftist thinks of contemporary (post-1970) buildings.
More than that. Some of them literally want to fuck your brain!
I’m glad you’re having a good time being an intellectual. It’s never been a bowl of cherries for me. I do have one friend who has what appears to be a 160 IQ. We find each other absolutely fascinating and it’s a lot of fun to talk to him.
I have another friend who must have a very high IQ, but he won’t tell me his score. He has an extremely prestigious job so he has to self-censor all the time and there are so many things he won’t talk about. He calls them taboos and he keeps bashing me for bringing up taboo subjects. He may have a 150-160, I have no idea. He has the equivalent of two doctorate degrees.
But he isn’t very intellectually curious, probably because he’s a Normie NPC on steroids. And he’s so logical with pretty much zero intuition that he’s always coming up with the wrong answers about a lot of things. Logic minus intuition isn’t a very good thinking process.
My brother has a genius IQ too (140+). Hell, we all do, all of us siblings. He and I can have some pretty good intellectual talks, except when he’s drunk because he’s intellectually useless then.
I will say that some people find me interesting. Even a couple of young women recently and another woman about 35-40. With the young women, it was the “Jesus Christ I can’t believe how smart you are” thing. Also they learn so many fascinating new things talking to you, and I think they get off on all of this new interesting knowledge if they’re intellectually curious and some young women definitely are.
I met a 35 year old guy recently who found me very interesting and we had a long talk about a lot of stuff. I think he was pretty damn smart himself though.
“CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: This is evidenced in the elite universities’ admissions process. They even make SAT scores optional know. To them a 1550 is just as good as a 1600. Not in the Soviet Academy, it wasn’t.”
I shall belabor this point. For example, the SAT range for Harvard is 1490-1580 (25th of 75th Percentile of admitted students). Minorities are probably represented in the bottom quartile. The top quartile is 1580-1600. What I am saying is that Harvard doesn’t distinguish between White or Asians past 1550 or so. This is unwise in my opinion since the current SAT has a ceiling of 135 IQ (99th percentile). Emil Kierkegaard (no relation to Soren) has analyzed this an Charles Murray agrees with him.
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/iqs-by-university-degrees-from-sats
https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/1515062296065843200
However, unwise as it may be, their logic is understandable. They correctly claim at an SAT scorer of 1550 is no less capable of academic success, say straight As, in undergrad than a 1600 scorer. This is correct, but I would like for my top institutions to train the brightest minds based on raw talent. This is where a conservative thinking ends.
However, let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter with our liberal thinking caps. All the top schools probably don’t think it benefits society to have every literal genius concentrated on the campuses of the top schools in the Northeast (Ivy Leagues-MIT-Duke, etc.) or California (Stanford-Caltech-Berkeley).
Not granting automatic admission to 1600 SAT scores ensures they get geographically and thus culturally redistributed across the country. Everyone benefits because it loosens up the academic feudalism that has already formed in the top schools of the east and west. The University of Wisconsin and its local economy can benefit from becoming the alma mater of two or three 1600-scoring kids every year.
In effect, the “holistic” admissions process has a secondary effect of intellectual wealth redistribution, which is exactly what you would expect from the liberal cesspool known as the Ivy League.
SAT scores are overrated and can be at worst, extremely misleading. There is no reason someone with an IQ of 115-125 can’t get a perfect or near perfect score after enough hardwork and practice.
I know people that got 1200s and 1300s and managed to raise their score to 1500+ after enough practice tests, coaching, and vocabulary memorization using flashcards. So does that mean their IQ increased from ~115 to ~130 in a span of a year? Interesting to think about isn’t it? I will admit there is a limitation though. It is very rare to increase your score more than 200-300 points. And that fact should tell you IQ is very real but the SAT is not as good of a proxy as way too many people think it is.
I got a 670 on my math portion and could’ve cared less because it meant I was going to get into the in-state school I needed to get into anyway. Ironically, I got a 5 on my AP Calculus BC test as an 11th grader. The SAT math section does not test beyond pre-calculus….. LOL!
Tamerlane “SAT scores are overrated and can be at worst, extremely misleading. There is no reason someone with an IQ of 115-125 can’t get a perfect or near perfect score after enough hard work and practice.”
No. I disagree here. SAT scores are currently overrated only because the ceiling has been dropped to an IQ of 135. It would have been virtually impossible 40 years ago for an 125 IQ to get a near perfect score. Even with the current ceiling, it’s not possible for a 115 IQ person to get near perfect.
There is good anecdotal evidence for this that can be turned into empirical evidence with a decent meta-study: the scores of test prep tutors. These people’s jobs are literally to coach and constantly retake the SAT/GMAT/GRE/LSAT/MCAT.
Some even make this their career and take standardized tests full-time for years at a time, yet most never get perfect scores. In fact they all seem to top at at a certain range. A very high range no doubt but not at all top out at near-perfect or perfect. They all seem to make it to the 99th percentile though.
You can take this to be be evidence to support your claim, depending on what you mean by “near perfect.” To me that means 1580+ on the SAT or 780+ on the GMAT, for example. Regardless, I think all these tutors must have IQs north of 125 or else they wouldn’t be able to tutor.
https://www.manhattanprep.com/instructors/
In regards to you AP Calculus BC score, a score of 5 is only 57th percentile in 2023, which is were this exam tops out. Still a very respectable score no doubt, but the AP exams are far less IQ test like than the SATs. The fact that the SAT asks simpler questions less dependent on specialized knowledge is what makes it more of an IQ test.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make.
For the purposes of my argument let us define IQ as basically = processing speed + abstract reasoning ability.
The math portion of the test only includes concepts up to pre-calculus which puts a cap on the abstract reasoning ability component. The vast majority of SAT test takers will have passed pre-calc by the end of their junior year.
So all that we are left with is testing processing speed which can easily be “improved” by doing enough practice tests and improving test taking strategy through coaching based on individual strengths and weaknesses since most students are not used to ever taking any kind of test in high school where they have to answer 20 math questions in 25 minutes.
The same idea can be applied to the reading/language sections. Most students are not used to ever answering 44 questions in 35 minutes, which by the way is more of a skill(skimming paragraphs, eliminating 2-3 multiple choices) than a purely IQ thing. The SAT is a great proxy for IQ but far from perfect.
The whole AP Calculus BC score percentile is even more misleading than SAT scores. Out of all the students that sign up to take Calc BC the only ones that pay to take the test are the ones that:
1) did not downgrade to Calc AB
2) are not taking it again next year, presumably as a senior in high school
3) are confident they will get at least a 4 so they can save money in college
That right there is a very smart population to being with so acing the test(getting a 5) is not being treated as the achievement that it is by conflating it with being at “only 57th percentile”. To be able to more or less master Calculus 1 and 2(as taught at university) in a single school year as a 17 year old is no joke. It is pretty much the definition of high IQ.
So back to my point. At the end of my junior year I had a 5 on the AP Calculus BC test but only a 670 on the math section of the SAT. There is something very wrong here.
It makes absolutely no sense until I admit that I was, and still am by the way, a lazy piece of unmotivated, unconscientious shit.
The Calculus BC exam has a ceiling of 118 IQ I or so.
57th percentile = 103 IQ
But since only college-bound high-schoolers with a mean IQ of 113 take it :
103 + 13 = 126IQ
But factor in that those who make it it to BC level calc are a bit smarter add another 2 points:
118 IQ.
Your SAT score of Math 670 implies an even higher Math IQ. So I see no incongruency between a Calc BC score of 5 and a Math Sat of 670. If the Calc BC exam mdae finer distinctions you’d liken gotten a 6 or a 7.
“The Calculus BC exam has a ceiling of 118 IQ I or so.”
Calculus 1 + 2 has a ceiling of 118? But SAT pre-calculus has a ceiling of 135??? I think your numbers are way off, man.
Here is the data for the AP Calculus BC exam for 2013:
[https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/rtn/10th-annual/10th-annual-ap-report-subject-supplement-calculus-bc.pdf]
Here is the data for high school graduates by year:
[https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_219.10.asp]
78,291 high schoolers took that exam in 2013, out of which 73.5% were seniors.
So 78,291 * 0.735 = 57,543 seniors took the exam in 2013.
3,408,600 seniors graduated high school in 2013.
So 57,543/3,408,600 * 100 = 1.69% of high school seniors took the exam in 2013.
Let’s not even get into how many statistically aced the exam (got a 5) for the purposes of my argument (it would be only 45.6% of them, less than half).
If we scale this to purely IQ, which by the way would be the most reasonable exam to use since mathematics ability is the best proxy for IQ out of all subjects taught and tested for, it would mean the top 1.69% most intelligent seniors took the exam which come out to an IQ of ~132.
But the statistical likelihood of only the top 1.69% most intelligent seniors taking the exam is 0%. Which brings us back to our discussion on the role of conscientiousness. Plenty of high IQ people could have fucked off and thought to themselves, “I’m going to get this shit done in college anyway so what’s the urgency”. And plenty of IQ 110-115 students may have had pushy, high expectation, helicopter parents and moderately highly conscientious personalities which essentially forced them to perform at a level or two ahead of their true innate abilities.
So once again we come back to my point about conscientiousness and it’s role in performance in standardized timed tests. I think it plays a massively underrated role in the outcome, almost as great as IQ itself but with limitations. So in conclusion, I don’t see why someone with an IQ of 115-120 can’t get, let’s not say a perfect score, but a near perfect score (1550+) on the SAT after months of dedication, coaching, and practice.
I can totally see an individual with IQ 115 and 95th percentile conscientiousness (high) “performing” the same as an individual with IQ 125 and 30th percentile conscientiousness (low). Or as the kids like to say nowadays, “Hard work beats talent that doesn’t work hard.”
Tamerlane: “78,291 high schoolers took that exam in 2013, out of which 73.5% were seniors. So 78,291 * 0.735 = 57,543 seniors took the exam in 2013.
3,408,600 seniors graduated high school in 2013.
So 57,543/3,408,600 * 100 = 1.69% of high school seniors took the exam in 2013.”
The ceiling for this exam depends on finding out the average IQ of the test takers which in this case is 57K seniors (1.69%). It’s unlikely this group is that rarified, but if it is, then the ceiling is much higher than 118.
If they are the top 1.69%, then it ceilings out at 135 IQ.
57th percentile of what?
“In regards to you AP Calculus BC score, a score of 5 is only 57th percentile in 2023”
What on Earth does that mean?
AP exams are have a max score of 5. in case of the Calculus BC exam, a score of 5 is the 57th percentile. It has a low ceiling.a
Btw, I think your friend just had a high IQ to begin with and hadn’t practiced enough. Their certainly is a limitation.
“Btw, I think your friend just had a high IQ to begin with and hadn’t practiced enough.”
Which friend do you refer to here? I’m confused.
“But he isn’t very intellectually curious, probably because he’s a Normie NPC on steroids. And he’s so logical with pretty much zero intuition that he’s always coming up with the wrong answers about a lot of things. Logic minus intuition isn’t a very good thinking process.”
It’s not exactly their lack of intuition but their personality characteristics that make them that way. They are not capable of thinking outside the box. This is due to a lack of genius characteristics (low conscientiousness and low agreeableness besides outlier high IQ). They fall for the narrative and are subconsciously and consciously influenced by the herd’s passion and instinct. Professor Edward Dutton has made videos on Youtube about what makes a genius a genius if you are interested.
These people are pretty much the type to be deceived for decades by stuff like 9/11 and plans for their replacement and dispossession under the guise of strategically manufactured positive emotional connotations of diversity and multiculturalism, despite having 140+ IQ’s. Despite being so much more intelligent than the average fucktard, they still come across as oafish and goofy to me.
On another note, the sweet spot for IQ is 125. Smart enough to work hard and become a doctor/lawyer/PhD in physics yet dumb enough to not be obsessed with the truth/big questions or become depressed by the reality of nihilism.
You are spot on except the low contentiousness part. Usually these profession high-IQ people are very conscientious and do all their homework in school which leads them to professional and financial success. Did you mean low openness perhaps?
Btw, do you have a link to a specific video in mind?
Conscientiousness is more than just working diligently over extended periods of time, it also includes fulfilling obligations to elders/society and following rules(doing what you are “supposed” to do like going to school and being a good little boy).
Geniuses are low in this and low in agreeableness and have high IQs. Basically psychopathic personality characteristics, as psychopaths consistently score low in both agreeableness and conscientiousness. Undoubtably, high IQ and high conscientiousness will make most people very successful and wealthy in life but that is not the same thing as being a genius/having genius-like characteristics.
This is the video I was talking about, long version and then short version:
The Psychology of the Genius: Autism and High IQ Criminal Traits[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUy-lpe8WqM]
What Are the Psychological Traits of a Genius (Very Briefly)?[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSo-0oEZryY]
Oh I think you mean geniuses are low C, low A but high IQ. Int hat case yes. I am very much like that. I am far more creative than I am smart but I have always had terribly low contentiousness. People usually don’t like me because I posit “strange” ideas and I point out unfortunate truths. Like they literally get mad that I waste their time with an alternate point of view because it distracts them from solving the problem at hand using a conventional framework that their superiors handed down to them.
I once read British, Irish, and American men do best with women in Europe. I think this has to do with their aggressiveness.
“Old is bad,” perfectly sums it up. Except if that old is late 60s era rigmarole, then it’s timeless, lol.
Getting back to the anti-intellectualism, anti-science and identity politics infestation of today’s universities this is a very good article by two leading evolutionary biologists: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/06/the-ideological-subversion-of-biology/