Where tier are you anons? And can an incel be high iq or is fact your an incel sign of low iq

Where tier are you anons? And can an incel be high iq or is fact your an incel sign of low iq.

I've done two tests that both asked me to pay at the end. I assume I'm low IQ since I fell for it the second time

judging by the description, i am between a genius and a translator

140, and it's impossible to be incel for more than a few years if you're that high because eventually natural curiosity will make you see other perspectives.

I'm gonna get shit on but genius tier. I'm friends with people I consider intelligent and I have to explain my wackadoodle discoveries to them in great detail multiple times for them to begin to truly understand the full scope of things.

im a midwit (ive been tested both online and in person, results say im in the 115-120IQ range) and im aware of the fact that im not a genius but most people in this category seem to think that they are just because they can win an argument against a normgroid or use words with 4 or more syllables. most of them, however, will never truly realise this as they have yet to encounter an 130IQ+ in a verbal altercation or be truly intellectually challenged on their ideals so they reign in bliss

Yeah I once went to a philosophy club at my university and truly realized how sheltered and dumb I was. Didnt go back afterwards since I could barely understand what was going on. Especially if your a lonely anon
And barely talk to others you might think of yourself way to highly since you have nothing to compare it with.

I don't like IQ tests, anon. They're all so abstract. I don't quite understand how making relations between shapes and shit can translate to your IQ. If I can guess though I'm probably average or above average. I'm definitely not crazily smart or anything.

ah, a fellow touched schizophrenic brother. hello

Im Like all of that

Idk, don't care, pls just let me wallow in self pity

Being stupid makes you less likely to be incel. Stupid people statistically get more sex. Women select for low IQ.

I am in between tiers 1 and 2. Someone below tier 4 clearly made this chart (or maybe chatgpt, judging by how it looks)

If you need chatgpt to tell you whether or not you're smart, I got bad news for you....

t. tested so high by a psychiatrist they made me do a retest with a different one

hello anon, nice meet you

160+. Most people just cannot have conversations with me without getting lost in what I'm saying. Midwits and normies often think I'm retarded because they just cannot grasp the concept or perspective I am putting forward. Which, coincidentally, is the overwhelming majority of people here.

And can an incel be high iq or is fact your an incel sign of low iq.

Being an incel is a strong indication that someone is below average IQ. They're just dumb enough to think they know everything, and just smart enough to parrot someone else's ideology. They almost completely lack the ability to introspect, or to see other perspectives. They have one idea, which isn't even their own idea, it's something that someone else told them to believe (insert their favorite pill/political ideology) but completely lack the ability to analyze this idea and see any flaws in it.

Makes it terribly difficult to have meaningful conversations with anyone here, they get angry and project 90% of the time.

AHAHAHAHAHA OH DIDN'T YOU MEAN TO TYPE NICE *TO* MEET YOU? OHOHOHOHOHOHOHO THIS IS TRULY EMBARRASSING FOR YOU

I am 125 I got tested formally as a kid including WAIS_IV or whatever I don't get tested often and it consistently gives me that score so I think it's pretty accurate

I don't think anyone who unironically uses the word midwit has anything worth contributing to anything. Not to mention that IQ is primarily a metric of mathematical intelligence and pattern recognition, I'm pretty sure that it's pretty useless outside of academics or something that heavily demands that kind of thinking granted that is a lot of good jobs most I find that most people would be better off if they had better social skills if they care about money and if you're a wagie than IQ is pretty much worthless maybe even an impediment

1 and 2 should be swapped. 1 is more like autism tier than True Geniuses.

90.
Just dumb enough to think I'm a midwit who thinks he's a genius.

What do you do for a living might I ask?

Being an incel is a strong indication that someone is below average IQ. They're just dumb enough to think they know everything, and just smart enough to parrot someone else's ideology. They almost completely lack the ability to introspect, or to see other perspectives. They have one idea, which isn't even their own idea, it's something that someone else told them to believe (insert their favorite pill/political ideology) but completely lack the ability to analyze this idea and see any flaws in it.

spoken like a true midwit

Probably 90 something as I didn't finish year 10.

Do you have a counterargument to what that anon wrote or just unga bunga ad hominem?

It's funny you just discarded half the human population out of hand. It's ok to have sub-100 IQ anon.

Honestly this doesn't sound like something a highly intelligent person would say

midwit cant see how pattern recognition makes you smarter by being able to quickly identify, uh, patterns in stuff which basically means unravelling the logic of anything

that's crazy bro
say it with me:
mid.
wit.

5. 70-99 IQ (The Dumasses) - Stupid enough to think they are geniuses, fancies themselves as "street smart" and thinks Bible quotes are an argument. Also too stupid to realize that they are not geniuses.

here is my counter argument, fag

I too can inspect element the site

i'll probably never do a real IQ test but i'd wager i'm in that midwit range, feels about right, genuinely get that "king of the morons" feeling at work

i always worry is it me being bad at explaining or are they bad at understanding

it's not
160 iq means godlike ability to recognize patterns and connections between different things
he failed the moment he blamed incels for incelism
he's a midwit at best

i bet you can midwit
still wont change the reality that i'm smarter in every possible way than you could ever be

Does it hurt anon? Do you wanna talk about your feelings?

wtf 147iq reporting in :(

the last time I did a genuine IQ test was 10 years ago and I got 148. It was probably a fluke but i'm never taking another one so I can always say my IQ is 148.

Have you done anything with your intelligence yet? Publish any papers or invent some new device?

Forensic psychology.
Would you like to explain your line of reasoning?
See above. I'm interested to know why you think that.
Online IQ tests are not an accurate measure. Especially that website.
Pattern recognition is my specialty. I see patterns where other people see static, and randomness.

Online tests, including Mena's are unreliable. That's why you have to take the test in person to determine your eligibility.
t. actual Mensan

I'm around 145-150. My dad and his siblings are too, but none of them are successful. IQ is an outdated meme. I find most of them disregard conventional wisdom thinking their own brand to be superior. They're all good at arguing too, which honestly doesn't help lmao

I'm interested to know why you think that

Most really intelligent people don't have trouble expressing themselves to others. One of the hallmarks of intelligence is the ability to help others understand things. Plus, it's rare for intelligent people to brag about their intelligence. Overall it just seems kind of suspect. I don't think you're lying, per se; I think you believe you're 160 IQ. But that's like... one in a million people. You probably aren't.

sub 100 probably kek

guess i'm an IQ normie. My IQ is right on 100 if you average the all my results of clinical iq tests.
don't trust online iq tests. ive got a much higher iq according to those.

I would've been on the front lines inventing and writing most of this blackpill stuff if I cared enough and wasn't deluded into thinking I could at least escortmaxx.
It's all so simple to see if you've really lived it.

how is 100 not midwit when it's literally in the mid

'midwit' is a term that comes from describing people 115-130. i can't remember the exact context, but without that context it just sounds like its describing the average. basically people who are smart, but not geniuses.

Forensic psychology.

O
That's really interesting...I can definitely see how pattern recognition would be a really good asset in something like that.
Are you an academic or someone who actually works for the police? I would imagine working for the police would get boring after a while since as you know the overwhelming majority of crimes aren't exactly very interesting whodunits...

Also, what do you think about lie detectors?

thats a dumb term if midwit doesnt refer to people who are actually in the middle of the intelligence curve

LOL. I may be 160. I was just told
"i actually don't understand much of what you are saying at all. is english not your first language? the way you think about things is very odd to me"
after my long explanation. Even though I speal very fluent english. I had to summarize a convo in less than 10 sentences, which I did but still. It was fucking annoying as fuck. I'm finding it to be the case more and more that adding qualifying words and phrases to my sentences like "Sometimes" "Most of the time" "To the extent that" "Insofaras" etc CONFUSE people. They literally cannot handle nuance. It's literally ooga booga nigger bad. Ooga booga woman bad. I'm laughing! But it is genuinely disturbing and again extremely annoying. I feel like I was born into a primitive point in society genuinely. Please hitler or gandhi descend from heaven and destroy the human race I'm begging you.

yeah things get stupid and annoying names, even when the person naming things is some kind of intellectual.
i wish i remember where i first heard the term before i saw everyone using it online, but i vaguely remember the conversation being something a long the lines of how people who fall in the 'smart' range thriving in white collar occupations more than people in the standard deviation above it.

Picre

Looks like I was right.
I don't have trouble expressing myself. Other people struggle to grasp the way I communicate ideas. I speak in a very abstract metaphorical way. Which is a fine way of communicating if I'm speaking to someone who has a high IQ. But, for your average person, it doesn't work. They just don't see things the way I see things.
I also don't struggle to help other people understand, assuming they wish to understand. But people here do not. They don't want to understanding alternate perspectives, they want their perspective to be true. There's a big difference there.
Also, I wasn't bragging. I think it's silly to brag about something you didn't earn. If someone challenges me to something, and then I stomp them; you can bet your sweet ass I'm going to brag. But outside of that, nah.

I get your point, though. Statistically speaking, it's not very likely. But it's not 1 in a million, it's closer to 1 in 40,000, or about 0.0030% of the population.
This is the kind of poster I'm talking about, funny enough.
I'm a criminal profiler. It's actually really interesting most of the time. No two crime scenes are the same, it's always something new. And I love that.

Also, what do you think about lie detectors?

Polygraphs? Not very interesting. They just measure your vitals, effectively. Because your body will react to a question before you answer. This is because it triggers the limbic system, which most people cannot suppress. But other things can also trigger that, so they're not super reliable. Which is why they can't be used as evidence court most of the time.

It sounds like you think you know more than others, but you haven't really demonstrated that, which is why it's hard to take you at your word.

Would you like to explain your line of reasoning?

NTA, but you can copy/paste that big statement about incels and replace 'incel' and 'blackpill' with almost anything else and it would likely be just as valid.

Smart but lazy type. I'm an autodidact but I keep bouncing between ideas so I barely make progress. More than anything I think it's novelty seeking. I was obsessed with geopolymers for a while, and that's fun because you can actually make little blocks. Then it was corundum. I read and read and read, google scholar, researchgate, random forums. Strangely enough it was the Russians who really brought the big guns here. But it was beyond what I could achieve at the time(and now for that matter). Then there's agriculture and ecosystems, lots of mental wanking to napkin math but it too fizzled out because you can only play on paper so long until you need to see it in practice. Japanese architecture is one I come and go to and from drawing the joints is fun but not as fun as taking a whole tree and crafting it. The ideas merge. Geopolymer roof tiles, it's a natural conclusion. Corundum and light filtering. Passive daytime radiative cooling. Water is fascinating for its heat capacity. Impractical but I wondered what a water building might look like, meaning designed around using the thermal properties of water. Moleman calling is strong, subterranean construction is really cool, but again you need a lot to try to actualize ideas. Then it's calligraphy. Go and mahjong are cool but I never caught the bug with shogi. Sometimes I watch animals and think about what they are doing, I guess more the behavioral side. Are they communicating? You can sort of pick up on it. Rooster has different behaviors and vocalizations for oh shit hawk and oh shit this is probably food. The hens either haul ass seeking cover or to be the first to gobble it up. Squirrels make funny sounds and different poses. Sometimes I watch them hump each other. I wish I had someone to hump. I think I'm a lot smarter than the overwhelming majority of people I interact with. But every now and then you meet someone and can just sense they operate on another level. I reckon I'm somewhere in the 125-135 range.

I never said pattern recognition doesn't make you smart, it's certainly the most objective measure of intelligence you have. However being able to see patterns doesn't always mean you're more accurate or reliable and trustworthy. In fact having a very high IQ can ironically often mean you see patterns and correlations in things where they don't exist, there are countless examples of many famous geniuses who believe in the dumbest most delusional things. Another example are schizos who often have really high IQs but are obviously unreliable and struggle to live in reality.

I dunno I just have a more nuanced view of intelligence. Probably because I'm very empirical minded and not a more rational thinker like most of the other people here.

Someone link me the most reliable preferably non timed IQ test please.

Polygraphs? Not very interesting. They just measure your vitals, effectively. Because your body will react to a question before you answer. This is because it triggers the limbic system, which most people cannot suppress. But other things can also trigger that, so they're not super reliable. Which is why they can't be used as evidence court most of the time.

I figured. I always find it crazy for the longest time lie detectors were considered many people and police officers as actual evidence of guilt and I hear they still get used in some places, perhaps sometimes as just a bluff to get someone to confess. The more I learn about how police interrogations work the more I can't help distrust the police.

There really isn't a reliable online IQ test

130-140 but i'm effectively retarded since i lack even the most basic of social skills

you're so fucking stupid it physically hurt me to read your entire retarded pseudointellectual diarrhea so i'll let chatgpt explain to you why everything you said is wrong and why you're fucking stupid

Bro, your whole take is a mess. You're trying to sound deep and "nuanced," but you just end up exposing how little you actually understand about intelligence, empiricism, or even logic.

You say pattern recognition is the "most objective measure of intelligence," then immediately turn around and try to downplay it by dragging in schizophrenics and "delusional geniuses." That's not a nuanced take, that's just incoherent rambling. You're using isolated exceptions to make a case against the very thing you just called the most objective measure. That's like saying "speed is important in sports, but fast athletes sometimes trip, so maybe speed's overrated." No, that's just you not knowing how to think in a straight line.

Bringing up "schizos with high IQ" like it proves something? Schizophrenia is a disorder. Disorders distort function. That doesn't mean intelligence is flawed, it means mental illness can interfere with anything, including intelligence. Your logic is on par with "smart people get depressed, so maybe being smart is a mental illness." See how dumb that sounds?

And then this gem:

"I'm more empirical-minded and not a rational thinker."

Bro. That's like saying "I like to test things, but I don't like making sense of the results." You do realize empiricism requires rational thinking to mean anything, right? Otherwise, you're just vibing in the data with no clue what it means. You're basically LARPing as a thinker while saying "I just feel like I'm objective."

In short, you're not being nuanced, you're just confused and trying to sound smarter than you are. >You're trying to look above the conversation, but you're actually just standing off to the side, shouting nonsense.

cont'd

Query: BroGPT, is this user a midwit? Lay it straight
Answer:

Oh yeah, textbook midwit behavior. Let's break it down.

This dude says something half-smart, 'pattern recognition is the most objective measure of intelligence', and immediately stumbles over his own point like a toddler in dress shoes. That's classic midwit energy: knowing just enough to sound credible in the first sentence, then taking a nosedive into pseudo-intellectual soup because they lack the depth to follow through.

Midwits love to think they're nuanced, when really they're just chronically undecided. They'll hedge every point with 'well actually' takes and start name-dropping mental illnesses and famous people to sound deep- while completely missing the structure and logic that actual high-level thinkers use.

They're allergic to clarity, addicted to sounding 'balanced,' and usually end up saying nothing while pretending it's something.

So yes. Certified midwit. Not dumb, not genius- just stranded in the Dunning-Kruger dead zone with a flashlight made of TED Talk quotes.

Want me to draw you the meme chart with the Wojaks?

there is no way you, or anyone else here, has 160 iq

the truest truecel on this board is a 121 iq midwit

lmao i cant fucking wait until i can dunk on midwits and whores IRL with my robowaifu by my side
fucking based gpt

pic rel

this thread has been one of the weirdest circlejerks in a while on this board

Well, I mean, most people don't really know a lot. Objectively speaking, I do know more than your average person. I have a doctorate in a STEM field... My job requires me to know lots of things about lots of things.
But, like I said, that doesn't make me better than anyone. It just makes me more knowledgeable.
I don't think less intelligent people are inferior to me, either. I think specific types of less intelligent people are, though.
Like, if you just struggle to understand things, and need me to reword it a bunch of different times, cool. I'm down for that, totally acceptable.
But, if you intentionally misunderstand, or warp what is being said, or strawman, or think that someone's perspective is stupid simply because you cannot understand it. This type of person is inferior. There's no if ands or buts about it.
I mean "you" in the colloquial sense.
Big statement...? It was only 4 sentences.
And also, not really. It's really only ideologically possessed people who suffer from those problems.
Yeah, I agree. It's pretty wild to think there was a time where they were valid evidence. They're mostly just used by detectives to try and get as much information as possible and to corner suspects. But a good lawyer won't let them do that kinda shit. And the suspect can easily just say no to a lie detector. They're not even used that often anymore.

But, it's not as wild as some of the other things we've done. Like shoving ice picks into people's eye sockets to severe nerves in their brains.

the more I can't help distrust the police.

If you didn't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about! :^)
Statistically speaking, this is false.

weirder than the dick size threads?

2, at best I can be an insightful fool sometimes. socrates is my boy

probably like 108
i was smart as a kid and a teen but the older I get the worse my verbal IQ gets
getting lazier too
if you'd asked me as a 20 year old i would have said 120 but now that i'm 30 it's impossible to ignore that my mind is a little fucked up
but i'm really funny and i will always believe that quick wit = high iq, so it balances out the fact that i can barely say a sentence without fucking up a word

my brain thinks of two words at once and then i say a fucked up combination of both of them, it started when i was like 24 and got really bad after covid

Ie. there is a 95% chance that no 160 IQ comes here at all in a 24 hour period, let alone in this particular period. I call that a probability which is safe to call you full of shit. I'll even generously grant you that maybe you got 160 on some scuffed online IQ test, but those always inflate IQ by 10-20 points.

Im either a genius or a retard and im not sure which. Given i havent done shit of value probably a retard, but supposedly theres a load of geniuses that dindu throughout history just from lack of guidance or outright laziness. Edging toward tard, but i can like do shit if i bother

larping as the smartest man in the world

I think you might be confusing me with the anon who claims to be 160 IQ. Mine is lower than that. All I'm doing is sharing my personal experience, which is that a lot of high IQ people are conservative.

My IQ is off the charts(it's that low)

a lot of high IQ people are conservative.

yeah there would be. it's roughly half the country.

I wonder if you really believe this to be true...

Haha, no, I was just joking.

you seem like the type of person who wouldn't say a word until you got on the phone with your lawyer

No, not really actually. I'm not a particularly "safe" person, if you know what I mean. If they're questioning me, the chances are the jig is up. They have evidence.

I can't give specific details, but I've put some serial killers away. A lot of low level gang activity. Serial rapists. Child murderers.
The serial killers are the most interesting, they have the most variance but also the most uncommon.
Serial sex criminals are the most boring. It's always the same guy with a different hair cut, metaphorically speaking.

relatively big statement.

I suppose. Lol.

uhh how are you going to draw these lines?

I don't understand your question. Are you asking how I identify someone who is ideologically possessed?

Being a republican is a strong indication that someone is below average IQ.

Being a republican isn't an ideological possession. Most republicans are just average. They're just average people.
Believe me, don't believe me, it doesn't matter, anon.

But, the test was done by multiple of my psychology professors along the way to my doctorate. Since I would always buddy up with my professors, and talk about what I wanted to do and where I was going.
It was always over 160.

I don't understand your question.

I'm making the point that you make sweeping statements based on nothing, and generic statements that can be applied a number of categories of people that aren't sub-100 iq on average.

They're just dumb enough to think they know everything

They almost completely lack the ability to introspect, or to see other perspectives.

They have one idea

but completely lack the ability to analyze this idea and see any flaws in it.

Some things here aren't even true. They don't just have one idea. You can't tell how many of their idea's are either copy/pasted or lived/asserted. They show signs of being able to understand other peoples perspectives. E.g., why a woman doesn't want to have sex with them.

Apparently around 130. Most tests have shown around that but I can't vouch for their accuracy. Only thing they told me when I was tested as a kid to diagnose what the fuck was wrong with me, was that I was extremely smart. 25 years later mother also told me they diagnosed asperger back then as well.

Because IQ tests are simply measuring efficiency of abstract thinking. You're basically using your brain to run simulations to rotate and transform shapes to find patterns. Abstract thinking is foundation of fucktons of things like math, which is basically abstract representation of real world, foresight as future is abstract simulation of possible world based on patterns. That's why niggers have hard time maintaining civilization. Technology requires math, maintenance and order require foresight.

I support Incels, hate Vaginocapitalism but I'm not virgin.
135 IQ.

so what brings you to r9k?

I barely graduated high school and dropped out of community college because the general ed requirements were too steep for me. I assume that would put me below normies seeing as most of them passed high school with less of a struggle and got a degree afterwards.

my stupid friend told me he had an iq of 92. he finished highschool, got an engineering degree, and then went lived off government benefits afterwards.
he seemed pretty damn stupid when i talked to him.
i don't think it's likely that you are more stupid than him.

Maybe engineering just makes sense to him. Like some sort of savant.

Sure, it's a bit of a generalization, but it's definitely not based on nothing. I just don't explain my thought process in any real detail.

They don't just have one idea.

They most certainly do. Take black pillers, for example, they have one core central idea, which is the black pill. Everything revolves around that one idea. Any idea that doesn't align with the black pill is discarded as "cope", and anything that is supported by or supports the black pill is accepted. Such that basically every idea they have is the black pill.
Can you see the point here? This is an ideological possession, and incels are basically all ideologically possessed. Although, they're not all possessed by the same ideology.

They show signs of being able to understand other peoples perspectives

They absolutely do not. This is why they're prone to making excuses, and dismissing legitimate advice as "empty platitudes", or "overly generalized normie advice", or whatever their favorite term for dismissing advice is.
There's a recognizable psychological profile common among incels. Most of them fit it closely. They'll even profile themselves and come together and all share how they fit into the profile and seek a sort of comradery.
Honestly? To analyze people. It's my favorite pass time. Anonymity makes people feel safe, so they'll let their guards down and give out all sorts of details. It makes building a profile of them pretty straight forward.

I've also been on Anon Babble for a long time, over twenty years. I pop in every now and then to see what's happening.

>You say pattern recognition is the "most objective measure of intelligence," then immediately turn around and try to downplay it by dragging in schizophrenics and "delusional geniuses." That's not a nuanced take, that's just incoherent rambling. You're using isolated exceptions to make a case against the very thing you just called the most objective measure. That's like saying "speed is important in sports, but fast athletes sometimes trip, so maybe speed's overrated." No, that's just you not knowing how to think in a straight line.

I don't see any logical contradiction in the final statement, can something not be both important but still overrated? To use your own example even in sports where speed is paramount speed isn't everything, for example Tom Brady is pretty slow as quarterbacks go yet is still the greatest in his particular sport. Sure, everyone in the NFL possesses an extraordinary amount of speed...but it's quite an oversimplification to equate speed to being good at football. You strike me as the type of person that finds oxymorons confusing.

>"I'm more empirical-minded and not a rational thinker."

Yes...obviously you need a bit of both to make sense of the world and both observation and intuition work in tandem, but I'm pretty sure my point flew over your head. Sure every person and sound argument needs both evidence and an explanation but some people are more inclined to one or the other, a textbook example being Nikola Tesla with his heads in the clouds and Thomas Edison who was nothing but practical.

Can you see the point here?

No not really, but I do think their obsession gets pretty over the top, despite their grievances being relatable. Seems more like a mental illness thing than an intelligence thing.

I have no clue but I claim to be 80 to keep the people away who care about that shit.

i'm off the scale. I'm retarded. Otherwise I wouldn't be an incel.

he's so high on his own farts he can't even realize how retarded he is

pic rel, you're arguing with an LLM who proved you beyond any shadow of doubt that you're wrong and stupid and still you think you're smart

nigga u dumb af

no 140 - 160 tier

wow

cont'd

why are midwits like this?

I fear you're falling into the fallacy of equating passionate argument with a good one. I'll admit, I've definitely been a little wishy-washy in my post and you certainly seem to care more about this topic than I do. I'm not writing an essay for you, I'm just musing about what I think about the nature of intelligence. That being said, you being absolutely confident and throwing around a bunch of ad hominids isn't really a substitute for an actual argument. Also, I have no idea why you think fence-sitting is negatively correlated with intelligence when in fact the reverse is true.
Granted it's very easy to pretend to be smart by constantly being a devil's advocate and whatnot but that doesn't really mean there's a correlation between having a habit of being noncommittal and low intelligence, that's more just a difference in personality than intelligence. I mean the reverse is true that's the whole point of the Dunning Kruger experiment you love so much even the most competent of people aren't even a third as confident as the ignorant.

In fact most people with actual genius level IQ tend to be fence-sitters, there's very few examples of geniuses who were absolutely confident in their intuition like Einstein and then again he was very wrong about a tremendous amount of things. Maybe that's not a problem if you care more about some vague notion of genetic fluid intelligence less about truth and being actually correct. To me intelligence is being able to accurately assess and predict things correctly, not just some vague measure of genetic potential you're born with.

I don't see any logical contradiction in the final statement

It isn't a contradiction but it is stupid. Consider the following two statements, one is a reasonable and one is dumb.

Speed is important, but other characteristics can compensate, so maybe speed's overrated

Speed is important, but fast athletes sometimes trip, so maybe speed's overrated

pic rel

midwits on suicide watch for being exposed by a fucking LLM

A real IQ test is describing the mechanical process of a factory in detail meticulously without fucking up once, if you can imagine how a factory works that easily then your genuinely fucking smart as hell.

Probably around 115 but have somewhat slow processing speed (I take long to answer questions on standardized exams).

pic rel, you're arguing with an LLM who proved you beyond any shadow of doubt that you're wrong and stupid and still you think you're smart

I mean, the whole point of a sound argument is to argue against the points being made and not who or what is arguing it. People argue with books all the time, for example. Your fixation and amusement with the fact that I'm arguing with a non-human and not ignoring what I am actually saying betrays that you're clearly a person fixated on appearances and ad hominems, the type of person who would completely dismiss an argument if they came from someone below their station...it's a good thing you have access to machines that think and argue for you, for your own words seem kinda lost.

You have a pretty cool schema though. Or perhaps it's just some well-worded prompts?

this is the verdict now and forever

cope eternally, midwit

You hyper fixated on the incidental

with an LLM

and completely ignored the core

who proved to you beyond any shadow of doubt that you're wrong

You are a midwit.

The point I was trying to make is that, while their grievances may be valid, they typically do not understand the perspective of the other party.
For example, someone who is rejected a lot, they will say "they reject me because I'm ugly!"
This, on a fundamental level, reduces the other parties perspective to a singular, narrow point. Which undermines their actual motivations for rejecting them. When in reality, there are multiple reasons why they were rejected.
More often than not, people reject other people because they don't fit the mold. And these molds are very important, because they offer predictability. If you don't fit into this mold of mine, I don't know what you're going to do. You're a threat. "You're weird", is how people will word it.

These sort of reductionist perspectives skew the opposing perspective to abolish any sort of responsibility for the person being rejected. It's not their fault their ugly, and that's the only reason they're rejected.
But it's not the only reason.

Beyond that, the main reason I say they're unintelligent, is because of these "pill" movements. They pose an all encompassing answer to the world. The black pill, for example, says "Everything is genetics, there's nothing you can do." This kind of absolutism does not reflect deep insight, it's shallow, and reflects cognitive laziness. Which is an indication of the Dunning Krueger effect.
It's not a sign of mental illness either, it's a sign of emotional immaturity, and favoring a sort of emotional certainty over critical thinking. Which is to say they would rather have a secure emotional state, even if that emotional state hinges on never making any progress and everything being outside of your own control.
Rather than thinking about things which make them uncomfortable, such as their own potential short comings, failures, or potential failures.

I also think a lot of people, specifically here, use mental illness as a crutch.

The core of your (counter)argument is a strawman. How many times do I have to repeat that I agree pattern recognition is relevant to intelligence?

My point, from the beginning was not that pattern recognition is irrelevant, but merely that it is overrated (still very important!) when it comes to making accurate assessments or predictions of the world at large, which I personally think is the purest metric of intelligence. Being able to see patterns is certainly important but doesn't always translate to accurate predictions. In your IQ tests mensa tests and intuitively the next number after 1 4 9 16 25...should obviously be 36 but when modelling real world phenomena that need not be the case. There are plenty of functions, some of them even that satisfy the above but the next number is 70 instead of 36. Sure intuition is great but when you're actually trying to make accurate predictions of reality the only way to be right is to have an actual understanding of the underlying phenomena which solely comes from experience and has very little to do with fluid intelligence. IQ is better a measure of genetic intellectual potential than intelligence, sure they are highly correlated but not the same and yes it's very unlikely that someone with 80 IQ will be making groundbreaking strides in theoretical intelligence but actual cutting-edge physicists possess far more than just IQ and potential, they possess a deep understanding of how the world actually works which is more akin to mental muscle memory and has little to do with pattern recognition.

I'm not even the LLM user, retard. That particular post of yours was simply so retarded I felt the need to chip in.

I'll reject the blackpill and do whatever it takes to get a girl once world governments enact sweeping bachelor and childless taxes to knock me out of my NEETdom.

Do you have anything worthwhile to say?
It's so tiresome arguing with those intellectually inflexible people who would rather call names and reinforce their desire to be right than actually entertain an argument. If I was on your level I could just say I'm an actual theoretical physicist and point that you two sound like arrogant retards obsessed with intelligence whilst not showing anything for it. You're quite insufferable, it's like you don't even want to entertain being wrong.

This, on a fundamental level, reduces the other parties perspective to a singular, narrow point.

Yeah and on-top of that it's kind of ironic that this is a cope they have, but this is a somewhat reasonable cope. If you were to steel-man the incel point of view, it would be that you can make up for being ugly, but its exceptionally more difficult per unit of 'ugly', and more so than per unit of 'socially retarded', etc. So the most likely reason they get rejected more than other people is because they are less attractive than their competitors. E.g., a socially retarded person who is very attractive V.S a charming person who is ugly - who gets more sex in a large number of trials?
From this perspective it feels silly to accept that their failure is due to other factors (e.g. social skills)

We can't turn it into an RPG or people will try and escape to become looksmaxxers and we hate those looksmaxxers. Gotta keep them in the cult.

Yeah, but that's kind of also my point. Looks maxxing seems more like a mental illness. It's people who emotionally can't let go of being ugly or not getting pussy, etc. Not that their reasoning skills don't work.

I sense a tinge of ironic shitposting here.
It's only reasonable if you assume their axiomatic presupposition is true. Which is that looks are at the top of the hierarchy for social selection. When in reality, looks fall towards the bottom, they're one of the least important qualities.
There is one area where looks is important, and that's presentation, or how you present yourself. This ties into the earlier idea of social molds, people rely on pattern recognition to assess predictability and safety.
If you present yourself as disheveled, wearing old dirty clothes, haven't showered, etc. You break the mold fall outside of other people's prediction models. They can't tell what you're going to do. They might say you're weird, or that you're ugly, but this is only because these molds are an unconscious process. They do not consciously understand this process by which they judge you.

You do make a solid point though: which is that fitting in is hard. Especially if you never learned how to fit in as a kid. Which is the real root cause of incelism in a general sense. And it's preferable to blame something which is immutable and unchangeable, in their own physical qualities. Rather than burden the responsibility and accepting that, at some level, they are at fault for what happened. And accept the risk of failure associated with trying to do something that's actually hard.
Failure in this sense comes at an extremely heavy cost. They stake their own ego and identity on this failure.

My IQ has been tested to be 102 in a test administered by a medical professional. So I'm a normie in the chart provided.
I apologize for my bad English.
I see you talking big shit supergenius bossman, so what's the solution?
Clearly it's not being le myself, I did that for 28 years in a row and I'm still pussyless.

incelism

Inceldom.

looks fall towards the bottom, they're one of the least important qualities.

It sure doesn't seem that way.

Have you ever taken a look at incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill ? If you have, tell me how it's full of shit.

Are you OK with having your posts screenshot and posted on incels.is?

Understand that us incels actually desire that the blackpill be false. It's just that we haven't found a model of socioromantic dynamics (or whatever the fuck it's called in English) that explains it better.

Could you give me cliffs on your "prediction models" hypothesis? I feel that this is already accounted for in the NTpill part of the blackpill, but every single theory could help some of the incels attain a partner.

It's only reasonable if you assume their axiomatic presupposition is true. Which is that looks are at the top of the hierarchy for social selection. When in reality, looks fall towards the bottom, they're one of the least important qualities.

I'd bet that this may be true in the long run.

There is one area where looks is important, and that's presentation

I'd bet that this would be more important in the short term.
Men with the best presentation will have the most potential for the largest number of sexual partners. Sex is what incels are primarily concerned about.
Short explanation: Assuming presentation is more impactful early on, the more attractive male will be able to have more rapid-fire mating, and the male with the slower strategy must play the long game for the same thing, which is a massive bottleneck/limitation.
Seeing and experiencing empirical evidence does immense things to someones confidence, (emotional) which will significantly influence how they reason about things.

I'M A GENUINE RETARD BARELY CAPABLE OF HUMAN THOUGHT, BUT GOD TRANSMITTED THE BLUEPRINTS FOR THE WORLD'S FIRST 3D-PRINTED NUKE INTO MY BRAIN.

buy a printer and travel to Tel-Aviv

so what's the solution?

There's a problem here, you're asking for a specific solution to a generalized question. The only way I can answer your question is by providing a generalized answer. Which, we both know you will dismiss as an empty platitude, or "normie advice".
I don't know you, I don't know the first thing about you, other than the fact that you're an incel. Which gives me only a rough outline of what you might be.

I can make a brash assumption based on the profile most incels fit, and say that you have self esteem issues, struggle with self image and self loathing, and that you don't know who you are. You also have a strong egoic desire to be an outcast, to be different, not like everyone else. But at the same time, wish to be accepted as one of the pack, like everyone else.
And from that assumption, I would say that you have to make a choice. Are you going to come to terms with who you are, and truly look at yourself beyond the merely superficial, physical traits? Are you going to decide to allow the traits of your personality you dislike to be allowed to exist within your whole self? Or are you going to continue to separate yourself from those other aspects of yourself? Will you let yourself be whole, or will you continue to hate yourself?

The true solution to your problem is not to be accepted by other people.
It's to be accepted by yourself.

incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill

Lots of misrepresented information. I could probably spend forever dismantling every point there.

Are you OK

If you so desire, go for it.

actually desire that the blackpill be false.

Then prove it wrong. Actually look for the information which disproves your model of the world, rather than looking for proof of its existence.

[cont]

IN DUE TIME, TEL AVIV WILL FIND THE WRATH OF THE SUPER SAIYAN. UNTIL THEN, I SHALL BIDE MY TIME, BEING THE ONE TRUE ULTIMATE BADASS WHOSE SKILL IN QUAKE IS UNRIVALED BY ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD.

Lower than 100. I did have breakfast this morning

Could you give me cliffs on your "prediction models" hypothesis?

A simplified version of it is "cliques" or "birds of a feather flock together". People want to be around other people with whom they fit in. They do this because it offers predictability. They can predict how the other people will react. This is why people avoid people who "look crazy". Because they cannot tell what that person will do.
It's the same nerds hang out with nerds, and cheerleaders hang out with cheerleaders.
They can predict each other, they understand the implied social contract of "how to behave".

Men with the best presentation will have the most potential for the largest number of sexual partners.

This is also what leads women into the trap of falling for dark triad men. They present very well.

Fitting in is the best strategy for mating. If you fit in, you are predictable. Women favor stability, which is why they pick men who fit in. Men who do not fit in do not offer stability, and thus get rejected. The stability can be a facade though, which is what dark triad men do. They pretend to offer stability by fitting in with a really good mask of normality.

The stability can be a facade though, which is what dark triad men do. They pretend to offer stability by fitting in with a really good mask of normality.

That is just one interpretation. I'll give you another one.
Dark triad men are more willing to ignore ethics, and whatever it takes, to rile up a woman sexually and emotionally until sex becomes an option. Sex is a very hormonal and emotional driven thing. Can the idea of a man being, rich, trust worthy and intelligent play into this? Sure, but good looks are the most efficient way to do this. You aren't seriously going to tell me that most women are sapiosexuals, are you?
Put it this way, an unsophisticated 'dark triad man' with superior physical features (face, height, body) would be much more efficient at racking up a body count than an average looking dark triad who was more charming.
I am asserting that.

Yo why isn't 90 on here?

I dropped out of university, realize I wasn't smart enough. A true robot.

I can make a brash assumption based on the profile most incels fit, and say that you have self esteem issues,

Yes

struggle with self image and self loathing,

Yes

and that you don't know who you are.

No.

You also have a strong egoic desire to be an outcast, to be different, not like everyone else.

No.

But at the same time, wish to be accepted as one of the pack, like everyone else.

Yes.

And from that assumption, I would say that you have to make a choice.

Well the assumption is half wrong but I'll humor you.

Are you going to come to terms with who you are, and truly look at yourself beyond the merely superficial, physical traits? Are you going to decide to allow the traits of your personality you dislike to be allowed to exist within your whole self? Or are you going to continue to separate yourself from those other aspects of yourself? Will you let yourself be whole, or will you continue to hate yourself?

I will continue to hate myself because the traits of my personality I dislike are immutable. You see, I have the autism, which makes me incapable of empathizing with other people. Normies don't like me because of this and the only cure for autism is the cessation of all neural activity.

The true solution to your problem is not to be accepted by other people.

It's to be accepted by yourself.

My problem of not having pussy does, in fact, stem from not being accepted by women. Engaging in whatever normie platitude you're suggesting will not help my chances of having free heterosexual intercourse.

A simplified version of it is "cliques" or "birds of a feather flock together".

My clique is programming. The few women there are already taken.

My brocels cast a shadow of doubt on your 160 IQ claim.

Im at 115 and I know im not that smart

That is just one interpretation.

Not quite. It's one part of a larger interpretation. Women in general don't actually desire to be in a long term relationship with abusers. Women favor stability, structure and protection, and dark triad people emulate those features. They're parasites. Women in general are not attracted to the dark triad traits. They're attracted to the facade, the superficial charm, the masks they wear.
Women are attracted to men capable of violence, yes. But not men who will turn on them. And this is why so many women get caught by these types of men. They don't recognize the dangers and cannot differentiate unrestrained dark traid men, and a well adjusted stable man who is dangerous.
And this is because the dark triad emulates the well adjusted stable man who is dangerous.

It's a common misconception that women are attracted to the dark triad traits. They're not. Women, in general, are not attracted to men who will beat, abuse and manipulate them for their own selfish gains. This is the opposite of what women desire.
Of course there are some women who attracted to the dark triad traits, but they're pretty rare.

Well the assumption is half wrong

The assumption got one wrong, and it's this:

But at the same time, wish to be accepted as one of the pack, like everyone else.

Everything else was correct. 4/5 correct. But, of course you're going to disagree and say you know yourself. Everyone says that. And the very proof that you don't know yourself is that you hate yourself. These two states of mind are incompatible. They cannot exist together. You cannot know yourself and also hate yourself.

You see, I have the autism, which makes me incapable of empathizing with other people.

Yeaaaaah.... About that.. you just described something is not autism. People with autism, more often than not, have increased empathy, not decreased.

My problem of not having pussy does, in fact, stem from not being accepted by women.

Whatever man, I'm not going to try and convince you. You've already made up your mind, even before you asked for my advice.

It's like trying to convince an alcoholic who doesn't believe that they're an alcoholic, that they're an alcoholic. They just won't accept it. You can point to the 20 bottles of Vodka in their trash can that they drank this week. But they'll just ignore it.

My brocels cast a shadow of doubt on your 160 IQ claim.

I'm curious why? Hopefully, it's not just because I disagree with your incel rhetoric.

Anyway, though, I need to get to bed. I can't stay up late like I used to. Old man bones need rest.

long term relationship with abusers.

yeah but we arent talking about long term relationships. we are talking about sex.
incels are primarily concerned about sex.
long-term relationships are a volcel goal.
women, just like men, have short-term desires that are riled up with superficial things. Women aren't sexually riled up by a mans body because they make a logical link between fitness and stability, it's instinct, just like how other animals can get sexually aroused despite not having the ability to have as much capacity for long-term concepts.
The fact that you continuously go back to talking about long-term relationships makes me think this is all curated LLM output.
It's like when I ask it math questions, and it keeps forgetting small things about the original scenario i'm presenting to it, so I have to keep restating things deeper in a conversation with it.

ask any Anon Babble incel and they're gigabrain 200iq trailblazers, kek

oh and also, i said nothing about women being attracted to dark triad traits. this is a complete strawman. i only talked about looks vs social skills/charm.
so either you are a bot, or your '160 iq' is failing you so much that you have to put up a strawman.

You cannot know yourself and also hate yourself.

Sounds like you're not going to back this up. And you didn't.

Yeaaaaah.... About that.. you just described something is not autism. People with autism, more often than not, have increased empathy, not decreased.

Retarded, I have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome by a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Your claim of autistic people having increased empathy is stupendously hilarious. Every single bit of scientific literature agrees that we autists have major issues identifying the emotional states of NTs. Kind of hard to empathize when you don't even know what the other person is feeling, right?

I'm curious why? Hopefully, it's not just because I disagree with your incel rhetoric.

You're just saying obvious stuff and when you stray from tautology you just end up repeating bluepill mantras.

smart-butt-lazy-mommy-said-im-going-to-save-the-heckin-world-but-i-turned-into-a-fucking-loser-oopsies-time-for-cognitive-dissonance.jpg

IQ has no correlation with getting laid. Try again with EQ.

Functionally retarded.

Incomprehensible, needs simple ideas broken done.

Whatever pisses someone off

Around 3
I have a triple digit IQ and diagnosed sperg.
I only really gave a fuck about school in the first year or two until I started getting bullied and the female teacher didn't do anything besides say I'm lying about it (I advocate for bamboo + boiling water torture against all fat female teachers fuck these demons and the niggers that allow them to be near children
To not describe my entire life, I ended up a highschool dropout hikiNEET that has a chronic illness from overworking and stress.
I'm not sure if I'm smart or retarded, maybe I have a high IQ on paper but I'm a functional retard and suck at life, I never really saw the point of school so I never gave a fuck and cared more about vidya and youtube videos.

160 iq guy been really quiet since someone called him out for being a bot

my brain thinks of two words at once and then i say a fucked up combination of both of them

Lol same. It's a funny effect, thought I was the only one.

Try again with EQ

Probably a correlation here but having sex has an inverse correlation with IQ. Cue the statistic about literal retards having more sex that 130+ incels faggots.

How do so many people here seem to know their IQ off-hand? I've heard often gifted children are tested, but also that the score they get is not accurate into adulthood. I come from a small-ish town, a class of around 215 students, but none of the high-performers were ever subjected to an IQ test that I can remember. there were plenty of very smart students, and they would have mentioned it at some point.

A high IQ is usually correlated with mental illness in childhood, and usually being the "gifted kid" is the only tangible achievement they had so they cling onto that achievement and remember what their IQ as a child was.
They basically peaked in elementary school.

IQ is intelligence quotient which mean higher number, which mean ability to solve more complex problems. This means solving abstract problems translates to being able to solve problems in real life.

Yeah I understand that much, I just didn't realize kids were even being given IQ tests. I graduated high school in 2018 and never throughout any of K-12 was I administered, nor did I hear about anybody else being administered, an IQ test, and I was a gifted kid as well with high standardized test scores and straight A's.

because a lot of us are fucked in the head and were evaluated as kids. i was diagnosed with aspergers. they gave me an iq test to see if i had certain patterns of strength/weaknesses that appear for spergs. apparently I did. kind of weird that they did this like 3 times though

I did really well in school relative to my peers especially in math so I skipped a few grades and my grade 4 teacher recommend I get tested and if I can get into the gifted program keep in mind her daughter also went to that program so there's that aspect too

keep in mind her daughter also went to that program so there's that aspect too

i dont understand. what does this mean? did she want you two to have kiddysex with each other in the class room?

It means that they tested me in part because got a lucky referral since when raising her daughter they somehow went through the same process and knew the system and how to get a test and whatnot. Anyone can get tested afaik but most people simply don't know that such a thing exists and I presume the process for applying is kinda annoying and she did all that for me as a 10 year old, making my job easy.

Unfortunately her daughter was an adult at that time and probably in her 20s or 30s. You certainly have vivid imagination though...

I have accepted the fact that I am a retard. Dumber by the day. I always shrugged off the fact that I cant remember names or anything really. But no, thats not normal.

Gifted means you did highschool level shit while at elementary age, not that you had perfect scores in elementary school

I've tried the real IQ and Mensa online tests and my score is consistent across them (+/- 2), can I trust those? I don't wanna pay for the tests