Hello,

More of my philosophy about an IQ test for the highly smart and more..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..


I think i am really smart and here is a smart IQ test for the highly smart:

So notice what is saying in the following video the known Garry Tan that is an asian from USA about the how to become rich and notice that he attended Stanford University from 1999 to 2003, and graduated with a bachelor's degree in Computer Systems
Engineering:

So I invite you to look at his following video that speaks
about how to become rich:

STOP Chasing Money -- Chase WEALTH. | How To get RICH | Garry Tan's Office

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hdu4DlnLIk&t

The person that is speaking on the above video is called Garry Tan,
and here he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Tan

And I think i am smart and i invite you to look at the following
"defect" or "bug" of the above video, look here at what he is saying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hdu4DlnLIk&t=425s

So notice that he is saying that so that to become rich you have to be the following:

"So what is most useful, is actually acquiring skills that nobody else
has, especially in combination that are rare. If you can rebound the
ball and nobody does it quite the way you can, you can be a Hall of Fame basketball player. And that applies to all the things in your career and
in life."

But it is like an IQ test for the highly smart, since i am quickly discovering a pattern with my fluid intelligence and it is that he is trying to abstract the way of becoming rich by also saying:

"If you can rebound the ball and nobody does it quite the way you can, you can be a Hall of Fame basketball player. And that applies to all the things in your career and in life."

But the pattern that i am quickly discovering with my fluid intelligence is that even if you can rebound the ball and nobody does it quite the way you can, the becoming rich is also not only dependent on the supply but also on the "demand", so if the
demand doesn't want to give you enough money so that to become rich , you will still not become rich,
so if you are smart you will also notice that it is also about usefulness, since the demand can find the giving enough money to make
you rich not useful for his pocket, so Garry Tan in the above saying of the video is not so smart, since he is not taking into account the factor that we call usefulness to consumers. So the person on the above video has forgot the very basis of what is
it of something has to be useful for the consumers or customers, so read my following smart "redefinition" of Utilitarianism so that to understand:

More of my philosophy about why the definition of Utilitarianism is like
an IQ test..

Notice that i think i am smart, since when i just looked rapidly at the definition below of Utilitarianism, i have rapidly discovered a pattern
with my fluid intelligence and it is that even if the definition
of Utilitarianism is: That Utilitarianism prescribes actions that
maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
i can easily see a pattern with my fluid intelligence since i am
smart, since the pattern is that Utilitarianism maximises happiness and well-being by well balancing taking into account not
only the present but also the future, i mean that responability
is inherent to the definition since the well balancing forces us
to be responsability in the present or today so that to maximize
correctly happiness and well being tomorrow or in the future.

I think i am really smart, and what i am trying to explain is that
you have first to know that a language is also an abstraction of the reality, since even a concept is an abstraction of the reality and also
a language is full of concepts, and not only that but a very important
thing in the process of thinking is that you have to know how to
make a difference between what we call in french: "La pensée duale" et
"La pensée multimodale", and it means in english: that there is a thinking that is like a boolean logical of thinking and there is a more efficient thinking that comes with precision in form of nuances etc.
and it is the weakness of the above abstraction of the known Garry Tan,
since his abstraction of how to become rich doesn't come with the right precision and the right nuances, since notice that the becoming rich depends not only on the supply but also on the demand and the demand can be influenced by other factors such as
Covid-19 or the like that prevent
from making rich an individual or individuals in the supply, so
it is why i say that the known Garry Tan above is not so smart.


I can give you another IQ test that i have rapidly invented and
here it is:

So i will give my example of pattern recognition with my fluid
intelligence that permits to understand, here it is:

So if you want to go fast from my country Morocco to another country
called USA , how will you do it ? or what will you do ?

It is like my IQ test..

So if you answer that you need for example to use a fast airplane to go
fast from Morocco to USA, your answer is a stupid answer, so you need
the smart answer, so i will answer that the fast airplane too has to be "reliable" and your "health" has too to permit it and the "weather" has
too to permit it, so now you are clearly noticing that you need to take
into account many "factors" so that to go fast from Morocco to USA, so
you are clearly noticing that being smart needs also a good plan.

More precision of my philosophy about Utilitarianism..

I invite you to read the following definition of what is Utilitarianism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

So as you are noticing, it says that Utilitarianism prescribes actions
that maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
but i think that Utilitarianism is not idiotic since it maximises
happiness and well-being by well balancing taking into account not
only the present but also the future.


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)