Methods Of Acquiring Knowledge by IQ Level
I’ve had an oddball theory floating around for a few years that I’ve been continually considering. Especially as covid has progressed onward, I notice the theory being constantly reaffirmed in my day-to-day.
The theory is rather simple: Different IQ brackets learn or are indoctrinated with information in different manners.
Obviously, this is not 100% for every single person within an IQ category, but based on trends and averages across them all.
I haven’t exactly developed this theory in-depth yet. But what I have done is place people in one of three buckets:
- Above-average IQ (think high IQ, perhaps around greater than 120)
- Average IQ (think average and slightly higher/lower, such as 80-120)
- Low IQ (think low IQ, perhaps anything lower than 80)
The idea is that they either learn or acquire knowledge through different means, based on their IQ.
The manners of learning, in order, are followed:
- Above average: Data; first-hand sources; investigative analysis
- Average: Authority figures; journalistic reporting; colleagues; social pressures
- Low: Community sources; trusted personal relationships; anecdotes
We could separate the average group into two, an upper and a lower. With the following distinctions, but some overlap:
- Upper average: journalistic reporting; colleagues; social pressures
- Lower average: authority figures; social pressures
I nickname the “upper average” as the “hive mind” group, because they are generally the group that conforms the most to their own group because of social pressures and the colleague effect. This group would be most doctors and lawyers, for example. If one doctor has a hobby, they all have the same hobby. If one researcher finds it morally problematic to discuss something, most researchers quickly share the same view. It seems they also learn similarly, and it makes me think it may have some relation to IQ.
This isn’t all just spit-balling. As most of my readers likely already know, there have been tons of IQ studies done on how the different IQ divisions gather knowledge. Most show that high IQ look for methodology, data, and studies, while average look for “majority-consensus opinion” and journalistic interpretation, while low prefers talking to people they trust and getting a community opinion.
But covid has really demonstrated the likely truth of this theory to me. And I bet, if you start looking at your conversations with others through this lens, you’ll notice it too.
You’ll see a lot of branch covidians rage on about “trusting the experts” or “trusting those scientists/doctors/officials that are more intelligent than you” (lower average – authority figure reliance). You’ll see a lot of doctors hive-minding about how dangerous covid is (upper average – colleagues and social pressures). You’ll notice some of your duller acquaintances just trusting what others are doing around them (low – community sources and anecdotal evidence).
You start to see everything through this lens.
But, it does make sense.
Consider each group yet again, but this time on the basis of why they would learn how they do:
- High – Generally know that they are higher IQ, know that other high IQ are possibly malicious, and know the personal limitations of their (and others) intelligence/knowledge gathering. Therefore, they only trust what they can somewhat verify.
- Above average – Generally know they are “above average” but are not high enough to know the limitation of their own knowledge/intelligence. God-complex and hivemind category. Think that they, and their colleagues, must know everything so easily cave to social pressure and other “experts” in different fields.
- Lower average – Generally know the limitation of their knowledge, but think that people more intelligent than them are working in a benevolent manner to help everyone else. Trust that higher intelligence people are solving things in an ethical and correct manner without verifying. Generally fall for social pressures from upper average because they want to be seen like those “authorities” someday (which could include anyone they consider an authority).
- Low – Generally know the limitation of their knowledge, but tend to have an instinctual distrust of others, including high intelligence individuals. Likely survival/evolutionary based. Only trust those who they personally know, are community-based and accountable, or related.
So, these categories would make sense.
Ironically, both the low and the high reach the same conclusion: don’t trust others. Like so much else the high and low IQ share similarities with. It’s ironic how the differences between people are often differences between the IQ averages versus the IQ extremes.
I’ve found this theory to be helpful when attempting belief modification (belmod) with people. If you can tell how they acquire knowledge, you can direct them to your preferred knowledge. If you don’t do it based on their “level”, then they won’t accept it.
For example, if you are trying to convince a low average person about the risks of the vax, you’re not going to be successful by showing them data (the high IQ method of acquiring knowledge). You need to appeal to authority, instead. The same goes if you’re trying to tell anecdotal evidence to a hivemind individual. They won’t trust you, you need to use a perceived expert or “colleague” of theirs as evidence to get them to budge a bit.
I see it far too often that people on our side try to convince the average with data, but that is just not their preferred method of learning as far as I can tell. You can’t do belmod in that manner.
You have to first figure out how they acquire knowledge (which of these buckets they would be in) and then use arguments from that bucket to convince them.
For instance, you could ask them about their opinion on something and see how they respond. Do they use authority figures as evidence? Do they talk data? Do they talk about anecdotal evidence? Do they talk about their colleagues and other “experts” or themselves? Etc. Then, you have their preferred category. Use it to argue something back at them.
Overall, the entire theory is just something I’ve been noticing throughout my life. Using certain strategies will always create the “gloss over” effect from certain people (mostly the data approach). But if you use what is familiar and comfortable for them, you could actually get somewhere.
I may have to dig in to this one a bit deeper, but it’s definitely been a useful tool for me.
Consider using it in your day-to-day for a bit and I guarantee you’ll notice a change too.