Posts by Keith Lee2

Kenneth Lee16 said:What's Narcissism? Let me break it down for you

Narcissism is basically when a guy decides to shave everything except his face.
Personally—I just can't wrap my head around how a smooth, shaved chest goes with being smart... let alone actually being highly intelligent.

restlessridge36 said:She passed both attempts! 😍
Quickly now, what else do you want to know before I forget?

So, I was wondering... how would a person even function if their amygdala were just gone?

mistybison said:Intelligence manifests in many different ways beyond just wealth or material success. Furthermore, a high IQ offers no guarantees in life. I once watched a program featuring members of Mensa, including one individual ranked among the top five highest IQ scores globally. He explained clearly that intelligence is merely potential—you can utilize it, but you aren't obligated to. Additionally, an IQ score only measures logical intelligence, which doesn't ensure success in anything outside of solving logical puzzles. It is much like having a talent. You might have a brilliant ear for music, but if you never practice or perform, no one will ever know you are gifted, nor will they despise you for it. If you don't exercise your intellect, no one will even realize you are intelligent, so there won't be any disdain to deal with. 😬

There are those who stubbornly suppress certain traits because they fear their environment will reject
them for it.😬

On the contrary, they are simply demonstrating a specific trait by realistically assessing their own capabilities. 🙂 😬

Fine, whatever you say😉

mistybison said:Are you referring to pure genius or just a specific type of giftedness? In that case, a person truly stands out because they are fundamentally different. Most people possess average intelligence and talents, so someone solving complex math problems at age three or composing pieces for a major symphony orchestra is clearly distinct. However, that doesn't mean such an individual must be socially isolated. That depends entirely on their personality and how their parents handle their giftedness. But such individuals are rare...
Most people with a high IQ- are limited in their talents and abilities just like anyone else. They may excel in certain areas, but they don't necessarily clash with their environment. It seems to me that society actually encourages competition in various fields, and parents generally support their children's education, provided the family dynamic is healthy. Intelligence is always an advantage. Parents take pride in having "smart kids," even when they aren't particularly brilliant. 😬

As soon as someone presents themselves as merely intelligent,
they are treated as if they are crazy, because they are essentially "putting their shame on display."

What kind of "merely intelligent" person deserves contempt? What traits would they have? Should we expect universal social respect just because we inherited a certain capacity for logic that we can now express with a number? Intelligence serves no purpose if it isn't applied. And applied intelligence is quite visible, and I certainly don't believe anyone would call it "shameful."

mistybison said:This test is total garbage. I got a 156—which is just straight-up impossible—so yeah... there's no way my IQ is actually that high. No way—not even in my wildest dreams..

Honestly, it’s kind of embarrassing when someone's clearly smart—like, really bright—but just chooses not to use it.
So, if she's "just" smart—but doesn't actually put that brainpower to use—then she's basically...
Worth checking out (if you ask most people).

So, here I am—basically trying to kill off parts of myself just because some people think it'll make me... better? Or whatever.
Man, people will really toss you aside just because you hang out in the same circles—it's wild.😬

Here’s how I see the scenario playing out:
A kid with a high IQ- in a totally average environment quickly gets convinced that "something is wrong with them."
But since they don't actually know what that "something" is, they just use their brains to blend in.
Then one day—maybe even when they're all grown up—they realize the reason people were
looking at them weirdly was actually because of that intelligence, and suddenly, they're stuck in a dilemma.
They have no clue what to even do with all that brainpower.
Growing up among average folks taught them to hide it, so they still do (mostly because showing off just draws contempt),
but they can't find anyone else like them because everyone else is hiding too.
The second someone steps up and shows they're smart—or even *just* smart—
people assume they've lost their minds, like they're "putting their shame on display" in public.
All this might be why an organization meant to bring these people together (like Mensa)
can't really get off the ground.
So, if the need to be around people who actually get you
is considered narcissism, then I guess high IQ- folks are just naturally leaning into being narcissists.

Gerald Rivera60 said:It’s a fiction—a hypothetical construct designed to explain and describe certain phenomena.
Don't fall into the trap of flawed reasoning.
Just because something is invented doesn't mean it possesses objective reality. That doesn't mean the "fiction" isn't useful, but we shouldn't grant it more status than it deserves.
IQ was created for practical utility, and that's where it ends.

I think IQ exists so we don't have to guess if someone's smart—we can just measure it and clear up any doubt.
Honestly, you usually get a sense of how someone's thinking just by talking to them.
But that vibe is always relative, since we're just comparing people to ourselves.
It’s like, if we knew for a fact someone was 6'7", we wouldn't keep trying to pass them off as a point guard
(using basketball terms here, haha)
So, look, tell me your IQ score and I'll know exactly how much weight your arguments carry.
But since bragging about your IQ is seen as being a total narcis,
I guess we'll just keep struggling to understand each other.😬

Keith Lee2 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

"Healthy narcissism vs. pathological" (subheading from that link)
Apparently, high IQ folks lean toward positive narcissism—while everyone else goes the other way.
I don't recall ever meeting a Narcissus with a high IQ myself... someone refresh my memory?

Noah Sanchez7 said:It’s like I’m at a crossroads where I'm forced to pick a direction. I’m standing right in the center, looking out at a thousand different paths, but none of them look clear or perfect enough to say, "This is me, this is my journey, I'll walk it and be happy."
Actually, I really only see two options. One is one of those thousand paths, and the other is death. Not literal suicide, but death in the sense of becoming an extreme R&B fanatic—someone who just goes all in. In the end, I’d die as a nobody, just a speck of dust in this world, leaving no legacy behind—which is probably for the best, since I wouldn't want to pass on my genes to more broken people. I’d probably just host my own funeral, as I mentioned before. 😬 And yeah, everyone would be invited, and entry and drinks would be free.
I’m currently in my third year of a business management degree, which is just one of those thousand possible paths where I can already see the inevitable finish line. It’s just daily grinding, struggling, fighting, and bullshit... followed by death again. Only this time, I could say: "Well, I was a model citizen; I fulfilled my duty, a duty imposed by a bunch of mindless drones who run most of this world."

What is the essence of our existence? It's that we are everything, yet we have no freedom. Our whole lives revolve around "what will people think" or "did I fit in?" Well, I did! Yay, now I'm happy and accepted. All while never asking, "Where exactly did I fit in, and what kind of place is this world if I'm considered a perfect citizen within it?"
And who am I actually, deep down, if I’ve perfectly conformed to modern society? That question is buried at the absolute bottom, when it really should be number one.
To me, the distinction between East and West is clear. We live in the West, but I personally love to "provoke" Western thought with Eastern perspectives. Because in the East, that core question actually comes first.
Those folks from Al-Qaeda aren't stupid; they aren't stupid, and they deserve to be heard.

As for drug addiction and addicts, I notice you all have your stereotypes. Maybe you're right, but I don't belong to that group. I simply don't take this life too seriously. 👍

There are actually three paths: one you have to take just so you can eventually get to the other one—the one you actually *want* to walk (assuming
you've even found it yet, which I haven't—and honestly, looks like you haven't either—so I'm stuck with the "must-do" path), and then there's always time for that
"third" one.

People trying to go it alone in their differences? They aren't getting anywhere—just too weak on their own.
Your desperate cry for help is basically just looking for someone else who feels the same way.
It’s only when you actually band together as a group that you have any real power to make an impact.
Look at the LGBTQ+ community, for example.
They’re incredibly successful because they use that collective strength to push their identity.
If you can't find people like yourself, you're pretty much stuck being rejected or forced to assimilate.
Assimilation is a brutal process—honestly, people end up using all sorts of substances just to cope with it.
Then you've got those specialists who facilitate that assimilation, the ones everyone seems to distrust—psychiatrists.
I totally get where you're coming from, but I can't really help you out here.

Like, what kind of value do pets actually bring to our lives?
If we can find a solid "reason" to keep them around instead of just getting rid of them,
maybe we could try finding—and actually encouraging—that same kind of "value" in people too.

swiftcobra15 said:I’d say (to be optimistic 😁 ) that there are some of us (though we're definitely a small minority)
who have grown beyond that infant stage.

It never bothers me when a shoe store puts out its latest collection,
but it really bothers me if they're displaying dead cats or live rats
or perhaps "perfect" shoes designed specifically for centipedes.😁

😁 It doesn't bother me when the curb is just actual trash.
But it really gets to me when people toss stuff that’s actually still good.
Because even that stone the builders rejected (and yeah, they're a "tiny minority") ends up
becoming the cornerstone.

A newborn’s cry is basically just the sound of total helplessness—they can't take anything, they can only receive.
If they don't get what they need, they die.
I feel like a whole lifetime is just an attempt to fix that helplessness (that deep-seated fear of death)
by grabbing onto power.
There isn't a single person who doesn't hit that wall of raw vulnerability at some point—when all their
strength, their status, or their attempts to force the world to bend to them just fail.
That’s when the crying turns into a scream, screams turn to aggression, aggression becomes rage, rage leads to madness,
and madness ends in destruction, yet they still haven't gotten what they wanted.
The thing is, what they want can't be seized—it can only be given.
So they turn to prayer and beg to receive; just like a baby crying out
for its mother, driving her to respond, now they project that maternal image onto Quincy
expecting Him to fulfill those prayers unconditionally, just like a mother would.
Basically, receiving is what keeps life going.
But the problem is, people expect to just keep taking forever.
Giving has to be hardwired into us beneath the surface (subconsciously, instinctively),
kind of like a mother's instinct, altruism, or love.
Once someone realizes that receiving and giving are actually what cures that
fear of death, maybe they'll stop trying to grab, snatch, or force things.

P.S. Anyone posting here thinking it's "intrusive" is just mistaken.
We're just like shoes in a storefront window—people look, try them on, and then leave
if they don't fit or if they start rubbing the wrong way.

Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, those are just your typical capitalists (not like I'm some hardcore Bolshevik or anything). But honestly? I feel like we’re more like a virus than a cancer.

Speaking of viruses—apparently they can actually tweak DNA structures, like, mess with genetic
blueprints... so it makes me think they might actually be what drives the evolution of different
species. They aren't necessarily the bad guys everyone thinks.
If someone asked me whether I'd rather be a virus or cancer? Man, I don't even know how
I'd answer that one.😬

So, who's actually "useless."
Think about it—let's compare the way cells work in the human body to how societies function.
In a biological sense, which cells are considered useless?
It's the ones that just spread everywhere, sucking up all the resources and leaving nothing left for everyone else to survive.
We call that "cancer"—and our whole goal is to wipe it out.
If you apply that logic to human society—basically, looking at us as a collection of cells—the "cancer" would be those specific individuals
who basically just expand by draining everyone else dry, leaving zero room for others to live their lives.
I'll let you guys figure out who those people are in our society... you know who they are.

Gerald Rivera60 said:Sure, but reading your sentence didn't trigger any mental images of the Predator, Hulk, or Alien. I don't see them as pictures, even though I can tell you Hulk is a green giant.
In fact, I’d have to make a conscious effort to visualize an Alien or a Predator. Instead of percepts, my brain encodes them as abstract concepts within a semantic network. I’ve encoded the Alien as a headed monster with acid for blood that is highly dangerous. I don't have a mental image, nor can I conjure one; I’d recognize him if I saw him, and that’s it. I suspect this is a mechanism for preserving memory—instead of storing images, you store names and core, relevant traits.
Those bread-knife or circle-circle associations you mentioned aren't about percepts; they belong to semantic links and networks.
Networks of abstract concepts, not percepts.
How, then, do you visualize something like derivation, integrals, or a thought? What kind of percept exists there?
Here is an example of semantic networks... this is a massive simplification because there are far more associations, and connections exist between the primary associations of terms. All of this exists in multiple dimensions, not just two...

My first vibe when thinking about derivatives or integrals—it's like being in a lecture hall, surrounded by people,
staring at chalkboards covered in random symbols... just pure fear of the unknown,
that knot in your stomach, total discomfort—(straight up PTSD vibes)—and still nothing, just a complete
mental block.
As for a thought? It's like a white mist—kind of like a ghost drifting through a huge empty space.
Quincy:

I don't have a visual in my head, and I can't really conjure one up (though I'd recognize it if I saw it), and I think it's just a way our brains protect our memory—instead of storing images, we just store names and the basic, necessary details.

Man, what you're saying really trips me out—makes me wonder how someone born blind would "shape" their perception.

Gerald Rivera60 said:Well, we disagree there. I think it would be far too slow if the brain always operated through perception. Most of the time, I believe it operates via abstract concepts.
For instance, if I say, "Bobby and Ruda are friends." How do you process that? Do you visualize imaginary characters, or how do you conceptualize "friend"?
I don't have those mental images; they are quite rare for me. When I think about things or people—say, "I need to call John tomorrow and ask to borrow his lawnmower"—there isn't a single image in my head. It stays entirely on a linguistic-symbolic level.
Here is a concrete example: I'm hungry right now. First, the thought arises: "I am hungry," then "what should I eat?" No imagery involved, just an internal monologue: "I'll make some pasta." I get to the fridge and there's no sauce. "I know I bought it." Everything is still purely symbolic.
But then... "where did I leave that sauce?" That's when the imagery kicks in. I try to visualize where I put it yesterday after getting back from the supermarket.
In my experience, imagery only shows up when the symbolic level fails or when you intentionally want to visualize something to relive a sensation, like a pretty girl you saw on the subway. 😁
I suspect the human perceptual analyzer would simply be overwhelmed if it had to "think" by visualizing while simultaneously analyzing current sensory input.
The way it works now, perceptual analysis is reserved for processing real-time stimuli, while thinking is handled by other parts of the brain that have translated those perceptions into a different language. It's like how I don't draw a car; I just write the word.

So when I read "Bobby and Ruda are friends," my brain's first instinct
was actually thinking of "Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy"—it took me a second to realize I was talking about someone else.
It makes me think that if your first thought when you hear "bread" is "knife," then your brain
is definitely processing in images.
But if you hear "bread" and immediately think "circle," then you're probably more of a verbal processor.
Basically, we’ve got visual types and verbal types.
The visual ones are usually guys, and the verbal ones are usually women.

Here's something that's pretty tough to process purely verbally:
"Predator is stronger than Alien, and Hulk is stronger than both of them.
If you're a strictly verbal thinker, you'll probably just get stuck on the typos.😁

urbannomad12 said:It's common knowledge that marijuana spikes dopamine levels, which in turn heightens perception. Are you suggesting that people who smoke are actually more emotionally intelligent? 🙏

If it just heightens perception, then "no."
If it also boosts how you process what you see, then "yes"
But hey, if I wanted to be super precise about it, I'd have to test it out on myself first.
Still haven't gotten around to that though.

Gerald Rivera60 said:That brings up the question of how we process abstract concepts.
The bulk of information we receive arrives via language. Someone speaks, and that audio hits the primary auditory cortex for basic sensory processing. From there, those tones are synthesized into meaningful phonemes and sent deeper into the brain, where the vocal sequence is translated into a series of connected concepts. It then integrates into an existing semantic network, accounting for context and everything else.
At this stage, the processing of raw percepts is lost. When I say "I need to buy bread," I am not working with mental images or simulating the act of purchasing; I am operating with concepts. Everything stays at a symbolic level. This allows us to handle massive amounts of data. In fact, if we had to operate using raw mental representations, we would be much slower. Instead, we swap them for concepts—using a semantic network to perform our mental data processing.
We only rely on mental imagery when we lack specific skills or when we are learning something new and need to visualize it.
In most cases, perception acts merely as a trigger for processes within semantic networks.
(We need more "hard" cognitive psychology topics on this subforum)

Heh... interesting theory.
The pathway for processing emotional information is different from other types of data. Ultimately, the cortical regions handling that processing are distinct.
Take prosopagnosia, for example. It’s a specific disorder caused by a lesion in a certain part of the cortex, resulting in an inability to recognize faces despite having perfectly intact perception of everything else. A person with prosopagnosia can see a nose, eyes, and individual facial features, but they cannot synthesize them into a cohesive whole. Otherwise, their perception remains normal, no matter the complexity. This proves we have a dedicated center in the brain for this task. Evolution likely favored individuals who were better at recognizing faces—and the expressions on them—as it improved survival and reproduction.
(But now we're drifting into evolutionary biology... that's a topic for another day. Still, it's fascinating how evolution, emotion, perception, semantic networks, language, and social context all intertwine. It reminds me of how a French historian might say there is no history of France, only the history of Europe, and no history of Europe, only the history of the world)

See, when I say "I need to grab some bread," I'm definitely working with mental imagery.
Those three little words act like a trigger that pulls up every single image my brain has stored.
I can already see the whole loaf—maybe a half, maybe a chunk—and whether it’s soft or crusty.
I can almost smell the fresh bread, picture the walk to the corner store, see the cashier's face,
think about the cash I need to carry, what I'm having with it, and a million other tiny details.
Only after my brain processes all that does it set the stage for me to actually leave.
It kind of explains that "automatic no" thing too.
When someone asks you for a favor, your first instinct is often just "NO,"
mostly because your brain just needs enough time to run through all those generated images.

So, I'd argue abstract concepts are just triggers to find
and link together everything we've already perceived.

If I said "I need to buy brenk," then you're just messing with words that mean nothing
until your brain scans its memory to find something familiar.
That's basically the brain's job—filtering through info—and you can't really stop it from happening consciously.

Gerald Rivera60 said:

Keith Lee2 As specified by:
The relationship between EQ and IQ.
I suppose it’s my turn to throw some speculation into the ring.
I’ve noticed that IQ is largely dependent on perception and how quickly one can process what they perceive.

A solid starting point. This follows the path set by Francis Galton, who attempted to measure intelligence through reaction times and various other perceptual assessments.
Even by today's standards, certain intelligence assessments still rely on perceptual tasks, such as shape recognition or spotting differences between images.
Perception and the processing of what we perceive are necessary prerequisites, but they aren't enough to constitute intelligence on their own. It isn't always about handling raw sensory data. Often, we are dealing with the processing of abstract concepts, which is where perception plays its part. Technically speaking. Questionable.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "processing the perceived." Are you referring to how we handle abstract concepts that don't immediately hit our senses in such a direct way?

True. Much of this processing happens on an unconscious level—not in the Freudian sense, but at a physiological one involving the thalamic structures and the limbic system. It occurs incredibly fast. You feel the physical surge before you even consciously register the fear.

You aren't being clear here. What exactly do you mean by "high perception," and how are you defining "speed of perception"?

Keith Lee2 As specified by:
Someone who perceives poorly but processes information quickly will still struggle, even in an environment that feels more intimidating.
To be quite carefree.

It isn't just about how fast someone perceives things, and it certainly isn't always the case.

I could agree that IQ involves the volume of data, but also its accuracy. Impulsive people often process information quickly, but they frequently make mistakes.
As for EQ, I'm less certain because we are still talking about data processing, just different types of data. Based on your logic, EQ would involve perceiving and processing stimuli, but also interpreting them in alignment with an organism's homeostatic needs and environmental demands.
If we stick to the original definition, Emotional Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, and manage emotions.

In my view, you're introducing a causal link here that isn't necessary. Someone with high perception doesn't intentionally "develop" intelligence to solve this problem, which is what your argument implies. Furthermore, you equate perception and processing with intelligence, yet then you suddenly introduce intelligence again as a separate factor.
One more thing... if you want to develop this concept, you have to find a way to operationalize and quantify it so it can be scientifically tested—even if it's just through a pen-and-paper test. You need to keep that in mind.
I'm being a bit critical—or rather, pointing out where I think your explanation falls short—not to discourage you, but to push you further. 🙂
I don't know what your professional background is, but you have potential. 👍

I don't think I was talking about speed when describing perception itself
but rather the processing of what's been perceived.
Basically, perception has a volume, while processing has the speed.

And just a heads up—if you want to dial back your perception to match your capacity for
processing—and actually boost your EQ, you'd probably need an anti-anxiety med
or, you know, just get hammered. (but that's more of a whole other conversation about alcoholism)

Gerald Rivera60 said:

Keith Lee2 As specified by:
The relationship between EQ and IQ.
I suppose it’s my turn to throw some speculation into the ring.
I’ve noticed that IQ is largely dependent on perception and how quickly one can process what they perceive.

A solid starting point. This follows the path set by Francis Galton, who attempted to measure intelligence through reaction times and various other perceptual assessments.
Even by today's standards, certain intelligence assessments still rely on perceptual tasks, such as shape recognition or spotting differences between images.
Perception and the processing of what we perceive are necessary prerequisites, but they aren't enough to constitute intelligence on their own. It isn't always about handling raw sensory data. Often, we are dealing with the processing of abstract concepts, which is where perception plays its part. Technically speaking. Questionable.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "processing the perceived." Are you referring to how we handle abstract concepts that don't immediately hit our senses in such a direct way?

True. Much of this processing happens on an unconscious level—not in the Freudian sense, but at a physiological one involving the thalamic structures and the limbic system. It occurs incredibly fast. You feel the physical surge before you even consciously register the fear.

You aren't being clear here. What exactly do you mean by "high perception," and how are you defining "speed of perception"?

Keith Lee2 As specified by:
Someone who perceives poorly but processes information quickly will still struggle, even in an environment that feels more intimidating.
To be quite carefree.

It isn't just about how fast someone perceives things, and it certainly isn't always the case.

I could agree that IQ involves the volume of data, but also its accuracy. Impulsive people often process information quickly, but they frequently make mistakes.
As for EQ, I'm less certain because we are still talking about data processing, just different types of data. Based on your logic, EQ would involve perceiving and processing stimuli, but also interpreting them in alignment with an organism's homeostatic needs and environmental demands.
If we stick to the original definition, Emotional Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, and manage emotions.

In my view, you're introducing a causal link here that isn't necessary. Someone with high perception doesn't intentionally "develop" intelligence to solve this problem, which is what your argument implies. Furthermore, you equate perception and processing with intelligence, yet then you suddenly introduce intelligence again as a separate factor.
One more thing... if you want to develop this concept, you have to find a way to operationalize and quantify it so it can be scientifically tested—even if it's just through a pen-and-paper test. You need to keep that in mind.
I'm being a bit critical—or rather, pointing out where I think your explanation falls short—not to discourage you, but to push you further. 🙂
I don't know what your professional background is, but you have potential. 👍

It wasn't intentional or anything—just life forcing my hand.
Basically, if I pick up on way more details in my surroundings, then there's way more data
to crunch just to figure out if stuff is a "1" or a "0" (like, safe or dangerous).
If you live somewhere totally chill, but you notice every little thing and your brain
can't keep up with labeling everything as "safe," you're still gonna end up feeling anxious.
So, the brain gets flooded with input and is basically forced to handle a massive amount
of processing—which, I guess, forces it to develop intelligence.
Sadly, I'm just not fast enough at processing all that info, so I end up stuck in this weird spot
where I'm constantly on edge—basically lacking Emotional Intelligence.

I don't know what your background is, but you clearly know your stuff.

Just a sci-fi geek (speculator) here—thanks though.😁