NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You get up in the world by reading people, not equations.

get rekt

>>8880330
How is this even news to you OP?
Think of a career you'd consider "successful".
Chances are it involves interacting with others.
That's not even taking into consideration the shmoozing you need to do to climb the ladder.

>tfw /sci/ lied

that's not true.

g factor intelligence is the strongest predictor , and that's basically just being able to detect patters in progressive matrices

tfw too smart to be successful

>>8880330
Why does that make you sad? EQ is a lot more malleable than IQ. No matter how much you try, you'll never be Von Neumann-tier, but you can raise your EQ enough to be successful in whatever field you're in.

>>8880330
Define success. If it's scientific contributions, then I would imagine this is false. But brainlets don't measure their success in terms of the science they create.

>>8880330
well consider the following:
>in this degenerate capitalist society, success = money
>you make more money in finance than anywhere else
>you get money in finance by evaluating other peoples emotions and getting them excited to give you money they will never see again

so yeah, memetional """intelligence""" is a better indicator than IQ for (((success)))

>People actually taking this seriously

Psychology isn't a legitimate field of science. IQ and emotional intelligence are nothing more than flawed concepts.

>>8880330
What kind of jobs have high EQ and low IQ?

>>8881213
Psychology, a pseudoscience

>>8880335
A smart enough person can reduce human interactions to logical sequences thus figure out how to manipulate people perfectly.

For example the key to controlling humans like puppets is to simply make them like you, sociopaths experiment with this during childhood allowing them to figure out quick ways to make humans trust them and thus emotionally bond with them allowing said sociopath to control them like a puppet without said puppet realizing it.

Another way is through shame, by making a person do something then blackmailing them they become your slave because shame is a very powerful emotion.

Next way is through fear, threatening people with prison keeps them in line all the time, or your employer constantly threatening to fire you.

>>8880330
EQ is a useless category.

It measures adaptability at best, or predilection to satisfy the behavioural preferences of a given social group at its worst.

>>8881486
You could do this, but it will always be slower than natural social/emotional intelligence. Not fast enough to ball with the best of them. And there are no formulas.

File: tip.jpg (90KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 720x720px

>>8881486
>A smart enough person can reduce human interactions to logical sequences thus figure out how to manipulate people perfectly.

>>8880330
>He's still in the rat race chasing ((success))

You're brainlet anyway anon

>>8881164
Cool meme, but the truth is that IQ is largely correlated with academical and financial success

>>8881506
And EQ even more so.

>>8881515
Not really. People that are able to use their charisma to get rich and achieve positions of power have high IQs to begin with.

>>8881486
He who controls the collective mindset on an emotional level controls the women.

>>8881506
Chris Lanagan or whatever his name is suggests otherwise.

>>8880843

>that's basically just being able to detect patters in progressive matrices

Incorrect. The strongest predictor of g factor intelligence is vocabulary. I know it's not intuitive but that's the facts. Progressive matrices are not bad but, but vocabulary is the best by a huge margin.

>b..but vocab is just a memory test! not fluid intelligence!

I know. Doesn't change the fact it's the most accurate predictor of IQ out of all of the other categories.

>>8881486
I share a board with serial killers

>>8881522
Do you know how studies work? They measure against multiple variables. If they're saying EQ correlates with success more than IQ does, it means they measured against it. I don't have any studies on hand but you're clearly talking out of your ass. They can both correlate.

>>8881522
>IQ correlates with success because studies
>but studies saying EQ correlates more don't count
K

>>8881545

What the fuck is this argument?

>Birds can fly!
>well the kiwi can't so you're wrong

Fuck off brainlet.

>>8881496
I have noticed that humans bond with quickly if they experience high levels of emotion with you, basically if for a human you can "remember when we" during a conversation they can bond with you.

Like imagine you take our your guinea pig and a mass shooting happens over the street, the chaos causes an intense rush of emotions that makes the guinea pig constantly remember that event and they also remember you with that event making it easier for them to bond with you.

>>8881559
Ah yes the daily mass shooting.

>>8881566
It is much easier to do this with women because they are stupider.

>>8881559
>When you take your date to a mass shooting so you get laid easily

>>8881578
Women are wild animals anon anything that makes them hysterical and scared gets them horny when they are in your arms. Staging a robbery is an easy way to have a woman trying to rip your dick out of your pants.

>>8881584
Stop larping.

>>8881213
Social work

>>8880330
emotional intelligence doesn't exist

>>8881770
You realize you sound exactly like a brainlet claiming IQ doesn't exist.

>>8881552
>>8881555
Link literally one study.

>>8881550
holy shit really? finally i have something to live for senpai

>>8881551
I do the emotional manipulation thing to a small degree, but I'm only a certified autismo.
It's the only way I know how to pleasantly interact with people.

IQ is useful because we have actual quantitative data for it. For EQ we only really have a definition, no good measurements... It's always the same, the supposed "better" predictors have no measurements. People just some up with them and defend them with nice sounding rhetorics because they don't like the implications of IQ. But IQ persists because it has actual quantitative data behind it!

>>8880330
>emotional intelligence
>a thing that exists

>>8881550
>The g loadings of mental tests are always positive and usually range between .10 and .90, with a mean of about .60 and a standard deviation of about .15. Raven's Progressive Matrices is among the tests with the highest g loadings, around .80. Tests of vocabulary and general information are also typically found to have high g loadings.[15][16] However, the g loading of the same test may vary somewhat depending on the composition of the test battery.[17]

>Accordingly, he set about developing simple measures of the two main components of Spearman's g: the ability to think clearly and make sense of complexity (known as eductive ability) and the ability to store and reproduce information (known as reproductive ability).

where is your source that vocabulary is a greater predictor of g than progressive matrices and by a huge margin?

I think you're bullshitting

>>8881550
You're flat our wrong / lying

ravens progressive matrices are more g loaded than vocabulary definition tests
https://www.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/attachments/95822/intelligence-and-body-symmetry.pdf

Half of the participants received the tests in the order listed below (i.e., the most g-loaded first), while
for the other half the order was reversed:
(1) Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (40-min timed version) (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1994)
assessed general nonverbal reasoning. The internal consistency reliability of Ravens is estimated at
M.D. Prokosch et al. / Intelligence 33 (2005) 203–213 205
0.90 (Raven et al., 1994). Although a recent study found a sex difference favoring males (Colom &
Garcia-Lopez, 2002), no sex difference was noted in the standardization sample (Raven et al.,
1994).
(2) The WAIS III Vocabulary subtest (Wechsler, 1997) assessed the ability to give concise, accurate
oral definitions of words. Due to its ability to tap active recall and definition abilities, the WAIS III
Vocabulary is a highly g-loaded verbal test. The internal consistency reliability of the WAIS III
Vocabulary is estimated at 0.93 (Wechsler, 1997).

File: 1488859595525.jpg (39KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 540x960px

>>8881486
>controlling humans like puppets

>>8881213
President of the United States

>>8881486
AUTISTIC
U
T
I
S
T
I
C

>>8881486
Is this the secret to get a gf?

>>8880330
>Oh no, there are words on a picture, nooooo