How to Enjoy a High IQ

Having a high IQ is mostly a matter of not making your own life harder. The world, despite its theatrics, is built on the broken‑stick principle: take a 100‑centimeter stick, snap it at forty‑nine random points, and you’ll end up with a pile of short and medium pieces, plus a few long outliers. Problems behave the same way. Ninety percent are easy to moderately complex. Only a small minority qualify as “difficult,” and those are usually best left to the people who enjoy suffering.

I follow the 90% Rule. In school, every chapter hides one “challenge problem” meant to impress the ambitious. Ignore it. An A earned by solving 90% of the work is indistinguishable from an A earned by solving 100%. The transcript doesn’t include footnotes about your heroism. Chess works the same way. Below 1200 ELO, you’re playing easy games. Between 1200 and 2200, moderately complex ones. Above that, you enter the monastery of the obsessives—people who treat endgames like scripture. I prefer staying in the secular world.

Emotion is the real saboteur of intelligence. Not ignorance—emotion. Most emotional arguments are just addled complexity: noise generated by people who either can’t think clearly or don’t want you to. If you’re trying to solve something, avoid the fog. Truth is usually sitting in the open, waiting for someone calm enough to notice it.

Research is similar. The thing you’re looking for already exists; your job is to uncover it, not reinvent it. Don’t hunt for one specific answer. Look for anything. The world is full of everything, and if you’re open to anything, you’ll inevitably find something. High IQ is less about precision and more about breadth of attention.

A few social heuristics help. Parents, for example, are simply older versions of confused people. Unless they’re systematically abusive, ignore their commentary and move on. If they are systematically abusive, then the 90% Rule no longer applies—show no mercy. And if someone thinks you’re a bad neighbor, casually mention that someone worse is considering buying your house. People become remarkably reasonable when they believe their situation could deteriorate.

As for IQ itself, the term is misleading. I prefer SI—Statistical Intelligence: the ability to remain exceptional under novelty. Standardized tests follow the 90% distribution. Internet “power tests” are just playgrounds for the compulsive. Skim for the solvable 70% and ignore the rest. You’ll still walk away feeling superior to roughly eight billion people, which is a pleasant enough afternoon.

If you’re slightly abnormal, don’t panic. There are billions of normal people available for study. Mimic 90% of their behavior and they’ll accept you. The remaining 10%—your oddness—is what keeps you interesting.

Slow down. Think clearly. Avoid unnecessary difficulty. That’s how you enjoy a high IQ: not by proving it, but by refusing to waste it.

Kenneth Myers



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reprogramming Bacteria for Symbiont Conversion: A Review

Bacteria are prokaryotic cells some of which have positive effects upon the human organism and some of which have negative effects. I coined the term “symbiont conversion” for methods that convert, or reprogram, bacteria (and other cells, such as tumor cells) that have a negative effect to cells that have a positive effect. With such methods the urgent problem of antibiotic resistance could be solved. [Volko2025] This short paper is about such methods, but in a more broad context – I want to review different approaches towards the reprogramming of bacteria and not necessarily in the context of symbiont conversion, although symbiont conversion is the motivation for doing this literature survey. Basically a literature survey shows that there are two different approaches towards the reprogramming of bacteria: On the one hand, bacteria can be reprogrammed by altering their genes, for example by using bacteriophages (viruses that target bacteria) or methods like CRISPR/Cas9. These approache...
Read more

Summary of "The Inappropriately Excluded"

The late Michael Wells Ferguson was the author of the article "The Inappropriately Excluded", which I consider a classic and a must-read. Many highly intelligent people dream of reaching high positions in society, such as becoming university professors or winning the Nobel Prize. Ferguson shows that professors, doctors, judges, etc. are on average not that smart and that people with far above average intelligence usually do not get into these positions. The reason is not that these people have shortcomings but that highly intelligent people are systematically discriminated against. <<In the popular culture, IQ has become a point of contention. Many people credulously accept that the eminent have very high IQs and that people of ordinary accomplishment have ordinary IQs. For example, it was widely reported that Garry Kasparov has an IQ of 190. In truth, his IQ is verified to be 135.>> <<Over an extensive range of studies and with remarkable consisten...
Read more

A Proof of the CTMU - Sketch

The CTMU is a theoretic model proposed by Christopher Langan. More information on it can be found at: https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/ The core statement of the CTMU is: The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is a language that describes itself. Another statement is: The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is equivalent to Reality. From this follows: The universe is a language that describes itself. A language is a set of words that are generated using a set of rules called a formal grammar. A language can describe other languages - for example, English can describe French - and it can also describe itself - English can describe English. There is nothing that exists outside of the universe - everything that exists does so inside the universe. For this reason whatever describes the universe, as well as the language using which it does it, exists inside the universe. Therefore it it is legitimate to state that the universe describes itself. Since the language using which the...
Read more