If they’re good at communicating, you don’t have to read every book they’ve read.
Degrees, especially the advanced not so vocational ones (that is, not law, MBA law), should have required learning how to teach as grad students.
Life experiences, though, you’ll have to take on faith unless you seek out someone else who’s had the similar relevant ones.
Otherwise, a good intellectual (OK, I’m modeling it on myself) will get across the concepts and principles you don’t know, you will today be able to find more about them on the net if you don’t understand, and he’ll help explain or point you to such references or search terms, including in replies, although he might (also) point you at a book (!).
Let’s take the JQ: one forum I recall said don’t start commenting unless you’ve read Henry Ford’s early 1920s The International Jew (which I haven’t) or the more academic and recent but still very approachable Kevin MacDonald 1988 https://www.unz.com/book/kevin_macdonald__the-culture-of-critique/ (available there along with the two preceding in the trilogy because the last two have been banned by Amazon).
If you’re going to think about Jews constructively (for you own purposes) you do need a grounding. And, heh, a quarter century of dealing with them, “life experience,” helped reify and confirm what MacDonald was saying.
And you certainly don’t have to feel like the guy on the right of the bell curve, assuming of course you really are of IQ … I don’t know, 95 or greater? 55 is below officially retarded, is below what I remember of the lowest averages for sub-Saharan Africa.
That said, from what I’ve experienced all my life, and have read about more recently, an IQ gap of > 20 is hard to bridge. The smarter person has to put real work into learning how to communicate, and he’s not likely to be able to bond with you. Again, I’ll explicitly recommend face to face teaching experience, or now just working hard at teaching over the net.
And of course, pretty sure it’s implicit in what we’ve been discussing, there’s griefers out there who are in this to flaunt their all of the above and not be constructive or worse; thankfully the Fediverse has a Mute feature (Blocking generally goes too far in removing discussions which just mention that handle). Also a lot of idiots, no matter how technically smart or accomplished they are (see all the MD/DOs who forgot their high school biology of DNA->mRNA->proteins). Plus a lot of bad actors deliberately trying to mess up the other side.
For it to be really good it’s a learned ability, and the more you practice it the better you’ll be at it. Plus below certain IQs people can’t make these associations or see image, per that green text below IQ 90 people can’t grok conditional hypotheticals, and African-Americans have a mean IQ of 85, and along with white women have a narrower than white males SD, 12 vs. 15, meaning there are fewer outliers on the bell curve. That is, many fewer smart and really smart people.
Which brings up what follows pattern recognition. What do you do with your realizations??
Also look at current “AL” systems that are based on pattern recognition as I understand it, they freely hallucinate, just make shit up like citations. The more you know through whatever means, the more you’ll see people engage in such nonsense, including pushing pattern recognition beyond what it can do.
The JQ is again a useful example. You can’t just ignore or worse go in the opposite direction of everything a Jew says because they don’t always lie.
In my experience the more STEM they are, the less likely so (in part because that doesn’t work at all for technology and engineering, and tends to have bad consequences for science and math professionals), although it’ll depend on a lot of factors including obviously the domain being discussed.
If you follow the more sophisticated principle that everything they say goes through the filter of “Is it good for the Jews?” that’s still not very predictive, for there’s many answers to that question. See “renegades” like Ron Unz or as of late even Alan Dershowitz (!).
TL;DR: pattern recognition is a if not the foundation of human thinking and sensing, but it’s just a start.
Also remember that historians, a group that continue to employ a fatally flawed dating system, and warp all other data around it, get lumped in right alongside all those professions you just listed. As do biologists, who appear to be under extreme pressure to lie on a daily basis.
I have a very strong biology background, from real work in a microbiology lab to courses at MIT before I realized chemistry was my calling, and I have no fucking idea what you could possibly be referring to with “biologists, who appear to be under extreme pressure to lie on a daily basis.”
You’d also do well to explain or point at details of your attempt to say we can learn nothing? or only so much from history. BTW, you do know carbon dating it a thing??
@smugumin@Rudolf_von_Goldenbaum@Will2Power@dickflatteningenthusiast Hard to find a better exemplar of “there’s griefers out there [and/or] Also a lot of idiots [and/or] Plus a lot of bad actors deliberately trying to mess up the other side.” than Zerglingman@freespeechextremist.com
In response to my first posting he flung thought terminating cliches or just plain shit at least four different ways, all designed to discourage you from productively thinking. When called on it, he completely ignores that except to bizarrely Favorite both replies, which is basically thumbing his nose by acknowledging he read them.
(I didn’t write the above until now when I see he’s again active on the Fediverse, you do need to make sure a lack of an immediate response is not due to someone’s sleep etc. cycle.)
This is exactly the sort of account you should axiomatically mute for you own well being.