Queen Michael said:
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is not about a country where everybody is constantly being watched. It's about a country where everybody might be watched at any given moment but can't tell if they are or not.
Well, it's often enough to consider it constant. Winston thought he was capable of avoiding th monitoring. He was wrong, after all. They don't need to be staring at each citizen 24/7 to qualify as "constant", they could grab a snack in the mean time and even just review recordings or even go by and look at a diary, if they wish. As long as it's consistent, and it most definitely is, it can be called "constant".
Vault101 said:
Queen Michael said:
it's an undeniable truth that if you have an I.Q. of twelve, that will be noticable outside of I.Q. test settings. Very noticable.
is that even possible?
Yes, although IQ below 80 signifies some mental problems. 12 would be
severe problems.
Doctor Merkwurdiglie said:
Contrary to popular belief, knowing a lot doesn't make you any more intelligent than anyone else.
[small]but that's just my opinion[/small]
Like the " oh my god I was just thinking about you " when you pick up the phone and it's the guy you were just thinking about "

.
O.T Being unique doesn't make you special.
Yes, "knowledgeable" is distinct from "intelligent", although in more informal speech "intelligent" is a synonym for "smart" or indeed "knowledgeable".
OT: "Unlikely" or even "impossible" events happen and people make a big fuss about them. They aren't special, though. Yes, a person winning the lottery is exceptional - it's about 1 in 14 million (in a 6/49 setup). And yet there have been so many other people who have participated in the lottery up to that point, that it would be stranger if
nobody won. The same thing goes for every "unlikely" event - all the "likely"s get discarded to promote the fact that "this is phenomenal!".