[amusedcyclist]

Sure Elon Musk, Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump share similar personality traits that make them very successful in the internet dominated world. Its not something that I dismiss, but I don't think of them as being master manipulators or geniuses, mostly narcissists with right type of mass market appeal who were in the right place at the right time.

[hirvi74]

Well, it seems like narcissism is a better predictor of success than IQ based on said anecdotal observations.

Perhaps that is what psychometrics should truly be trying to quantify and people should truly strive for if they want to "succeed," but let's be honest. What is the point in knowing one's IQ score if you can't proclaim to others about how much smarter you are than them?

[sureglymop]

IQ is not a predictor of success. Very often, a high IQ even correlates with some handicap, e.g. adhd, asperger's, bipolar disorder etc. These are people who generally due to their handicap have it much harder in society, not easier. Beyond that, IQ is about logical thinking ability. But the actions which make you successful might not be at all logical/rational. Furthermore, gifted children often suffer from loneliness. This can affect their development and directly affect their social status and "success" in life.

[teddyh]

> I don't think of them as being master manipulators or geniuses, mostly narcissists

Why? If someone rises to the top of a very competitive scene, what is more likely? Dumb luck? Or something else?

[amusedcyclist]

Well my argument is that all of these guys were the "right person for the job". They didn't rise to the top of a traditional competitive scene like a college exam or a race to a technology, they found that their brand of narcissism was very appealing to certain groups on the internet and they used it to their advantage from there. I don't think everyone who is popular on twitter or Instagram is a master manipulator

[teddyh]

I first rejected your claim that “Most politicians are exasperatingly dumb” (etc.), and you called me a “bootlicker to power” for it. Now you’re retreating to “not everyone who is popular on twitter or Instagram is a master manipulator”. Sure, probably not. But that was not the claim which I rejected.

> They didn't rise to the top of a traditional competitive scene like a college exam or a race to a technology

Not every competitive scene is your preferred kind. The political scene is just as competitive, and I would imagine that it takes just as much work and skill to rise to the top there as in what I would assume to be your field. It might not be the skills you personally desire, but that does not make these people “dumb”, and anyone who believes this (as claimed by various propaganda) is being gullible and falling for simple lies created to make them feel good about themselves. It is often proclaimed, by feel-good rage-inducing propaganda from your own side, that your opposing side is stupid, or evil for its own sake. One should never fall for this; one should never assume or believe that your opposition is stupid or even evil. People have their own (albeit sometimes alien) motivations and skills, which will be hidden, either by the ones reporting it, or by the people themselves. But people aren’t, on the whole, stupid and malevolent, nor do those few who are rise to power.

[amusedcyclist]

But then you have to believe that every major twitter or instagram influencer is equally intelligent or manipulative, which frankly seems unlikely. I didn't say they were dumb, I just said I didn't think they are uniquely brilliant or capable.

[teddyh]

I wrote that I did not believe that. I was explicitly talking about the political scene.