Being disagreeable, money and high IQ seem to go hand in hand. I wonder whether you can trade in some money for more IQ.
EQ vs IQ : More reasons to ban chess
Sort:
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Chess events are filled with dysfunctional men that have nowhere else or anyone else to spend time with on weekends.
I agree 99 44/100 ths with the original post and the issues it raises.
So you admit you are dysfunctional?
I told you the duck was up to no good.
The truth now comes out. chess.com is measuring everybody's EQ on this thread. Must go back and delete.
Incidentally, dictionary had to come out for "Barnum".
Feb 15, 2016
0
#86
Fkey wrote:
If you want more intelligence you will probably have to go the way of nootropics such as Piracetam, somewhat risky however.
What?! If you want to get cleverer then all you need is one of those "brain-training" apps.
Honestly, it almost seems like you don't think those brain-training apps work.
IpswichMatt wrote:
Fkey wrote:
If you want more intelligence you will probably have to go the way of nootropics such as Piracetam, somewhat risky however.
What?! If you want to get cleverer then all you need is one of those "brain-training" apps.
Honestly, it almost seems like you don't think those brain-training apps work.
The question of whether or not IQ (which can generally be associated with what's called 'working memory') can be permanently increased to any substantial degree beyond ~6 years old isn't entirely settled. However, it does seem pretty likely that it can't be.
this is so , off topic.
the duck wonders whether EQ can in fact be increased? is it true that giving up on all personal hobbies and working for the man much Harder increases EQ?
or maybe I misunderstand the duck.
misunderstandings happen from time to time.
I don't grow tomatoes and I generally don't garden. Obviously you read some comments on my wall, from someone that does garden.
Gardening has typically been one of those 'I'll do it tomorrow'-type things on my to-do list.
Feb 15, 2016
0
#92
iamdeafzed wrote:
Gardening has typically been one of those 'I'll do it tomorrow'-type things on my to-do list.
iamdeafzed's backyard
Edit: Oh wow, I can't post pictures anymore
Why?
My backyard actually consists of a bunch of used coffee cups, discarded tarps, rusting car parts, and toilet paper cardboard rolls.
Just kidding about the last one, since I don't use toilet paper.
Sitting Duck,
The truth is??
Although I do think you have a point at a certain degree you disqualify yourself totally with this remark.
first truth is a matter of culture, own values
Second it is very arrogant (read lacking EQ) to think YOU now the truth.
The truth is??
Although I do think you have a point at a certain degree you disqualify yourself totally with this remark.
first truth is a matter of culture, own values
Second it is very arrogant (read lacking EQ) to think YOU now the truth.
Feb 15, 2016
0
#97
Hey it worked! {that was the picture of iamdeafzed's backyard in post #120, before I found out about the toilet paper, coffee cups, car parts, etc.,}
Oops! Skip the toilet paper
Feb 15, 2016
0
#98
Fkey wrote:
Are those intelligent tomato plants ??
I have an expert checking now
Feb 15, 2016
0
#99
Fkey wrote:
That is someones backyard ??
I am REALLY jealous now
I remember the good old days when all our back yards were like that, Fkey, 160 million years ago. How times have changed...
trysts wrote:
Fkey wrote:
That is someones backyard ??
I am REALLY jealous now
I remember the good old days when all our back yards were like that, Fkey, 160 million years ago. How times have changed...
I know. Now people exist, the Industrial Revolution has occurred, and we get to debate things like the efficacy of EQ, and why its supremacy means we should all stop playing chess.
I liked the old days better, myself.
EQ is totally not a sham. A sham is the idea that you have to be a brainiac to have a good job. People with high EQ tend to work harder ,are team players and communicate better which is why the world is not run by chess players. Chess players are far more likely to work at Wallmart to keep their addiction going than have a good job.
Your argument is now invalid ipswithmatt.
Higher IQ is correlated with higher income. Obviously this is a statistical relation (meaning it's a broad pattern and not inviolable law), but the point is you're more likely to see a high-IQ individual in a high-paying job than not. Similarly for low-IQ individuals.
Furthermore, you are incorrect to imply that being 'more of a team player' (more agreeable versus more disagreeable, to use the parlance of personality psychology) is necessarily better. Indeed, one of the reasons why managers tend to be disliked is because, frankly, they often have to make decisions that their underlings don't like. In other words, level what kinds of charges you will at more disagreeable people (and many rightfully can be), but disagreeable people tend to be better at actually getting things done. Which, in capitalism, is typically a very desireable trait.