or if intelligence is simply a factor of a mental capacity, i'm a intelligent if I have the ability to think and operate beyond the capabilities of any other human but do not have the linguistic and social capability to communicate or even rectify these ideas and develop them further

@Cantwell it doesn't matter "like what" the point is that they are a lot more incapable than a normal person to operate on their evel

That can be true

That isn't likely but it can happen

ok than intelligence isn't what "IQ" is, due to it's incapability to take account of those factors, which immediately makes intelligence multifaceted in it's appearance.

If the former is true why can't we apply that to any tribal in 50,000 BCE where they didn't have those linguistic or social structures for that

Wait you're saying the highly intelligennt person wouldn't be able to use language?

so yeah point is, iq has nothing to do with the worse treatments blacks recieve during police interactions

How?

what do you mean how?

@Cantwell i didn't say that at all, I said that a incapability to apply certain linguistic structures and words in place to COMMUNICATE those ideas affectively

that doesn't mean they can't use that language

but that they might not be able to think outside those mind shaping concepts

at least not to the point where they can communicate their ideas

That generally doesn't happen outside of extremely high IQ people

@Cantwell read this https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Communication has nothing to do with IQ though

that's the point though and it's more than communication, it's that IQ can't account for those factors that have always been historically important for technological advancement

IQ is very important to technological advancement

also linguistic incapability

or underdeveloped languages and linguistic capability is very important factors in why neolithic humans weren't super geniuses that caused the space age to happen in their 30 year life time.

and IQ isn't important to technological advancement historically or now, I think it's ludicrous to suggest that IQ has measured why technological advancement happened.

Genetics haven

't determined those thigns.

things*

So basically you think the next Steve Jobs will have an IQ of 80?

Very open minded

no i'm saying the next steve jobs didn't need a super duper IQ because like his historical counterpart wasn't effective in introducting in technological advancement but instead using his social skills to sell products and be effective in marketing

plus i'm saying IQ as a measurement doesn't even really matter, or exist as a effective one, it's near fake, just a abstraction of human imagination.

Steve Jobs wasn't successfull because of social skills

Literally what

what are you talking about, he never made technological advancement happen

he didn't invent anything

the only reason why we know him is because he took the work of "intelligent" people in the field of computer science and Information technology

and sold it

he marketed, he made businesses, and he was effective in doing both, that's what made him rich

This entails a degree of intelligence

wealth doesnt eqate to intelligence

Very good marketers have a certain IQ

It's not just "social skills"

ok so intelligence is what than again? you say you need a certain IQ but IQ tests don't even measure that