>I did IQ research as a grad student, and it involved a lot of this stuff. Did you know that most people (95%+) with less than 90 IQ can't understand conditional hypotheticals?
>For example:
>How would you have felt yesterday evening if you hadn't eaten breakfast or lunch?
>What do you mean? I did eat breakfast and lunch.
>Yes, but if you had not, how would you have felt?
>Why are you saying that I didn't eat breakfast? I just told you that I did.
>Imagine that you hadn't eaten it, though. How would you have felt?
>I don't understand the question.
>It's really fascinating. We did research on convicts in San Quentin. They're absolute fucking retards, at least 50% illiterate.
>Other interesting phenomenon around IQ involves recursion.
>For example:
>Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. >Most literate people can manage this, especially once you give them an example.
>Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue.
>In this story, one of the characters must be describing a story with at least two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue.
>If you have less than 90 IQ, this second exercise is basically completely impossible.
>Add a third level ('frame') to the story, and even IQ 100's start to get mixed up with the names and who's talking. >Turns out Scheherazade was an IQ test!
>Time is practically impossible to understand for sub 80's. They exist only in the present, can barely reflect on the past and can't plan for the future at all.
>Sub 90's struggle with anachronism too. For example, I remember the 80-85's stumbling on logic problems that involved common sense anachronism stuff.
>For instance:
>Why do you think that military strategists in WWII didn't use laptop computers to help develop their strategies? >I guess they didn't want to get hacked by Nazis?
>Admittedly you could argue that this is a history knowledge question, not quite a logic sequencing question, but you get the idea.
>Sequencing is super hard for them to track, but most 100+ have no problem with it, although I imagine that a movie like Memento strains them a little.
>Recursion was definitely the killer, though.
>Recursive thinking and recursive knowledge seems genuinely hard for people of even average intelligence (although at San Quentin there weren't too many of those!)
>It's the main reason why so many people with sub-90 IQ are sociopathic or psychopathic. They don't have the mental computing power to model other people's thoughts and feelings. I've seen it over and over with convicts. >How do you think that man felt when you beat him?
>Dunno.
>How do you think that boy's mother felt when she heard that her son was dead?
>Dunno.
>It comes across as psychopathic, but these people literally don't have the brainpower to build even a crude model of someone else's mind, let alone populate it with events that are in the past.
>I forgot to mention another important part of abstract reasoning, which is 'mapping'. Basically, expressing one thing in terms of another.
>For example:
>Imagine a picture of an arrow, colored in a gradient from yellow to green, following the direction of the arrow. >Imagine a one-way residential street, with ascending house numbers, with the lowest number being at the entrance of the street and the highest number being at the exit.
>If you mapped the arrow onto the street, what color would house number 1 be?
>This question really isn't tricky for most 100+s. It has some minor ambiguities, but anyone of normal intelligence can do the 'mapping': that is, the expression of one thing in terms of another.
>However, for sub-90's, this stuff is REALLY difficult. They struggle terribly with it. Sub 80's just can't do it at all. >Anything under 90 will routinely make errors with even commonplace mapping (like subway maps, time schedules, etc.) Sub 85s start to get into the territory where they can't learn to read, as symbolic mapping of phonemes (or even morphemes) even with constant drilling, is just too tricky.
>Math is another area I could get into, but the long and the short of it is that it's heavily decided by IQ. That's a bit tautological, since it's a principal IQ measurement, but you know what I mean.
>As for the criminal narcissists etc: I honestly don't know. However, sufficiently high IQ autists can emulate theory of mind, and do. If you're smart enough, you can build a little simulator in your brain. You also need to be smart enough to appreciate the utility of it.
>I suspect that any autist or narcissist over 120 can do this stuff regularly without getting tired, but it's like playing a strenuous game of chess for them. They really don't have the 'hardware' for empathy. That's it.
>reeeee formatting
fuck you I already reformatted it for normie consumption and have been disseminating it, not retranslating to autist.
