says: To start off, I don't really see how you can equate high intelligence with a high IQ score, since those standardized tests only ever scratch the surface of what a person is actually capable of.
For instance, the psychologist Howard Gardner identified seven distinct types of intelligence:
A narcis might be linked to intrapersonal intelligence—which involves one's own self-perception—as well as interpersonal intelligence, which governs how we interact with the people around us.
Personally, I feel like I can spot a narcis quite easily, even without knowing their specific IQ, though I often suspect they possess quite high scores.
So, if I were to try and link narcissism to a high IQ (rather than "high intelligence," which is a much broader concept that I suspect excludes narcissism entirely), perhaps it’s a combination of intrapersonal intelligence acting as the "face" and interpersonal intelligence acting as the "mirror." It's as if a certain level of narcissism provides the grip that allows them to hold that mirror steady.
8 - The intelligence of nonsense 9 - The intelligence of waste
There was a time when people thought all of this fell under one umbrella called "excretory intelligence," but later on, dr. Kelly realized that we are actually looking at two fundamentally different types of intelligence.
I'm basically royalty—an Olympic gold medalist in the long jump, if you can believe it! : ))))))))))))))))))))))
@Mad, I think I finally get why you haven't gotten back to my DM about what you're up to lately (not asking for the specific company name or anything, just the general industry and vibe)
Hey, I actually have a quick question for you, Gerald Rivera60 So, I was wondering, what would the cost be for a psychological profile if we decided to skip the cognitive ability testing part? Would that basically cut the price in half? 😁
So, what are these tests actually made of? They’re basically just a series of questions where there isn't really one "correct" answer, yet we're all expected to provide the perfect response. Sure, we could just lie our way through them, but let's be honest—what happens when we actually try to be sincere? Isn't it often the case that we just answer based on who we *wish* we were? You know, projecting this idealized version of ourselves that doesn't even exist? That’s why I think these tests, at least the way they've been designed up until now, are pretty much useless. I mean, once we find a way to measure these things objectively, then maybe I'll buy into it. Until then, it feels like a lot of guesswork. We know where we want to end up, but since we don't know the path to get there, we just skip straight to the destination we think we should have reached. With an IQ test, the whole point is that the answers are unambiguous and you can't really cheat your way through. I'm not saying there isn't some merit to these personality assessments, but beyond the measurement issues, you have to deal with personal perception and the massive influence of our surroundings and life events—both past and present. The worst part of it all is that despite being so imprecise, these tests are still treated as the gold standard for hiring. And that has a massive, real-world impact on people's lives. Honestly, that's the biggest absurdity that gets under my skin. Otherwise, I wouldn't care about these little psychological games. In most places, people are moving away from this stuff, but here in America, it seems to be the big trend right now.
I really feel like success is such a subjective concept, isn't it? Because you can look like a huge success to everyone around you, while internally feeling like a complete failure—or at least, just not successful at all. Think about it: if someone lacks the basic awareness to realize they aren't grasping reality, yet they're convinced they're doing great, they’ll be perceived as highly successful. Doesn't that make their IQ seem incredibly high by default? On the flip side, you have people who are masters at selling snake oil. They can achieve massive success because, let's face it, people love buying into illusions. But that kind of success is fragile. Once they hit a wall of reality—some event that finally shines a light on the truth—everything collapses. It turns into a total disaster and a massive failure. Suddenly, that person who was supposedly so high in IQ turns out to have a miserable score. Of course, that doesn't always happen; some might stay successful until the day they die. Take history, for example. There have been absolute geniuses who were wildly successful despite being completely socially inept and having zero social intelligence. That’s why I honestly think this whole focus on IQ is just nonsense—it's all smoke and mirrors. It’s actually quite frustrating to see the little revolution happening here in America right now, where corporate recruiters and psychologists are obsessed with testing for this specific IQ metric during hiring processes. It’s an unmeasurable, hazy concept, yet it has the power to decide whether or not a person gets a job and how their entire life unfolds. Let me give you another example. For a significant portion of my life, I was extremely outgoing and sociable. And for another significant part of my life, I wasn't nearly as social at all. It all feels very murky, like a losing battle against something untouchable. But hey, maybe people will eventually realize how futile this is if they keep obsessing over it. Personally, though, I’m more inclined to believe that the real answers lie somewhere else entirely—deep in our genetics.
I honestly feel like the whole concept of IQ is much better explained and far more theoretically sound than its counterpart, first off, you can't really "study" your way into a high score (with EQ, you always end up facing the same set of questions, and even if you're just average, you kind of know what the "right" answer is supposed to be), secondly, the tasks themselves are quite logical—they actually challenge you—and they mostly rely on single, unambiguous answers (I think I ran into one problem once in a much more advanced Raven's test where the answer felt ambiguous, at least to me), plus there's very little room for social or cultural bias to creep in, thirdly, your intelligence stays pretty much with you throughout your entire life (sure, there are some fluctuations, but nothing major), and fourthly, let’s be honest, we all love to brag about how smart we are, don't we? I would love to see some massive study where we take those people we consider absolute geniuses and put them through actual testing. If it turns out they actually have a higher IQ than the rest of the world, then we can finally say, "Yep, that's definitely it." But if their scores are basically the same as everyone else's, then we can just admit the whole thing was nonsense.
Taylor Howard36 said:Aha... so what you're really saying is you're looking for someone to just copy a senior thesis from...? 🙄
Unlike the PhD programs over in the States, it’s more like... emotional intelligence is just a bit of nonsense. One way people describe intelligence is through its innate nature—that sense of being fixed (though, obviously, it follows brain function and the aging process, or growing up) The term "emotional intelligence" feels far too susceptible to being lived through rather than measured. I honestly suspect the phrase was cooked up back in '85 just to sound catchy by making an obvious allusion to IQ, and then it really took off in '95 when it started being sold side-by-side with those other books, you know? Like "How to Become a Millionaire," "How to Lose Weight Without Giving Up Everything," "How to Be Successful with Minimal Effort," and all that other stuff. I'm not trying to say that things like individual social behavior don't exist, I'm just saying the term itself was quite a poorly conceived invention.
gottcha said:these days, research could probably prove the sky is neon green if they really wanted to
👍 They just cook up some ridiculous premise, build an even more nonsensical question on top of it, and then sit back while everyone else tries to answer Then, based solely on those flawed premises and biased responses, they suddenly claim to have reached a "scientific conclusion."🙄