1. IQ and creativity are imperfectly correlated
Since most IQ tests do not measure creativity directly, and rely on mass testing of general problems that can meaningfully measure intelligence for a wide swath of the populace, which requires generic problems that have been normed in a representative sample, not novel problems that very few people can solve. Ergo, IQ and creativity are imperfectly correlated
2. High IQ East Asians are relatively less creative than whites possessing similar IQ
Since East Asians load higher and lower on IQ and creativity respectively relative to whites, a 150 IQ East Asian is, statistically speaking, likely less creative than an equally high 150 IQ White
3. 150 IQ isn't exceptionally high
150 IQ is about 1 in 2000 rarity, which is quite common, and not the unicorns that you'll never see IRL like gigachads or 170 IQ supergeniuses that are one-in-a-million in rarity.
As for being a deluded IQ coper, I scored approx. +3.3 standard deviations above the mean on a nonverbal IQ test I took at the age of 10, which Jensen states is the point where IQ stabilizes, AND I scored 99 on the ASVAB with an Army GT score of 144, which has either a standard deviation of 15 or 16. Assuming that the Naglieri and the ASVAB have a correlation of around 0.5 to 0.6, that would imply my composite IQ score is slightly above 150 IQ SD 15
Previous post: https://incels.is/threads/should-i-make-a-post-calculating-my-composite-iq-score-based-on-childhood-iq-afqt-score-and-army-navy-gt-score.690949/ So let's look at the psychometric data first: Childhood IQ: 152 on the Naglieri at age 10 (test ceiling of 160 with an SD of 16)...
incels.is
4. Creativity is overrated
To quote Quentin Tarantino, “I steal from every single movie ever made. I love it—if my work has anything it’s that I’m taking this from this and that from that and mixing them together….I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don’t do homages.”
To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "I cheerfully ripped off the plot of
Brave New World, whose plot had been cheerfully ripped off from Yevgeny Zamyatin's
We"
The Playboy Interview - July 1973: A candid conversation with the famous writer Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
web.archive.org
As for personal accomplishments, I'm a 20 year old male with little to no motivation, and since the correlation with IQ and academic achievement is merely 0.5 (25% of the variance explained by IQ), with the other 75% explained by academic TIE and work ethic, the average 150 IQ person would regress to the mean on real world measures of success due to the imperfect correlation. Which is perfectly explained by bivariate normal distribution. To quote Pumpkin person, "Everyone knows that a super failure can have a super high IQ, but so many deny that a super achiever can have a super low IQ. But the correlation between IQ and achievement is only meaningful if you believe in the bivariate normal distribution which means that for every high IQ person who is low on achievement, there must be a high achievement person who is low in IQ."
Since my work ethic is virtually non-existent (I am the laziest person I know) AND my intellectual interests are at complete odds with my curriculum, I would drastically underperform relative to even other 150 IQ persons, regressing precipitously towards the mean.
View attachment 1463984
As for critical thinking, insights, perspectives, and intuition, I don't agree with everything I read obviously, and I do have some insights.
For instance, I disagree with Pumpkinperson's conclusion that Oprah's cranial capacity is 6 to 7 standard deviations above the mean of a black female, since the study she cited in support of that was normed to Army enlistees, which is an unrepresentative sample of Americans since the low AND high IQ are likely excluded (low IQ due to Department of Defense Requirements and high IQ due to better opportunities on average), which depresses the variation of IQ, and thus of cranial capacity, which is correlated 0.4 with IQ
While I am an offensive realist who worships Mearsheimer, I also think he overstates the power of nationalism and tends to be overemphasize the fragility of multinational empires like Austria Hungary and the USSR, referring to them as exceptionally weak powers undone by nationalism (only after defeat on the battle field or economic collapse respectively), while neglecting the fact that novel surveillance technologies, political atomization under a ruthless regime, and higher levels of economic modernization help mitigate if not completely suppress popular discontent caused by an occupying regime (if they are ruthless enough)
I disagree with Kevin McDonald's main thesis that without Jews, America would have remained a 1950s whiteocracy, as even without the subversive influence of Jewish civil rights activists and academics, the founding ideals of America, when fully realized, would have eventually lead to further political and socioeconomic liberalization sooner or later
I also disagree with Luis Hartz about the unviability of fascism in America, and, by extension, modern Europe, as while a popular mass movement would be unviable, a coupe similar to the 1930s business plot is feasible under horrific economic conditions plus fascism is not as ideologically rigid as communism
Physical prowess??? I could really care less about that JFL I'm not a nigger
I never said I thought your father was a worthless subhuman, just stated that YOU thought so. Also, my father did score among the top handful nationally on the Korean Suneung, known as the College Entrance Strength Test (대입학력고사) when he took it. Plus he was in the process of rapidly ascending the ladder during his career before he abruptly quit, with the same number of Google citations as Yasantha Rajakarunanayake, whom Jeff Bezos thought was the smartest guy at Princeton.
I would go more indepth, but I'm too lazy for that + I am overdue on autistic map painting on Azgaar's Fantasy Map