(11-20-2019 5:49 AM)stefdude Wrote:  If the difference in intelligence is that much as dsouza describes then my vote is on the intelligent one, because there is too much difference for mones to cover.

I've see videos of "debates" where the lower intelligence participant commits one logical fallacy after another over and over again. Yet sometimes the lower intelligence individual who has no grasp of formal logic wins the debate as judged by the audience reaction.

Also sometimes in one of these faux debates, the ability to talk over your opponent and the ability to use platitudes with conviction is more important to winning than intelligence is.

Learn logical fallacies some people have some fallacy in their thinking as for pheromones they really don't enter the equation

(11-20-2019 10:50 AM)metaltree Wrote:  I've see videos of "debates" where the lower intelligence participant commits one logical fallacy after another over and over again. Yet sometimes the lower intelligence individual who has no grasp of formal logic wins the debate as judged by the audience reaction.

Also sometimes in one of these faux debates, the ability to talk over your opponent and the ability to use platitudes with conviction is more important to winning than intelligence is.

Yeah that's true.But women's tactics (including shaming tactics) work mostly on women audience.

(11-20-2019 10:50 AM)metaltree Wrote:  I've see videos of "debates" where the lower intelligence participant commits one logical fallacy after another over and over again. Yet sometimes the lower intelligence individual who has no grasp of formal logic wins the debate as judged by the audience reaction.

Also sometimes in one of these faux debates, the ability to talk over your opponent and the ability to use platitudes with conviction is more important to winning than intelligence is.

Good point, but also don't forget the arena of perception. A shining example of this, although most of you are too young, is the 1960 Nixon / Kennedy debates.

I forget if this was the first televised Presidential debate, or just one of the first, but Nixon was very uncomfortable on camera, visibly sweating and fidgeting the entire time. Kennedy, on the other hand, was one extremely handsome and smooth operator that simply shined in the public arena.

Thos that only listened to the debate (keep in mind this was 1960 so only a minority of people had televisions) felt that Mr. Nixon won the debate hands down due to his intelligence, methods, and reasoning. Those that watched felt that Mr. Kennedy won hands-down.

Charisma and comfort on camera hand quite a bit to do with that and that single debate is accredited to changing the face of American politics forever.

Success and victory don't always go to the best, the brightest, or the strongest. Perception, charisma, and readiness always play their part.

History outtake: Joe Navarro says that it was the first ever televised debate and he describe it exactly like you do as an example of the power of nonverbal communication.

(11-20-2019 3:25 PM)Marcus Antonius Wrote:  History outtake: Joe Navarro says that it was the first ever televised debate and he describe it exactly like you do as an example of the power of nonverbal communication.

thank you for the clarification, sir. I appreciate the fact-checking.

By chance I just recently read about that remarkable event in the great book "What everyBODY is saying" written by said expert on nonverbals during my study of subcommunication theory. Of course he missed the olfactory communication channel highlighted in this forum but otherwise very informative lectures.
Also with respect of the topic of this thread it is applicable:
We humans have multiple senses to explore the world, the meaning of the words we say are approx 40% of the information we transmit, the rest is subcommunication. Beeing mainly vison-oriented primates seeing is most important (I, beeing no expert, guess that another 40% is related to this) the rest is audition (voice tonality, dialects etc., maybe 10%) and olfactory senses, i.e. conscious smells and unconscious smells - our beloved mones. Of course the proportions of the different channels change from situation to situation. Sometimes some channels are not used, as in your example, and it is hard to get mones in action during texting. The complex communication during sex can completely done without verbals, but uses heavily the channel of touch, i.e. kino. Same with the mother-newborn communication: meaning of words has zero impact, but voice tonality, kino and smell/taste are the key channels.
At least that's how my model of human communication looks like.

(11-19-2019 6:19 PM)stefdude Wrote:  Dont mean to be rude but this isn't just wrong, it's wrong of a huge magnitude.I hope you haven't scored that high because I can't imagine how it would be to believe you are in the 1000 smartest people on earth

Also those online tests, Mensa's included give higher IQ results than 'reality', you can easily subtract 10 points or do an official test.
I agree with everything else.

For clarification I used my google-fu. Depending upon which scale is used, an IQ of over 130 is anywhere from 2.27% of the population up to 10.56%.

(scales: WAIS: 2.27, Stanford-Binet: 3.04, Cattel: 10.56)

This puts roughly 31 to 800 Million folks on earth into this category according to the numbers. Yes, I know, the number in question was 140 or above, but going off the "gifted" numbers was much easier mathematically.

However, having recently been subjected to a barrage of IQ tests I can honestly say that they really don't amount to much of anything. They are more of an approximation of being able to grapple with certain types of data than a true intelligence approximation; plus certain questions can be incredibly ambiguous depending upon the testee (Dove Counterbalance effect), such as a question that asks which city has the higher population and includes "Canton"...do they mean Guangzhou (Canton, China) or Canton, Ohio?

(11-21-2019 1:58 PM)Gladen Wrote:  However, having recently been subjected to a barrage of IQ tests I can honestly say that they really don't amount to much of anything. They are more of an approximation of being able to grapple with certain types of data than a true intelligence approximation; plus certain questions can be incredibly ambiguous depending upon the testee (Dove Counterbalance effect), such as a question that asks which city has the higher population and includes "Canton"...do they mean Guangzhou (Canton, China) or Canton, Ohio?

I strongly disagree and so are the majority of the scientists in the relevant fields.The reason is that IQ and conscientiousness (trait) are the 2 biggest variables that predict success in most life's aspects.
The multiple intelligence types is very likely false and not widely accepted theory and suspiciously comes along with the "everyone gets a trophy" socialistic mentality.No other type of "intelligence" is coorelated with success prediction, so they are not true intelligence, but traits.

This is one of the biggest taboos in science and even James Watson, the famous Nobelist was vilified for saying the wrong truth.We aren't born equal and IQ is mostly genetic.Equity (as opposed to equality) is fascism and the only way to achieve it is by bringing the people on the top, the achievers, the producers, to the level of the bottom.

(11-21-2019 2:43 PM)stefdude Wrote:  I strongly disagree and so are the majority of the scientists in the relevant fields.The reason is that IQ and conscientiousness (trait) are the 2 biggest variables that predict success in most life's aspects...

Awesome counter Stefdude! My intent was to show that depending upon the context, the individual test, and the individual answering that the results can vary greatly, or be totally/ somewhat inaccurate due to cultural misunderstandings; not they they were, in and of themselves, pure bunk.

Last week I was subjected to 7 different IQ tests and my end-results varied as much as 24 points (which is considerable) depending upon the test. That was what i was attempting to communicate.