Matters of Intelligence

By 31st May 2017KEY ARTICLES
Matters of Intelligence

Matters of Intelligence (x±)

Published on 31st May 2017

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM

Enter more text here

“My personality is designed by me – my attitude is defined by you.” – JSRDS

This is an article about Intelligence and IQ, and the types of problems that smart people face. It also explains why virtually all of the third party conclusions about me are incorrect.

For parties without experience of my unique line of work, and also those of inferior intellect, it is truly laughable that they are able to convince themselves that their ‘opinion’ and ‘interpretation of my complex matters’ (which they do not understand) somehow carries more weight than that which I am stating from own direct experience.

It would be similar to an ‘O’-level Mathematics student trying to correct a Professor of Mathematics because they ‘think’ they know better 🙂

The facts confirm that 99.99% of parties have a lower IQ which is merely the starting point, in the absurdity of their ‘analysis’ !!

Now I am not saying that a dim party cannot make a factual statement, I am saying that a party who is unable to properly process complex information to the level that I can will not make a statement that is ‘more valid’ than mine because of an inability to correctly review the entirety of the information.

This is the ‘clever’ poly by the Melbourne Fraudsters, in which they get ‘experts’ to review unlawfully obtained materials, but their logic (and intellect) is deficient 🙂

Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.


(1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.


(2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.

This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument.


There are two main definitions of Intelligence:-

(a) the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.“an eminent man of great intelligence”

(b) the collection of information of military or political value.“the chief of military intelligence”

Given the copious articles I have published about (b) I will now write something about (a).

Typical IQ Distribution

For example in this diagram, around 99.9% of people have an IQ of lower that 145 on Wechsler:-

IQ Percentile and Rarity Chart

“These are IQs, their percentiles, and rarity on a 15 SD (e.g. Wechsler) and 16 SD (e.g. Stanford-Binet) scale. They were calculated using the NORMDIST function in Excel. The number of decimal places for the rarity was varied in the hope it might be useful.

You can see why presently nobody should be able to get a deviation IQ higher than 195 (or 201 on the 16 SD scale). There are not enough people in the world to ‘beat’. Note that rarities given are of people that have a certain IQ or higher. Some people might find it more useful to know the rarity of people that have a certain IQ or lower.

In that case use this example as a guide: If you want to know how many people have IQs of 84 or lower, look at the rarity of people that have an IQ of 116 or higher. (100 – 84 = 16. 100 + 16 = 116).”

IQ Percentile and Rarity Chart

The most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations....

Genius Joe’s IQ

An incredible 176 is the highest IQ that has ever been recorded for me, and that was in 2009 when I was ordered to come to The Bahamas for ‘unusual’ training. I was really at my A+++ game at that point.

At IQ 176, it means that 99.9999797237% are of lower IQ, and a person at this IQ level is One in 4,931,877.

When I was tested again in 2012, my IQ had dropped to IQ 160, meaning that 99.9968313965% are of lower IQ. At this IQ level a person is One in 31,560. I was quite disappointed by the drop of course, though IQ 160 is the level of Albert Einstein and Bill Gates.

IQ and Success

It is a well-known fact that Bill Gates (IQ 160) dropped out of Harvard University and I dropped out of University College London Medical School. I heard that Richard Branson (IQ 92 ?) dropped out of Nursery School 🙂

Branson is a very popular and successful individual and I particularly admire Virgin Airlines above all the other ‘things’ that he does. When I was in The Bahamas an associate of mine Lady Jacqueline Laker (widow of Freddie Laker), whose house I was looking to buy in Freeport, showed me her husband’s volumes of airline material and his fight with British Airways (“BA”).

It was shocking how Midland Bank London pulled the plug on Sir Freddie and how BA had been grooming Branson. HSBC (Midland Bank) did the same to me in 2000 so no surprise there 🙂

Richard Branson Says Goodbye to Virgin America

I have, however, noticed that low IQ people tend to have businesses that have large workforces and they are ‘team-players’ and ‘cosy’.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

Named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, it occurs when people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else.

This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimation of themselves.

In the above article I also talk about the phenomenon of GroupThink

“Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.”

Satoshi Kanazawa

“An AmericanBritish evolutionary psychologist, currently Reader in Management at the London School of Economics. His work uses evolutionary psychology to analyse social sciences such as sociology, economics, and anthropology.[2] Kanazawa has been very controversial. He attributes this to “political correctness” and “censorship“,[3] while his critics claim that what he does is “bad science”[4] and “racist”.[5]”

Unfortunately some of Satoshi’s theories are not quite there, and sadly those controversial statements affect the [perception] of the validity of his brilliant ones.

However ‘The Intelligence Paradox’ is an excellent book as confirmed by my colleagues, though I have not read/heard it.


For a change I am writing about non-financial matters relating to the word ‘Trust’ 🙂

Interestingly enough, it is in fact lower IQ people who tend to be more suspicious, and those who are high IQ have a tendency to overly trust others because:-

(a) they do not need to operate at a low classless level manner to get ahead – they are already ahead;

(b) they can be themselves rather than use facades to ‘be popular’ because relationships with parties of lesser intellect are not really required – the right parties will come along;

(c) they know that their brain’s processing power can get them out of any mess if the trust leads to them being deceived.

An excellent example of an extremely intelligent person Dr Daljit Gill PhD MBA entering into an fraudulent transaction with at least one of the Melbourne Fraudsters:-

In this example Daljit was defrauded by Margaret Cunniffe and Synergize Consulting Pty Ltd primarily because of Cunniffe’s deception primarily though secondarily because of the issues above.

And in another sense it is about ‘how can these fools be so stupid to think that they can get away with it’.

In fact I get ripped off by lawyers all the time, who think they are clever, but are really not in the same league of intellect as I.


Movies with a complex plot, or even those that have a deep and meaningful storyline are often shunned as ‘boring’ or ‘confusing’ by the many viewers.

A classic example is Inception (2010):-

When I saw Inception I absolutely enjoyed it whereas other parties in the cinema were wanting refunds!! If not for solid visuals even more people would have been complaining.

My Affidavits in Judicial Proceedings

The material that I produce is correct from a legal perspective but when my lawyers are of limited ability they dismiss that which I am saying because they do not like the presentation.

Due to serious health problems I was unable to handhold them, and this exposed serious deficiencies in their duty of care which they then misrepresented to others as a weak case or not receiving instructions. Providing instructions is easy but when they have simply not actioned them or been dense generally, that is certainly not my failing.

The sharper I have become, the greater the deficit, and the greater their inability to keep up, and the greater my frustration and the greater the difference between my expectations and their deliverables.

World Distribution

This diagram relates primarily to Indigenous Peoples.

This diagram reflects the position well:-

Average IQs

Hong Kong SAR and Singapore are ranked as joint No 1, whilst United Kingdom is at 15, Australia is at 24, and for Sri Lanka I lost count.

Now given that these are average IQs, it means that there will be some well above the average, so it does not mean that everyone is that level.

Cultural Factors

Cultural factors then play a major part – in Sri Lanka some people are brilliant and could easily be worldclass if they applied themselves properly. Competition for university is very tight and so students need to study hard and often have private tuition.

Unfortunately it is easy for people to take the low road in Asian countries because parties can succeed with little effort and lack of self-discipline leads to corruption.

Singapore is an excellent example of a higher IQ country that has significant corruption, and the GroupThink drives decision-making.

In 2014 I saw evidence from colleagues in Hong Kong SAR in which Singapore’s Temasek Holdings is blatantly laundering money – I will disclose the same to Interpol once I can fly as it is multi-jurisdictional in nature.

At some point I will write an article about Collectivism v Individualism – my culture is firmly Individualism as this has been derived by working with high-flying Americans since the early 1990s. That is also where my tough no-nonsense approach comes 🙂

Collectivism vs Individualism

Asian societies tend to be “collectivistic” in nature, as are many other ethnically diverse communities such as Australians. This means that the members of a group would behave in ways that are more conducive to the community, rather than thinking about the individual first. This is in contrast to Western societies, where “individualism” is valued.

An example would be Americans are taught to be number one and competition is often fierce between individuals. In societies that are collectivistic, individuals may sacrifice their personal needs on behalf of the greater good. An example would be all members of a household working at a family owned business on top of their own responsibilities.

If parties in Australia and Singapore have turned on me for some [flawed] reason, despite continual tortious interference and injurious falsehoods which they have become a part of, that is fine and their prerogative, as is mine to respond in no uncertain terms.

Where they have gone wrong is that they are justifying their original classless/negligent/fraudulent actions by actively running further frauds and these are easily identifiable by listening to audio recordings!

So my response will be punitive and it is a shame (for them) that they have bought into the Melbourne Fraudsters and their fraudulently-obtained judgment 🙂

Average IQs

Hong Kong SAR and Singapore are ranked as joint No 1, whilst United Kingdom is at 15, Australia is at 24, and for Sri Lanka I lost count.


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM