Intelligence: Micro vs. Macro Perspectives

There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Looks like you're playing philosopher on the psychology forums. 😛
Intelligence is just a broad term for human cognitive or intellectual ability. Since even psychologists haven't reached a consensus on what intelligence actually is, there isn't one universally accepted definition today, despite various individual theories.

Smart people can be killers and psychopaths just as easily as they can be PhDs, astronauts, or even uneducated laborers. An intelligence test isn't asking a person to act like a computer, nor are the solutions purely mathematical. It sounds like you might be a bit misinformed about what these tests actually do, since math plays a very minor role in them.

IQ tests don't MEASURE intelligence; they provide an ESTIMATION based on the results. So, the limitations of these tests are clear, yet people seem perfectly fine with getting a rough approximation.

Essentially, an intelligence test evaluates:
- Verbal skills
- Numerical skills
- Figural/spatial reasoning
- Memory and logical reasoning capabilities

There’s nothing computerized about this. I don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion. 😵 You really think you can peel back the layers of a mass murderer's psychology based on something you barely understand? 😲

Jessica Miller51 said:Looks like you're playing philosopher on the psychology forums. 😛
Intelligence is just a broad term for human cognitive or intellectual ability. Since even psychologists haven't reached a consensus on what intelligence actually is, there isn't one universally accepted definition today, despite various individual theories.

Smart people can be killers and psychopaths just as easily as they can be PhDs, astronauts, or even uneducated laborers. An intelligence test isn't asking a person to act like a computer, nor are the solutions purely mathematical. It sounds like you might be a bit misinformed about what these tests actually do, since math plays a very minor role in them.

IQ tests don't MEASURE intelligence; they provide an ESTIMATION based on the results. So, the limitations of these tests are clear, yet people seem perfectly fine with getting a rough approximation.

Essentially, an intelligence test evaluates:
- Verbal skills
- Numerical skills
- Figural/spatial reasoning
- Memory and logical reasoning capabilities

There’s nothing computerized about this. I don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion. 😵 You really think you can peel back the layers of a mass murderer's psychology based on something you barely understand? 😲

Nice job.

Just to add a bit more context: if someone is born with an intellectual disability featuring an IQ below 70, or if such issues develop during their growth, we're talking about intellectual disabilities or developmental delays, which are generally categorized like this:[source missing]

Mild intellectual disability (IQ between 50-69)
Moderate intellectual disability (IQ between 35-49)
Severe intellectual disability (IQ between 20-34)
Profound intellectual disability (IQ below 20)

Wikipedia.

Jessica Miller51 said:Looks like you're playing philosopher on the psychology forums. 😛
Intelligence is just a broad term for human cognitive or intellectual ability. Since even psychologists haven't reached a consensus on what intelligence actually is, there isn't one universally accepted definition today, despite various individual theories.

Smart people can be killers and psychopaths just as easily as they can be PhDs, astronauts, or even uneducated laborers. An intelligence test isn't asking a person to act like a computer, nor are the solutions purely mathematical. It sounds like you might be a bit misinformed about what these tests actually do, since math plays a very minor role in them.

IQ tests don't MEASURE intelligence; they provide an ESTIMATION based on the results. So, the limitations of these tests are clear, yet people seem perfectly fine with getting a rough approximation.

Essentially, an intelligence test evaluates:
- Verbal skills
- Numerical skills
- Figural/spatial reasoning
- Memory and logical reasoning capabilities

There’s nothing computerized about this. I don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion. 😵 You really think you can peel back the layers of a mass murderer's psychology based on something you barely understand? 😲

Does an intelligence test assume a person can connect cause and effect?

'Micro perspective', if you just, you know, temporarily 'ignore anthropomorphism' or whatever...

About fifty years ago, Hannah Arendt wrote this book that pretty much hits on what you're talking about... it's called 'the Banality of Evil,' and she wrote it after watching the trial of Adolf Eichmann firsthand.

If we buy into her conclusions—and I'm taking a bit of a liberty with how I interpret them here—it means basically anyone could be evil, regardless of whether they're a genius or a total moron.
The only thing that actually matters is the "banality" within a person. In this sense, being banal is just a fancy way of saying someone lacks the guts to actually think about what it means to be human or how to actually live as one. She argues that evil is committed by people who have no identity, no real motives, and no sense of "self." It's like Musil said—people without traits... or like Elias Canetti described it, just a featureless mass of dough.

Intelligence is just potential, right? It doesn't mean someone actually uses it, and honestly, most of the time, they don't.
Heidegger says you only really start thinking when you're alone... standing on your own two feet, surrounded by nothingness (again, my own take on it). So, the whole *ex nihilo nihil fit* idea doesn't always hold up. Humans basically emerge from ignorance and a lack of selfhood just to eventually exist, though that's a controversial point and a whole different rabbit hole.
Most people just try their hardest not to think at all; they just lean on whatever opinions are already floating around, just pure imitation. That kind of opportunism doesn't require any real effort, so it's not even weird that a smart person can totally deny themselves, fail to grow, and end up being both banal and evil...

Before I can even talk about self-actualization or staying relevant, I gotta define what we're even talking about—self-fulfillment, mediocrity, evil, good, right, wrong... all within these shifting, slippery boundaries. Is the merit tied to the individual or society? Honestly, probably doesn't matter. It’s usually just some frantic jumping through hoops inside a suggestive, self-hypnotic illusion, all just to serve one's own survival. Don't kill people. Unless martial law is declared. Then it’s a must, or else—it becomes a duty. Always respect someone else's life, like the guy walking his poodle with a diamond collar, while the self-proclaimed judge of "good and evil" sits there with worms crawling out of his ears, snacking on a massive "intellectual powerhouse" brain... Ivan Pavlov............

Nancy Lee84 said:About fifty years ago, Hannah Arendt wrote this book that pretty much hits on what you're talking about... it's called 'the Banality of Evil,' and she wrote it after watching the trial of Adolf Eichmann firsthand.

If we buy into her conclusions—and I'm taking a bit of a liberty with how I interpret them here—it means basically anyone could be evil, regardless of whether they're a genius or a total moron.
The only thing that actually matters is the "banality" within a person. In this sense, being banal is just a fancy way of saying someone lacks the guts to actually think about what it means to be human or how to actually live as one. She argues that evil is committed by people who have no identity, no real motives, and no sense of "self." It's like Musil said—people without traits... or like Elias Canetti described it, just a featureless mass of dough.

Intelligence is just potential, right? It doesn't mean someone actually uses it, and honestly, most of the time, they don't.
Heidegger says you only really start thinking when you're alone... standing on your own two feet, surrounded by nothingness (again, my own take on it). So, the whole *ex nihilo nihil fit* idea doesn't always hold up. Humans basically emerge from ignorance and a lack of selfhood just to eventually exist, though that's a controversial point and a whole different rabbit hole.
Most people just try their hardest not to think at all; they just lean on whatever opinions are already floating around, just pure imitation. That kind of opportunism doesn't require any real effort, so it's not even weird that a smart person can totally deny themselves, fail to grow, and end up being both banal and evil...

This is so incredibly beautiful and logical it’s basically checkmate. Please, teach me your ways...

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

That’s just a tiny slice of actual intelligence mixed with some shallow "paradise" ideology.

You hit on the core issue, though you did oversimplify what’s actually being analyzed here.

hollowpuma762 said:That’s just a tiny slice of actual intelligence mixed with some shallow "paradise" ideology.

You hit on the core issue, though you did oversimplify what’s actually being analyzed here.

Now this is actually starting to get interesting.

Man, brother...

ironrider11 said:Before I can even talk about self-actualization or staying relevant, I gotta define what we're even talking about—self-fulfillment, mediocrity, evil, good, right, wrong... all within these shifting, slippery boundaries. Is the merit tied to the individual or society? Honestly, probably doesn't matter. It’s usually just some frantic jumping through hoops inside a suggestive, self-hypnotic illusion, all just to serve one's own survival. Don't kill people. Unless martial law is declared. Then it’s a must, or else—it becomes a duty. Always respect someone else's life, like the guy walking his poodle with a diamond collar, while the self-proclaimed judge of "good and evil" sits there with worms crawling out of his ears, snacking on a massive "intellectual powerhouse" brain... Ivan Pavlov............

I'll admit, I only catch bits and pieces of what you're saying.

Jacob Cooper5 said:This is so incredibly beautiful and logical it’s basically checkmate. Please, teach me your ways...

Was that "srategiya" a typo or just a side effect of whatever I was rambling about?
🙂

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Evil always goes hand in hand with high intelligence and great cunning.
I don't know a single evil person who wasn't above average in intelligence.

My view is that intelligence becomes a flaw the moment the mind overshadows humanity.

Some highly intelligent people fail in life because they cannot assimilate into society due to other deficiencies, such as a lack of socialization.
Therefore, intelligence is not a necessary factor for success or a happy life. However, it is a very good starting point for those who know how to use it.

With intelligent people, just as with those who are less intelligent... the question is whether a person possesses organized moral values that override their intellect.

Also, does the person have the ability to channel their frustration and the things they cannot control in a positive direction, or will they take matters into their own hands and commit evil?

The starting premise here is fundamentally flawed. The entire discussion is being driven from a distorted—and frankly, reckless—starting point that links evil specifically to high-IQ individuals. Why is this wrong? Because there are vastly more intelligent people who aren't killers. Murderers are a tiny, extreme minority. You cannot separate or classify people based on IQ through the lens of mental illness susceptibility—nobody is immune to that. This topic is intellectually dishonest.

I see references to the Nuremberg trials, though they are being thrown around haphazardly without any real cohesion. To be clear: the psychologist Stanley Milgram studied the weight of authority and our tendency to obey commands and respect hierarchies. Most of those at Nuremberg claimed they were simply "following orders" from an authority figure. That doesn't necessarily mean those individuals were inherently evil, but it does mean they were submissive within an authoritarian regime—believing their actions weren't wrong because they couldn't resist. Along those same lines, you have to consider the Stanford prison experiment and Zimbardo.

The actual premise of this thread should have been this: everyone possesses some form of intelligence, and because of that, everyone carries both good and evil within them—since those qualities exist in all humans.

It’s a shame the topic is so biased. It's biased enough that some people are even arguing that only highly intelligent people are capable of evil—which is a logical fallacy of a sophist nature. The counter-argument is simple logic: all human beings possess intelligence.

velvetbear372 said:The starting premise here is fundamentally flawed. The entire discussion is being driven from a distorted—and frankly, reckless—starting point that links evil specifically to high-IQ individuals. Why is this wrong? Because there are vastly more intelligent people who aren't killers. Murderers are a tiny, extreme minority. You cannot separate or classify people based on IQ through the lens of mental illness susceptibility—nobody is immune to that. This topic is intellectually dishonest.

I see references to the Nuremberg trials, though they are being thrown around haphazardly without any real cohesion. To be clear: the psychologist Stanley Milgram studied the weight of authority and our tendency to obey commands and respect hierarchies. Most of those at Nuremberg claimed they were simply "following orders" from an authority figure. That doesn't necessarily mean those individuals were inherently evil, but it does mean they were submissive within an authoritarian regime—believing their actions weren't wrong because they couldn't resist. Along those same lines, you have to consider the Stanford prison experiment and Zimbardo.

The actual premise of this thread should have been this: everyone possesses some form of intelligence, and because of that, everyone carries both good and evil within them—since those qualities exist in all humans.

It’s a shame the topic is so biased. It's biased enough that some people are even arguing that only highly intelligent people are capable of evil—which is a logical fallacy of a sophist nature. The counter-argument is simple logic: all human beings possess intelligence.

The reality is that psychopaths are often smart. I think the OP went down the wrong path by failing to include morality as part of the definition of intelligence. If they had, they'd find much better answers—look at the psychopathic religious fanaticism we see today instead of getting bogged down in the Middle Ages. An intelligent person can recognize extremes. A psychopath might be smart, but they don't "know" how to see them because they lack the moral component.

The reality is he left out an absolutely vital component of morality—and I suspect he did that because he wanted to use his high intelligence to justify his evil actions. Which is completely wrong.

velvetbear372 said:The reality is he left out an absolutely vital component of morality—and I suspect he did that because he wanted to use his high intelligence to justify his evil actions. Which is completely wrong.

👍
I get that. It really bugs me how he knows absolutely nothing about IQ tests, yet insists on calling them some kind of mathematical computerization of a human being. 🙄

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Honestly, the damage done to society by people who weaponize their intelligence to manipulate millions just for their own selfish gain is immeasurable. We’re talking about those ideological and spiritual leaders who use their wits to pull strings on a massive scale just to line their own pockets or feed their egos. It's one thing to be smart, but using that brainpower to play God with people's lives? That's a whole different level of messed up.

Look, the guys you’re bringing up—I mean, sure, they’re notorious for being absolute monsters and having some seriously messed up pathology—but they didn't actually leave this massive, lasting scar on society at large. I mean, unless your definition of "society" is strictly limited to the tiny group of people who actually crossed paths with their victims, which, let's be honest, is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the country.

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Look, we can talk about extreme pathology all day long if we want to, but let's be real: not a single one of those types actually makes it in a modern corporate environment. It just doesn't work.

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Honestly, if you really sit down and think about it, the human brain is basically just a high-end computer. It’s all processing power, inputs, and outputs. We like to act all sophisticated, but at the end of the day, we're just running complex biological software. You've got your hardware—the neurons and all that physical stuff—and then you've got the software, which is our consciousness and everything else. It's wild when you consider how much data we're actually crunching every single second without even realizing it. It makes you wonder where the line is between a machine and a person, you know?

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

They aren't born that way, but they grew up in incredibly dysfunctional homes, totally cut off from any kind of empathy or positive reinforcement. They were constantly exposed to violence, whether they were the ones being hit or just watching it happen. Because that’s their baseline reality, violence actually makes sense to them. Their intelligence just gives them the tools to carry out their crimes more efficiently and come up with better excuses for why they did it.

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Honestly, that sounds like a totally arbitrary conclusion that doesn't hold water. One major tragedy doesn't just flip a switch and turn someone into a sadistic psychopath.

What these types—serial killers, I mean—actually have in common is narcissism. It’s all about satisfying their own impulses. They see themselves as untouchable, the smartest guys in the room, superior to everyone else, and basically infallible. Because of that, they can't even wrap their heads around the concept of consequences. In their own minds, they're gods; consequences simply don't exist for them.

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Being highly intelligent doesn't make you immune to mental illness. If anything, there's often a higher tendency toward developing certain psychological issues in people with higher IQs.

People who aren't particularly bright usually have a seriously warped view of what high intelligence actually is. They treat it like some sort of "third eye" that unlocks all the secrets of the universe, expecting these people to act like some hybrid reincarnation of Jesus Christ and Stephen Hawking. It couldn't be further from the truth; it's a double-edged sword, not some magical superpower.

James Miller2 said:Evil always goes hand in hand with high intelligence and great cunning.
I don't know a single evil person who wasn't above average in intelligence.

My view is that intelligence becomes a flaw the moment the mind overshadows humanity.

Some highly intelligent people fail in life because they cannot assimilate into society due to other deficiencies, such as a lack of socialization.
Therefore, intelligence is not a necessary factor for success or a happy life. However, it is a very good starting point for those who know how to use it.

With intelligent people, just as with those who are less intelligent... the question is whether a person possesses organized moral values that override their intellect.

Also, does the person have the ability to channel their frustration and the things they cannot control in a positive direction, or will they take matters into their own hands and commit evil?

If that were actually true, your IQ would surely be off the charts, but looking at your posts, I’m not seeing much evidence for that. Honestly, you seem to be contradicting your own "theory" here.☕

Anything involving complex thought processes goes hand-in-hand with high intelligence, regardless of whether the person is a saint or a total jerk.

Antisocial behavior—what most people just call being "evil"—is mostly shaped by how someone was raised, not by their IQ. Honestly, there are way more average or even below-average people out there acting like villains; it’s just that because they lack the brainpower, they aren't nearly as successful at pulling off their schemes, so they end up being less sensational and often go completely unnoticed.

Contrary to what chocobella thinks, there’s a mountain of research done on prison populations that shows a massive overrepresentation of people with below-average intelligence and a significantly lower presence of high-IQ individuals compared to the general public. So, yeah, being "evil" definitely isn't a hallmark of high intelligence.

Then again, everyone’s idea of "high intelligence" is pretty subjective. To some folks, an average person might seem like a genius, while someone with a 150 IQ might actually come across as a complete moron simply because the gap in understanding is just too wide for them to bridge.