Remember that the SD of the IQ bell curve is 15 points centered on 100, with 95% occupying 2 deviations in each direction. In other words, an IQ of 135 is still considered Mensa justifiable and within the top 2% of the population. Also remember that some tests have sub-tests, so scoring above average in one section can and will significantly lower the score you get, no matter what your other subtests say.
Very true, and worded very appropriately aka followable. When thinking of my thought process, I do indeed see it as a computer with loads of ram (most likely 64-bit lol) and a multiple cores. Then there's virtual machines which can mimic the operating system of other people (chameleon anybody?) at the expense of hogging up some of the ram.
On the other hand (still agreeing with you {for some reason realized that i love parenthesis {{or is that parenthesi?}}) it seems like the harddrive is always powered off. so whenever i need to pull up information that isn't stored in the gigs and gigs of ram, it takes a while for the drive to spin up and for the appropriate file/schema/memory/whatever to be found. Making sense still?
Sidenote: you mentioned smoking. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to smoke for 2 months or so, but up until then I was smoking everyday. I found that my horizontal thinking was "overclocked" when high, much to my enjoyment. Being sober has given me the chance to think more linearly, but the increase in this areas is not as marked as the increase in the lateral thinking while stoned. /sidenote
And unfortunately, everyone i run into (with the exception of PerC folks, but I don't technically run into them) is just too slow. Thy're running outdated processors, still on WinXP. Always playing the catch-up game.
Here is where the irony sets in: If everyone is catching up, doesn't that make the one ahead the detriment to the group? Because if you don't intend on leaving everyone behind, which I do quite occasionally when it's obvious the person won't get it or when it won't help to explain, then you have to either wait for them to meet up with you on this metaphorical trail or else you have to back-track in the hopes of showing them the way, but expending your own personal energy. Either way, it's just inefficient.
Using the computer analogy, I would say it is similar to using just a keyboard and a mouse. You can do everything you need to do with these, yet some people augment them with touchpads, drawing pads, webcams, microphones, etc. These allow for different, and simultaneous input, versus wherever the cursor is located. Maybe that was a good analogy, maybe not.
Attempt #2 at crazy weird analogy: Clicking multiple files in quick succession knowing that they will open as the computer processes them, vs. clicking on them one at a time and waiting for each one to open (N vs. S). Sure, you get the same result, but are they really identical? The first method processes everything simultaneously, but the chances of an error or mis-clicking are significantly higher than the slower but more tried and true method of opening them one at a time. I can think of many times in which I've rapid-fire clicked and dragged and done the whole works only to be disappointed that one of the files I thought I moved 10 or 12 clicks back didn't actually go to the recycle bin.
After typing this last section, I see that it has no bearing to what I quoted, yet is still relevant enough to be included.
