>human intelligence is not symmetrically distributed>it is biased towards the low end>drug abuse and other reasons mean you can accidentally/intentionally get dumb>rarely does one accidentally get smarterthere is not just one retard for every ten normies, there are actually two, and then there's just one (You), of course.this realization, that is more likely to be closer to objective reality than the widespread misrepresentation of human intellgience distribution, helps me a lot.
okay you can make shit up if you want but the numbers say otherwise. you're no better than egalitarians.
>>106532036OpenBSD fags always justify loss of performance with "muh security", but their kernel doesn't even support advanced jails like FreeBSD does ...So really, what is even the usecase for FreeBSD?
>>106532070Beyond a certain level IQ is meaningless if you don't specialize; this also carries the inherent danger of then being unbalanced outside of one's field, and a "jack of all trades" will destroy you in every other field.This effect has created on the internet, an ability of people who are not masters in a craft to actually shout-down the true "specialized experts" who perhaps lack the linguistic capability to describe their viewpoints as they did not -specialize- in describing their thoughts.>>106532082>but their kernel doesn't even support advanced jails like FreeBSD does ...Not a problem when you don't deal with hyperthreading horseshit.
Just for this I'm going to switch from debian to gentoo
>>106532036my iq is 180 per a ravens progressive matrices test and i smoke weed every day. i dont want to be alive anymore.
>>106532095Noooooo think of what the midwits online will have to say about that!!!!?!??!?!
>>106532070>okay you can make shit up if you wantExactly, it's massive cope from normies, essentially.
>>106532036>Tfw in the 0.1% of intelligence(I'm on the left :))
>>106532036I'm more in the "it doesn't do what I hate" camp
>>106532036Semax, Dihexa, Cerebrolysin, eating pig brains, dual-n back and training graphene synesthesia
Man isn't my big forehead magnificent on this picture >>106532036
>>106532036gentoo does what I need. it takes me a single day to configure everything I want, and after that, it's just smooth sailing for years after.
I am your average everyday /g/ poster. The feeling that most people seem to genuinely be retarded was always present with me. Got diagnosed with ADHD at 27, even though I seemed to have it my whole life. Helpful diagnostic doctor told me that from my hobbies, field of work and certain things about my childhood leads him to believe I have an undiagnosed gifted IQ.Get tested by a renowned psychologist. Received state-recognized IQ certificate of 136 points. "Doesn't even seem that high", I thought. Look at document, says that 136 IQ means I am in the top 0.8 percent of people. 99.2 percent of all human beings are less intelligent than me. So many things started making sense...
>>106532036Any time both sides of this meme have the same reasoning the person who made it is a midwhit trying to project himself as a genius.Also, technology?>>106532087>>106532087The real danger is becoming a schizo due to pattern recognition misfiring.
>>106532514>The real danger is becoming a schizo due to pattern recognition misfiring.It's more like trying to decode a larger system without enough memory to load all of the pieces simultaneously prevents it from being possible.Holism & Syncretism of reality is TOO MUCH DATA for nowits and midwits. Even for topwits.Godwits only may syncretise the holistic nature of reality.
>>106532551Yeah overthinking is a factor too.
>>106532510>Received state-recognized IQ certificate of 136 points.Yeah, and without further thinking, you might assume there is also one 64-IQ out there for every one of you.I'm saying, it's probably in the 1.35x - 1.85x range, not at or around an assumed symmetric 1.00x.Maybe it's just my physics/idealized-world intuition kicking in (and thus assuming symmetry), and I need another "fact" to override that, and so I am annoyed by such inaccuracies presented.Unironically,>>106532070>the numbersgotta check out some survey and plot it against a graph.How many participants (and cross-sectional aspect) do you need to make phenomenon in the <0.5% area significantly correlatable?How many such studies even exist?Like one or two massive ones in the 1960s in the US general populace or something, that's the calibre you probably need as a data basis.
>>106532514>Any time both sides of this meme have the same reasoning the person who made it is a midwhit trying to project himself as a genius.There is just logically bound to be some aspect in life, where super dumb and super smart will do the same and normies will do it wrong.If you can split them into those three groups and run them through all possible tasks, you will definitely find task candidates.
>>106532662>annoyed by such inaccuraciesI mean, it's not just the midwit meme, it's psychology books and science that comes from.*They* do want to be taken seriously, do they not?Or... is... this... political.
>this is relevant to technology because user interfaceshttps://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/rare-pepe.png>CAPTCHA 4040S
>>106532662I understand your concern with the scaling of IQ scores. As IQ numerically increases the real-worl intelligence associated with each number seems to increase logarithmically, at least that is my gut reaction.Also>~68 IQ amount on the flipped bellcurveSince my (europoor) country has left in sub-human level intelligence from Africe en-mass over the last ten years, I'd be willing to bet that the 68IQ now outnumbers my IQ level by 3x to 4x. People are too dumb to realize what effect this has on a society.
>>106532036IQ distribution is actually a bit more complicated than this. Ever since analysing scottish school children grades in the 1930s we know that there is a so called "Greater Male Variability" in a lot of skills, including IQ. This means that women group around the average, while men polarize aroud the extremes.Which end of the male spectrum does /g/ attract?
>>106532036>>106532070IQ is a standardized score, and is normally distributed /by design/. By "intelligence", we mean this standardized, normalized, IQ score. The raw data is close to be normal, though, at least in healthy individuals.There is no "particle of intelligence" or anything that we could reliably measure. "Intelligence" is the IQ, but what we may perceive as "intelligence" may not be measured in an IQ test. Is a poor and undeducated high-IQ individual, working a manual and "dumb" job, more intelligent than a 100-IQ engineer producing good results? Some of the things that we may want to intuitively call "intelligence" can come from various things unrelated or weakly linked to IQ, like the level of education or even creativity. IQ is not that important, and knowing it doesn't bring much info.
>>106532793>I'd be willing to bet that the 68IQ now outnumbers my IQ level by 3x to 4xYeah, this is the problem, it seems crass at first, but when you zero in on the specific range, those numbers become very plausible, due to the general discrepancy in average differences.I don't even want to judge, I just want to know what to assume, for sanity.https://wiki.c2.com/?MappersVsPackers
>>106532082>So really, what is even the usecase for FreeBSD?Its purpose is to be a server OS. That's it. It's bred solely for being a server OS. It also is a decent desktop OS but why lmao
>>106532844>n=801Not bad for 1933.But that (vertically symmetric) bump at IQ=75 is obviously an outlier, due to the low sampling number.Hence>How many such studies even exist?I mean, I don't *really* care enough about it, to look for it, I just almost forgot about it again.I mean>fuck HN>fuck ledditcheers, anon.
>Mappers vs PackersNever stumbled across that paradigm, quite neat to think about. Also that c2 wiki seems like a treasure trove of the real internet, I will browse that site some more!
