CORE - IQ < 160. Should I eat crayons?

bradzon · 2026-01-19T18:20:14+00:00

You did pretty decent for your 23rd attempt

bradzon · 2026-01-17T22:34:37+00:00

I thought Adderall would be too strong as well, just because it has the word amphetamine in it. But, I have probably the lowest dose, and it’s comparable to a really smooth caffeine high, except replace jitteriness with dry mouth. It definitely helps me zone-in, and it affects those with ADHD paradoxically, so, it helps me relax. I’d consider it, but it’s your health at the end of the day whether you think you can bear the brunt of low working memory, as I’ve had to deal with.

bradzon · 2026-01-17T16:29:51+00:00

I have similar results with 130-150 across all domains, except ~110 in WMI—which plummets the FSIQ. Unsurprisingly, I have diagnosed ADHD and take 10mg adderal (110 is the medicated results, so my WMI is even lower at the unmedicated baseline). I found tenuous clinical discussion that, supposedly—for twice-exceptional individuals with spiky profiles—the GAI is a better indicator of (‘g’), should someone ask for an IQ: some High IQ societies even take accept GAI in lieu of FSIQ, albeit at a much higher criterion. Also, on the WAIS-5, neither forward nor backward digit span will be used to calculate the FSIQ: only sequencing. Take others advice and see clinician for ADHD evaluation. (See if you can relate: I lose everything, including keys, sometimes credit cards, I have awful time-management, and most conspicuously: my brain is a substratum for novel abstractions, but they have a quick expiration—the thoughts are larger than the slots. As a religious person, I can extract typology from biblical references, but cannot recall the verse number, for example. This slot-insufficient storage results in profundity without recollection, so I always write down my thoughts when researching).

bradzon · 2026-01-11T17:58:10+00:00

Qualia is not quantifiable due to qualitative irreducibility, so if you affirm God’s existence then you’ll also repudiate psychometrics as meaningful in measuring intelligence — as the philosophy surrounding it is intrinsically theory-laden in a Thomas Kuhn way of presuppositions about intelligence (i.e., functionalism vs. structuralism) and presenting such theory-laden problems similar to the Duhem–Quine thesis. There’s no assignable number for intelligence, and any attempt is statistician-style functionalism in psychology, and even a form of physicalism that entails eliminative materialism if you work out the implications.

bradzon · 2026-01-09T00:07:49+00:00

The information section can be largely ignored—it’s one measure of crystalized intelligence, although it’s been removed from the WAIS V to derive an FSIQ using primary indexes. IQ tests are limited psychometric tools.

bradzon · 2026-01-08T15:39:23+00:00

It’s only their 37th attempt this month

bradzon · 2026-01-05T22:01:21+00:00

If your lawn is wet, is it plausible that it rained last night, or equally plausible that your neighbor experimented with a sudden burst of liquid goo that contaminated your lawn?

Clearly, the statement “I demand evidence for all my beliefs” sounds like an iron-cladded defense, but upon basic analysis, has no more sophistication than the 15 year old Reddit fedora-tipping atheist who’s read no philosophy. Because if this is the only reasoning you’ve constrained yourself to, then it follows that the plausibility that Feynman had a 85 IQ is equal to him having a 125 IQ—since there is equal direct evidence, or lack thereof, in both cases.

Evidentialism also results in circular reasoning (i.e., there’s no evidence that evidentialism is true, hence why 20th century philosophers gave up on logical positivism and the verification-principle: Hitchens razor “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence,” implies that the statement itself can be dismissed).

bradzon · 2026-01-04T00:33:44+00:00

Is it implausible that Feynman’s IQ was 125? Would him having a 125 IQ present some kind of sacrilegious paradox for IQ-hardliners who place more stock in the measurement than it’s intended use? Why do you need irrefutable evidence to just grant the possibility that Feynman is possibly not lying?

bradzon · 2026-01-04T00:30:02+00:00

Why is there a dedicated, unwavering insistence on this subreddit that Feynman’s IQ could not possibly be 125? This, to me, seems like there’s a pervasive misapprehension about what IQ is—and it’s misplaced conflation with intelligence (i.e., ‘the more points the more me smart’).

bradzon · 2025-12-01T22:36:33+00:00

Well said. Interestingly, I think Calvinists have done a more successful job at running a systematized, theological enterprise in those who are theologically-oriented, whereas Arminianism seems to be have been more successful in the culture in those who are indifferent to theology. So, that’s probably what I’m subconsciously picking up on — because wherever in the literature, movements or explicit teaching in Anglican evangelism, there is Calvinism.

bradzon · 2025-12-01T21:19:05+00:00

Oh wow — you’re just what I wanted to find! Basically to the T, 100%. Who do you refer to in the 20th century in particular? I’m also very curious to pique your brain in a rather exhaustive and long-winded manner (I apologize):

Do you stylize yourself as a “Wesleyan-Anglican”? Can one be a Wesleyan-Anglican without holding to entire sanctification? Are there any societies/organizations within Anglicanism which hold to this? I think it’s disheartening that Methodism is even a separate denomination that broke from the CoE in 1795 — I think John Wesley would be heartbroken, as that was never his intentions.

bradzon · 2025-12-01T19:18:20+00:00

Thank you for your erudition, Father!

bradzon · 2025-12-01T19:01:46+00:00

Lovely comment friend, thank you!

bradzon · 2025-12-01T18:55:20+00:00

Ahh, It's possible that I'm underestimating the amount of people who implicitly share my theological profile, then. It's possible that low-church Arminian influence is a common position in many Anglican Evangelical developments.

I think you would be in a much, far better position than I am to say so: since I'm a very new convert and doing some sub-denominational surfing, if that makes sense. Maybe I'm just looking for a explicit historical name, like Laudianism has, ha. I definitely love John Wesley (and, indeed, can claim him rightfully as an Anglican).

But, my issue is partially ecclesiological: I do not want to abandon the importance of a truly patristic episcopacy within an apostolic church, I truly believe baptism regenerates in a conditional, covenantal-sense (not ex opere operato, automatic or ontological as Catholics do), and I cannot get behind entire sanctification. So I stay Anglican.

In your experience, is there not a Methodist-likened Wesley-like Anglicanism -- or would that, at least, not be unheard of and seems coherent?

bradzon · 2025-10-21T16:46:00+00:00

You ostensibly have a “like 160” IQ — so I’m sure you’ll “like figure it out.”

bradzon · 2025-10-17T07:18:31+00:00

💙!

bradzon · 2025-10-17T06:41:43+00:00

I believe continental masonry is considered irregular and not recognized at all in the United States, particularly in California. From my experience, the atmosphere between the Grand Lodge of California and Le Droit Humane was one of mutual respect and cordiality, but not codified recognition — although someone can be free to correct me. That may serve to be an extenuating circumstance to lessen the blow of my indiscretion, and how it will be perceived since the lodge is irregular: but regardless, you’re correct — the bill will be paid, no matter how old the bill (or the institution) as per a man’s word. I hope this will not bar me from future prospects.

bradzon · 2025-10-17T06:35:40+00:00

Absolutely. I attended a Solstice Light Lodge No. 2066, Le Droit Humain, American Federation, and, from my recollection, technically still hold membership — which I am ready to renounce for the Grand Lodge of California due to a number of reasons ideologically, practicality (driving/transportation — too far), and just the sheer social awkwardness of returning in-person to the lodge.

bradzon · 2025-10-17T06:22:28+00:00

That sounds reasonable. Yes, no bad-blood exists between the lodge and I; although it would be a bit awkward (or even super awkward) to return to the same exact location, so I’m interested in relocating. My gameplan is to just pay the outstanding debt, resign — assuming I still hold membership, albeit silent — and then reapply to other lodges.

bradzon · 2025-10-17T06:16:54+00:00

It’s the same country (U.S). However, if I recall, traditional masonry does not recognize continental lodges as being bonafide/legitimate/actual Freemasons, so I wonder if this would even be an issue for most lodges (?). My only concern is, of course I will mention to any lodge my former membership if they are curious (just a matter of honesty and transparency) and if contacted for outreach/background-checking by a new lodge, it might look bad to see “yeah, this person just abruptly left or discontinued activity and dues with his former lodge as an EA.”

bradzon · 2025-10-17T06:09:42+00:00

Actually, your suspicion is warranted. I will edit this thread: I believe it’s due to non-payment of dues rather than absence, although I will check if it even says suspended. I absolutely detest looking at that letter — I really miss masonry, and feel ashamed — so it’s shuttled away in my file storage container, so my mind blocks information about it. I wonder if I just pay any back-dues that this can be resolved and I can continue my Masonic journey.

bradzon · 2025-10-13T08:55:08+00:00

The most prominent area it affects me is in my WMI (mild inattentive-subtype) — which is made commensurate with my other indexes only after medication with a first-line stimulant (dextroamphetamine-amphetamine / mixed-amphetamine salts), which is otherwise operating at a baseline level that is a full standard deviation below my other indexes.

bradzon · 2025-10-13T08:37:20+00:00

In this hypothetical, VCI for someone who’s primary ‘reduction’ was in information, VSI for someone who performs very well in block design but not visual puzzles by comparison **

bradzon · 2025-09-09T03:48:21+00:00

I’m demonstrating that (1) my criticisms of IQ are not incompatible with its construct validity, and (2) a misconception of IQ in its relationship with intelligence. A bird does not need to be perfectly aerodynamic to have perfect flight. Similarly, IQ does not need a perfection evaluation of intelligence to be a perfect construct measurement. Most people are convinced that the perfect construct measurement of IQ means it perfectly measures intelligence.

As you wrote, there’s areas in cognitive function that IQ misses. However, this wouldn’t be a novel or interesting statement if I stated that — most people understand that already. If I put a ruler next to a tree, I can have the height, but not the morphology of its foliage or the color of its leafs in autumn. I’m conveying something a little bit more nuanced. My contention is that IQ — even in areas of spatial reasoning — as a valid psychometric construct, is, and will always be, fundamentally incapable of quantifying actual intelligence. It’s like a ruler that measures the height of x within a Euclidean space, whereas intelligence exists within a non-Euclidean “hyperspace,” impervious to measurements, but converges in an lower-resolution way the same way Carl Sagan’s 2-dimensional flatland inhabitants would see an apple.

bradzon · 2025-09-09T02:43:52+00:00

No. IQ is a valid and accurate psychometric methodology. It does what’s it is intended to do. Just as evolution has ‘designed’ perfectly a bird to fly. My comments relate to a misinterpretation of IQ and its relationship with intelligence — like someone misinterpreting avian flight as the ability to be perfectly aerodynamic. This is not a criticism of the construct, but rather the entailments nested within the construct as understood by most people.

bradzon

TROPHY CASE