@JohnGritt this is why I hate it when people put flags and pronouns and shit in their bio. It immediately tells me there is a 99% chance they're annoying.
No one with an IQ over 125, which sets the lower bound for me for serious convo, would ever suffer from conformity to the point of virtue-signaling.
Flags and pronouns shows to us a great desire of conformity.
Intelligence and independence are linked. That should stand out for anyone.
People of low intelligence are at high-risk of not surviving. Their survival is tied to others who are marginally smarter. Thus, they will surrender their independence for an increased chance of survival.
Behind the action of what mankind mostly does is risk reduction. Banking, insurance, stock markets, these are obvious examples, but also religious bodies, schooling, cities, etc.
An extremely intelligent man can live alone. He can elevate himself over time taking from earth all that he needs to increase his survival while reducing his risk.
The same can not be said for marginal intellect people.
People who are a a bit smarter wired without morals will rise up always to lead the mass of marginal-intellect conformists. In their calculus, they see luxury can be attained by skimming off of the top of everyone whom they lead.
@JohnGritt sidenote, but iq tests are kind of retarded. they tend to really only focus on one way of thinking. It's like the SAT (or was it ACT?) I took in high school. Literally got top of my class in the language arts and reading tests but I didn't finish math or science and missed a bunch of those questions so I ended up with a score slightly above average. All throughout high school I was stellar at stuff like writing essays, presentations, even the more technical side of the arts rather than just the creative side of it like audio production and shit like the anatomy of a camera and how it all works. But put me in front of a test with a bunch of math problems and I short circuit pretty quickly.
Then you have people with literal GENIUS IQs getting wasted at bars and then getting stuck in a chimney and dying. That actually happened.
All of that is to say, I wouldn't use IQ as a serious metric for someone's actual intelligence.
While many fields of academia are verbal based, some are math based (e.g., engineering, physics, chemistry, actuarial science, statistics, etc.).
IQ tests, which are different, rely upon testing degrees of abstract thinking. If anything, IQ tests administered to older people relies more on language to ask the question.
While you would not use IQ as a serious metric, I would.
I would bet on higher IQ males dropped into the middle of forests with cold nights would last longer than lower IQ males.
And I would be anyone that I would win more bets on such a scenario if repeated 100 times.
Likely it is true that every advancement of mankind has come from men with IQs above 124.
If intelligence, which can be measured by IQ, were irrelevant, then life would be random. We would have a 50-50 chance of succeeding or dying off in mass in any year.
The screenshot comes from a work of mine.
image.png