IQ
iQIYI, Inc.
stock NASDAQ ADR

True poetry. Written by a man who loves 69, and also has an IQ of 69. 🫵👑

> So basically you are saying 1000iq guy who also a company ceo, does not know what he is talking about
Elon promised robotaxi every year for the last decade, _THIS YEAR FOR SURE!_ Also if you'd followed his advice, you'd stack up your Tesla cars inventory, because Tesla cars (according to Elon), unlike any other cars are APPRECIATING ASSET, they always going up in price! It's sure bet, there's no way you can lose!
Side note: unironic usage of "1000+ IQ" scores to describe someone's _MIGHTY INTELLECT_ is IQ test on itself.

Prompt - Create a billion dollar todo notetaking app. Plz make no mistakes.
Shit like this blows the mind of room temperature IQ people, and here we are - trillions of dollars spent and yet we are not sure where the ROI is. Latest fad “AgEnTs” is not panning out as well.
Fair and efficient market btw.
https://preview.redd.it/2gg3r7lnkcbf1.jpeg?width=624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a101f2860ac29e3ad8e8be0a430937291c0aa392

\>>> Based on linguistic complexity, decision-making patterns, and sensitivity to tone, I estimate most participants cluster in the 105–115 IQ range.
Sir this is a Wendy's.
\>>> Obsessed with “value,” “fundamentals,” and long-termism as virtue signaling
I take that back. Sir, this is a casino.
\>>> Mild hero worship (Buffett, Burry)
I'm a Richard Dennis fan myself.
1. This is the "Voo or VTI?" board, hadn't you heard?
2. Trolling is fun.
3. I outright say that I engage in algorithmic trading whenever the topic of dividends vs growth comes up. Also I hate when people say growth. Capital appreciation is a better term for what they probably mean.
4. I'm a smartass, I can't help myself. Stonks only go up. Also, google shit you troglodytes. We don't need the same question 25 times a day.

There is a lot of evidence that people who participate in and are ( successful ) in the market are indeed of higher IQ. Should not be a shock to anyone.
However even more relevant was the ability to control one's emotions, and having a high degree of self discipline, was a greater predictor of success in the market than IQ level.

Very low IQ level.

Wish 🥭 would declare his presidency a major disaster so FEMA can start rebuilding the nations IQ.

The problem is his vote bank doesn’t care. He can do TACO hundred times and call it a mastermind strategy and his vote bank of negligible IQ will believe it!

Intellectual honesty isn’t punished in WSB. Sometimes emotional honesty is, but more often not. Clearly, I am looking forward to your analysis of that sub. (If it’s helpful to you, I estimate the IQ range in WSB between tomato and von Neumann.)

Disclaimer: I am a former pm at Capital Group and had strategic discretion over \~$500m in multi-asset mandates. Prior to that, I worked in multi-asset investing at JPMAM as an analyst on the LDI team focused on pensions. I have been managing my own money for the past 15 years.
For the past 4 months, I’ve been systematically probing Reddit’s investor communities and testing how narrative, tone, and timing shape the crowd’s perception of risk and credibility.
My first chapter focuses on “narrative-driven stocks” like RDDT, HOOD, and PLTR. These are stocks that are on the border of meme, with just enough fundamentals to make them credible growth plays. Each one has a supposedly pre-consensus “narrative” that the market has not recognized (apparently).
I want to explore whether each subred showed distinct behavorial signals. The first experiment was on subred /stocks. Maybe obvious, but each community is very different so don’t expect my findings to generalize to other investing subreds.
These experiments were conducted by injecting posts & comments into the subred at critical inflection points in the news/market cycle (FOMO, tariffs, earnings) and watching the reactions. Metrics I observed: upvote/downvote velocity & ratio, virality velocity, comment depth, shares.
The reactions like comments provided grounds for further testing - which often included an ongoing dialogue with the participants. Many of these injections went viral (>100 upvotes, >50 comments).
Here's what I can share about the audience and behavioral dynamics for /stocks.
**Audience:**
***Demographic***
* Based on linguistic complexity, decision-making patterns, and sensitivity to tone, I estimate most participants cluster in the 105–115 IQ range. Verbally fluent, socially risk-averse, and often conflict-avoidant under pressure. Many still fall into ego traps when I injected them into conversation. This is likely a liberal estimate un-adjusted for the intellectual nature of the content.
* Heavily male, 25-45 years old
* Professionals with disposable income but risk-averse and socially conformist
***Investment behavior***
* Obsessed with “value,” “fundamentals,” and long-termism as virtue signaling
* Deep aversion to volatility unless mainstream media has already blessed it
* Favored tickers: MSFT, AAPL, NVDA (i.e., stocks that CNBC analysts love)
***Idiosyncrasies***
* Mild hero worship (Buffett, Burry)
* Skeptical of influencers but paradoxically trust anything that “sounds like CNBC”
**Behavioral dynamics from march-present:**
***1. Polished contrarianism underperforms***
High-effort posts with sharp, original analysis often get buried unless they mimic corporate tone. Intellectual honesty is punished unless diluted.
***2. Deliberate dissonance triggers oversight***
Posts with light trolling or Socratic framing (“why is no one talking about xyz?”) generated more comment engagement than full thesis posts.
***3. Disclosure aversion is cultural***
Stating “long” or “short” triggered skepticism or auto-moderation. Ironically, emotional neutrality in tone got more traction than transparency.
***4. Censorship isn't just moderation - it's peer-enforced***
Downvotes are used as social punishment, not disagreement. Posts that made users feel cognitively vulnerable were brigaded regardless of quality.
*Tangent: only one of the four dynamics listed above is real. Curious if anyone can guess which - or why I framed them this way ;)*
Next steps?
A/B testing across subreds. Injecting contradindicative posts to tease out contrarians to engage them in sub-experiments in comments. Ego traps work well for IQ<120 but what about for a subred like /securityanalysis? Still exploring this area, but prob have to implement some meta-cognitive traps here.
I'll be exploring this community in the following months so if you can, please share any insights about vulnerabilities, insecurities, and idiosyncrasies of your peers. thank you.

OP stated IQ of 105-115, not 115-125, lol!
Where did you see 115-125?

I have been corrected by an ape here in the daily beforethe one with the 3digit IQ!
It’s OURANUS
Let’s go homie
Bullish AF

This sounds like you're going off the deep end. You've posted this same thing in like 6 different subs. Everything good at home? If you're taking drugs, ease off a little. You're getting out there with these hot takes of yours.
Oh, and IQ got debunked a long time ago as basically being made up.

Bear IQ - **Est. EQ**: Around **0.5–0.9**, similar to dogs or raccoons.

Bull IQ - **Est. EQ**: Around **0.5**, lower than that of bears.

Well, well, aren't you antagonistic. I am not saying that I agree with OP; I was clarifying the part you missed. That said, one could probably find overlap between people with mildly more than average IQ and people who have enough money to invest. 

How many IQ points do I lose if I don’t punctuate correctly!

My IQ results say 102.5 so not dumb not génius, totally average guy

Reddit is a behavioral goldmine. Most of you are too rational to see it.
Disclaimer: I am a former pm at Capital Group and had strategic discretion over \~$500m in multi-asset mandates. Prior to that, I worked in multi-asset investing at JPMAM as an analyst on the LDI team focused on pensions. I have been managing my own money for the past 15 years.
For the past 4 months, I’ve been systematically probing Reddit’s investor communities and testing how narrative, tone, and timing shape the crowd’s perception of risk and credibility.
My first chapter focuses on “narrative-driven stocks” like RDDT, HOOD, and PLTR. These are stocks that are on the border of meme, with just enough fundamentals to make them credible growth plays. Each one has a supposedly pre-consensus “narrative” that the market has not recognized (apparently).
I want to explore whether each subred showed distinct behavorial signals. The first experiment was on subred /stocks. Maybe obvious, but each community is very different so don’t expect my findings to generalize to other investing subreds.
These experiments were conducted by injecting posts & comments into the subred at critical inflection points in the news/market cycle (FOMO, tariffs, earnings) and watching the reactions. Metrics I observed: upvote/downvote velocity & ratio, virality velocity, comment depth, shares.
The reactions like comments provided grounds for further testing - which often included an ongoing dialogue with the participants. Many of these injections went viral (>100 upvotes, >50 comments).
Here's what I can share about the audience and behavioral dynamics for /stocks.
**Audience:**
***Demographic***
* Based on linguistic complexity, decision-making patterns, and sensitivity to tone, I estimate most participants cluster in the 115–125 IQ range. Verbally fluent, socially risk-averse, and often conflict-avoidant under pressure. Many still fall into ego traps when I injected them into conversation. This is likely a liberal estimate un-adjusted for the intellectual nature of the content.
* Heavily male, 25-45 years old
* Professionals with disposable income but risk-averse and socially conformist
***Investment behavior***
* Obsessed with “value,” “fundamentals,” and long-termism as virtue signaling
* Deep aversion to volatility unless mainstream media has already blessed it
* Favored tickers: MSFT, AAPL, NVDA (i.e., stocks that CNBC analysts love)
***Idiosyncrasies***
* Mild hero worship (Buffett, Burry)
* Skeptical of influencers but paradoxically trust anything that “sounds like CNBC”
**Behavioral dynamics from march-present:**
***1. Polish contrarianism underperforms***
High-effort posts with sharp, original analysis often get buried unless they mimic corporate tone. Intellectual honesty is punished unless diluted.
***2. Deliberate dissonance triggers oversight***
Posts with light trolling or Socratic framing (“why is no one talking about xyz?”) generated more comment engagement than full thesis posts.
***3. Disclosure aversion is cultural***
Stating “long” or “short” triggered skepticism or auto-moderation. Ironically, emotional neutrality in tone got more traction than transparency.
***4. Censorship isn't just moderation - it's peer-enforced***
Downvotes are used as social punishment, not disagreement. Posts that made users feel cognitively vulnerable were brigaded regardless of quality.
Anyone tracking how tone affects post engagement in early stock narratives (like RDDT or HOOD) across subreds, before media coverage hits?

Tuned into a few of their spaces and definitely lost IQ points

Am I the only one who hasn't ever heard a subreddit shortened to "subred?"
Odd with the length of post, assuming OP has and IQ of 115-120