>>513803051 (OP)
People tend to have bad interpretations of IQ anyway. Mostly, you have to strike a balance between complexity and chemistry. Too much complexity puts a burden on chemistry...the average absent-minded professor. Too much chemistry tends to mean that the "lucky" exploit the social order without understanding it. They're complicated without being complex. You can have both qualities and still be considered stupid because of the prevailing community confirmation bias.
Trying to "value" intelligence over hands-on functional success suggests matriarchal bias. Solving problems by brute force when there's no urgency suggests patriarchal bias.
Pardon me if I take a pass on this shell game. BTW - I was told that I had two IQ tests as a kid. One scored about a 105 and the other about 132. I've taken some of these free tests and scored in the mid-130s but I tend to favor the higher numbers simply because I scored in the 99th percentile on my SATs even though I had mediocre grades.
What can I say? I'm small, the youngest in the family and the family kept a kind of preppie tradition of lying about anything that gets kids to go the fuck away.
My reasons for being positively motivated are limited..../pol/ doesn't do dick to change that. Now, what is so funny about jabbering about numbers when talking about politicians?