The high IQ discusses ideas, the average IQ discusses events, the low IQ discusses people. Change my mind

The high IQ discusses ideas, the average IQ discusses events, the low IQ discusses people. Change my mind.

Attached: herm-Socrates-half-original-Greek-Capitoline-Museums.jpg (1266x1600, 549K)

And here you are, talking about people.

Relatively so but even an idiot parent still explains the concept of love to their child often enough. Perhaps this categorizing pertains more so to what they talk about to themselves, rather think about with only themselves.

but doesn't everyone discuss a variety of topics
and what is considered an "idea" or "event", I am pretty sure almost everyone has talked about them.

And top IQs discuss all of them.

The retard IQ discusses himself

If you actually belive IQ is a reliable way to measure intelligence, you are a dense retarded cretin my dude

Most people discuss all 3 of those things. Some dont discuss anything because they cant communicate. Feeling stupid yet op?

Attached: 1568111352024.gif (200x335, 265K)

Holy shit! Great answer

>herpderp IQ retarded but Im not because IQ is bullshit
Its just an estimation, user.

interesting that you choose love for your exampIe, since many would regard it as the highest ideal

No, he's discussing the idea of IQ being measurable by someone's choice of duscussion topics.

And the highest I.Q says nothing at all.

I prefer to discuss ideas, but I often participate in lighter topics of conversation to be more sociable. If you can't converse at all levels then you just come off as a know-it-all sperg.

Its an estimation of how well you fare at a very specific kind of problem solving.

It really should not be treated as an estimation of total intelligence, especially as the brain is the most plastic organ in the body.

Many might do so but how many can explain it in any complexity or layered terms? Not even scientific, just approaching any form of philosophical outlook on the view of love. Its why OP may be onto something, although its nigh impossible to not talk about all three. I believe it has to do more so with how you occupy yourself in your own thoughts than how you talk with other people. Societal rule dictates you engage with what other people want to talk about. I tried to go into a conversation about why Ted kazinscky was only attempting to introduce variables for society with bombs, but the other individual kept trying to paint him as evil. So the topic of Timothy mcveigh came in, and I explained that individuals and groups within a nation have just as much reality to name and existence as the American government, and why every actor can choose to kill in the name of something, like our military and politicians do. Yet again they brought up the fact about dead babies in the daycare, saying how can someone do this? At this point its obvious there was no philosophical debate and it was just attempts to villify the actors.

No the highest IQ discuss passable trannies

Attached: 1562290583546.jpg (1242x1484, 228K)

I agree with you, there are different aspects to the totality, but IQ is not worthless.

all of these overlap, your claims are arbitrary and pointless
what if one were to discuss the idea of an event concerning a person? or the event of an emerging idea?
i think it'd be better to judge things on an individual basis with respect to the topic at hand and it's respective function, instead of making blind generalizations with no object

Attached: do not dumb here.jpg (750x543, 34K)

>uses higher vocabulary words like "cretin" and "measurable"
>ends with "my dude"

All your credibility is gone you fucking brainlet

Get a load of Henry Thomas Buckle over here

>not about people
>someone's choice
>duscussion

Except, he's asking you to change his contemporary viewpoints. He's basically discussing an event.

cringe and elitist pilled.

this. people who got nothing to prove are the ones who actually have something to prove.

Bullshit that people with no friends and therefore no people to talk to or about like to repeat to stroke their own ego. People talk about all sorts of things. For example, yesterday in a single conversation a friend of mine and I went from talking about pagan mysticism and astrology and our views on it largely critical , to jungian psychology, to modern developmental psychology, to what we've been doing since we last saw each other, to our famlies, recent events, people involved in those recent events, girls in our lives, recent interactions with them, back to conceptual stuff analyzing the behaviors, potential motives, and philosophies of these girls, on to moral philosophy and christian theology, and back to girls. None of it exists in a vaccum and you're going to touch ground on a lot of subjects because it's all interlinked.

absolute gold user just like Trump-sama's beautiful mustache

Attached: 1541454559717s.jpg (197x250, 5K)

you can talk about all of those things in an intelligent manner, also how could a detailled conversation about a person not involve discussing related events and ideas? how can you exclusively talk about a person ? biographies are about persons and require a lot of knowledge about events and ideas, they certainly are not for brainlets and you could spout stupid stuff about ideas like alternative medicine or outlandish conspiracy theories

>...ideas...events...people...
Not mutually exclusive

>calling common words like cretin and measurable "higher vocabulary"
And you, sir, have shown your own brainletness.