Talk:High IQ society

Why?
http://rationalwiki.org/w/?diff=1492598 &emsp;User000name (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently because the OLYMPIQ High IQ Society website replaced "powered by WordPress" with "powered by the World Intelligence Network". Since I don't think that this minor change invalidates the rest of the snark, I've reinstated an expanded and rephrased version. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The flip side of the coin
From the article:


 * Before the Internet, meeting reasonably bright people could actually be quite a lot of work

True, but on the other hand the Internet has made it easy to make the acquaintance of every idiot in the world. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Extremely Smart People clearly don't approve of this page.
A BoN with an incredibly high IQ appears to have an issue with this page's description of their silly little clubs. Hopefully they will use their substantial intellect to argue why high IQ clubs deserve anything other than ridicule, rather than (completely futile) attempts to take the "BoN broad deletion ground-zero" status away from TheAmazingAtheist. One wonders if there is some cross over in their respective demographics. Petey Plane (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

IQ myths
Dear BoN, when you say many gifted people do not live up to their potential, what is it that you mean? Myths about IQ are prevalent, but I'd prefer if we kept them off this page. Tielec01 (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A technically gifted person may be part of a marginalized minority, such as poor people, people of color, people with disabilities (physical disabilities, autism, ADHD, learning disabilities) or mental/psychological issues (such as PTSD, depression, imposter syndrome), preventing them from receiving the same degree of support a white, middle-class, non-disabled, mentally healthy person may enjoy, or from profiting from it equally, and so they may thrive less – becoming an underachiever (compare especially Twice exceptional) –, or not at all, and end up in prison, for example. They may not be recognized as gifted in the first place and dismissed as a troublemaker instead, or just as average or not in need of support. I thought the intersectionality link was clear enough. It actually shows an outrageous lack of awareness of the effects of privilege and marginalization to assume that gifted people cannot struggle with serious problems. Many gifted people do not conform to the stereotype of the genius, self-made millionaire rising from the hardship of their youth, or merely successful, well-adjusted person. High intelligence is not a panacea canceling out every other disadvantage; even if it may be an advantage in itself, making it easier for a gifted person to overcome difficulties, not all gifted people manage equally well. --91.7.10.190 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's more to a human beings personality and life than just high IQ. Drive, emotional stability, emotional intelligence, communication skills, creativeness, and more exist that can help or hinder another part of someone's personality.  This seems like a blinding flash of the obvious to anyone that knows those other factors exist in the first place.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's so blindingly obvious, why implicitly pretend that life is so peachy for all gifted people, as the snark in question ("– if slightly misguided –") does? In fact, for people with extremely high IQs, their rarity can in itself be a problem, because it makes finding the like-minded so much harder. It can be very difficult and frustrating to interact with people when they just can't connect to your way of thinking. Just try finding a partner when you are in the top 0.1 percent (no, I'm not personally, but I know people who are). So to call an extremely high IQ an affliction is not all that unreasonable. It can make you a misfit and "freak" (in the eyes of others), and isolated, just like a disability can. So it's not just whining of the super-privileged, in the vein of first world problems, as implied by the snark. --91.7.4.181 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's weird that you are making a direct connection between IQ and social interaction. Do you have any evidence, other than anecdotal, that people with higher IQs have difficulty interacting with lower IQ people, or any evidence that having a higher IQ correlates with increased social isolation? Petey Plane (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This section
Feels really damn pretentious, and circlejerky. 17:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Nah, I like it since it was something the guy's seen over and over. Restored - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It offers welcome balance for all the snark directed at members of high-IQ societies. People who aren't in high-IQ societies are dicks too. Annquin (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Came here to say this too. I wouldn't describe it as providing a "snark balance" because there's too much of a contrast between this and the tone in the rest of the article. At best, it reads as awkward. At worst, well, it's the kind of gut-wrenching pretentiousness that's being lampooned in the rest of the article for a good reason.


 * I'd venture to guess that if this person is getting a response like this from "90% of the population" (read: the inferior) that it might have more to do with their affect than the naive prejudice of the unenlightened. Just saying. I'd recommend removing it for the sake of the article maintaining its "flow", if nothing else. ~That BoN Over There (the "Teh" guy) 71.238.82.20 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi-IQ and employability
Has any statistical analysis been done correlating 'membership of one of these bodies' and 'categories/types of work undertaken by said persons'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Alas to the Pars Society?
The Pars Society web page is now one of those parked domains with ads and a "for sale" notice. They still have a section on the World Intelligence Network site (their weird logo remains on the wall of member organiziations too), and there are of course still some Internet Archive snapshots of its former state. It's clear a lot of effort went into discussing their weird website, and all the snark about it is one of the parts I like the most about this article, so I'm not sure what precise course of action to take in light of the website going down. DietMondrian (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)