>>3572614>i am talking to you so I am trying to use words and ideas even idiots should understand.it's funny because you don't understand this shit at all.
>this study is looking at people who have already developed a similar level of skill and seeing how many of them are 'intelligent'. A: What study? The one you made up?
B: It goes without saying that people that excel at technical or creative production are going to be "intelligent." They will undoubtably demonstrate relatively high spatial intelligence. The reason why IQ is generally stupid, particularly for creatives, is that it's basically testing 3 major things. And "artistic geniuses" more often than not are going to score a relatively average IQ score, even if when it comes to spatial awareness you're a fucking mutant.
>it has nothing to do with whether or not talent existsIt does. It's called aptitude. Fluid intelligence, spatial visualization ability, general learning ability etc.
>I am doing the opposite of using 'tryhard vernacular' while literally explaining outright that this is what I am doing.What? Make pretend nonsense studies? What university do you go to?
>if you are confused and believe I am misusing terms just reread my posts a little more slowly.You're unambiguously misusing terms and generally making a goofball argument from ignorance it seems like.
> remember that words matter even to dumb people, although maybe not when they are as dumb as youYou seem stupid though. And generally uneducated. Are you 15? were you ever administered an IQ test? What'd you get?
