i'm probably one of top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

"to say that there is no correlation between how smart a person is and their IQ is ludicras." Straw man. I never said there was no correlation. I said there was no direct correlation. it's not a strawman... your claim is only you understanding what a strawman is. if general trend exists amongst "smart" and "IQ" then there's a direct correlation. you might not understand "direct correclation" and might be suggesting that causation isn't correlation, or that some smart people don't have high IQs..... but i don't dispute this, and it's not what you argued. direct correlation simply means positive correlation. it's distinguishing the vague word "correlation" as a way to mean there's a positive. it's not, as you seem to be suggesting, a way of saying that it's similar to causation or the same as following exactly the same. (you might have assumed that "correlation" means that a correlation existed and so wouldn't need the qualifier positive... but that would be mistake for the reasons i said) please look this up. so your evidence that IQ isn't the same as "smart" is just evidence that you don't have to have a high IQ to be smart. i never disputed this, but in fact said i blieved this in my last post. --Argument by semantics. Definitions are arbitrary. The people who developed the concept of IQ wopuldn't call it the "pink llama test". That there are inherent flaws came *after wards* actually we're just talking past each other because of your misunderstanding of "direct correlation". if we assume that you're saying smart can exist without high IQ then you're right. if we assume you said there's no direct correlation, then you're wrong as i said, and to assume there's a difference between smart and intelligent is flawed. --I did take that into account. Compared to your claims, however, the number of "stupid people" is negligible. we'd have to do a study on this, cause i believe there are more than you think. and i point out stronger that a lot of stupider people post a few times and leave, making it more like the normal population. i never disputed that the bell curve is a normal curve. in fact, the fact that i mentioned that there's a cushion factor indicates that i acknowledged that. i acknowledged it in the initial writing of the poll too, fyi, even if it was not explicit. --It would definitely not be hard to find 10 if not 20 people on this site who are more intelligent than you are. well my humility might say i agree with you. but, then again, i've got some pretty profound novel original etc ideas whereas most else posts the same old rhetoric. my sloppy writing and lack of capitalizations etc doesn't mean i'm not smart... it usually just means my from experiece that there's poser wanna be's who think they're great cause they capitalize and put a lot of effort into their posts when other's don't. i'd argue the smartest position is to find the right balance. but anyway, a tangent cause there's no way to assume given my some of my prolific ideas that i don't give a run for the money. i've shown your assumptions are one sighted, and proven your grasph of mathematical concepts inadequate. i've posted facts that indicate what i said is true, so really the presumption is on everyone else to show why it shouldn't be the case. you can't just say "this is a debate forum where people would be smarter" and expect that to be a rebuttal of my presumptive facts. all i would have to do is say what i said, returning speculation for speculation. we'd both have to agree a study would need done as this is in no way objective ideas we're talking about. the only obejctive things right now is the scores that i got.