Horseshoe Theory

Eusebius Erasmus

Woodpecker
The Horseshoe Theory is the claim that low-IQ and high-IQ people tend to agree on political, social, and economic issues. Those with middling or average IQs, on the other hand, are more susceptible to propaganda.

For example, high-IQ and low-IQ Americans typically agree on gun control: they're against strict gun control measures. Middling IQ folk are pro gun control, because they consume supposedly intellectual media.

Is there any evidence that this theory is true? The only study I found is this one:


The problem is that high-IQ conservatives are able to disguise their true views, making studies of the Horseshoe Theory difficult to conduct.
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
I have seen a similar graph with respect to people investing in crypto currencies. It's a bell curve, with retards on the left, geniuses on the right, and a large bell full of middling average IQ people at the top of the bell curve. Those people in the middle take no decisive action or when they do, it's too late because they are too busy going "gee, this says that, and what do I do, and curve this diversify that..."

Those are the people who over think and usually get rekt, as the kiddies say, while the retards and geniuses make bank.
 

Bitter End

Woodpecker
It certainly seems to apply for things such as gender roles and family. I found that the truck drivers might understand, among other things, women's nature better than some beta law school graduate. In Eastern Europe it also seems to be the case with things such as "beauty standards". People have their natural instincts and are not ashamed to follow them (esp. in the low IQ range).
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Woodpecker
I have seen a similar graph with respect to people investing in crypto currencies. It's a bell curve, with retards on the left, geniuses on the right, and a large bell full of middling average IQ people at the top of the bell curve. Those people in the middle take no decisive action or when they do, it's too late because they are too busy going "gee, this says that, and what do I do, and curve this diversify that..."

Those are the people who over think and usually get rekt, as the kiddies say, while the retards and geniuses make bank.
I think the relationship holds stronger for assets like farmland, gold, and silver: high IQ and low IQ investors in these, while middling IQs invest in stocks, real estate, and mutual funds.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Usually the horseshoe theory in a political context refers to the fact that the far right and far left can agree on certain topics that the mainstream reject. It's a notion that's a bit overused, but it does hold for instance in both sides seeing the 0.1% as economic parasites.
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
I think the relationship holds stronger for assets like farmland, gold, and silver: high IQ and low IQ investors in these, while middling IQs invest in stocks, real estate, and mutual funds.
That's what makes crypto so interesting - it is such a new asset class that whenever anyone of any IQ gets involved, they have very little time in the market, but they react on the horseshoe theory you illustrated.
 

Wild Steve

Chicken
You should read "Curse of the high IQ" by author Arron Clarey. Very good read in which he explains the bell curve on IQ test. Since most people are average those whore are high IQ fall into the same sub category as low IQ, as they are perceived as abnormal. Many smart men, where thought of as fools by their peers. It is a theme throughout history and is observed many times over again.
 
That's an interesting theory, but I find it hard to grasp for primarily high IQ people will often have been more influenced by Jewish propaganda tricks of the modern world through uni education, their social circle etc compared to low IQ people, who I believe are more susceptible to traditional values, being content with what you have, local communities, family etc.
 

Sinabelus

Pigeon
The horseshoe theory is indeed more used to refer to political extremes actually being the same thing, and I always thought of it as a (((centrist))) trick to discredit both sides. But from my real life experiences I can see some merit to the horseshoe theory applied to the IQ and political opinions relationship. I have known people of all ranges, from very high (in the ranges between 140-160) to low, although I don't mix with them much, and indeed those in both extremes have unusual political ideas, and it goes more and more unusual as you go further towards the extremes. The most intelligent person I ever met who was confirmed to be at 150 also held very marginal ideas, but in a coherent and logical way (which convinced me of many of his views anyway), whereas it is more instinctive for people with low IQs.

Whereas people of average intelligence are the most dull, uninteresting and often times degenerate people I ever met. At one of my birthday I invited one of my friend and he asked me if he could bring like six of his friends with him, to which I said yes, much to my demise. I am a student myself, and those were students in one of the highest ranked engineering school in the whole country ; yet they were terribly average in intelligence. But what surprised me most is how permeable they were to propaganda, social norms and virtue signalling. They were holding all the fashionable opinions, even as they were "men", which tells a lot. Three of them actually lectured me about the Uighurs and how they are persecuted in China and whatever, and I told him that I couldn't care less about some terrorists getting purged in a harsh manner somewhere around Asia when we have so many problems at home already. They looked at me as if I just advocated genocide ; it's as if they couldn't conceive of my opinion ; yet they opposed only token resistance and ended up agreeing with me without any further argumentation, which means that unsurprisingly they did neither know nor really care about the problem at hand, but only pretended to because of social gain. All this to illustrate that, in my opinion, average people are so susceptible to propaganda because they are more susceptible to social pressure.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Whereas people of average intelligence are the most dull, uninteresting and often times degenerate people I ever met. At one of my birthday I invited one of my friend and he asked me if he could bring like six of his friends with him, to which I said yes, much to my demise. I am a student myself, and those were students in one of the highest ranked engineering school in the whole country ; yet they were terribly average in intelligence.
They most likely have a high IQ in that their mechanical abilities are good to exceptional: meaning that they have good memory, especially good short term working memory where they are able to hold a piece of information in their brain and keep it there while simultaneously performing other mental calculations. You can have this high level of mental processing ability and still be completely blue pilled. An NPC with extra CPU cores and more circuits than a typical NPC is still a NPC.

There's this idea around dissident spaces that having a high IQ or being intelligent will inevitably lead to being "based" but I don't think intelligence is the biggest factor when it comes to being red pilled. Rather it's having certain personality traits such as having a high degree of disagreeability, having a contratarian streak, and such.
 

Sinabelus

Pigeon
They most likely have a high IQ in that their mechanical abilities are good to exceptional: meaning that they have good memory, especially good short term working memory where they are able to hold a piece of information in their brain and keep it there while simultaneously performing other mental calculations. You can have this high level of mental processing ability and still be completely blue pilled. An NPC with extra CPU cores and more circuits than a typical NPC is still a NPC.

There's this idea around dissident spaces that having a high IQ or being intelligent will inevitably lead to being "based" but I don't think intelligence is the biggest factor when it comes to being red pilled. Rather it's having certain personality traits such as having a high degree of disagreeability, having a contratarian streak, and such.
Is there a way to like posts as a newcomer? It's a bit irritating. Anyway, yes, that is probably it, though I'm sure the university is as degenerate as everything. There was a n*gger there and he couldn't even speak properly, really dumb, but I guess he got there on quota. Even though in my thoughts the people I met had to be at least somewhat mechanically intelligent, I have still a hard time grasping how you can be logically intelligent and so blue pilled at the same time. Low A is definitely a big factor as it makes one more "immune" to social pressure.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
They most likely have a high IQ in that their mechanical abilities are good to exceptional: meaning that they have good memory, especially good short term working memory where they are able to hold a piece of information in their brain and keep it there while simultaneously performing other mental calculations. You can have this high level of mental processing ability and still be completely blue pilled. An NPC with extra CPU cores and more circuits than a typical NPC is still a NPC.

There's this idea around dissident spaces that having a high IQ or being intelligent will inevitably lead to being "based" but I don't think intelligence is the biggest factor when it comes to being red pilled. Rather it's having certain personality traits such as having a high degree of disagreeability, having a contratarian streak, and such.

It also has a lot to do with how you were raised, and the values you were raised with. Those engineering students mentioned above were raised by Boomers (or Boomerish older Xers) who formed their values through Hollywood and MSM propaganda.

That's why a cab driver from Pakistan or Nigeria will readily relate to the notion of social engineering as it pertains for example to modern western feminism, whereas the much "smarter" grad student from Yale or Michigan will have a much harder time getting it or even tolerating that concept, the result of decades of conditioning by the education system and culture mill.
 
Dr. Edward Dutton has many video's explaining why high-IQ people are much more likely to have miserable lives, and why having high-IQ should not be assumed as a positive trait. High-IQ people have a lot of problems relating to others and society, leading to rejection and resentment especially if their perceived high status doesn't translate into actual life success. They live in their own minds really, kind of loners, very disagreeable as WuTang said above, and also are less likely to be religious than average-IQ people. In short, while not impossible, it is very difficult to lead a happy, healthy life if you have high intelligence.

Structurally, another concept the multiple "horseshoe" examples above remind me of, is the "High/Low vs Mid" class strategy of elite members of society to stir up the lower classes in attacking the middle class, preventing the middle class from getting too close to usurping their power and keeping them in check. I think this goes all the way back to at least the Roman Empire, although also observable in modern post-Enlightenment cultures as well.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
It also has a lot to do with how you were raised, and the values you were raised with.
This trumps everything, because there is a spiritual component and a degree of honesty associated with people who seek, and tell the truth. Additive to this is being disagreeable, or the ability to be disagreeable. Social conformity is just a priority of emotional stability (not willing to take risks in this realm, in a sense). Well, it has its price - critical thinking. Most do not allow for that, they value others' perceptions over principle and thus, truth. Rightly understood, disagreeability as a personality trait is the ability to be secure in having a different point of view or sticking to what may not be favored at the moment, socially. It is not purely being stubborn or difficult, for its own sake (which to the untrained or unnuanced thinker may seem to be the case): these people certainly do exist, and I have met them, but they have neither wisdom nor proper understanding of the world. They tend to be insecure or versions of a misanthrope.

Note that the degree to which the sexes are explained is largely this disagreeability trait. But you can not have the trait and still understand what is true, right and good by how you were raised and what you value: you'll just keep this to yourself. I think this is why women who have a version of the trait stand out, since it is generally a more masculine phenomenon. Of course, this can be good or bad, but does not need to be either, since all humans are mixtures and quite complicated, overall.
 

ginsu

Woodpecker
The Horseshoe Theory is the claim that low-IQ and high-IQ people tend to agree on political, social, and economic issues. Those with middling or average IQs, on the other hand, are more susceptible to propaganda.

For example, high-IQ and low-IQ Americans typically agree on gun control: they're against strict gun control measures. Middling IQ folk are pro gun control, because they consume supposedly intellectual media.

Is there any evidence that this theory is true? The only study I found is this one:


The problem is that high-IQ conservatives are able to disguise their true views, making studies of the Horseshoe Theory difficult to conduct.

I don't know about evidence just seeing a lot of agreement on this from peoples personal observations and of course the memes are always true

1619775790112.png
 
Top