what's an indicator of low intelligence in a chart?

Lykanized

Well-known member
I feel like mercury sign is probably less than five percent when it comes to intelligence but I do feel like mercury does do better in some signs and houses.

Just because you may have mercury in a water sign, doesn't really mean much actually.

IQ tests administered by psychologists is definitely worth something especially IQ above a certain standard deviation or IQ bordering on genius.

Let's say someone has 110 IQ and more conscientiousness and someone else has 120 IQ but has less EQ, the one with the 110 IQ is going to probably be more successful in life.

Listen love, at the end of the day, being extremely intelligent doesn't always matter. We all pick a theme in life and we choose to play that role when we arrive in the physical plane.

I'm extremely attracted to pisces and scorpio energy as are many people (they probably find them more attractive than other signs), but it's not because they can go on and on about theories(unless it's about the occult) and crunch up some stats, it's because they are mystical, devoted, passionate, and their way of thinking/being is not something that can be defined within the constructs of our physical dimension/space. That's why they are so attractive and mysterious. And I believe you have lunar energy? Cancers are so nurturing, it makes my heart melt sometimes.

So see it's not really all about intelligence, who has a high IQ etc. Some people are meant to engage in nurturing kids, others are supposed to take part in fatal love affairs, others are supposed to shock the masses with their beauty and some are meant to find the next big thing in science.

I mean what's wrong in working as a receptionist, getting a decent paycheck, driving/bussing home to a nice apartment, having a girls night out once in a while, and meeting a handsome stranger every now and then?

As there is nothing wrong with being a child prodigy and passing a few grades.

Nor there is anything working hard to get a PHD.

I really didn't want to make this thread be offensive or rip anyone off of their self-esteem nor did I want this thread to leave a bad mark.

And I hope you do realize that mercury one bad sign/aspect doesn't equate to low intelligence. Hell, I have mercury conjunct neptune(also uranus in aqua and mars). And many online IQ tests are not accurate to the slightest.

And I read that you are a writer. Writers are amazing. Creativity is wonderful. Always wanted to be a writer. I just saw the posts Elving wrote to you, he's an *** regardless of whether i agree or disagree with him. I'm sorry if I made it seem I was supporting him.

*Sending you lots of positive energy.
I don't need soothing

IQ tests are meaningless. 1. each IQ test varies and what they measure is inevitably led by bias as well as being limited 2. it's common knowledge IQ tests are infamous for not being able to measure many aspects of intelligence 3. intelligence is subjective, one man's idiot is another man's genius 4. if you score a 150 on an IQ test you're a genius but if you're doing nothing with it, all you have is a fancy title. It's meaningless. If you're actually highly gifted and are depressed, having a bad day, going through some medical issue, any number of variables, you might score low 5. we can look at actual geniuses from history and you really have to question what they would've scored on a modern IQ test

Someone with an extremely unconventional mind might score extremely low because it's impossible to measure their intelligence as it doesn't bend to society's standards
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
Which is why I'd like to know which aspects he specifically meant - he just riffed off an astrological truism without actually looking at the examples that I provided. Every Mercury was differently aspected with different planets, some were combusted, others were at their greatest elongation, some were virtually unaspected (Like Dawkins if you believe that a sextile is too weak at 6 degrees orb - an unaspected Mercury could explain his wildly rational nature and it is conjunct a royal fixed star too - connoting added strength to his Mercurial functions - his rationality and logical thinking)



Thanks



Remind me never to joke with you again.

Anyway, you asked me if these chart owners had the criteria you asked for - you asked for positive aspects to malefics or uranus/saturn. Only one did - Dawkins, and a weak one at that. So whatever pattern you had in mind didn't hold for these individuals. Your options are too admit that your pattern isn't infallible or somehow try to brute force an explanation as to how these people aren't intelligent or that "we don't know if they even existed". That to me is intellectual dishonesty.



***** for him. And you.



I hate Pluto :(

As for water and fire signs making mercury weak



And yet -

Mercury/Moon aspects are seen to increase mental perfomance in persons since both types of thinking are in a synergistic relationship with each other - Rationality,logic with intuitions and emotional insights and the imaginations. It's perhaps why we are seeing more Cancer Mercuries than you would expect if you just have in mind "emotions and intellect are at odds". Cancer is also the exaltation of Jupiter

Mercury/Mars have great mechanical ability and verbal sharpness/eloquence - again traditionally speaking. These are good placements for attorneys, mechanics, engineers or any public speaker. In the same breadth, a prominent Mars is also said to give eloquent speech. Aries is attributed to the head and all it's contents - which includes the brain.

Jupiter deals in the realm of higher knowledge and a Mercury so constituted would be geared toward those topics as well as the general characteristics of broad-mindedness, openness, and virtue - which all do well for the mental faculties.

The Sun was traditionally seen as the "organ of perception" and had a hand in brilliance. Perhaps this is why we see more Aries Mercuries/Aries in general cropping up in the cases of the highly intelligent - as Aries is the exaltation of the Sun.



I'm not surprised either. But that doesn't make it true nor does it stop me from trying to see beneath the assumption.



And traditionally speaking, the humane signs are all the air signs and Virgo. Some put parts of Sagittarius or the whole of Sagittarius in this category. Which among other things is supposed to increase the intellectual capacity of the chart owner.



Apart from opinion, you have examples in the world around where there are intelligent people with all kinds of Mercury placements. It's why a proper delineation of the whole chart is necessary. And, where the focus seems to be on Mercury alone, in the tradition you would look at the Mercury, Moon as well as the ascendant ruler to judge the mental capacity of the individual - what you want to know is the holistic mental state of the person, not just how overly developed their logic capacity is. Then the problem is that you can be very strictly and greatly logical, but if your axioms are incorrect you will never be right nor attain anything you set out to achieve or conquer with your mind.



Yeah, I've heard of the different houses and what they connote to the intelligence in the Vedic tradition. Probably not as much as you however.



I can get behind this more nuanced look.



I hide a lot of what I know. (Mercury conjunct Pluto in 12th, Stationing Saturn in 3rd) I'm not worried about finding legitimate sources. Nor is research a problem for me.
'

After a few ego battles, we can come to an agreement in the end. I did find quite a lot of mercury in aries smart people actually I'll be honest but as you said, neunced look. But mercury still isn't friends with mars. I've seen three smart people with mercury in aries. What I mean by smart is high iq.

I have mercury in aqua sextile pluto conjunct mars, uranus, and neptune. Uranus is the closest.

But mercury doesn't like moon. If you can make me believe otherwise that moon and mercury does well together aside from quotes from more RECENT astrologers and not from older sources, be my guest. But i'll stick to research, and older sources.

I'm sure mercury conjunct pluto loves the term "stalk." Please let me know what imagery pluto brings up for you in your head.

In other words don't, I need to stop being crude, and disrespectful to the elderly. I'm only 23 so forgive me for being rude.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
It seems like the basis of marking fire and water as weak signs for Mercury is IQ tests which are meaningless. So that's that
I don't even feel the need to say anything more. IQ tests are MEANINGLESS including Mensa

There is no indication that fire and water Mercuries are weak signs as a result of IQ tests, anyway. Even if you wanted to stay within the confines of IQ tests, there is no proof of that claim.
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
I don't need soothing

IQ tests are meaningless. 1. each IQ test varies and what they measure is inevitably led by bias as well as being limited 2. it's common knowledge IQ tests are infamous for not being able to measure many aspects of intelligence 3. intelligence is subjective, one man's idiot is another man's genius 4. if you score a 150 on an IQ test you're a genius but if you're doing nothing with it, all you have is a fancy title. It's meaningless. If you're actually highly gifted and are depressed, having a bad day, going through some medical issue, any number of variables, you might score low 5. we can look at actual geniuses from history and you really have to question what they would've scored on a modern IQ test

Someone with an extremely unconventional mind might score extremely low because it's impossible to measure their intelligence as it doesn't bend to society's standards

It's not the be all, and end all but to say it's meaningless is a broad claim is it not? Especially since scientists with great innovations has had a high iq and kids that have been known to pass grades have also had high iq.

As I said again, it is a naunced topic. It doesn't measure all sorts of intelligence because it tests for intelligence specific to the ability to innovation.

And I said it before and I'll say it again, IQ not administered by a trained psychologists is prone to bringing on insignificant/meaningless results. But to say it's a meaningless concept when scientists and psychologists have tested it, wrote peer scholar articles on it, and you see stories of it every day, is kind of being dishonest and it serves a bias you already hold, or appealing to groupthink.

IQ doesn't guarantee success but it helps toward it in SOME AREAS like school.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
'

After a few ego battles, we can come to an agreement in the end. I did find quite a lot of mercury in aries smart people actually I'll be honest but as you said, neunced look. But mercury still isn't friends with mars. I've seen three smart people with mercury in aries. What I mean by smart is high iq.

I have mercury in aqua sextile pluto conjunct mars, uranus, and neptune. Uranus is the closest.

But mercury doesn't like moon. If you can make me believe otherwise that moon and mercury does well together aside from quotes from more RECENT astrologers and not from older sources, be my guest. But i'll stick to research, and older sources.

I'm sure mercury conjunct pluto loves the term "stalk." Please let me know what imagery pluto brings up for you in your head.

In other words don't, I need to stop being crude, and disrespectful to the elderly. I'm only 23 so forgive me for being rude.

I read the charts of people and I've seen it where Mercury/Moon aspects do well for the person's thinking. Sorry it's not peer reviewed and published in some ditzy library somewhere. I've also read so much astrological literature that even if I began the digging process, it would take me a while to find it and I'm not that motivated.

That's good for your Mercury.

Once you can see how the aspects manifest in a living, breathing way, you won't be quick to slap characteristics on a person because of an aspect. I've never stalked anyone in my life - I'm too much of an individualist for that. Too much Sagittarius and Aquarius.

My chart is full of fire and Mars so what you see as "ego battle" I merely see as a disagreement. I like disagreement and I like to test and challenge people. A disagreement doesn't automatically connote egotism and trouble for the sake of it in my mind, but then I'm very fire bound.

We're also the same age. So no need to respect the elderly - they are all watching us quietly.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
I want to add, I got the feeling you thought I had gotten an IQ test done and scored low or something, love-thinking. I was joking at the beginning of the thread when I said I was a point above legally retarded. I've never had an IQ test done and I have no idea what I'd score, but I also don't care. I just truly think IQ tests are meaningless. Using them to measure intelligence isn't gonna glean much. The harsh truth is that someone who scores high might otherwise be an average human being with no real talents,
but they have a fancy title
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
I read the charts of people and I've seen it where Mercury/Moon aspects do well for the person's thinking. Sorry it's not peer reviewed and published in some ditzy library somewhere. I've also read so much astrological literature that even if I began the digging process, it would take me a while to find it and I'm not that motivated.

That's good for your Mercury.

Once you can see how the aspects manifest in a living, breathing way, you won't be quick to slap characteristics on a person because of an aspect. I've never stalked anyone in my life - I'm too much of an individualist for that. Too much Sagittarius and Aquarius.

My chart is full of fire and Mars so what you see as "ego battle" I merely see as a disagreement. I like disagreement and I like to test and challenge people. A disagreement doesn't automatically connote egotism and trouble for the sake of it in my mind, but then I'm very fire bound.

We're also the same age. So no need to respect the elderly - they are all watching us quietly.


Well sun is within 14 degrees to my mars. [deleted personal attack - Moderator]


There's no peer scholar articles written on astrology aside from some studies done by carl jung and gaquelen(even then, that's highly simplistic studies). You can't measure astrology with ANOVA testing, nor can you isolate planets to determine any sort of casualty.

But if you're going to be an astrologer, old sources from those with a logical framework, and that are highly esteemed, and with some data collection of charts seem to do the trick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
In fact I just remembered something - a long time ago there was a member by the name of Frank who did a study on intelligent people in some special group - it could be Mensa or something other. One of the strongest placements he found in his sample was... Mercury in Pisces. Followed by Aquarius Moon. You could trawl the forum and find him discussing it but an implication I get is that you want the rational and the irrational parts of your mind to be working in tandem - you want your imagination and your rationality and logic to be going in the same direction. That is, if you care about being "smart".
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
I want to add, I got the feeling you thought I had gotten an IQ test done and scored low or something, love-thinking. I was joking at the beginning of the thread when I said I was a point above legally retarded. I've never had an IQ test done and I have no idea what I'd score, but I also don't care. I just truly think IQ tests are meaningless. Using them to measure intelligence isn't gonna glean much. The harsh truth is that someone who scores high might otherwise be an average human being with no real talents,
but they have a fancy title

Well that's good to know that you were joking. It does do quite a lot when it comes to spotting people that will make innovation in the scientific world. And I suppose that's their talent?

People can be talented while scoring low on an IQ test. There's variation when it comes to these things but there is a purpose to an IQ test and for anyone to claim otherwise is not considering factors.
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
In fact I just remembered something - a long time ago there was a member by the name of Frank who did a study on intelligent people in some special group - it could be Mensa or something other. One of the strongest placements he found in his sample was... Mercury in Pisces. Followed by Aquarius Moon. You could trawl the forum and find him discussing it but an implication I get is that you want the rational and the irrational parts of your mind to be working in tandem - you want your imagination and your rationality and logic to be going in the same direction. That is, if you care about being "smart".

I would love to see that study. Probably would make me feel less insecure about my mercury conjunct neptune. I'll try and find it.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
Well that's good to know that you were joking. It does do quite a lot when it comes to spotting people that will make innovation in the scientific world. And I suppose that's their talent?

People can be talented while scoring low on an IQ test. There's variation when it comes to these things but there is a purpose to an IQ test and for anyone to claim otherwise is not considering factors.
Can you give examples of people who have made innovations in the scientific world that were identified by IQ test?


And not considering what factors?
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
Well that's good to know that you were joking. It does do quite a lot when it comes to spotting people that will make innovation in the scientific world. And I suppose that's their talent?

People can be talented while scoring low on an IQ test. There's variation when it comes to these things but there is a purpose to an IQ test and for anyone to claim otherwise is not considering factors.
Also...scientific innovations. Even if they can identify people who will make scientific innovations, why should that be the definition of intelligence? What would Beethoven or Picasso have scored on IQ tests I wonder?
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
In fact I just remembered something - a long time ago there was a member by the name of Frank who did a study on intelligent people in some special group - it could be Mensa or something other. One of the strongest placements he found in his sample was... Mercury in Pisces. Followed by Aquarius Moon. You could trawl the forum and find him discussing it but an implication I get is that you want the rational and the irrational parts of your mind to be working in tandem - you want your imagination and your rationality and logic to be going in the same direction. That is, if you care about being "smart".

Have a link or nah?

I can't find it.

I can see that make sense. But imagination and rationality, shouldn't there be a mutable phlagmetic planet with a structured planet then?
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
Can you give examples of people who have made innovations in the scientific world that were identified by IQ test?


And not considering what factors?

Nikola tesla was said to have a higher iQ than 180, Einstein was said to have more than 160, Stephen Hawking had a higher IQ than average.

And This
https://www.jstor.org/stable/249440...eow2xTMYaSv0&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

peer scholar article that says "While the group as a whole is characterized by very high average intelligence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis#Harvard_University_and_college_life_(1909–1915)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies#Born_2000–present

Go down and look at list of child prodigies and see their ability to do certain things before the expected age.

I'll tell you what IQ is. You are able to absorb information and find connections involving mundane things that to the normal mind would appear boring. That's why some people with higher IQ see the world differently, or enjoy subjects like physics, chemistry. Because not only can they absorb the little nitty gritty parts that make the whole, but they have fun forming the patterns whereas the rest of us are involved in relationships and friendships and worldly things like success and material things.

Jordan Peterson, I doubt you'll like him and I disagree with him on many things but the man is a good psychologist and of course he's trained. His video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui52h2_gbos



What I mean about factors is, find the connection. Not all high IQed people are inventors. But almost all inventors and nobel prize winners have higher than average IQ.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Notice that Frank said "so far". Not sure how far gone he is all these years after the fact.

But this was the crux of the issue for me - an individual made a claim about a placement and he was proven wrong by way of examples of real people and not by sophistry. And here is someone who actually has done some level of research into the phenomena and have found the exact opposite pattern hold - There seem to be a lot of Mensa level people who have a wretched water mercury and the worst one at that. And there is no pesky issue of eminence clouding the results.
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
Also...scientific innovations. Even if they can identify people who will make scientific innovations, why should that be the definition of intelligence? What would Beethoven or Picasso have scored on IQ tests I wonder?

I shouldn't define it as intelligence. They apparently did. There are people with special talents or special intelligence but the terminology used in our society is kind of adding a label in front of "intelligence" if it's not referred to IQ. But maybe there needs to be a change in terms of terminology?
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
Nikola tesla was said to have a higher iQ than 180, Einstein was said to have more than 160, Stephen Hawking had a higher IQ than average.

And This
https://www.jstor.org/stable/249440...eow2xTMYaSv0&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

peer scholar article that says "While the group as a whole is characterized by very high average intelligence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis#Harvard_University_and_college_life_(1909–1915)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies#Born_2000–present

Go down and look at list of child prodigies and see their ability to do certain things before the expected age.

I'll tell you what IQ is. You are able to absorb information and find connections involving mundane things that to the normal mind would appear boring. That's why some people with higher IQ see the world differently, or enjoy subjects like physics, chemistry. Because not only can they absorb the little nitty gritty parts that make the whole, but they have fun forming the patterns whereas the rest of us are involved in relationships and friendships and worldly things like success and material things.

Jordan Peterson, I doubt you'll like him and I disagree with him on many things but the man is a good psychologist and of course he's trained. His video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui52h2_gbos



What I mean about factors is, find the connection. Not all high IQed people are inventors. But almost all inventors and nobel prize winners have higher than average IQ.
No, what I asked you for was examples of IQ serving a purpose, like you said, of predicting who would come up with scientific innovations

These individuals would be hailed as geniuses even if they didn't take IQ tests just like geniuses throughout history. I'm also not sure Tesla or Einstein ever took IQ tests. THose are just estimates

And what do child prodigies have to do with this? Not relevant to the conversation or to my questions because there's no listing of their IQs


The only purpose IQ serves is to give people access to a special club. People who are gonna innovate will innovate
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
So you totally missed when evolving was cowing down people who disagreed with him? And doing nothing to back up his statements apart from digging his heals into the ground?

He also said no exceptions. Is the 5% thing your invention?

Yes I actually did. My eyes caught your mercury sextile saturn thing.

Then after when I went back, I'm like **** this man is fatal. Aries asc man is reckless to no tomorrow.

It was my my invention because it seemed intuitive. I mean mercury was always debilitated in pisces; that was agreed upon by trained astrologers back in the day no? But I also knew that a planet in a sign probably didn't mean much? Especially mercury as mercury is not particularly sensitive to your chart alone. Another thing I knew was that the more time-sensitive an aspect or planet is the more it is specific to you like asc and moon, and conjunctions.

But I did know that certain aspects such as mercury with saturn, and uranus and third house emphasis did produce intelligent people because I think I tried to see the chart of ten to fifteen people. And whenever I hear of someone with a high IQ, I tend to check their chart as I do with everything else. I also knew mercury in aries did in three charts. But it seemed counter intuitive as I knew mercury and mars were not friends and so that just seemed like a third variable issue.

I hope my thought process makes sense.

But yeah stop being mean to me. You're an oompa loompa.
 
Top