Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived triplets called Intent, Impact and Context. Between them, they contained all the wisdom in the land. Unfortunately, they didn’t get on. Because each one felt they were the most important. Context saw the big picture, Intent understood the plan, and Impact felt the emotion. But because they could never quite agree, they were each convinced the others were wrong.
The woman claims an IQ "close to 200" That would place her above Isaac Newton and close to Goethe. Based on her writing, vocabulary, logic, and order of presentation, I would not believe anything over 130 and more likely around 115.
I have a pretty high IQ but if I do anything to demonstrate it, I would do so by using it, not boasting about it.
That impossible boast makes it hard to believe anything she writes. And the repeated CEO thing just compounds it.
The writing is shabby:
"I am a CEO that brings people together"
Anyone with an IQ much past average would use the relative pronoun "who" in place of "that" here.
"I caught sight of this beautiful woman with a tattoo of a beautiful woman on her leg."
Yeah, exactly. It's preposterous. As I've said before, hyperbole is the language of the internet, so I usually let the occasional silly boast slide. And the incredible, amazing, life-changing, paradigm-shifting work she claims to be doing was irrelevant to her point.
But most intreating to me was the simultaneous lack of any emotional regulation and the self-awareness to recognise the emotions she was feeling. And also I guess, the sense to disappear once I called her out on the aforementioned hyperbole.
Fascinating. Rather than address the idea that the victim mentality harms the person clinging to it she chose to make it about you. Top that with a 200 IQ CEO saying that her thoughts are about her anger at you for addressing the issue are at the core of her response. Several themes occurred to me other than me hoping there is no stock from her business, if it's public and not a non-profit, in anyone's mutual fund.
I am grateful for my white male privilege which does not lead to a victim mentality or the idea that every negative thing in my life is about ethnicity or gender. It would be a heavy burden and you addressing it seems to me to me to be about setting people free from that. That's not sarcasm.
I understand that people's feelings are important to them, and I can be a bit callous about it which is a personal flaw. Having said that, feeling can degrade thinking. She repeatedly expressed her anger. 𝑯𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓. It led to her assigning her thoughts to you.
There is what I mean when I say something. That could be a window to something about me, but before someone starts analyzing me, they might want to think about what I said and address that. What do they find wrong with my idea? That is a frequent breakdown in discussion. Especially when what they find wrong is stereotype or projection driven. What people "hear" is sometimes not what you said, and what they think you were thinking is in fact what they are thinking.
"what you said, and what they think you were thinking is in fact what they are thinking."
Yep, this is astonishingly often the case. Especially online. Some people really don't seem to understand that their emotions and gut feelings can be mistaken. This cognitive flaw drives conspiracy thinking, 90% of trans discourse, 99% of discourse about micro aggressions, and a worrying amount of modern-day political discourse.
So much of the hyperbole and black and white thinking that plagues our discourse is just emotional projection. One of the first lessons I had to learn when I started writing was how to recognise this instead of absorbing it
Yes people often seem to skim the surface seeking that which agitates their priors. Not really hearing or considering what’s being said - such that you’re not even sure they hear you at all. It’s rather eerie.
Please take this as the kindness intended and not as insult, but the shelf life of "think outside the box" expired a generation or two ago. Sometime not long after "state of the art."
Oh Steve, you are wize, perceptive and right on. If only people would read thoroughly and carefully, ponder and listen. In my experience, even in brief and much less important communications, this is not happening. I'd bet most chronic texters and social media addicts never get through the first paragraph or two without reacting and checking out.
The woman claims an IQ "close to 200" That would place her above Isaac Newton and close to Goethe. Based on her writing, vocabulary, logic, and order of presentation, I would not believe anything over 130 and more likely around 115.
I have a pretty high IQ but if I do anything to demonstrate it, I would do so by using it, not boasting about it.
That impossible boast makes it hard to believe anything she writes. And the repeated CEO thing just compounds it.
The writing is shabby:
"I am a CEO that brings people together"
Anyone with an IQ much past average would use the relative pronoun "who" in place of "that" here.
"I caught sight of this beautiful woman with a tattoo of a beautiful woman on her leg."
Count the awkwardnesses.
You were debating a fraud.
"The woman claims an IQ "close to 200""
Yeah, exactly. It's preposterous. As I've said before, hyperbole is the language of the internet, so I usually let the occasional silly boast slide. And the incredible, amazing, life-changing, paradigm-shifting work she claims to be doing was irrelevant to her point.
But most intreating to me was the simultaneous lack of any emotional regulation and the self-awareness to recognise the emotions she was feeling. And also I guess, the sense to disappear once I called her out on the aforementioned hyperbole.
Fascinating. Rather than address the idea that the victim mentality harms the person clinging to it she chose to make it about you. Top that with a 200 IQ CEO saying that her thoughts are about her anger at you for addressing the issue are at the core of her response. Several themes occurred to me other than me hoping there is no stock from her business, if it's public and not a non-profit, in anyone's mutual fund.
I am grateful for my white male privilege which does not lead to a victim mentality or the idea that every negative thing in my life is about ethnicity or gender. It would be a heavy burden and you addressing it seems to me to me to be about setting people free from that. That's not sarcasm.
I understand that people's feelings are important to them, and I can be a bit callous about it which is a personal flaw. Having said that, feeling can degrade thinking. She repeatedly expressed her anger. 𝑯𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓. It led to her assigning her thoughts to you.
There is what I mean when I say something. That could be a window to something about me, but before someone starts analyzing me, they might want to think about what I said and address that. What do they find wrong with my idea? That is a frequent breakdown in discussion. Especially when what they find wrong is stereotype or projection driven. What people "hear" is sometimes not what you said, and what they think you were thinking is in fact what they are thinking.
"what you said, and what they think you were thinking is in fact what they are thinking."
Yep, this is astonishingly often the case. Especially online. Some people really don't seem to understand that their emotions and gut feelings can be mistaken. This cognitive flaw drives conspiracy thinking, 90% of trans discourse, 99% of discourse about micro aggressions, and a worrying amount of modern-day political discourse.
So much of the hyperbole and black and white thinking that plagues our discourse is just emotional projection. One of the first lessons I had to learn when I started writing was how to recognise this instead of absorbing it
Yes people often seem to skim the surface seeking that which agitates their priors. Not really hearing or considering what’s being said - such that you’re not even sure they hear you at all. It’s rather eerie.
Great article. Thanks for sharing and helping us all to think outside of the box.
Thanks Mikael
Please take this as the kindness intended and not as insult, but the shelf life of "think outside the box" expired a generation or two ago. Sometime not long after "state of the art."
Thank you.
Oh Steve, you are wize, perceptive and right on. If only people would read thoroughly and carefully, ponder and listen. In my experience, even in brief and much less important communications, this is not happening. I'd bet most chronic texters and social media addicts never get through the first paragraph or two without reacting and checking out.