you know, if cumskins say so, IT MUST BE TRUE!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5441053&forum_id=2...id.#50035799)

the minimum IQ to engage with my work is probably around 105-110 - it uses a bunch of fairly technical terms and is often pretty abstract - but the primary intended reader for my work is someone crushed by psychosomatic pressure due to lived experience conflicting with an inherited redemptive god image (it can still be read intellectually by others, but that's not the intended primary audience)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5441053&forum_id=2...id.#50058431)

If the topics discussed also feel emotionally threatening, their response and the best remedies involve specific psychological and communication strategies.

Here is how these dynamics typically unfold.

1. Interaction on a High-IQ Law Chat Board

The primary barrier in this scenario is not a lack of interest, but a gap in information processing speed and abstract comprehension.

Linguistic Disconnect: Law boards rely heavily on dense jargon, Latin phrasing, and complex sentence structures. An individual in the 80s IQ range will likely struggle to decode this text, leading to misinterpretations of the law or the intent of other users.

Literal vs. Nuanced Thinking: High-IQ users often debate legal gray areas, hypothetical scenarios, and philosophy. The individual with an IQ in the 80s tends to think concretely. They may interpret a purely theoretical debate as a literal, absolute fact or a direct threat.

Communication Styles: They may post shorter, simpler responses. If they feel outmatched, they might pass tailively lurk (read without posting) or mimic the complex language of others, which can sometimes result in fragmented or disjointed arguments.

2. Reactions to Emotional Threats

If the board's topics feel personally threatening, a lower-average IQ individual may experience a heightened stress response because they feel ill-equipped to cognitively resolve the threat.

Frustration and Withdrawal: When overwhelmed by dense arguments they cannot easily counter, they may shut down, log off, or completely abandon the platform out of a sense of inadequacy.

Defensive Aggression: To protect their self-esteem, they might lash out. This can manifest as ad hominem attacks, repetitive emotional arguments, or accusations that the other users are "arrogant" or "elitist.

"Hyper-Fixation and Anxiety: Because concrete thinkers struggle to compartmentalize abstract risks, they may hyper-fixate on a worst-case legal scenario discussed on the board, mistakenly believing it is highly likely to happen to them.

Susceptibility to Misinformation: If a high-IQ user confidently posts a flawed or alarmist legal theory, the individual may accept it as absolute truth, escalating their internal panic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5441053&forum_id=2...id.#50058559)