Why is low IQ best for being a leader?

[Anonymous No.10022030]

Low is best for being CEO
Damn guys. That means high IQ btfo
Since CEOs are everything

[Anonymous No.10022033]

>>10022030
no shit, I can tell you've never been part of management because management doesn't know how to do shit except employ people that do know how to do shit.

[Anonymous No.10022034]

127 IQ master race

[Anonymous No.10022038]

>>10022033
They also make more money and command more respect than workers

[Anonymous No.10022071]

>>10022038
Money, yes. Respect? Sometimes.

[Anonymous No.10022076]

>>10022030
>tfw too intelligent to be a leader.

[Anonymous No.10022120]

>>10022030
High IQ is better reserved for the specialists.

[Anonymous No.10022126]

>>10022030
decision paralysis

[Anonymous No.10022137]

>>10022030
The more removed you are from your subordinates, competitors and clients in any way the more difficult it is for you to accurately assess their abilities, needs and decision making process.

Theoretical physicists would probably make shitty salesmen because they wouldn't expect people to fall for tricks that are obvious to them, fir example.

[Anonymous No.10022310]

>>10022126
THIS

[Anonymous No.10022317]

>sub 128
>low
5'11"vs6'.png

[Anonymous No.10022349]

>>10022038
Neither are true unless your colleague are total bootlickers

[Anonymous No.10022359]

>tfw to intelligent to think

[Anonymous No.10022389]

>tfw 140 IQ teamlet
Why even live?

[Anonymous No.10022390]

>>10022030
This makes sense to me and doesn't come as a surprise; I think highly inteligent people would be either too autistic and try to perfect everything they could the first try, which is pretty impossible; or either be too empathetic with the people they work with, and maybe be less lenient because of it; and therefore be less respected by the workforce (somehow).

Also I'm full of bullshit, this is all IRL head canon.

[Anonymous No.10022404]

>>10022126
This.

[Anonymous No.10022411]

>>10022390
It’s not that we’re too autistic or perfect, it’s that to lead well you have to do a few things better than the people you are leading and be a model. If you’re too superhuman they won’t model themselves after you and will dismiss any suggestion they try to emulate you.
Its why Wayne Gretzky was shit as a head coach.

[Anonymous No.10022951]

I heard that highly intelligent people have a hard time coming off as confident and are sometimes perceived as arrogant.

Also, networking is by far the most important thing about having high level jobs, ie knowing the right guy at the right college and ect. Having rich parents helps too.

[Anonymous No.10022968]

>>10022030
Seems obvious. Nerdy types are spergs with no social skills almost by definition. This is something absolutely essential for leadership.

[Anonymous No.10023121]

>>10022968
Yes, because high IQ don't value the reality of "social skills" because they see how superficial it is
What I mean is like.. brainlets can be led to believe even total bullshit based on how many times it's repeated, what kind of shoes the speaker wears, the color of their necktie, how many buzzwords they use, if they have a firm handshake, etc.
high IQ's realize how little this shit actually matters. thus, they undervalue it in their own dealings in favor of actual facts and logic, and thus find themselves unable to convince brainlets

[Anonymous No.10023125]

>>10022030
this has been known for years and is why political movements rarely host 140+ iq’s. Unfortunately being able to understand reality is a sexual and social handicap

[Anonymous No.10023128]

>>10022126
This, a good anecdote is this paraphrase of a quote from that show MASH:

A highly skilled, perfectionist surgeon is often significantly less effective in treating the wounded in war situations where there are lots of casualties pouring into the hospital because they work really hard to treat the current patient in the most effective way

In reality, the less traditionally skilled and less perfectionist surgeon can be orders of magnitude more effective because once he's mostly done he moves on to the next patient, and even though he may only have an 80% success rate on each patient, he can treat 10x as many patients, whereas the skilled perfectionist surgeon may treat only 1x as many patients with a 95% success rate

[Anonymous No.10023135]

>>10023125
>Unfortunately being able to understand reality is a sexual and social handicap
fuck

[Anonymous No.10023140]

>>10023125
>Unfortunately being able to understand reality is a sexual and social handicap
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.10023145]

>>10023121
Social skills are animal impulses. Full stop. Saying you have good "social skills" is saying you are adept at something even literal monkeys can do.

[Anonymous No.10023146]

>>10023121
Business, advertising and design are deception by definition. You can call it "persuasion", but that's a deceptive euphemism for "deception".

[Anonymous No.10023149]

>>10023145
I'm not the guy you're talking to, but I understand and agree with your position to an extent. But it's more complex than that. Social skills are a complex game theoretical game of incentive, plan, and ability signalling. For instance, conspicuous consumption was evolutionarily advantageous for females to select for in mates. Hand waving was useful to show you aren't holding a weapon. I could go on more but I'm way too high and my arms are so tired and I want to fall asleep

[Anonymous No.10023156]

>>10022030
If this is really saying that - all things being equal - higher IQs are just detrimental to leadership, that's just bizarre honestly. Maybe the brainlets at the British Psychological Society don't understand the based leadership methods of /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10023159]

>>10023149
there's nothing about high IQ that says you must be shit at talking to people. Honestly, if properly applied, the opposite should be true. I would have expected high IQ psychopaths to be most of the CEOs, but I guess that archetype got BTFO

[Anonymous No.10023173]

Is it really a surprise that high IQ can have downsides?

Don't many people with high IQs often have crippling depression?

[Anonymous No.10023182]

>>10023173
How would it not be surprising. No one is going to tell you there are downsides to running a program on a faster computer.

[Anonymous No.10023192]

>>10023173
They have all kinds of mental illnesses. It's almost as if abnormally high IQ is itself some kind of anomaly.

[Anonymous No.10023311]

>>10023128
Dumb, really, really, really dumb example. Surgeons have a long history of killing their patients. Until recently, avoiding a surgeon on the battlefield meant you had orders of magnitude higher chances of survival. There's several studies on this.

[Anonymous No.10023356]

>>10022390
>>10022968
>>10023121
For all its TBBT-bashing, /sci/ sure seems to have based all its representations of smart people on TBBT.
/sci/ needs to get it out of its head that the more intelligent you are, the more you automatically adhere to the nerdy, autistic, emotionally unavailable, pure math/theoretical physics researcher-with-weird-tics stereotype. Seems like a lazy excuse for pseuds with no charisma to make no effort in that direction.
There might be some basis to it, but it is nowhere as definitive as you make it seem. Plenty of charismatic smart people get into politics or industry.

[Anonymous No.10023364]

>>10023173
They’re also awkward as hell in public. Thank god im a ~120 IQ midwit.

[Anonymous No.10023454]

>>10022030
More likely to be socially incompetent and unempathetic. Terrible for leadership, IQ above that point is pretty much only good for being an algorithmic technician.

[Anonymous No.10023475]

>>10022030
being a leader requires you to defy logic in many cases, people with high IQ tend to be very skeptical and very conservative to take initiative because it often sounds illogical

people who make most the money are optimistic and opportunistic shameless assholes, they call themselves risk takers but they most take risk with other people's money to hire high IQ people to do the actual work, and if it works, they take all the money and credit

[Anonymous No.10023489]

>>10022126

dis

[Anonymous No.10023497]

>>10023454

aspie master race

[Anonymous No.10023520]

>>10022030
it propably depends on who is lead.
A 150 iq guy who has to lead normies will have a serious communication gap with his 100 iq subordinates to the point that they struggle with concepts, that he finds completely obvious.
So a 120 iq leader is better matched.
An ideal leader is propably about 1 sd above his direct subordinates.

[None !niqjediPCA No.10023566]

>>10022030
are we sure that this isn't a psychological warfare tactic?

[Anonymous No.10024022]

The shit brainlets need to tell themselves lmao

[Anonymous No.10024111]

>why aren't abberant mutants generally good at life

[Anonymous No.10024168]

>>10022030
business is like gambling. it takes skill to succeed, but it also takes a lot of luck. I suppose if this claim is true, it may be due to smarter people acting less risky, which limits chances to take advantage of the luck factor

[Anonymous No.10024559]

>>10024168
>implying you know anything about business
>it’s gambling
The only thing you’re right about is the risk taking. This definitely is something you either have or you don’t have but isn’t necessarily correlated to intelligence imo

[Anonymous No.10024563]

>>10022030
The thing is leaders don't think much about the consequences of their actions, they just *do* it.

That's why you don't have to be that smart to be on top, you just need to know how to handle people well enough and make absolute decisions quickly without need for much nuance.

[Anonymous No.10024567]

>>10022030

Except it is not true, there are several points.
1) IQ does not predict the whole job performance, the fact is that we don't know jack shit about the rest of the predictive parameters.
2)Leader in which field? I assume that being a military leader and a CEO tech leader require different skills aside from IQ.
3)Where are the publications which support that claim
4)Psychology has notoriously low to moderate predictive value, so it's moot in some cases.

[Anonymous No.10024577]

>>10022030
You are misrepresenting that. They are saying that 128 is the barrier where if you increase, it starts going down. And notice this is a correlation study, not a causation study. The most obvious explanation here is that the more you increase the IQ of your subjects, the lower they score on other factors. This is trivial because if you had a huge amount of super humans with 200 IQ's, perfect social skills, woman tier manipulation skills and psychopath tier emotion management, then we would all be fucked because those people would be the Earth's dictators. The reality is that you get people like Perelman, with all of his skill points in IQ. And, unlike MMOs, successful people in real life are those with builds where all the skills have the same amount of points.

[Anonymous No.10025267]

>>10023520
Bigly wrong! You have to have a profound vision to be a truly successful leader. This requires a very high level intellect. The communication with normies part just takes some learning and practice after that.

[Anonymous No.10026340]

>>10024577
Are you saying everyone has the same number of skill points?

[Anonymous No.10026376]

>>10022030
130+ reporting in
life is suffering, i know two managers from lufthansa and one of germanys biggest banks and im definitely smarter than them

[Anonymous No.10026394]

>>10022411

I think this is part of it, but it has more to do with relating ideas vs putting them into practice. If you're really really good at something (like Gretzky) you probably find even advanced parts of what you do so trivial that you hardly think too much about them, and forget what it was like to learn how to do them. Then when it comes to explaining it or helping others you're less equipped. Part of being a leader is being a teacher and motivator, and hardcore experts tend to be able to do little more than say "Do it like me, watch".

That's not even considering that really smart people tend to lack social skills (most commonly), add that and you've got a recipe for a pretty ineffective leader.

[Anonymous No.10026406]

>CEOs are everything
CEOs are everything because business runs this country

[Anonymous No.10026440]

>>10023145

Buuuullshit. Not all animals ar social for one, and two human social interactions are light years ahead of anything animals have developped. The ability to influence others via non-coercive interaction is a pretty valuable skill.

You can go back to your cave now, Grug.

[Anonymous No.10026445]

>>10026440
>You can go back to your cave now, Grug.

[Anonymous No.10027285]

>>10023121
Sorry chump, but social skills are a much stronger predictor of where you'll end up in the world than any amount of raw intelligence - enjoy slaving away at some obscure desk job while your chad colleagues are networking over with your bosses at golf. Polish up your social skills, or stop whining that you're being ruled by morons.

>>10026406
Top-tier politicians don't tend to be extremely intelligent, either...

[Anonymous No.10027303]

>>10023121
nigga threw the whole god damn rod in yet the fish are still biting

[Anonymous No.10027306]

>>10027285
>Top-tier politicians don't tend to be extremely intelligent, either...
Yet they tend to be regardless. Almost as if high IQ helps with defeating cutthroat opposition in backroom political maneuvering and dealing with an endless barrage of shit on your feet.

[Anonymous No.10028735]

>>10027303
cgi wojak is fucking disturbing

[Anonymous No.10029115]

>>10022030
ITT: HIGH IQ SWEETIE BOYS WHO WILL NEVER BE CHARISMATIC ENOUGH TO LEAD THEIR DICK INTO A WOMAN'S VAGINA.

[Anonymous No.10029141]

>>10022030
Low is 40 points lower than the 128 number mong. I ca see why you are pushing this, being so far left on the bell curve.

[Anonymous No.10029272]

>>10022030

Leadership isn't all that much different from sales. You need above average people skills, which for whatever reason exceptionally smart people rarely have. It's largely intuition, which smart people tend to overanalyze things against intuition.

[Anonymous No.10029290]

>>10029272
I'd disagree with this. I have worked in sales jobs and seen people from those jobs promoted to managerial positions and fail terribly. The skillset for sales is absolutely based around people skills, but generally sales people need to be agreeable so as to interact well with cusomters, but this is not such a good trait higher up the chain because managers need to stand up to their employees and cannot just get walked over, otherwise their job is pointless.

You are correct, though, that smarter people tend to perform poorly in both those roles - and I am glad that I don't work in either any more - but it is for different psychological reasons in each case.

[Anonymous No.10029463]

In this thread everyone suddenly has drastically lower IQ than in IQ test threads.

[Anonymous No.10029469]

>>10022030
jews skew the higher IQ's since they're bad leaders.

[Anonymous No.10029596]

>>10027285
>>Top-tier politicians don't tend to be extremely intelligent, either...
I bet you believe Trump, Bush and Putin are low IQ

[Anonymous No.10029696]

>>10029596

You lie. I don't believe you think Trump isn't dumb

[Anonymous No.10029705]

>>10023364
I'm also around 115 IQ but I'm socially retarded.
Then again I'm a nigger so in comparison to the average I am genius level IQ

[Anonymous No.10029711]

>>10022030
>thinks CEOs are everything
I guess we'll have to worry about you becoming CEO some day

[Anonymous No.10030160]

High IQ basedboys cannot be chads, they don't even know how to get pussy, how do they become big company CEOs?

[Anonymous No.10030161]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA autistic high IQ soibois cannot be chads, they don't even know how to get pussy, how do they become big company CEOs?

[Anonymous No.10030263]

Mid 120s IQ is the sort of range where you’re fairly capable, but not nearly smart enough to understand how much you don’t know. Which leads to overconfidence (probably good for management). Also, anything more than about 130 IQ and you start having more social awkwardness. 125 or thereabouts seems like the sweet spot between capable and influential.

It is the same reason reddit is so obnoxiously smug. They tend to be moderately more intelligent than average, but not quite enough to be self aware enough to realise how cringeworthy they are, not to fully comprehend the things they don’t know. This leads to circle jerking and a holier than thou attitude, which 4chan doesn’t have.

I truly believe that there are some brilliantly intelligent people across most 4chan boards.

[Anonymous No.10030266]

>>10030263
Also in my own experience working in a large engineering firm, it is the intelligent individuals with the highest technical knowledge that are retained in technical roles.

Management roles fall to those who are hardly brilliant in any technical sense, but are sociable and reasonably hard working.

Even at university, studying any form of management was seen to be for the dumber students, basically those who had conceded that they couldn’t keep up with the technical side of things.

[Anonymous No.10030295]

>>10022030
>tfw 129 iq
>tfw too smart to be a leader, too dumb to be a genius
>tfw wallowing in mediocrity

[Anonymous No.10030309]

>>10030263
>This leads to circle jerking and a holier than thou attitude, which 4chan doesn’t have
What is this thread ?

[Anonymous No.10030328]

>>10022030
That's retarded since IQ was literally invented to select for officers among recruits during ww1.