Controversy of Intelligence: Crash Course Psychology #23


Smarty pants, egg head, brainiac. You’ve heard
terms like these before, maybe you’ve even been on the receiving end of one of them.
But actually, defining intelligence is a lot trickier than just coming up with new names
for smart people. I mean, intelligence isn’t like height or
weight; you can’t just toss them on a scale and give it an exact measurement. It has different
meanings for different cultures and ages and skill sets. So what is intelligence? It’s a question that
doesn’t give us a lot of answers, but it does open a bunch of other equally important and
interesting questions. Like, what influences it? And how can it be
assessed? Is it a single, general ability, or does it
cover a range of aptitudes and skills and talents?
How do things like creativity and innovation factor in? Or genetics or environment, or
education? And what about emotional intelligence? Most agree that it’s best to think of intelligence
not of a concrete thing so much as a concept, the ability to learn from experience, solve
problems, and use knowledge to adapt to new experiences.
We’ve often used intelligence tests, to assess and compare mental aptitude, but these tests
have a long, complex and dark history. I mean there are Nazis involved so, yeah. So as you’ll see, there are reasons that intelligence
is one of the most hotly debated subjects in psychology. It’s complicated and controversial. [Intro] What if I’m the world’s greatest Rubik’s cube
solver but a terrible speller? Or a truly gifted artist who’s barely mastered long division?
Could anyone say I was intelligent or not based on those different aptitudes, or would
it be more accurate to measure my brainpower on several different scales? Around the turn of the twentieth century,
British psychologist Charles Spearman suggested that yes, we do have one comprehensive general
intelligence that underlies all of specific mental abilities. He called it the G-Factor. Spearman conceded that while people may have
special talents like basket weaving or saxophone solos or doing crossword puzzles, those things
still fell under “G”. And he helped develop a statistical procedure called factor analysis
to try to determine how certain clusters of skills might correlate with another one. Like,
say someone who tests well in spatial skills might be good with numbers. We might then refer to that cluster of skills,
that factor, as spatial-numeric reasoning. But to Spearman, the G-factor was something
of an uber-factor connected to all intelligent behavior from architecture to healing to survival
skills, and it’s why people who do well on one kind of cognitive test tend to do well
on others. But as you can imagine, reducing intelligence to a single numerical test score
was and is problematic. L.L. Thurstone, an American pioneer of psychometrics
and one of Spearman’s first challengers, was not into ranking people on a single scale.
Thurstone administered 56 different tests to his subjects then used them to identify
seven clusters of mental abilities. By this system, you might turn out to be great at
like verbal comprehension but less stellar at something like numerical ability. Sounds fair. But when researchers followed
up on his findings, they actually did see that high scores in one aptitude usually meant
good scores in the others, essentially backing up some evidence for some kind of G-factor.
Even though their ideas did not often align, Spearman and Thurstone together paved the
way for more contemporary theories on intelligence. For example, American psychologist Howard
Gardner views intelligence as multiple abilities that come in different forms. He references
instances of brain damage where one ability may be destroyed while others stay perfectly
intact. Savants usually have some limited metal abilities but one exceptional ability
when it comes to like, computing figures or memorizing the complete works of Shakespeare. To Gardner, this suggests that we have multiple
intelligences beyond the G-factor. In fact, he believes that we have eight intelligences,
ranging from our skills with numbers and words to our ability to understand physical space
and the natural world. American psychologist Robert Sternberg tends to agree with Gardner,
though he boils them down into three intelligences: analytical, or problem-solving intelligence,
creative intelligence, or the ability to adapt to new situations, and practical intelligence
for everyday tasks. Both of these models seem reasonable, too,
and Gardner and Sternberg’s work has helped teachers appreciate students’ variety of talents.
But research has suggested that even these different ways to be smart are also linked
by some underlying general intelligence factor. So what about other less tangible forms of
intelligence, like creativity, our ability to produce ideas that are both novel and valuable?
How can a test that demands one correct answer account for more creative solutions, so-called
“divergent thinking”. Well, traditional intelligence tests can’t,
and so far, while we do have some tests that look at creative potential, we don’t have
a standardized system for quantifying creativity. But Sternberg and his colleagues have identified
five main components of creativity, which are useful for framing our understanding of
what creative intelligence is and how it works. If you go through the list, you know who I
think is really great at almost all of them? Sherlock Holmes. Hear me out. First we’ve got expertise, or a well-developed
base of knowledge. This just means knowing a lot about a lot. Whether it’s arcane poisons,
jellyfish behavior, or how to recognize a secret passage behind a book shelf, expertise
provides the mind with all sorts of data to work with and combine in new ways. Obviously Sherlock has incredible imaginative
thinking skills, too, which provide him with the ability to see things in new ways, recognize
patterns and make connections. He loves nothing more than rehashing these breadcrumb trails
for the dopey constables at the end of the case. Sternberg also thought a venturesome personality
contributes to creativity. By hanging around opium dens and chasing thugs and generally
courting danger, Sherlock routinely seeks new experiences, tolerates risk, and perseveres
in overcoming obstacles. And everyone knows he’s driven by intrinsic
motivation. I mean, he wants to help the widow discover the thief and everything, but really,
Sherlock is driven by his own interest and sense of challenge. He gets pleasure from
the work itself. And finally, Sherlock benefits from a creative
environment which sparks, supports, and refines his ideas. For so affectionately maintaining
this environment on Sherlock’s behalf, we largely have Dr. Watson to thank. Sherlock was obviously an academic and creative
genius, but he was pretty weak in another form of intelligence: the emotional kind.
Emotional intelligence, defined in 1997 by psychologist Peter Salovey and John Mayer
— no, not, not that one– is the ability to perceive, understand, manage, and use emotions.
I don’t know about you, but I know plenty of smart people who have a hard time processing
social information. The most brilliant mathematician may struggle to communicate with colleagues,
neighbors, or staff at the local deli. Likewise, Sherlock often annoys, offends, or even baffles
those around him. Perceiving emotions means being able to recognize
them in faces, and even in music, film, and stories. Understanding emotions relates to
being able to predict them and how they might change. And managing emotions comes down to
knowing how to appropriately express yourself in various situations. And finally, emotional
intelligence also means using emotions to enable adaptive or creative thinking; like
knowing how to manage conflict or comfort a grieving friend or work well with others. Much like creative intelligence, emotional
intelligence can be measured to some degree through testing, but there’s no standardized
way to, like, assign a numerical value. So if we can’t perfectly quantify things like
creativity or emotional smarts, how did we come up with a way to measure intelligence? Well, as I mentioned earlier, it’s a sordid
story. The first attempts to do it in the western world began with English scientist
Francis Galton in the 1800s. Taking a page from his famous cousin Charles Darwin’s theories
on natural selection, Galton wondered how that premise might extend to humans’ natural
ability when it came to intelligence. He suggested that our smarts have a lot to do with heredity,
so if we encouraged smart people to breed with each other, we could essentially create
a master race of geniuses. If that sounds a little sketchy, it’s because
it was, like, really, really sketchy!! This study of how to selectively and supposedly
improve the human population, especially by encouraging breeding in some people and discouraging
it in others, is called “eugenics”. A term Galton himself coined, and I’ll get back to,
in a minute. But around the turn of the twentieth century when eugenics was taking off, the
French government mandated that all children must attend school. Many of these kids had
never been in a classroom and teachers wanted to figure out how they could identify kids
who needed extra help. Enter Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, two French psychologists
who were commissioned to develop a test to measure a child’s so-called mental age. The concept of a kid’s mental age is essentially
the level of performance associated with a certain chronological age. So if six year
old Bruno tests as well as the average six year old, he’d have a mental age of six. Binet believed that his tests could measure
a child’s current mental abilities, but that intelligence wasn’t a fixed, inborn thing.
He believed a person’s capabilities could be raised with proper attention, self-discipline
and practice. In other words, he was no eugenicist. He was hoping that his tests would improve
children’s education by identifying those who needed extra attention. But Binet also
feared that these tests would, in the wrong hands, be used to do just the opposite: labeling
children as “lost causes”, limiting their opportunities. And wow, was he on to something
because that is pretty much exactly what happened. German psychologist William Stern used revisions
of Binet and Simon’s work to create the famous intelligence quotient, or IQ measurement.
At the time, your IQ was simply your mental age, divided by your chronological age, multiplied
by a hundred. So for example Bruno is six, and so is his mental age, so his IQ ranks
at a hundred, but his little sister Betty is a four year-old with a mental age of five,
so her IQ would be 125. That formula works pretty well for measuring
kids, but it falls apart when it comes to adults who don’t hit measurable developmental
steps like kids do. I mean there’s no real difference between a mental age of 34 and
35. But Stanford professor Lewis Terman started
promoting the widespread use of intelligence tests in the early 1900s, and with his help
the US government began the world’s first massive ministration of intelligence tests,
when it assessed World War I army recruits and immigrants fresh off the boat. Unlike Binet, Terman did use these numerical
findings as a kind of label, and he thought his tests could, as he put it: “ultimately
result in curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness”. This kind of testing played right into eugenicists’
sensibilities, and soon the eugenics movement in the US had a pretty good fanclub, raising
money from the Carnegie’s and Rockafeller’s and with proponents working at Harvard and
Columbia and Cornell. In the first half of the 21st century, intelligence
tests were used to enforce the sterilization of about 60,000 people, around a third of
whom were in California. Most were poor white women, often unwed mothers or prostitutes.
Other eugenics efforts persisted later into the century, and there is evidence of poor
African American, Native American, or Latina women being forcibly or covertly sterilized
in large numbers as recently as the 1970s. But do you know who really loved their eugenics?
The Nazis. Hitler and his cronies took the idea of intelligence
testing to even darker conclusions. The Nazis were all about selecting against so-called
“feeble-mindedness” and other undesirable traits as they sought to strengthen what they
saw as their Aryan nation. They sterilized or simply executed hundreds of thousands of
victims based of their answers to IQ test questions that were really more abut adhering
to social norms than measuring actual intelligence. Questions like: “Who was Bismarck?” and “What
does Christmas signify?” So you can see how this terrifying history still makes some people
leery of how such tests are administered, interpreted, and weighted. Today we understand that intelligence, as
defined by all the people we’ve talked about here, does appear to be a real and measurable
phenomenon. But no one can say that they’ve disentangled all of the would-be genetic,
environmental, educational, and socio-economic components of it. In the end, it’s best to
think of intelligence as something about which we’ve still got a lot to learn. And next week,
we’ll talk about how we test intelligence today and the problems we still face in doing
it. Today, your intelligent mind learned about
the history of how we think about and define different types of intelligence, what the
G-factor is, and how Sherlock Holmes is incredibly intelligent but emotionally unintelligent.
You also learned about the history and methods of intelligence testing, IQ scores, and how
eugenics turned to the dark side, and has since made even talking about intelligence
kind of controversial. Thank you for watching, especially fto our
Subbable subscribers who make Crash Course possible. To find out how you can become a
supporter, just go to Subbable.com/crashcourse. This episode was written by Kathleen Yale,
edited by Blake de Pastino, and our consultant is Dr. Ranjit Bhagwat. Our director and editor
is Nicholas Jenkins, the script supervisor is Michael Aranda, who is also our sound designer,
and the graphics team is Thought Cafe.

Comments 100

  • Wow, USA so nazi

  • Please explain vygotskys view

  • Wait a minute isn’t Sherlock a fictional character?

  • Please Turkısh

  • My mom says im a genius, its true. One time when I was twelve i solved one face of a rubik cube, i couldn't help it. At school i was even put in a special class just because of my level of intelligence.

  • It's unintelligent to assume just becaus nazies had something to do with something, it must be nefarious. Polarizing and lack of critical understanding when discussing nazies are in the same boat.

  • Good grief, It's like that Logan Paul YouTube Red movie. God bless 😇

  • Creativity is not a form of intelligence and neither is "people skills". No participation trophies here, I'm afraid.

  • 7:00 do low EQ people have autism?

  • Omg not this again. Intelligence is like love. It means different things depending on the cultural context. People having conversations together could be talking about intelligence and in reality be referring to two completely, or slightly, different things. Intelligence is not hard to define and is not always hard to measure. You simply have to choose a definition and work with it. That's it. There is no one mystical definition that elludes philosophers that everyone will agree on. No. It's simply a word that most people use without fully fleshing out what it actually means.

  • There are savants, and then idiot savants. Idiot savants are less socially alined, but massively gifted in a specific subject. As for regular savants can be taught to be socially alined.

  • I wish I was more emotionally intelligent. Maybe I wouldn’t have been taken advantage of by most of my friends and boyfriends in my life. It’s nice getting good grades but I’m working on depression and anxiety that stems from me being spacey and not getting people.

  • You do not need to be smart to solve a Rubik's Cube!!! I can solve a Rubik's cube, so trust me, I know.

  • If you have to summarize your presentation, it sucked

  • Who's watching this on the internet

  • Stupidity is relative

  • I understood Sherlock Holmes as Emotionally intelligent(he has no issues noticing emotions of others at least), but that there are too many factors about a persons past that you can't just see, assume or justify talking about. This makes socializing incredibly hard because you want to take the best route forward, but you are at a crossroad with so many signs pointing in directions that trying to choose the best one becomes more difficult. But if you were really smart then you would be able to know how to learn to socialize in the most optimal and fastest way, so that talking to people would not be a challenge. This doesn't make Socializing an intelligence it makes it a skill you train, and if you dont spend time learning it, then it doesn't mean you aren't capable of learning it or being clever about how to learn and use said skill.

    Any Dumb Person wouldn't see or notice the same amount of signs pointing in directions as the intelligent one, which would make it easy for that person to just choose one and progress faster in learning what direction might go in the right direction. This would explain why people who are dumb do dumb things sometimes, but also why dumb people still can get far in life, since just the act of choosing a path still is progress for learning, just not always the right one.

  • Thanks to the IQ test, police won't let people who have "Too high of an IQ" because they'll overthink things. What they don't realize is if the people can get a high IQ on the test know this, they would purposely fudge themselves a little to get an average score. Facepalm So much for IQ tests XD

  • That was a very intelligent video!

  • My g factor must be low… I can never find the g spot.

  • I’m cracking my knuckles too much and they are big please help

  • I took an iq test (it was online) I got a 112

    I get A-B in school

    I study almost all-sciences and can understand what my friends call science talk

    I also have a great memory I still remember many of the dinosaurs I learned when I was 5-8

    I am able to remember anything I am interested

    I am not quite abysmal at math

    So I don’t know if I am smart

    Oh I am 14 not sure if that relevant

  • The IQ test is one of the dumbest things humans ever did.

  • I could create a whole youtube channel off all the things you don't say in these videos that is so much more relevant than what you actually do say… ugh stop making videos hank

  • 😂nice Mortal Kombat reference

  • Could crash course do an episode about Modern Education and intelligence

  • Sometimes i feel that i am smart but not enough. I made psychologist test it proof that i have normal cognitive abilities. And i am also good at geography.

  • emotional intelligence isn't real

  • You could have mentioned that Gardners intelligences were never measured and he said that he doesnt care wether they are measureable, which means he doesnt care wheter they exist or not.

  • 5:48 LOL SHIP even sails here on Crashcourse LMAO

  • I have no intelligence. I just work hard to succeed.

  • Now there are 1,997 comments and this video mentions the year 1997.

  • My IQ: who cares?

  • Plays the heavenly music for each historical person's picture, even Hitler.

  • I hit like for Sherlock Ref!

  • Emotional and intelligence don’t go together. Always find it hilarious when I hear those two words together.

  • Too fast ,are you singing

  • As the fourth ranked one handed rubiks cube solver world wide in the world let me tell you, solving rubiks cubes fast barely correlates with intelligence as you've defined it. It does correlate with natural reaction times, finger dexterity, ability to mentally and visually track position and orientation of objects in 3d space fast and other weird stuff. Problem solving is only integral to one small part of the solution and you definitely get away with not being good at it if you're a master of everything else, a slow learning curve may also influence the beginning stages of cubing, where you're still learning new concepts, people who find that hard might feel discouraged to persue cubing further, but it barely factors into high level solving.
    Yes, this is just a very minor nitpick, ignore if you so wish.

  • If otherwise highly intelligent people have difficulty in social situation, pseudo-scientists take it as proof of lack of "emotional intelligence". What they forget (or deliberately ignore) is that if you put an ordinary person among a group of these highly intelligent people, the roles would be entirely reversed. Let's take another scenario.

    Imagine a gay, black, communist jew attending a nazi gathering in 1940 Germany. He'd probably fare pretty badly socially, but that doesn't say anything about his "emotional intelligence". Sure, he can handle it better or worse, but that's skill, not intelligence, and usually not what the frauds measure anyways. It's a bogus term.

  • "G-FACTOR" is what I'm called in the street.

  • I consider intelligence to be the ability to acquire a substantial amount of knowledge of any given topic at any given time.

    Knowledge is power

  • Where are my AP psych kids at?

  • You speak very generally, like you don't want to offend anyone. Those videos even if simple and colourful have no value. It's better to read about psychology on your own than to watch it.

  • Defining Intelligence 00:00:00
    Types of Intelligence 01:22:09
    G-Factor 01:37:05
    Sherlock Holmes 04:44:12
    Intelligence Testing 02:26:23
    IQ Scores 08:00:21
    Eugenics 07:47:05
    Intelligence Controversy 09:05:17

  • I haven't been able to find specific sources for you claims on Binet's opinions, specifically, the idea that standardized cognitive tests should not be used to differentially reward students. I would be grateful if you provided an accessible source for that. Thanks!

  • why does this guy sound like the penguin from Madagascar?…

  • 3:55 …my talent for eating pizza 😊

  • i love this, sherlock topic wahaha

  • I'm questioning my intelligence

  • Different personality types manifest different types of higher IQ. And anyone can develop the genius levels of intelligence by focusing on whatever craft that stimulates the cognitive functions.
    In other words, genius IQ is a learned behavior that any average person can develop.

  • Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review

    Lynn Waterhouse

  • Great work

  • Expertise is exactly Hank Green aka Sherlock Holmes

  • Emotional intelligence is not iq it's personality trait called agreeableness.

  • G factor = G spot

  • Cuckold, progressive shill, bigot of low expectation.
    General intelligence is only confusing to those that focus on cultural rather physical stresses. Funny how the West created a system that, on average, puts them third globally.
    'Those racist pricks proving that East Asians and Jews are very smart. Pure bigotry…'😐

  • A crown's no cure for a headache.

  • I think intelligence is a made up concept

  • While listening to this I was hit with a epiphany on how to test intelligence but watch my theory be shot down upon arrival to recipients x's brain

  • 2019 squad

  • Sherlock Holmes was not low on emotion, I can prove it. I have read the stories myself.

  • More time=more intelligence

  • History rhymes till that repeats Itself

  • Am I the only one who notices the pictures in the background move each episode?

  • Margaret Sanger also loved Eugenics and forced sterilization.

  • I have read somewhere that emotional intelligence is not at all the same as SOCIAL intelligence. And there's plenty of proof out there, i.e. many artists, philosophers, writers, etc, who were emotionally intelligent but socially awkward: Beethoven, Charlotte Brontë, Robert Schumann, Glenn Gould, Giacomo Leopardi, Petrarch, etc.; it's a long list

  • I still have a ways to go on understanding others emotions, but I am terrible at managing my own properly.

  • Aren't SAT's LSAT's and tests used to determine a persons worthiness to serve our military with (hopefully) a positive impact used every single day and no one blinks an eye? People are discriminated every day because they just don't measure up? I hope there isn't a single whiff of someone thinking that someone who ranks in the bottom 10% on the SAT's goes straight to M.I.T. or Stanford.. And stating in one of the pieces of text in this video that flashed up on the screen, that intelligence is not a heritable trait is completely absurd.. Variability yes, but within some reasonably measurable meaningful probability distribution..

    Just because the results of these sort of tests have been used for bad, doesn't mean the tests are bad or invalid in any real way, it just shows that some misguided people with some devious agenda, use the results for their devious means..

  • G-factor? So like is g-factor like a g-spot? And yes I am being funny.

  • Excellent post as usual… “The intellect is good but until it has become the servant of the heart, it is of little avail.” ~ Abdu’l-Baha, Baha'i Faith

  • you cant define it? ok hold on, our pants are working on a theory to be reviewed by all the other pants and revised

  • Intelligence – How you make problems =/= unsolved anymore.

  • Interesting fact about the US measuring IQs of soldiers going to WWI – black northern recruits averaged higher than white southern recruits so they repressed the results.

  • As specialist, I'm sure Rotogenflux Methods can be great way to improve your IQ in a short period of time. Why not give it a shot? maybe it'll work for you too.

  • The fact that pineapples grow up to 1.50 meters high terrifies me, as a 1.50 meter guy i can fit in a pineapple that size

  • Liberal propaganda

  • The main flaw of Intelligence is that it labels some actions, yet also with known capability/ability (which already would have awareness greater than statistics/numbers, yet if reliant on numbers (probable situations/possible situations) then probably limited by computers which merely compute values already awared.) as "the true" andor "the best" (looking, and "possibly the "most legitimate""), and essentially this could be analogized as a kid choosing friends at a school with differences of Wealth, Spirituality (called falsely "Religion"). Also, there are "pastians", who possibly conclude based on heritage, ancestory, and others, but all these facts are faked, andor should be, as with as many humans in the world as there are, some may believe flawed theories of "classical war", that conclude, that if "any target can be "taken", based on the needs of a civilization, andor "class"(yet *incomplete group*), then it should be "taken", yet this property-centric theory, is sometimes also the reasoning for mere "assassinations" and "targets of opportunity", usually by "terrorists" and those with limited capability/ability and whom are possibly more "passion-motivated" possibly by strategy of more complete theories of fending for one's own life, not correctly (english) called "self-defense/defence"/"defense/defence of self and others", incorrect because the english prefix "de-," is "to remove" (commonly, "to take away", probably to "feign" class warring (not dutifully, as National Security also is the maintaining of all Wealth, including Prooerty, Big and "Lesser") yet still targeted by terrorists and "freedom fighters" to further their cause, possibly by "gaining followers"/"killing/harming/limiting those not "pure"/"worthy"/"ideologically the same"/"not believing in the cause/not believing in the same cause"/…)

  • Gardner’s theory is just a theory not tested at all. You can’t test creativity and it’s not necessarily linked to intelligence either. Emotional intelligence also not quantifiable. So that leaves with IQ test which have been around for a very long time and they definitely do prove that you’re smart.

  • What do you think of increase your IQ of 20 points using Rotogenflux Methods? I notice many people keep on talking about Rotogenflux Methods.

  • Does Rotogenflux Methods really help to improve your IQ in a short period of time? We've learn a lot of good things about this iq course.

  • Sorry, but your idea of Holmes is pretty simplistic, and an iffy example of complete intelligence. In A study in Scarlet, Watson is amazed at how LITTLE Holmes knows about certain fields. "His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge." Literature, philosophy, politics: He knows "next to nothing." He is "ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the solar system… he would acquire no knowledge that did not bear upon his object." According to Doyle, he knows a lot, especially about chemistry and sensational London murders, but if it doesn't help him solve crimes (can he really know beforehand what knowledge will help and what won't?), he won't put it in his head. Our IDEA of Sherlock Holmes may be an all-around genius, but the character never was. Perhaps mentioning this philosophy of his from the novels can help illustrate a very pinpointed kind of intelligence.

  • Well if I specialize in some form of intelligence, I have yet to come across that specialty. I envy smart people. I daydream every single day about being as smart as someone like Isaac Newton, Einstein, or even John Green because I believe if I did have such specialties I wouldn't be scurrying around looking for purpose in life.

  • "truly gifted artist who's barely mastered long division", okay that sounds like me but i can explain… my brain just does not work linearly and i don't naturally want to do things in order, that's why i suck at math. i'm not hard-wired to follow rules and stay in a straight line.

  • smart people watch crash course.
    i wonder how we could program common sense into AGI what would happen if an AI was trained with all of the crash course videoes? it's like 3 years of high school level history and science and college level philosophy and psychology.

  • the G-factor reminds me of G-spot. i need to get my mind out of the gutter. but even Einstein liked his women dirty.

  • to quantify creativity you could give them an drawing and painting art, poetry, and music and sculpture and dance and an OOP programming test making test and have them explain their creative work, judged by usage of vibrant color and/or dark color, metaphor usage, simile usage, rhythm and rhyme, interpretive dance, and graceful movements, and expressiveness in body language, creativeness in object to sculpt, theme, difficulty, and OOP programming takes a certain twisted non-euclidean logic.
    But how much of intelligence has to do with memory? and socio-economic status? or nutrition exercise and sleep and a stable family-life for developmental growth and resources to get an education? for IQ tests. there's lots of potential in modern youth all over youtube,and hacking circles. lots of creative talent there. That's what scares me most. a teen got into bit coin wallets two years ago.

  • In highschool, I noticed that the "smartest" kids were the most privileged ones.

  • come here for program lol

  • I'm not cramming for the test tomorrow. I am just rehearsing psychology information.

  • coming from professor green’s class 🙂👋🏻

  • I have an iq of 106 what dose that mean why didnt i do better at school?

  • Is Rotogenflux Methods helpful to increase your IQ of 20 points? We have read many good things about this intelligence boost program.

  • 3:16 to 3:19 Lol XD

  • Soo my Psychology test tomorrow

  • 6.47: managing emotions, "knowing" (or to admit) to express yourself (without surpassing the emotional boundaries of others) in various (seriously???) situations (like all over the world).
    this feels like a total mindfuck because the term "appropriate" is a value issue, it is cultural based, adapting your train of thought because of the mindset of the target group has nothing to do with stating a fact based valued opinion, it is compromising your message into general speech in the hope to be picked up and agreed by the masses. it has nothing to do with emotional intelligence, but by social conformation.

  • My IQ scores are pathetic. Is there any reasonable explanation why I'm deserving to live.

  • not this guy again..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *