Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Yourself as a contact
Date: Fri Mar 8 13:00:02 2002
> I always figured IQ's for even very smart people were lower than that,
> like
> around 140-150, with 160+ being really rare. I dunno, I'm sure
somebody
> can
> describe the bell curve deviations in a second. But I'd expect the
scale
> there to run up to a "10" representing people who are 1-in-a-million
> briliant. 10 is actually possible for unmodified humans in SR, its
just
> gonna be damn rare. I think the whole scale is also maybe 10 points
high-
> many people with a 90 IQ are what would pass for "average" on the
street,
> and an attributte score of 4 doesn't really indacate ability that is
much
> above average.

Well the thing to remember here is that there are quite a few people in
the world that are either so smart that they're just plain stupid (i.e.
looking too deeply into things that they just don't see the obvious
stuff) and in my case there's a lot of us out there that are smart as
hell but just don't like to use it very often, if we put ourselves to
figuring something out we can and will generally not have TOO much
trouble with it however we just hate the typical treatment that "smart"
people get from everyone around them. We'll choose one or two things
and be good at them and just not worry about learning how to do much
else because of the way we're treated by our fellow workers and friends.
Consider this, how long would your friends stay friendly if you were
constantly showing off how smart you are and they're not as
smart.....either they'll become insecure with their inferiority or
they'll just get sick of your attitude even if you're not flaunting your
brains because they'll have their ideas of what THEY think you should be
doing with your intelligence and it'll piss em off cause you just don't
care to see things their way.

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.