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

L

love-thinking

Well-known member
conspiracy theorist said:
And unsurprisingly, he has an aspect that speaks precisely to the demanding father figure presence in his life - Sun conjunct Pluto. The charts for him on asro.com are ranked DD so they are unreliable (permeating the whole life due to its "loudness") , but both charts happen to have that Sun-Pluto angular, and the Pisces Rising one has the bonus of having Saturn conjunct the MC - another aspect that could describe the oppressive home situation. (And also his public fall from grace)
Click to expand...

Also I'd like you to watch this video and give me your input.
 
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
Lykanized said:
"I'm sick of this whole everything must be fair and equal and taboo truths must not be brought forward mentality."


I'm not sure where this came from tho. You're not saying anything taboo, that would be giving you too much credit
Click to expand...

This whole some people are smarter than others or have particular intellectual abilities will definitely hit a nerve to some people.

So in that regard, it can be taboo or an uncomfortable topic. I'm taking that much credit as I please. :)
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
love-thinking said:
This whole some people are smarter than others or have particular intellectual abilities will definitely hit a nerve to some people.

So in that regard, it can be taboo or an uncomfortable topic. I'm taking that much credit as I please. :)
Click to expand...

Nobody in this thread had an issue with that notion, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it. I for sure didn't

CT didn't either

If that's what you got, you missed the point
 
Last edited:
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
Lykanized said:
Nobody in this thread had an issue with that notion, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it. I for sure didn't

CT didn't either

If that's what you got, you missed the point
Click to expand...

That's what I got from you. I never said conspiracy theorist did. If you haven't noticed, everyone in this forum does in fact think there is such a thing as IQ or intelligence. The only thing being debated is what in one's chart indicates intelligence.

You're deflecting and using the other people who all agree there is an IQ as a source to argue against me without trying to reason with me. You're appealing to group think and that too you're wrongly doing it as well. Clearly, this contrast of some having greater intelligence than others is triggering you. Otherwise you would at least try to meet me half way and at least acknowledge that it is meaningful although there is variation, and it is not the most important thing in life?

Tell me why they found that administering micronutrients in countries and fortifying food with certain types of micronutrients lead to a higher IQ ?

Why do neuroscientists theorize and use the frontal cortex, and temperal cortex as a source for IQ-increased working memory, or even the dopaminergic system in the brain?

You can't answer these questions can you?

And knowing you, you'll probably bring up the former, not the lattar and try and argue against me about something so futile, now that is meaningful. Why don't you quote and tackle what I say about IQ, instead of getting defensive at me pointing out that the very fact that there is variation in "intelligence/IQ" triggers and bothers you which may just be a guess at the very best.
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
love-thinking said:
That's what I got from you. I never said conspiracy theorist did. If you haven't noticed, everyone in this forum does in fact think there is such a thing as IQ or intelligence. The only thing being debated is what in one's chart indicates intelligence.

You're deflecting and using the other people who all agree there is an IQ as a source to argue against me without trying to reason with me. You're appealing to group think and that too you're wrongly doing it as well. Clearly, this contrast of some having greater intelligence than others is triggering you. Otherwise you would at least try to meet me half way and at least acknowledge that it is meaningful although there is variation, and it is not the most important thing in life?

Tell me why they found that administering micronutrients in countries and fortifying food with certain types of micronutrients lead to a higher IQ ?

Why do neuroscientists theorize and use the frontal cortex, and temperal cortex as a source for IQ-increased working memory, or even the dopaminergic system in the brain?

You can't answer these questions can you?

And knowing you, you'll probably bring up the former, not the lattar and try and argue against me about something so futile, now that is meaningful. Why don't you quote and tackle what I say about IQ, instead of getting defensive at me pointing out that the very fact that there is variation in "intelligence/IQ" triggers and bothers you which may just be a guess at the very best.
Click to expand...
You're trying to read me, but your intuition is way off. It needs fine tuning

No, I never had an issue with the notion some people are more intelligent than others. I had an issue with the notion that IQ tests are the proper way to identify intelligence

I can answer those questions, but you're not gonna like the answer because you're stuck in a very restrictive plane of existence
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
For your dear peace of mind...

love-thinking said:
That's what I got from you. I never said conspiracy theorist did. If you haven't noticed, everyone in this forum does in fact think there is such a thing as IQ or intelligence. The only thing being debated is what in one's chart indicates intelligence.
Click to expand...
What I'm arguing is that IQ isn't a proper measurement of intelligence. It's more intangible

You're deflecting and using the other people who all agree there is an IQ as a source to argue against me without trying to reason with me. You're appealing to group think and that too you're wrongly doing it as well. Clearly, this contrast of some having greater intelligence than others is triggering you. Otherwise you would at least try to meet me half way and at least acknowledge that it is meaningful although there is variation, and it is not the most important thing in life?
Click to expand...
If anyone's 'deflecting, it's you because you've failed to actually answer any of the questions I asked or prove the assertions you made. Group think? You're participating in 'group think' going with the conventional thought that IQ tests are actually proper measurements of intelligence. My point is they have no place in a discussion of intelligence


No I was never triggered by that. If you picked that up, I think you must be projecting. Some people are more intelligent, but IQ has nothing to do with it

Tell me why they found that administering micronutrients in countries and fortifying food with certain types of micronutrients lead to a higher IQ ?
Click to expand...
Again, my argument is that IQ does not equal intelligence, not that ""IQ"" doesn't exist as a means of measuring what a few people deem intelligence
Why do neuroscientists theorize and use the frontal cortex, and temperal cortex as a source for IQ-increased working memory, or even the dopaminergic system in the brain?
Click to expand...
Because they're working with a manmade notion of IQ ?

You can't answer these questions can you?

And knowing you, you'll probably bring up the former, not the lattar and try and argue against me about something so futile, now that is meaningful. Why don't you quote and tackle what I say about IQ, instead of getting defensive at me pointing out that the very fact that there is variation in "intelligence/IQ" triggers and bothers you which may just be a guess at the very best.
Click to expand...
And knowing you you'll continue to not answer any of my questions or prove your assertions

I never got defensive. Again, you must be projecting. You got defensive
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
Anyone who can think for themselves or properly use their intuition doesn't need a bunch of sources to guide their thinking. That's conforming to conventional thought. I'm beyond that plane, you're stuck in it, that's why this isn't gonna go anywhere
 
E

Evolving717223

Banned
love-thinking said:
Question: what do you call a strong moon? Moon in taurus or moon in aquarius. Astrologers would claim moon in taurus are exalted, but aquarius is smart and detached?

So asc plays a role or nah?
Click to expand...

Like I have both directly and indirectly said in this thread countless times, the more emotional strength that the moon possesses, the stronger it is overall, as more positive emotions = more positive thinking which results in more success for the user. Whereas the less emotional strength that the moon possesses, the weaker it is overall, as it will only bring about negative thinking and effects for the user.

The only elements that grant natural emotional strength are earth, air, and fire. Water cant, because it is the element of sensitivity which is due to the element only being emotions.

Why do you ask?
 
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
Lykanized said:
Anyone who can think for themselves or properly use their intuition doesn't need a bunch of sources to guide their thinking. That's conforming to conventional thought. I'm beyond that plane, you're stuck in it, that's why this isn't gonna go anywhere
Click to expand...

Most of your replies are either deflection or personal attacks. Although my replies do involve personal attacks, I do admit the observations are falsifyable(unlike you who make absolute claims and probably don't even know what this term means) and a large proporion of my replies include arguments, explainations and sources. You don't want to argue back because you have nothing, no sources, no logical framework to back up your claims/anecdotal opinion. If everyone used falsifyable intuition to make judgments and say sources, logic and rationale are "conventional" thought, our civilization or past civilizations wouldn't be where they are today or were yesterday. We would make more mistakes and we'd fade into oblivion. Intuition is nice by all means but without logic, and rationale, it's useless and needs to stay within the realms of art; and care taking. And on a side note I use personal attacks to either annoy the recipient when they don't argue back with an appropriate argument. And much of my attacks on CT was a joke as was his and we have come to a proper agreement because he and I at least looks at what tell other says in depth and considers it unlike you whose been repeating the same statement of "iq is not an indicator of intelligence and it is meaningless" and personal attacks and nothing aside from that.
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
Evolving717223 said:
Like I have both directly and indirectly said in this thread countless times, the more emotional strength that the moon possesses, the stronger it is overall, as more positive emotions = more positive thinking which results in more success for the user. Whereas the less emotional strength that the moon possesses, the weaker it is overall, as it will only bring about negative thinking and effects for the user.

The only elements that grant natural emotional strength are earth, air, and fire. Water cant, because it is the element of sensitivity which is due to the element only being emotions.

Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
Here's another perspective


water is intuition, having your moon in a water sign is one of the most intuitive placements you can have, imo


Emotional strength comes from grappling with emotions so if water is emotion, then water grants propensity for emotional strength
 
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
Evolving717223 said:
Like I have both directly and indirectly said in this thread countless times, the more emotional strength that the moon possesses, the stronger it is overall, as more positive emotions = more positive thinking which results in more success for the user. Whereas the less emotional strength that the moon possesses, the weaker it is overall, as it will only bring about negative thinking and effects for the user.

The only elements that grant natural emotional strength are earth, air, and fire. Water cant, because it is the element of sensitivity which is due to the element only being emotions.

Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Lol tone down the arrogance a little. Came back to this forum a little late. Why is moon in Aquarius smarter and came in more in the study than moon in Taurus if it's supposed to be grounded, exalted according to astrology and emotionally stable?
 
BlackLioness87

BlackLioness87

Well-known member
Evolving717223 said:
Like I have both directly and indirectly said in this thread countless times, the more emotional strength that the moon possesses, the stronger it is overall, as more positive emotions = more positive thinking which results in more success for the user. Whereas the less emotional strength that the moon possesses, the weaker it is overall, as it will only bring about negative thinking and effects for the user.

The only elements that grant natural emotional strength are earth, air, and fire. Water cant, because it is the element of sensitivity which is due to the element only being emotions.

Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
Hi evolving, would you consider a cancer moon opposite a capricorn mars, a weak moon?
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
love-thinking said:
Most of your replies are either deflection or personal attacks. Although my replies do involve personal attacks, I do admit the observations are falsifyable(unlike you who make absolute claims and probably don't even know what this term means) and a large proporion of my replies include arguments, explainations and sources. You don't want to argue back because you have nothing, no sources, no logical framework to back up your claims/anecdotal opinion. If everyone used falsifyable intuition to make judgments and say sources, logic and rationale are "conventional" thought, our civilization or past civilizations wouldn't be where they are today or were yesterday. We would make more mistakes and we'd fade into oblivion. Intuition is nice by all means but without logic, and rationale, it's useless and needs to stay within the realms of art; and care taking. And on a side note I use personal attacks to either annoy the recipient when they don't argue back with an appropriate argument. And much of my attacks on CT was a joke as was his and we have come to a proper agreement because he and I at least looks at what tell other says in depth and considers it unlike you whose been repeating the same statement of "iq is not an indicator of intelligence" and personal attacks and nothing aside from that.
Click to expand...
No they weren't deflection or personal attacks. I was trying to get real answers from you which you could not provide. At one point, you made an assertion, I asked you for evidence. The burden of proof was on you at that point. You weren't able to back yourself up or sufficiently answer my question

And look around. Civilization is corrupt and in shambles because we lost our source, our intuition. Ancients used intution and were far more advanced than we are. Science is JUST now catching up to what mystics have known for hundreds of years

Logic and rationality are useful, but society in modern times overrelies on them and it prevents them from getting to the truth

I was never deflecting or attacking you, you just don't like what I'm saying

I've been repeating it because you are continuously unable to prove your assertion that IQ can predict who will make great scientific innovations
I considered what you said, but you were unable to back yourself up
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
love-thinking said:
Most of your replies are either deflection or personal attacks. Although my replies do involve personal attacks, I do admit the observations are falsifyable(unlike you who make absolute claims and probably don't even know what this term means) and a large proporion of my replies include arguments, explainations and sources. You don't want to argue back because you have nothing, no sources, no logical framework to back up your claims/anecdotal opinion. If everyone used falsifyable intuition to make judgments and say sources, logic and rationale are "conventional" thought, our civilization or past civilizations wouldn't be where they are today or were yesterday. We would make more mistakes and we'd fade into oblivion. Intuition is nice by all means but without logic, and rationale, it's useless and needs to stay within the realms of art; and care taking. And on a side note I use personal attacks to either annoy the recipient when they don't argue back with an appropriate argument. And much of my attacks on CT was a joke as was his and we have come to a proper agreement because he and I at least looks at what tell other says in depth and considers it unlike you whose been repeating the same statement of "iq is not an indicator of intelligence and it is meaningless" and personal attacks and nothing aside from that.
Click to expand...
Please point me to where I personally attacked you
 
E

Evolving717223

Banned
Lykanized said:
Here's another perspective


water is intuition, having your moon in a water sign is one of the most intuitive placements you can have, imo


Emotional strength comes from grappling with emotions so if water is emotion, then water grants propensity for emotional strength
Click to expand...

Well that is is, you are right about one thing, that being that that explanation you gave is the OTHER perspective on it.

But the correct one is the one I gave, as it makes more sense, and has evidence to back it up, whereas your take on it disagrees with everything in our world around us.
 
Witchyone

Witchyone

Well-known member
Lykanized said:
Here's another perspective


water is intuition, having your moon in a water sign is one of the most intuitive placements you can have, imo


Emotional strength comes from grappling with emotions so if water is emotion, then water grants propensity for emotional strength
Click to expand...

I agree. The idea that a person who doesn't experience much emotion is "emotionally strong" does not compute. Emotional strength is not the absence of feeling. It's quite the opposite. Emotions are data.
 
E

Evolving717223

Banned
love-thinking said:
Lol tone down the arrogance a little. Came back to this forum a little late. Why is moon in Aquarius smarter and came in more in the study than moon in Taurus if it's supposed to be grounded, exalted according to astrology and emotionally stable?
Click to expand...

You should re-read your question, as the answer is quite obvious.
 
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
Lykanized said:
No they weren't deflection or personal attacks. I was trying to get real answers from you which you could not provide. At one point, you made an assertion, I asked you for evidence. The burden of proof was on you at that point. You weren't able to back yourself up or sufficiently answer my question

And look around. Civilization is corrupt and in shambles because we lost our source, our intuition. Ancients used intution and were far more advanced than we are. Science is JUST now catching up to what mystics have known for hundreds of years

Logic and rationality are useful, but society in modern times overrelies on them and it prevents them from getting to the truth

I was never deflecting or attacking you, you just don't like what I'm saying

I've been repeating it because you are continuously unable to prove your assertion that IQ can predict who will make great scientific innovations
I considered what you said, but you were unable to back yourself up
Click to expand...

You don't argue back using what I had provided to you. If you were to be like okay well even if you claimed that, that doesn't mean that-that's logic. If you were to be like we'll I define logic as that and that's a higher indicator of success blah blah, and here's a source, that's a debatable claim. But all you do is discredit and make big claims about something studied for so long. You know that neuroscientists are studying things like neuroplasticity and child development and they do so by using IQ as a tool. By your statements, the would mean not using that as a tool.

All you do is repeat the same two statements with nothing to tackle what I say and then try and argue that the less important things of what I said had no meaning or is useless. Which makes me think that you're not here to debate and learn, or be challenged, you're here to discredit me, or anyone else that rubbed you off the wrong way or said something you did not like.

As for what you said about civilizations. Noone is saying intuition is not important but that doesn't mean you have to swing to the other extreme and say logic, studies, sources, experiments is not either.


Intuition is literally 70 percent of high IQ. Intuition(mbti) guides one to to be innovative. But action and thought without rationale and logic can be dangerous.

And the mere fact that your life expectancy is as long as it is, the fact that you are well nourished, and safe and have a device in which you can cimmunicate with me is a consequence of science and the usage of logic, rationale and a well developed framework of truth seeking.
 
Top