[scandibro]

Well, I'm around the 130 mark in several tests. My biggest problem in the past was probably that I though everyone else were much smarter than they were. I found out later this is a common thing and a sort of reverse Dunning-Kruger. It wasn't even trying to be clever, I just honestly didn't understand that people didn't think that extra step ahead.

We can talk around about all kind of grand ideas about intelligence and such, for me it is just pretty simple:

No politics
No science
No career work talk
No philosophy

Basically, no subjects which require a girl to respond logically. It doesn't mean I won't use those topics with smarter girls, but it will never be from a 'knowledge sharing - feedback loop - challenge' conversation which you can have with men. It will just focus on the interpersonal aspect of whatever topic. So I can name drop some Focault to a leftist college chick and challenge her with Ayn Rand, but it will be in the form of simple, brutish self-appreciation always focusing on making me seem strong, independent, rebel etc. Doing this, you can meet and match her cultural idea of wanting a smart man with the primal desire for a strong independent man.

With less smart chicks, I don't bring up any topics remotely close to those. Just keep it light and fast. Quick banter and particularly quick teasing retorts are a very good way of demonstrating intelligence.

However, of course, working 10 hour days in front of a computer puts my brain in logical mode, so 5-6 beers or other alchohol equivalent is the golden spot.

Perhaps some of you can recognize being able to easily take over a social setting with your quick thinking and knowledge when you're feeling it, but sometimes being almost paralyzed because you're stuck in analytical mode.

No quick fix as I've found, other than learning to recognize that though intellectual pursuit is interesting, vibing and feeding off emotions is equally enjoyable just in a different way. The problem of course for me is accepting people who are only capable of emotional behavior and unable to make any leaps of imagination.

[Samseau]

The #1 thing most intelligent men need to learn is humility, you're aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. Go read some Socrates.

[void]

(11-03-2013 01:16 PM)scandibro Wrote:  

However, of course, working 10 hour days in front of a computer puts my brain in logical mode, so 5-6 beers or other alchohol equivalent is the golden spot.

Perhaps some of you can recognize being able to easily take over a social setting with your quick thinking and knowledge when you're feeling it, but sometimes being almost paralyzed because you're stuck in analytical mode.

I noticed the same. It is possible to switch modes, I guess its switching thinking between left and right brain thinking.
I theorize training the connection between them makes switching easier

[metalheadatheart]

Humility is important, but in my opinion humility is not beating others over the head with your superiority. You don't talk down to people or pretend to be a know-it-all, but you don't pretend you don't know what you know either.

There's a saying that I've always liked, "don't show off, be impressive."

That pretty much sums it up, I think.

[scandibro]

Humility is sorely lacking in the average of intelligence. In fact, in my experience smart people are for more humble in general than people of lesser intelligence.

[AnonymousBosch]

(11-03-2013 05:17 PM)scandibro Wrote:  

Humility is sorely lacking in the average of intelligence. In fact, in my experience smart people are for more humble in general than people of lesser intelligence.

Behold the supercilious nature of University-Educated Women in the 110-120 range, all of whom are such intellectual lightweights that they dismiss any theories and studies that take a high level of intelligence to comprehend - such as Freud, who is simply beyond the working capacity of their minds - and substitute easily-grasped crap about CIS gender and rape culture that they'll explain to you in patronising detail should you challenge them on it. To a woman, they all believe men are intimidated by their superior intellect, never considering the fact we see no evidence of it, and would rather fuck someone pretty and pleasant anyway.

If they were smart they'd be in STEM, to begin with, yet they all seem to communicate in their moral scold essays via the modern picture book format of 'write half a paragraph, then insert a gif', never stopping to realise that copyright infringement is considered a violation of human rights by the United Nations, under article 27.

[reaper23]

yo, ya'll must not live in dc, the credentialed smart person capital of the world here.

yes, caveman works like a charm. its my approach. i look like a biker in a suit.

but these chicks all appreciate intelligence in a man. in fact, until they meet me, thats the main thing find attractive in other dudes because thats all the other dudes have.

my ltr always compliments me on my vocabulary or syntax. she notices things like that. and she is actually amazingly curious, learning new things on the internet pretty much daily. it does focus around health and science but she is always pushing. naturally inquisitive. but i'll admit, she is an outlier in many ways.

even my cute little rave bunny of a girlfriend at 18 said that she liked her men smart.

as many have said i think we're conflating being smart with being a social retard

they aren't always the same

i'm intelligent, but have a higher social IQ. which is why i've been successful. people trust me and believe in me because i instill confidence.

thats almost more important.


something mikecf said stands out to me

"Stop probing for deeper meaning and truth."

Gahhh.

If only I could do that, my life would be so much better. because the answers you find upon serious reflection are not helpful. No, Sir, they are not.

[Libertas]

Good thread guys. As you might expect, it's all too familiar.

Pretty much agreed with Scorpion. The biggest problems high IQ guys have is that first, we often base ourselves on it and pride ourselves on it. This isn't totally bad, but that often translates into trying to impress girls with it but this just comes across as bragging, and is thus unattractive.

The second problem is that we tend to think too far ahead, when as has been said, you need to be in the moment.

High IQ isn't a bad thing- it allows us to more easily absorb knowledge, adapt, and overrule bad behaviors. We all need to use those attributes to reframe and rewire our mindsets.

Convey your intelligence in an attractive way, like Consul talked about, rather than an unattractive way- the bragging, bland, boring shit that the prototypical nerd does.

[Menace]

Women do appreciate and value intelligence in a man, it just depends at what stage you're at and the women you're dealing with. Foreign women generally like it right up front (Asian, Russians, etc). American women prefer it further down the road. However, to dovetail into what reaper said above, even in DC, flat out stating your credentials won't get it wet or even impress them. You have to kind of approach it from the side and sneak it in there once they are already attracted to you.

[Greek kamaki]

You should always talk about topics in female magazines like fashion,accessories,horoscop,cosmetics,social relationships,gossip,food,drinks,make-up,nails,vaccations,colours,psychology etc.You will find very few politics,history or philosophy topics in female magazines. You will also find very few information about sports,cars and video games.
Generally women like the light talk with some spices.

High IQ is actually an aid because it helps you quickly learn foreign languages,create attraction,adapt fast,focus,have an eye for detail,use statistics effectively etc.The downside is that society expects a lot of people with high IQ so they do not let you so easily waste it in women"s pursuit it is considered loss for society( imagine if Einstein invented a general
theory for women instead of relativity theory). So you get cockblocked by society in a degree.

[Buddy Orion]

There's a difference between being intelligent and being intellectual. I act like a simple minded dumb fuck all the time but I'm intelligent. Just know when to stop talking intellectually and know how to act based on feelings. That's what stupid guys with game do.

[ObnoxiousStoner]

I just try to use my intelligence in ways that they find attractive. I keep my mind active to quick and clever responses if she teases me. Whenever I can i use smarts to think of ways to psychologically lead her to a conversation that is beneficial for me like something sexual but it seems more casual because its more indirect and spontaneous. But you have to adjust from girl to girl, some are more accepting of a smarter guy and its easier for you already. But most of the time its hard to hide it, but I use it as a mysterious side of me that I don't want to let go all at once. The main thing to do is to use your high intelligence to think of the best/most effecient strategy for that particular woman.

[Hades]

Most of the guys bitching about high IQ were too mature for their age intellectually so they were alienated from all their peers as children and young adults. This can worsen an already latent case of introversion and spur on a misguided case of misanthropy and generalized resentment.

Upon adulthood these kids (might) wake up to realize that being smart is not an advantage, they have absolutely no game or social skills to speak of, and it's going to take them a few years to catch up to their peers in terms of social skills (math, physics, all that shit simply does not correlate into the "real world" of interpersonal relationships).

They will catch up if (and this is a huge if) their naturally fragile egos can cope with the serious blows to their self-identity that naturally comes with rejection - especially if one has never really risked rejection before. Ego injuries over time can create a robust sense of self-esteem and confidence that they can't begin to understand.

That's generally why the most intelligent players are late-bloomers, their peers had to catch up to them in terms of maturity level - then the intelligent guys had to catch up in terms of basic (and more advanced) social skills. If they've never acknowledged their own needs for social skills and remain dishonest to themselves they inevitably develop some kind of narcissism.

[Doc_J]

I be like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSW2FDXuFe4

you know what I'm sayn?

[DVY]

(11-08-2013 01:22 AM)Hades Wrote:  

Most of the guys bitching about high IQ were too mature for their age intellectually so they were alienated from all their peers as children and young adults. This can worsen an already latent case of introversion and spur on a misguided case of misanthropy and generalized resentment.

Upon adulthood these kids (might) wake up to realize that being smart is not an advantage, they have absolutely no game or social skills to speak of, and it's going to take them a few years to catch up to their peers in terms of social skills (math, physics, all that shit simply does not correlate into the "real world" of interpersonal relationships).

They will catch up if (and this is a huge if) their naturally fragile egos can cope with the serious blows to their self-identity that naturally comes with rejection - especially if one has never really risked rejection before. Ego injuries over time can create a robust sense of self-esteem and confidence that they can't begin to understand.

That's generally why the most intelligent players are late-bloomers, their peers had to catch up to them in terms of maturity level - then the intelligent guys had to catch up in terms of basic (and more advanced) social skills. If they've never acknowledged their own needs for social skills and remain dishonest to themselves they inevitably develop some kind of narcissism.

Damm. You pretty much nailed my life story.

[scandibro]

(11-08-2013 01:22 AM)Hades Wrote:  

Most of the guys bitching about high IQ were too mature for their age intellectually so they were alienated from all their peers as children and young adults. This can worsen an already latent case of introversion and spur on a misguided case of misanthropy and generalized resentment.

Upon adulthood these kids (might) wake up to realize that being smart is not an advantage, they have absolutely no game or social skills to speak of, and it's going to take them a few years to catch up to their peers in terms of social skills (math, physics, all that shit simply does not correlate into the "real world" of interpersonal relationships).

They will catch up if (and this is a huge if) their naturally fragile egos can cope with the serious blows to their self-identity that naturally comes with rejection - especially if one has never really risked rejection before. Ego injuries over time can create a robust sense of self-esteem and confidence that they can't begin to understand.

That's generally why the most intelligent players are late-bloomers, their peers had to catch up to them in terms of maturity level - then the intelligent guys had to catch up in terms of basic (and more advanced) social skills. If they've never acknowledged their own needs for social skills and remain dishonest to themselves they inevitably develop some kind of narcissism.

I think that's a fair assesment for many, allthough I can't help but wonder if things would be different if smart kids went to school and high school with other smart kids. Less resentment, more opportunity to learn social skills because of less stupid kid bullying. If I ever get kids, I am not sending to a public school that's for sure.

In reality, I think some blame probably falls on parents. Since intelligence is about 85% inherited (Google it), smart kids have smart parents and I think many smart parents emphasize intelligence too much in childhood over teaching basic life skills like social skills and how to deal with conflict and confrontation.

[Hades]

(11-08-2013 11:05 AM)DVY Wrote:  

(11-08-2013 01:22 AM)Hades Wrote:  

Most of the guys bitching about high IQ were too mature for their age intellectually so they were alienated from all their peers as children and young adults. This can worsen an already latent case of introversion and spur on a misguided case of misanthropy and generalized resentment.

Upon adulthood these kids (might) wake up to realize that being smart is not an advantage, they have absolutely no game or social skills to speak of, and it's going to take them a few years to catch up to their peers in terms of social skills (math, physics, all that shit simply does not correlate into the "real world" of interpersonal relationships).

They will catch up if (and this is a huge if) their naturally fragile egos can cope with the serious blows to their self-identity that naturally comes with rejection - especially if one has never really risked rejection before. Ego injuries over time can create a robust sense of self-esteem and confidence that they can't begin to understand.

That's generally why the most intelligent players are late-bloomers, their peers had to catch up to them in terms of maturity level - then the intelligent guys had to catch up in terms of basic (and more advanced) social skills. If they've never acknowledged their own needs for social skills and remain dishonest to themselves they inevitably develop some kind of narcissism.

Damm. You pretty much nailed my life story.

Thanks, yeah I've been doing a lot of positive thinking about my upbringing - we're probably pretty similar

(11-08-2013 03:05 PM)scandibro Wrote:  

I think that's a fair assesment for many, allthough I can't help but wonder if things would be different if smart kids went to school and high school with other smart kids. Less resentment, more opportunity to learn social skills because of less stupid kid bullying. If I ever get kids, I am not sending to a public school that's for sure.

In reality, I think some blame probably falls on parents. Since intelligence is about 85% inherited (Google it), smart kids have smart parents and I think many smart parents emphasize intelligence too much in childhood over teaching basic life skills like social skills and how to deal with conflict and confrontation.

A school full of smart kids might be good to shelter them, but what happens when they're in the 'real world' with all the middle of the road types? Nothing's prepared them for that. I actually will argue that bullies have their place, I was friends with most of the highschool bullies and learned a lot from them.

My guess is that the parents are also incompetent at those basic life skills - not many people can deal with (or choose to deal with) confrontation.

[SpiderKing]

(11-08-2013 10:55 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I was friends with most of the highschool bullies and learned a lot from them.

Hades, could you please elaborate?

[Stun]

My IQ went up 10+ points from reading this thread.

[Hades]

(11-08-2013 11:36 PM)SpiderKing Wrote:  

(11-08-2013 10:55 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I was friends with most of the highschool bullies and learned a lot from them.

Hades, could you please elaborate?

Mostly from these guys I learned that it's not the end of the world to get a B+ (they gave no fucks about grades - compared to my well-domesticated nerd friends it was hilarious to listen to them talk about how creatively they made student's and teacher’s lives hell), adults are not infallible whatsoever, some teachers are not worth respecting, it's often better to have huge balls than brains, if you threaten force you better be prepared to use it, and they even taught me how to lift weights.

I was once getting hassled by some football player asshole and my bully friend came up out of nowhere and shoved this jock douchebag into a locker like five or six times until he fucked off. Being friends with these guys was like having immunity. I knew I owed them a lot of peace of mind so I helped them cheat on homework and they probably wouldn't have passed any of their math classes without my help.

Haven't seen either of them in a while but they're both doing pretty good as far as I know. I got to be friends with these two guys because I was one of the only people in school who was friendly and respectful to them. Everybody else was afraid of them.

I was on excellent terms with all of the teachers (even the ones who were picked on) but they were completely mystified why I'd go over and shoot the shit with the classroom bullies every now and then (usually it was figuring out who to get beer from) since I was 'teacher's pet'.
Never bothered getting involved between these bullies and the teachers because it wasn't my problem - teachers should know how to handle students.

[Suits]

(11-08-2013 01:22 AM)Hades Wrote:  

Most of the guys bitching about high IQ were too mature for their age intellectually so they were alienated from all their peers as children and young adults. This can worsen an already latent case of introversion and spur on a misguided case of misanthropy and generalized resentment.

Upon adulthood these kids (might) wake up to realize that being smart is not an advantage, they have absolutely no game or social skills to speak of, and it's going to take them a few years to catch up to their peers in terms of social skills (math, physics, all that shit simply does not correlate into the "real world" of interpersonal relationships).

They will catch up if (and this is a huge if) their naturally fragile egos can cope with the serious blows to their self-identity that naturally comes with rejection - especially if one has never really risked rejection before. Ego injuries over time can create a robust sense of self-esteem and confidence that they can't begin to understand.

That's generally why the most intelligent players are late-bloomers, their peers had to catch up to them in terms of maturity level - then the intelligent guys had to catch up in terms of basic (and more advanced) social skills. If they've never acknowledged their own needs for social skills and remain dishonest to themselves they inevitably develop some kind of narcissism.

I'm not looking to suggest that I'm one of the "most intelligent players" out there, but this is totally my story. You nailed it.

[DjembaDjemba]

(11-03-2013 03:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The #1 thing most intelligent men need to learn is humility, you're aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. Go read some Socrates.

This can't be overstated. Too many in the manosphere circles nowadays come off as intelligence snobs. They spent their intelligence capital on non social skills and somehow they think they're smarter than many of their peers.

They drop their "high" IQ numbers like dice on a board yet can't even talk to a woman or strike up a basic conversation without getting anxious.

I know many people who don't follow politics and won't come off as "smart", unless you get to know them and see they have allocated their intelligence to something other than academics, politics, or philosophy. They may be good at hunting, fishing, outdoors activities, being handy with their hands, a trade, and so on.

Intelligence isn't necessarily just an IQ number, how much one analyzes politics and religion, or how good they are at math.

[cardguy]

A lesson from a couple of 19th century British Prime Ministers:

Quote:

The story has often been repeated of a young woman who had dined with both Gladstone and Disraeli. She is said to have compared the two men this way.

"When I dined with Mr. Gladstone, I felt as though he was the smartest man in England. But when I dined with Mr. Disraeli, I felt as though I was the smartest woman in England."

[Starbuck]

I'm posting a lot of his stuff lately, but Nassim Taleb is a brilliant man.
This fits in quite well with this thread, Intelligence vs Wit:

Quote:

I've always wondered why males with boring professions, even when wealthy, do not attract females as much as artists do: rock stars, painters, & (in Europe) novelists & poets are more "interesting" than mathematicians, engineers, computer scientists, or physicists. Likewise men with flamboyant objects like red Ferraris or colorful clothes attract like a magnet, compared to the more conservative, but stable, plodding accountant. Same with wit compared to intelligence. Is it about the Zahavian showoff with language & artistic prowess? We have been playing with linguistic prowess and cave paintings for tens of thousand of years. Anyway, this metric can be used as a guideline to define true intelligence & relevant subjects: whatever subject is boring & unattractive in a Zahavian way will not be ancestrally fit & will be not natural to society. Painting, wit, music are more NATURAL than abstract mathematics or abstract, not exhibited wealth.

What I take is that intelligence in the sense of IQ tests and SAT scores is not as natural & ancestrally fit as wit, l'ésprit fin.

By not natural I mean not Black-Swan robust, skills we call intelligence because of a certain construction, but that are not needed ecologically. Mate selection has the right heuristics & intuitions --though in the right domain, & in the right domain only (the modern world we've constructed is quite different). So, Is "intelligence" without wit & verbal briliance really intelligence?

(From http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/notebook.htm )

And no, I have no idea what "Zahavian" means here ...but from a quick search it seems to be the scientific name for
peacocking. Amotz Zahavi apparently is an evolutionary scientist Israel.

[Vitriol]

(11-13-2013 10:13 AM)Starbuck Wrote:  

I'm posting a lot of his stuff lately, but Nassim Taleb is a brilliant man.
This fits in quite well with this thread, Intelligence vs Wit:

Quote:

I've always wondered why males with boring professions, even when wealthy, do not attract females as much as artists do: rock stars, painters, & (in Europe) novelists & poets are more "interesting" than mathematicians, engineers, computer scientists, or physicists. Likewise men with flamboyant objects like red Ferraris or colorful clothes attract like a magnet, compared to the more conservative, but stable, plodding accountant. Same with wit compared to intelligence. Is it about the Zahavian showoff with language & artistic prowess? We have been playing with linguistic prowess and cave paintings for tens of thousand of years. Anyway, this metric can be used as a guideline to define true intelligence & relevant subjects: whatever subject is boring & unattractive in a Zahavian way will not be ancestrally fit & will be not natural to society. Painting, wit, music are more NATURAL than abstract mathematics or abstract, not exhibited wealth.

What I take is that intelligence in the sense of IQ tests and SAT scores is not as natural & ancestrally fit as wit, l'ésprit fin.

By not natural I mean not Black-Swan robust, skills we call intelligence because of a certain construction, but that are not needed ecologically. Mate selection has the right heuristics & intuitions --though in the right domain, & in the right domain only (the modern world we've constructed is quite different). So, Is "intelligence" without wit & verbal briliance really intelligence?

(From http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/notebook.htm )

And no, I have no idea what "Zahavian" means here ...but from a quick search it seems to be the scientific name for
peacocking. Amotz Zahavi apparently is an evolutionary scientist Israel.

This is an interesting point. My intellect is more geared towards verbal and artistic abilities which I think would help. However, I'm generally a cheap fuck financially and I see why women would hate this:
The kids are sick, they need medicine = can't save money and buy it now.
The kids need the trinkets that are cool this holiday season to avoid social ostracism = buy it now.

It looks stupid to us as adult males, but when I think back at some of the shit my parents had to do when I was younger, I see why women are more attracted to men who are willing to blow money.