sure you don't need one, but all 3 also do happen to score highly on those tests. And were intelligent
Last edited:
not at all, intelligence shows in conversations even if people aren't being 'rational'
religion is largely irrational, but plenty of theologists were highly intelligent. religious figures could often just be schizoposting IRL, and their intelligence still shows
intelligence isn't about specific topics or puzzle shit, it is a trait of a person's mind which is always present
ok, and that's fine
they're correct, the blackpill leads to incel conclusions
likewise, your argument leads to feminist conclusions
arguments do not matter, because people are teleological beings and only their intentions and practical outlook matter
which in this case is feminism
not at all, I have always held here that foids have no intelligence, and in fact it's a stretch to say that they have consciousness
I don't know if you're saying shit I don't like half the time, because I usually don't read your full posts bc they are too long
no, the bluepill holds that foids value pERsonality, virtue, etc.
it is typically associated with feminism, which promotes foids and their intelligence
none of what I'm saying is bluepilled
that is because I am very blackpilled
'I made up IQs for these figures based on absolutely nothing'
'oh and they're much less intelligent than um some foid columnist nerd, just because'
Last edited:
I googled those IQ's and copy pasted them. The point I was making was those men had high IQ. The average is 100. All their scores are high.
is this not exactly the point I am making about foids?
Those religious people had high IQ but low rationality, in your own words. You literally said here that religion is largely irrational. That's what I'm saying. They (foids) could also just be irrational, which would explain why their beliefs make no sense even if they have intelligence.
they were never tested, obviously
people make up high IQs for them based on absolutely nothing, because they are considered to be 'thinkers'
since you're so concerned about IQs, I'm not sure why you left this up to google without doing any further scrutiny
I base my estimation of their intelligence on reading and analyzing what they have written and their thought process. you based yours on some random arbitrary guesstimate of how they would have performed at solving puzzle games
Last edited:
so what? you should not deny truth just because it suggests something you disagree with. That is what bluepillers do. Why do bluepillers deny lookism? Because it hurts them. That is being bluepilled. See quote below.
It's true, and as I said about five times, the fact it does not benefit us and suggests something good about foids, literally does nothing but show that you find that truth uncomfortable, and are refusing to believe what does not benefit you. That is the definition of being bluepilled. It also is not the reason I'm making the argument. I don't care to big up foids. I'm just saying what is true. What you are doing, is not accepting truth because you don't like it. That is bluepilled
Last edited:
you are just redefining the 'bluepill', as the term is used in incel circles, at this point
opposing feminism is not bluepilled
if you wanted to be really anal about the intentions of the wachowski brothers and their shitty film, you could say that the 'bluepill' is opposing transsexuality and gender fluidity
but I don't see the point of that when the bluepill has a perfectly clear meaning here
how does it benefit me? I don't care if foids are intelligent or unintelligent, it's not as if I listen to them
so you think the 3 thinkers you gave as examples would have had low IQ? You chose them. Not my fault IQ tests didn't exist in the time period of the people you chose. People aren't blindly gifting them high scores because they were great thinkers. They almost definitely would have had IQ which is why they are given high scores, jfl
all this is saying is that the bluepill as applied to inceldom, is only about looks. As applied. As in, when refering to one specific thing. That doesn't mean that is the definition JFL.
Read it on the wiki even. Sure, one bluepill is to be in denial about looks. Read the second paragraph. It literally is exactly what I am saying. And your argument is that 'buh if you only mean the bluepill as we post it related to looks, then its just about looks'. Ok
JFL if you actually think the bluepill extends to, and then stops, at accepting looks. And all the other self benefitting delusions seen in life aren't bluepilled. The term has an origin, and a meaning. It means to deny uncomfortable reality. Even in the context you are now forcing it to be contained in, that is an accurate description of what they are doing when they deny lookism. Isn't it?
Last edited:
and it didn't matter, their intelligence was still as clear as the unintelligence of foids
there's no comparison between them and 'high IQ' people like christopher langan who simply aren't as intelligent
this is like people here selfdiagnosing with mental illness jfl
people are attributing them high IQs in retrospect because they are recognizable philosophers
but it is 100% made up
just like foid intelligence, it isn't real
their IQ was never measured, and you are treating a completely fictional IQ as authoritative
if you did much research on the topic, you would know that estimated IQs like this aren't given much serious value, and are considered to be tokenistic. but instead you just googled someone's fictional IQs as if it means anything
if you don't believe in IQ tests then you're too bluepilled to accept what I am saying. What research should I do? Your point is they have high intelligence. My point is, yes, they did, and they are predicted to have had IQ.
All of this comes back to you saying a foid, with 226 iq, is unintelligent, which is so far in denial I can't even comprehend. You think a person with 226 IQ was unintelligent? LOL
as I said, if you want to be strict about what the 'bluepill' means in the context of the matrix, then I would 100% be bluepilled because I don't support transsexuals like the wachowskis
further, in a literal feminist gynocracy, it's not entirely clear how it's 'bluepilled' to consider foids unintelligent or less intelligent. the purpose of the bluepill was to avoid displaying the illusions of the 'matrix' and cisgender society, and let you live at peace with it again rather than opposing or rebelling against it.
but it's a vague pop cultural metaphor assimilated by the redpill and then by the blackpill. it's not some deep thing, it's just some shallow pop cultural reference. it only has meaning here because it's used in a specific manner
notably, there is no blackpill in the matrix at all
Last edited:
the fact you can't see you're rationalizing is identical to the way bluepillers can't see they're rationalizing.
'yeah, well, you're right, but, the matrix was just a movie, and that means the fact its definition of bluepill happens to line up perfectly with ours, is meaningless bro, it's vague pop culture. Yeah it in plain fucking english describes being bluepilled, but that doesn't matter'
Last edited:
G
Yes I have... at least on the surface they can convince you they're intelligent.
But once you really get talking and asking questions that require logical consistency, the facade falls apart
do you really think if hegel, one of the most intelligent people of all time, did an IQ test, he would get a sub 100 score? Or even sub 130? If you do I need to know nothing more about your opinion. He would of gotten a high score. You're rationalizing the fact we can't test him means the point is moot. Because you need the point to be moot in order to believe what you believe. You also assumed i made up his iq on the spot and then when I said I didn't, found another problem to bitch about as to why it didn't matter, which is also wrong, and both of which were designed to undermine the opinion. He had a high IQ and me thinking that is nothing like people self diagnosing. if you disagree, you think HEGEL would have scored low on an IQ test. I can believe that prediction of 165 because if I thought HEGEL had a low IQ i'd be fucking retarded myself.
Rationalization
Last edited:
not at all
the accusation that someone is 'bluepilled' holds weight here because it refers to a specific thing
by detaching it from that context and using it to apply to whatever you're whining about, you are borrowing its trappings without the substance that makes it a substantial criticism
you calling people 'bluepilled' simply isn't meaningful, and clinging to the word is an attempt to make it sound more important in this context
I do not believe that the primary problem with the bluepill is the bluepillers' logic. it's that their ideology is a buttress to feminism and simping. to gain a more enlightened perspective, they would need to begin by abandoning their foid worship and accepting misogyny
Their logic enables them to do it and if they had to be logical, they could not believe what they believe, so it wouldn't lead to said outcome. Oppose the bias, you achieve the same results, and aren't literally defending not being logical. As I have now said about 7 times, bluepill is in protection of a reality that BENEFITS them which is exactly what you are both describing, and criticizing. You just refuse to apply it consistently so you can yourself, be biased and have it be ok. Bluepilled.
Last edited:
Lol, no. I can outdebate any cunt. Try my shit 304's, I dare you.
not at all
like all people, they are teleological and practical beings
people can interpret the world in various ways, but the point is to change it
they need a change in their outlook and way of life, or 'form of life' in wittgensteinian terms, before they can understand the truths of foid nature
just like people need intelligence to recognize how all foids are not intelligent
i give up, keep being biased then
a foid had an IQ of 226 just want to remind you of this
Oh, and, the fact she did makes you uncomfortable. You're denying a truth you find too uncomfortable. You're saying IQ says nothing about intelligence. That is unbelievable delusion in service of your comfy opinion
Oh and your opinion resembles, strongly, infact it is identical, to the delusional things people have to believe in to deny the looks pill
bluepiller
I am not biased at all
if foids were intelligent, then I would read books written by foids, because I enjoy reading intelligent content.
but that will never be the case, because foids prima facie are not intelligent.
ok dr. freud
you're the only one who was talking about her
that is because you are a foid worshipper, and foids are very important to your feelings
you're a bluepilled foid worshipper, so I don't take the word seriously coming from you
if you're not suggesting that I'm not a misogynist, then I don't care about the label
so no closing thoughts on that foid scoring 226 on an iq test? It just flat out suggests nothing. Bitch was unintelligent. IQ is not even slightly suggestive of intelligence? Ok.
how the fuck was anything I did worship, at all. I didn't say she was great. I didnt' say her IQ means something more than intelligence, which isn't worship. Infact, I specifically said it means nothing but that. And I said she's irrational. I just said it's retarded to think foids aren't capable of intelligence. That's not worship and you know it isn't. You're making shit up about my character to feel like you have more of a point. The fact she could possibly be intelligent is a reality you refuse to consider could be possible because it makes you feel good. You argued like a complete bluepiller that there was no way in hell you would accept she could be intelligent. What is the number 1 sign of a bluepiller? They steadfastly believe that they are correct even if their opinions suck and make no sense to an impartial observer. You forsook what IQ means JFL, and forever will now have to hold that 'iq is not correlated to intelligence'. Good luck with that. And that rationality explains the gap you're talking about. Both of those are dumb as fuck and only make sense if you are forced to believe in them because your opinion relies on them. Again, your entire argument can be explained that 'they aren't rational' and that is a way simpler explanation. Occums razor.
'i am not biased' sure keep telling yourself that.
Last edited:
people are waking up to the truth and the metaphorical red pill
they are realizing that foids are not capable of intelligence, and that the feminist phrases about gender equality were LIES
they are realizing that foids being their equal was just a bluepilled myth, to sell them on the illusions of feminist society instead of facing foid nature and misogyny
they are realizing that foids are not intelligent, and must be put back in their place + excluded from education and civil society, as they were for much of history
so you are anxious and are whiteknighting for your precious foids by pretending that they are intelligent, even though most people have never met an intelligent foid
it doesn't
if it did suggest something, why would you take for granted that some person flat-out making up IQ scores for historical figures was an authoritative source?
but you know that it simply isn't important or meaningful, so you didn't care about the subject beyond a quick google
the difference between male and foid brains is qualitative, not quantitative. foids simply do not have intelligence, they are not more or less intelligent.
holy shit bro
The reason I believe that their prediction is accurate is because HEGEL would have scored highly if he took an IQ test. Because he fucking would have and if you disagree, you think he wouldn't have
Do you disagree? Do you think HEGEL would have scored sub 100?
I disagree because I don't just make up people's IQ test results based on absolutely nothing
an IQ test is a specific thing, a set of random boring puzzles, and throwing around exaggerated IQ scores for illustrious people who never took it is just dumb bullshit to impress the hoi polloi
how high would feynman have scored on an IQ test, btw?
iq test means nothing - soycuckgodofreddit
good luck with choosing to hold that opinion for the rest of your life
also before you assume I cut out your first bit, I repeat. Your entire point can be explained if you concede they aren't capable of rationality. The whole point. And it makes a lot more sense if you do
125, which is high. Also read my sig. You're quoting the lowest IQ intellectual you can think of as an outlier to a rule that all the others had high as fuck IQ
because your take is inane. And even with that, you don't know one lower than 125. So the biggest outlier you can find to show IQ is not correlated with intelligence, still had high IQ
125 iq is in the 95th percentile LOL
They're smiling
not at all, I esteem intelligence as much more important than rationality
I have always held this opinion, I think that intelligence tests are only considered valuable by the average dunce, because they have no idea what intelligence is like and have to quantify it
someone with a modicum of intelligence would be able to gain a much deeper understanding of a person's intelligence, without recourse to hifalutin puzzles and numbers
lmao
I named feynman because I know that story, I don't generally check on people's IQ because I simply don't care
but obviously if his IQ wasn't measured, estimates would be much higher than 125, and you'd be quoting that as the truth, no?
that's why the lowest one you could find was 125
if you were correct, and it meant nothing, then there would be an equal spread of intellectuals with sub 100 IQ. There are ZERO
does that mean it wasn't a stupid thing to say? The best example you have to back up your belief is that feynman was only in the 95th percentile of IQ as opposed to the 99.999th percentile. So for you, IQ has to perfectly predict how intelligent someone is, or it means NOTHING. The idea it gave him 95th percentile, a high as fuck score, to you, suggests it cannot even give a tiny suggestion of intelligence. The best story you know of about an intellectual with a low IQ, was in the top 5/100.
And it's an outlier. An anecdote. You picked the best example you know. And so the majority of cases, which is what you should care about (remember, the comparison is like a foid saying 'i know an anecdote that disproves the rule even if 99% of cases still follow that IQ predicts intelligence, here's an anecdote where that happens to not be true'). And it still proves you wrong. It's not like 'my friend of a friend dated while ugly'. Its equivalent to saying 'my friend of a friend dated a 8/10. See? We don't all like chad. Some women date men who are only in the 95th percentile of looks. That's why I think looks don't matter.' JFL
Meanwhile Von Neumann? 190. Gary Kasparov 194. Every genius had high IQ.
I repeat
The giveaway of a bluepiller is no matter how stupid their point is, they believe it, because they cannot possibly believe their point is wrong.
'iq doesn't mean anything thats why my best proof is that feynman had 95th percentile IQ. If it meant something he should have been 99.9999 percentile'
also you're admitting you have no reason to believe what you do. You said yourself, you don't have any better examples. You know what that sounds like to me? it sounds like when a lookism denier believes what they believe despite the fact they have zero evidence they're actually correct or even slightly correct. 'i just believe it bro. You're sending evidence to the contrary? Doesn't matter bro.'
how can you possibly not see you're rationalizing oh wait because you're bluepilled
what is most bluepilled is that it upsets you to be wrong. and if it didn't you'd admit IQ means something. But you can't. Because it is required in order for you to prove the original belief
I hate bluepillers man
They just believe delusional ass shit that makes no sense at all and see no problem with it
Last edited:
B
Yes, I had a hot EE/Slavic, 30 something year old statistics professor. Tightest fucking body you could imagine. She was married to some finance guy. Every dude was simping for her to the point where you could sometimes feel secondhand embarrassment.
They exist, but they're rare.
They exist, but they're rare.
tbh you're literally just writing text walls in response to nothing at this point
the question wasn't even about whether IQ means anything
it was about you being credulous and taking random made-up IQ figures as authoritative because you 'googled it'
so I asked you to make up an IQ for feynman, you of course refused and googled it, then misconstrued my point
cope, rationalization.
you suggested IQ shows 0, nothing, about intelligence and i can quote you saying it. You did it to protect your opinion
and by doubling-down on this, you have obviously done exactly what you accuse 'bluepilled' thinkers of doing
dude you said you think iq means nothing, that's why that foid with high iq isn't intelligent. Then you lost an argument by stating a guy with 5% percentile IQ being intelligent proves your point which was borderline retarded and proves you dead wrong. Because 95th percentile, for your best proof, is pretty fucking hard to defend
now you're simply refusing to acknowledge the context in which feynman was brought up
it was brought up in favour of this point:
again, you have no right to condemn 'bluepillers' for allegedly doing exactly what you are doing right now
you should simply accept that your supposed 'values' are so meaningless that even you have abandoned them at a moment's notice
I'm not doing what they do though, so I do have a right to condemn them, and I'm not betraying my values. Feynman has a tested IQ of 123-125. It's very very very well documented. Why would I need to make one up?
They don't exist, most foids in scientific fields are riding the coat tails of their male colleagues or claiming someone else's research that they are fucking the original maker for.
again, all that you are showing is your lack of reading comprehension and inability to understand the context in which feynman was brought up
you are trying to spin this simple mention of feynman, as a counter-point to your assumptions about completely fictionalized IQs, in a way which is plainly falsified by the original context
based
I didn't make up his IQ though. He has a tested IQ of 123-125. Scored throughout his life, time and time again. You brought it up in support of a point that I shouldn't go making up peoples IQ.
precisely, because his IQ was tested, but if people were asked to confabulate it (like with the other thinkers) then they would typically attribute him a significantly higher IQ
the simple point being that made-up IQs are not authoritative, whereas you attributed them without any qualifications as if they were really measured at any point.
his example was brought up as an obvious corrective
but I did so casually, because I feel like you doubling-down on your attribution of fictional IQs was peculiar and gave the lie to your characterization of the bluepill and your opposition to it
you mean this context? Yeah. I didn't make it up. Retard.
the one i 'made up' first of all wasn't made up by me but by consensus. And it was made up because IQ tests didn't exist at the time. I believe it because I think IQ can give, even a TINY hint as to intelligence. Which brings us back to you not believing IQ shows anything
if so, then the question is 'can IQ predict intelligence'
If true it's fine to assume hegel would have a high iq because he had high intelligence.
if not true then it isn't
you don't think it can. And said you don't think it even has a slight correlation. Repeatedly.
your best example of a low iq intellectual... is 125. 95th percentile.
it is a made-up IQ, and you have for no reason doubled-down on this without any justification, instead of letting it go and admitting that these IQs are purely speculative and do not serve to prove any point you thought that they did
I will also note that citing them with no qualifications, as you did, is absolutely a misleading practice
fictionalizing historical IQs is a niche and quite populist pursuit, not a field with strict parameters and a meaningful consensus
So you think hegel could have had a low IQ? If so, then GG. Hegel would not have had sub 100, because he was extremely intelligent, and IQ tests give some insight into intelligence. You disagree? You think IQ doesn't show anything? Then challenge and disprove the 'wall of text' about how that's fucking retarded that you didn't even reply to. you coper
the fact you are even saying such a stupid thing just to defend your original opinion should prove your original opinion to be cope. You think HEGEL had a low IQ? HAHAHA
if the test is accurate, explain how it's not fine to accept he would have had a high IQ without testing? The alternative is he had a low IQ
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
