What if Ted Kacyzinski was actually an idiot that panicked over the ultimate fate of humanity when it's the only way...

IQ is just a number, and it's a relatively poor psychometric.

you can do anything if you set your mind to it

Like a generic scientist supporting character on a children's cartoon.

tfw kaczynski has replaced Mochizuki as the newest meme cult on Veeky Forums

If he wasn't a primitivist what would he have accomplished technology wise?

It's the best measure of intelligence that's been devised so far. However bad it is, all the alternatives are worse. Also it's not like IQ is the only thing indicating how smart he is. It's pretty well documented he's a mathematical genius.

English, Einstein!

Just because your mind can't accept vocabulary that isn't banal doesn't mean that it's not pertinent to the message that I convey. Have you yet to make such a trivial correlation?

>It's pretty well documented he's a mathematical genius.
and?

What do you mean "and?" The thread is about what if he was actually an idiot. If you accept it's well documented he's a mathematical genius then he's not an idiot.

uhh ever heard of a savant?

>Mathematical genius
>Specialization in one field

He could be an idiot when it comes to predicting the fate of humanity.

Math is a skill like any other. It's like becoming a master at drawing and then getting told you're smart enough to rule a country.

I'm flattered that you're so concerned with my acceptance of you, but what I asked was how people respond to it.

>idiot savant

>individuals who score very low on IQ tests, while demonstrating exceptional skills or brilliance in specific areas, such as rapid calculation, art, memory, or musical ability
>very low on IQ tests

We already went through this. His IQ was assessed at 167, not exactly "low."

Do you honestly, unironically talk like this in irl?

>What if Ted Kacyzinski was actually an idiot
So if he blew up one of your friends or family, do you think you'd still believe he was sane, rational or intelligent, in "any way, shape or form"?
Seriously, you don't care that these guys would as easily blow you up instead?

Once more,
I can't help but elucidate that I do not comprehend what I'm talking like.

Inferior minds abound ITT

It's not the only indicator of his intelligence. Why do you people keep picking out single pieces of the evidence and acting like there's nothing else pointing to him being intelligence?

>HURR IT'S JUST IQ THAT'S FLAWED
>DURR IT'S JUST MATHS HE COULD BE LOW IQ

right, but follow the implications here and you see that just because somebody is a mathematical genius doesn't mean he can't be an idiot also...?

Correlation is not causation.

You can't be an idiot and have a 167 IQ and get accepted into Harvard at age 16 and get a PhD in maths with a dissertation only understood by 10 people in the nation. You keep trying to pick out one piece like it's the only argument. It's not that way. There are multiple reasons he's not an idiot.

That has nothing to do with the argument, but congratulations on taking statistics 101.

...sure you can. Have you even seen The Big Bang Theory?

Yet it's such a specialization.
If you made everyone undergo the rigorous mathematical training those 10 men underwent, that number would likely balloon to thousands.

well, technically all we know is there's a correlation between high IQ and Intelligence, considering IQ isn't an actual tangible thing and all...

I think Mailman is a pretty cool guy
Eh kills normeis and doesnt afraid of anything

hahaha oh sheldon _> XD

I don't understand

Is this what you anons call "sarcasm"?

You can be an idiot and still be very smart. An idiot is, according to Wikipedia:

>A person perceived to be lacking intelligence, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

>acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

What exactly did he think he would accomplish? Does his strategy seem like that of a genius?

I think Ted Kacyzinski was just autistic.
That's the only reason he superseded an Ashkenazi Jew IQ while being incredibly excellent at mathematics.

He doesn't have the DNA to do so, and his brother is a retard.

MKULTRA

>What exactly did he think he would accomplish?

Getting famous so Industrial Society and Its Future would be read by as many people as possible while also indulging in some revenge.

>Does his strategy seem like that of a genius?

Yes. It worked pretty well. A lot of people read what he wrote.

Ted never wanted his beliefs to be tainted by the conception of insanity, so I believe it was never his goal to kill or maim and attain media recognition. His brother ratted him out in the first place. It was never a voluntary capture.

Any retard can think "I'll propagate my ideological values via an act of terror"

Ted Kacyzinski knew that only the mentally ill do such things, and he knew what he believed would be scoffed at as drivel by other human beings because of his own actions.

He was reluctant to even disclose why he sent bombs in the first place.

There's genius, and there's failure regardless.
He was ultimately just a man.

He failed when he was apprehended.

>Ted Kacyzinski knew that only the mentally ill do such things

but that's exactly what he did?

He never intended to be caught and branded though.

Just because you know how to hide doesn't mean you aren't mentally ill

Or what if he was just your average right wing conspiracy theory terrorist retard?

>Ted Kacyzinski
>Average

kek

He may have been an idiot, but he certainly wasn't average.

True. Just because you're mentally ill doesn't mean you aren't aware of what constitutes mental illness.

He was too deep down the rabbit hole to see and scrutinize his own thought process.

It's entirely possible to be extremely intelligent, yet crazy, and that's what the unabomber is, unfortunately.

>Yes. It worked pretty well. A lot of people read what he wrote.
I asked if it was the strategy of a genius, not a strategy that worked 'pretty well.' Funny how legitimate geniuses such as Descartes never had to bomb anyone to get people to pay attention to their ideas.

>Ted never wanted his beliefs to be tainted by the conception of insanity, so I believe it was never his goal to kill or maim and attain media recognition.

No, were you even alive then? He demanded that the Washington Post publish Industrial Society and Its Future in exchange for him not killing people anymore. What the fuck are you even trying to get at? It's very well established what happened, read about it first before trying to have an opinion if you're that young.

Descartes didn't have a guarantee people would pay attention to his ideas. Kacyzinski did. Just because one person inherits a million dollars without trying doesn't mean it's stupid to come up with a strategy for ensuring you get a million dollars yourself.

>Just because one person inherits a million dollars without trying doesn't mean it's stupid to come up with a strategy for ensuring you get a million dollars yourself.
Descartes is more analogous to someone who builds a fortune through wise investments and hard work than someone who inherited a million dollars, that would be a better analogy for someone whose works are known because he was born into royalty.

To continue the analogy, if Descartes is the guy who earned his money wisely, Ted is the guy who tries to rob a bank while high on meth and ends up in prison due to his lack of foresight.

That analogy isn't accurate. You need to keep track of your referents.

>Getting your work read -> Getting money
>Through threatening Washington Post with more mail bombs -> Through robbing a bank
>Ends up getting his work read due to proper foresight -> Ends up not getting money due to lack of foresight

It looks like you got confused with the fact 'prison' exists both in Ted's real scenario and in your imaginary bank robber analogy scenario, and so you conflated the consequences of going to jail for the bank robber (the consequences being not having the money you were after) with consequences somehow applying to Ted for his goal, when in reality his goal was achieved and him going to prison didn't strip him of his readership in the way the bank robber was stripped of his money by going to prison.

It took almost 20 years for them to catch Ted

The analogy isn't airtight, but the point remains the same: Kacyzinski chose a decidedly sub-optimal strategy for a supposed genius. If he had to threaten people to get his manifesto out there, then that suggests that it wasn't compelling enough to stand on its own merits, and if he couldn't craft a work that was good enough to be noticed, why on earth did he think it would somehow be convincing enough to effect change? It's hare-brained logic, just barely more coherent than John Hinkley's plan to capture Jodie Foster's heart by shooting Reagan.

Agreed. If he was an actual genius he would have built a multinational business then purposely crashed it into the ground plunging the world into a depression and when people asked why point to the manifesto.
Would have made him look like a badass supervillian too.

Thousands out of billions of people.
Most of the world's population can't even finish calculus.

top jej

The autism is strong in this one

Nah, there's a shitload of risk in starting your own business. You seem to believe there's a surefire way to do this and definitely succeed, but there isn't. Most new businesses fail, existing businesses usually have rules against working with them as customers for that specific reason. He had much more control over killing people with mail bombs, and that's what he did. It was the best decision for him to make in being sure he got his stuff read while minimizing the risk of failure.

>It's hare-brained logic, just barely more coherent than John Hinkley's plan to capture Jodie Foster's heart by shooting Reagan.

There was nothing wrong with that plan except that he didn't succeed in killing Reagan. He was a non-famous nobody and needed to do something to put himself on the same level as Jodie Foster.

Pardon my intrusion into this correspondence; it would appear that by some lapse in grammatical discernment you have breached lexical conventions and employed a preposition to terminate a sentence.

Shieeeet.

He couldn't even get laid lol

All evidence suggests the contrary is the case.

nah

That means he was really smart.

He was a mathematician, surely he could have found a way to use applied math to make a fortune and eventually infiltrate a large corporation, then fuck it up from the inside non-violently.

Why ask why when you know the answer is already true?

What if all you whaddiffs could properly
state a coherent question? What then, eh?

Paranoia doesn't exclude geniuses.

Geniuses tend to avoid any ideology stated until they get old. They avoid at first the mainstream meteor of their parents, then they avoid the MSM of the youth environment, then they avoid the MSM of their adult environment, while they develop an equality'tier ideology(they have observed most people as "dumb" so they tend to think that people can't be successful without external help; this is interiorized). But some of them will live differently and develop other kind of ideology.

This guy probably started the cycle of paranoia most anarquists start to develop at the beginning. That's as much as my priviledged mind can do for all of you brainlets. I guess you can reason the rest, if you are worthy to know. You are welcome.

Why ? What results should a good measure of intelligence show that IQ doesn't show ?

As far as I know what we should expect from a measure of intelligence is:

-People who are mentally challenged should perform far below average.
-People who are intelligent like scientist should perform far above average.
-People who are somwhat intelligent like businessmen, CEO, engineer should perform above average but not as much as scientist.
-People who are failures, unable to get a decent job, or can't keep it for long should perform below average, but not as bad as retard.

As far as I know IQ verify all of the above. So what is missing ?

>So what is missing

soft skills

There are so many people that are smart but lazy. It would make your head spin when you see all of the wasted potential. Williams James Sidis is a shining example of this.

maybe he's spiderman

>anarquists
>my priviledged mind
>you brainlets

You are hilarious.

I agree, and clearly Ted Kacyzinski was retarded.

The inevitable result of a Mathfag autist attempting a late-career shift into social sciences.

People arent even sure his iq was really 200+ probably just a myth

>every teacher I ever had: "user, you are very bright and you have so much potential, you could change the world if you put your mind to it"
>waste it all and no nothing meaningful
>spend every waking hour on Veeky Forums, playing vidya or watching cartoons
I can't be the only one who knows this feel

your teachers were retarded. if they weren't they wouldn't be teachers, so it's not surprising that they were wrong.

>your teachers were retarded. if they weren't they wouldn't be teachers
So true

>playing vidya or watching cartoons
This is the dumb part user, not so much hanging out on Veeky Forums.

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”
― Calvin Coolidge

Press on, user!

I read unabomber manifesto but I don't even know who dickartes is, checkmate

It likely wasn't.
He was lecturing and accepted at Harvard when he was 9.

It's absurd to say he wasn't intelligent. Not all people have the drive to achieve great things in life.

He was happy to work manual labor jobs, and he died as a nobody. There's nothing wrong with that.

*It likely was