How median/low intelligence affects a person’s ability to process information?

Imagine information comes in boxes. The higher a person’s intelligence, the bigger the box they can unpack and process in a short time. The lower the IQ, the smaller the box they can handle.

Now, the information in the boxes is packed in the order of perceived importance. First: Is it potentially dangerous? Anything that is perceivable to pose a threat is packed into the box first. The higher the IQ, the more space there is for factors like possible benefits, risk-reward ratio, who else gets affected, fun to be had, artistic value and the like.  The amount of data a high IQ person processes at a glance would require another post.

The lower the IQ, the less space there is any for any alleviating, calming data, and the box is filled with worrying, fear-inspiring information. Now, it’s a question of flight or fight? As cowardness is not socially acceptable, and as such poses a threat of losing face and social status in itself, which is a high risk in terms of survival, the usual response is “fight”.

Therefore, anything new is mostly received with the fight response by people of lower IQ.

High IQ people ask for more information, as by their experience, the fight response is usually not the correct one, and creates danger rather than takes the danger out of the situation. Aggression leads to more aggression -> danger. This is not a connection low IQ people have the natural capacity to make. Aggression, to them, means survival. To high IQ people, aggression is the correct response only in self-defense, but never as a form of ensuring a safe interaction with a non-aggressive stranger. High-IQ people are notoriously non-confrontational.

Therefore, to efficiently converse with low IQ people, pair information with: The worrying data -> the calming aspect.

“The Free Spirit Theory promotes polygamy over monogamy.” Fear response: “destroying the traditional family unit. Danger.” Continue: “They do this in order to create more durable, stable family units that do not rely on the faithfulness and loyalty of one adult alone.” Remove the fear and also respond to an existing, common fear with a solution. Whenever addressing low IQ people, put an emphasis on safety and the safety of a person’s family. Honestly, of course.

Now, this poses a risk for the high IQ people that they need to manage. In something like this, the motivation of the high IQ people is not necessarily safety, but rather, excitement. The emotional danger of having multiple partners. Flirtation with the danger of getting emotionally hurt. Now, the high IQ people, in order to still be excited about the complexity of a polygamous union, need to address that with a morsel of information: “Polygamous unions provide a more varied environment for intelligent people, and prevent boredom inside stable, committed relationships.”

A low-IQ person will now equate themselves as “an intelligent person” who will turn polygamous because that’s what intelligent people do. (“I wear eyeglasses, therefore I am intelligent.”) A high IQ person will understand the sentence as intended, as a hint that the polygamous union is also intended as a sexually and intellectually stimulating form of a relationship, not simply for raising children, which is not a massively complex challenge for a high IQ person.

Avoid information dumps

Avoid loading a low-IQ person with too much information when you want them on your side. If you want to confuse them and get them off your tail, information overload with a lot of jargon and “boring” informaton is the way to go.

If they get a lot of extra information, it doesn’t fit into the box, and they cannot decide what is worrying and what isn’t. Therefore, they blindly fight everything to do with it. Therefore, “complete openness” doesn’t work for people who cannot process the information that is openly available.

Note that low IQ people think studying is a sign of insecurity. Therefore, they consider highly educated people STUPID, because they have to “read so much just to cope with life”.

I made this mistake when starting to work on the Free Spirit Theory. As I had nothing to hide, I opted to do it in the open. Although I didn’t mean quite as open as it wound up to be as initially, I wanted the input of other Twin Flames, but I got the input of all people alike, and, considering that everyone is SOMEONE’s True Emotion Mirror it was an accurate response to my wish. This created a massive load of confusion, as everyone who is everyone got their word in. The amount of time I wound up fighting over the minor detail that they didn’t comprehend correctly was incredible.

For instance, I said that IF you hear your Twin Flame’s voice in your head, you cannot assume that they hear your voice in theirs. I also said that doesn’t mean that they CANNOT EVER IN ANY CASE hear it, but that it is unlikely, and you should approach the situation with a level of caution, ASSUMING they don’t consciously know what you’ve been telepathically discussing.

Now, it seems that when one piece of information enters their fielf of vision, another piece that was just there, vanishes at the same time. They process things similarly to a person entering a full dark warehouse with a flashlight. They can only remember the very thing that the beam of light is pointing at.

Therefore, the fact I was talking to True Emotion Mirrors in a telepathic relationship with someone they know, vanished as a piece of relevant data. Also, they don’t like conditional sentences such as “in some cases, they might hear you.” I also don’t know whether hearing you was perceived as a positive or a negative thing; a threat or a promise.

As I was trying to talk to one group about a larger concept, the over-hearing low-IQ people started to pick and choose the information they felt was applicable to them (practically nothing was relevant nor applicable to them) but that didn’t stop them from TRYING to apply that information to their own situation with me.

Therefore, in your public relation campaigns, include only information that is relevant to EVERYONE at the same time, at least the low-iq common denomator.

Subscribe to get a Daily Message