Commentary: The IQ delta

Big copypasta from Vox:

It has been observed that the exceptionally intelligent think differently than those with conventional minds, even those which most people would consider to be highly intelligent. The difference is qualitative, not merely quantitative, in nature, and is akin to the difference between the genuinely mathematical mind and the non-mathematical mind. It is, to use one acquaintance’s example, the difference between the minds that can ascend the mountain by the winding path or by climbing straight up, and the mind that takes a helicopter ride directly to the peak.

Vox Day
The IQ delta

I’ve previously described three categories of superlative cognition as self-reported in a different Vox Popoli comment thread.

I have been asked on more than a few occasions to explain what the qualitative differences are and to provide some perspective on how the different thought processes work. Now, obviously I am somewhat handicapped in explaining this because I have never not thought the way that I do now, but I do have the advantage of observing considerably more conventional thinkers than any conventional thinker, no matter how intelligent, has been able to observe non-conventional thinkers. However, upon beginning to read Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man, I believe I may finally able to articulate a few of these differences.

There are a few observations I have made over the years that are of limited utility in differentiating between what I think of as “very smart” vs “brilliant”. The terms themselves are meaningless and entirely subjective here, to put it in terms the quantitatively minded can accept, let’s call them VHIQ vs UHIQ for the time being, with the understanding that what applies to the VHIQ also applies to midwits and average minds, whereas what applies to UHIQ does not.

As Koanic pointed out in the thread, this is a bad choice of labeling because we are definitively talking about something that is not IQ. It would be significantly less misleading to call UHIQ “psychoticism”.

[snip]

  • VHIQ inclines towards binary either/or thinking and taking sides. UHIQ inclines towards probabilistic thinking and balancing between contradictory possibilities.
  • VHIQ seeks understanding towards application or justification, UHIQ seeks understanding towards holistic understanding.
  • VHIQ refines the original thought of others, UHIQ synthesizes multiple original thoughts.
  • VHIQ rationalizes logical conclusions, UHIQ accepts logical conclusions. This is ironic because VHIQ considers itself to be highly logical, UHIQ considers itself to be investigative.
  • VHIQ recognizes the truths in the works of the great thinkers of the past and applies them. UHIQ recognizes the flaws in the thinking of the great thinkers of the past and explores them.
  • VHIQ usually spots logical flaws in an argument. UHIQ usually senses them.
  • VHIQ enjoys pedantry. UHIQ hates it. Both are capable of utilizing it at will.
  • VHIQ is uncomfortable with chaos and seeks to impose order on it, even if none exists. UHIQ is comfortable with chaos and seeks to recognize patterns in it.
  • VHIQ is spergey and egocentric. UHIQ is holistic and solipsistic.
  • VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force.
  • VHIQ attempts to rationalize its errors. UHIQ sees no point in hesitating to admit them.
  • VHIQ seeks to prove the correctness of its case. UHIQ doesn’t believe in the legitimacy of the jury.
  • VHIQ believes in the unique power of SCIENCE. UHIQ sees science as a conceptual framework of limited utility.
  • VHIQ seeks to rank and order things. UHIQ seeks to recognize and articulate concepts.
  • VHIQ is competitive. UHIQ doesn’t keep score.
  • VHIQ asks “how can this be used?” UHIQ asks “what does this mean?”

This obviously doesn’t explain how a UHIQ thinker thinks per se, but it might provide some perspective concerning the qualitative differences between conventional high IQ thinkers and unconventional high IQ thinkers previously observed by others. For example, when I read something, even something about which I am inherently dubious, I do so in what is essentially an intellectual clean room. I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying.

However, upon encountering an obvious falsehood, non sequitur, bait-and-switch, or erroneous leap of logic, the clean room is muddied. The more mud that accumulates, and the more rapidly it is accumulated, the more certain that I am of the text containing errors. I don’t know exactly what they are yet, because I’m not reading critically, and I don’t retain more than a general sense of where on the page the mud is, but I know where to go and look for it, and perhaps more importantly, I know with almost 100 percent certainty that I will find something there. Every now and then I pick up a false reading, but that doesn’t happen more than 2-3 times per year.

Ibid.

There’s a bit more that I didn’t include but it’s not significant to the concept.

I believe this qualitatively different style of thinking is an emergent effect of having a very high associative horizon. Such a personality is capable of making greater conceptual leaps via analogical inference because the domain of possible analogies is much larger.

As for the “clean room” effect, I suspect this is what I’ve described as abstract intuition. It appears to require synesthesia as applied to patterns, or something very much like it.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Commentary: The IQ delta

  1. Aeoli Pera says:

    You aren’t thinking ambitiously enough. Our Great Leader is busily inventing ways to avoid ever leaving his chair again :-P.

  2. mobiuswolf says:

    Fascinating stuff, and I don’t have time to read it all right now. I don’t suppose you’ve got an index of links on the subject?

    Is that supposed to be very high and ultra high? Looks more like orthodox and unorthodox.
    I’m wondering if the untrained intellect develops the intuitive method and the trained comes to it through the rules.
    I’m only 138 to 145, tested at various times as a teen, totally untrained having skated through midwit schools with zero application, beyond the rare interesting class, but I definitely adhere to your U column in every instance. Though I have rationalized an error or two. Generally not, as that obstructs progress.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Fascinating stuff, and I don’t have time to read it all right now. I don’t suppose you’ve got an index of links on the subject?

      Not yet, but I should start building one.

      >Is that supposed to be very high and ultra high? Looks more like orthodox and unorthodox.

      That would make a lot more sense. “Unconventional” would also work.

      >I’m wondering if the untrained intellect develops the intuitive method and the trained comes to it through the rules.

      I think we can make analogy here to top-down vs. bottom-up design in computer science.

      >I’m only 138 to 145, tested at various times as a teen, totally untrained having skated through midwit schools with zero application, beyond the rare interesting class, but I definitely adhere to your U column in every instance. Though I have rationalized an error or two. Generally not, as that obstructs progress.

      I moved from mostly matching traits in the V column to mostly U column when I became a genius about 4 years ago. What Vox is misunderstanding is that different modes of IQ become prominent in the 130 range and this distinction is just more obvious to him in the VHIQ range.

      • Heaviside says:

        >when I became a genius about 4 years ago

        Taken out of context this is lol.

        • mobiuswolf says:

          more like wtf? I’ll just go back the the beginning.
          I don’t suppose you have a link for that?
          “I moved ”
          That’s wild. Can you shift at will?
          I couldn’t hack the other side. Too lazy.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            >I don’t suppose you have a link for that?

            Search for “genius addiction” in the sidebar and read the first four hits, that’s the best I can think of offhand.

            >Can you shift at will?

            Nope, it rewrites you at the hardware level like a drug addiction. I’ve put some thought into trying to reverse the process but the new style is finally beginning to be useful and practical.

            • mobiuswolf says:

              That will do, thanks.

            • mobiuswolf says:

              ” it rewrites you at the hardware level”
              I would think so. Surprised you would want to go back. acclimatization period?

              The big problem is no one believes you unless you either laboriously restate it structurally or just go ahead and build it yourself.
              Fuck ’em. I’ll go out in a blaze of excellent mediocrity, far far from the madding crowd.
              Easy for me, I’ve got grand kids to play with.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >” it rewrites you at the hardware level”
              I would think so. Surprised you would want to go back. acclimatization period?

              Maybe. I want to go back because it’s adaptive to be stupid, although my feeling on this is changing as the new personality becomes adaptive.

              >The big problem is no one believes you unless you either laboriously restate it structurally or just go ahead and build it yourself.

              This is an adaptation to filter out cranks and conmen. Parasitism, dishonesty, and actual craziness do a lot of damage.

              >Fuck ’em. I’ll go out in a blaze of excellent mediocrity, far far from the madding crowd.
              Easy for me, I’ve got grand kids to play with.

              Godspeed.

            • mobiuswolf says:

              “This is an adaptation to filter out cranks and conmen. Parasitism, dishonesty, and actual craziness do a lot of damage.”
              I’ll buy that, but it’s tiresome.

            • Rime says:

              >Maybe. I want to go back because it’s adaptive to be stupid, although my feeling on this is changing as the new personality becomes adaptive.

              You are making it adaptive. And God bless you, you are giving us something to model.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Most everything I say on the internet is like that.

      • mobiuswolf says:

        “top-down vs. bottom-up design”
        That’s good.

  3. Edenist Whackjob says:

    There’s also something to be said for being a bit street smart.

    Like taking your high IQ, learning Javascript, moving out of your uncle’s loft, and getting after it :)

    When you finally hatch a System 3 representation bridging theory and pragmatism, Aeoli, you’ll be unstoppable :)

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >There’s also something to be said for being a bit street smart.

      Obviously.

      >Like taking your high IQ, learning Javascript, moving out of your uncle’s loft, and getting after it :)

      How dare you? Sir, I am a proper NEET living in my mom’s spare room.

      >When you finally hatch a System 3 representation bridging theory and pragmatism, Aeoli, you’ll be unstoppable :)

      I’m already quite surprised at how easy most things come to me nowadays. It’s approaching melon magic levels of practical application.

      • Edenist Whackjob says:

        “I’m already quite surprised at how easy most things come to me nowadays.”

        Care to elaborate? Have you cracked some new koanic mode of thinking? Or is your brain just maturing into adulthood?

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >Care to elaborate? Have you cracked some new koanic mode of thinking? Or is your brain just maturing into adulthood?

          A bit of both, I think. My brain is finally finished growing, as evidenced by a sudden mental laziness that wasn’t present last year. (This matches an earlier prediction I’d made, that my frontal lobe would finish growing later than average at the age of 28.) I’ve also created a lot of mental models that do most of my thinking for me now. It’s pretty rare that I actually have to put any thought into anything these days, now that I’ve basically grokked human psychology. Every decision becomes a matter of economic choice at that point. So despite the energy loss, I still have mental energy left over for this kind of stuff.

  4. Pseudorandom Bypasser says:

    VHIQ sounds like Te or more like INTJ (NiTe) and UHIQ like Ti or more like INTP (TiNe), but even more like VHIQ = M-back and UHIQ = T-back (either phrenologically or by psychological similarity/inclination to either’s processing style). That would also explain why you as a TT are more UHIQ than VHIQ despite being an INTJ.

    Some more descriptors (VHIQ vs. UHIQ):

    -playing the game vs. merely watching and analyzing it
    -personal attachment/investment vs. impersonal detachment
    -seeing the world vs. seeing the “code” behind it
    -stage vs. behind the curtain
    -judging vs. perceiving

    There’s more but I can’t completely put it into words. Maybe you can pick some edible pieces of this vomit.

    And agree on VHIQ vs. UHIQ being about something else than IQ. I know a low midwit INTP sperg who’s strongly UHIQ [over VHIQ and overall].

  5. How would this match with class theory?

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I think alchemists and owl melons (who don’t have a distinct function yet in my mind) tend to be UHIQ, otherwise it’s not really related..

      • Yeah I’d agree from my experiences of such things. From my experience UHIQ can exist in all social classes, not necessarily freaky deaky out of sight uppers nor Sigmas. Many can find themselves as Neurotics doing technical subjects outside the realms of understanding of mere mortals. Sometimes they make loadsa munny doing something that makes loadsa munny. There are lots of weirdos out there Aeoli somehow integrating into normie society with their crazy high IQs. That’s really fascinating to me.

  6. purpletigerbot says:

    > For example, when I read something, even something about which I am inherently dubious, I do so in what is essentially an intellectual clean room. I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying.

    Based on my personal experience/tutoring the ‘clean room’ is basically the only way to score 95th+ percentile on the reading comprehension part of any graduate level standardized test.

    • Koanic says:

      Nah, I go antagonistic and basically maxed it.

      • purpletigerbot says:

        Awww you would hate me as your tutor … but I assume you wouldn’t need a tutor in the first place.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Sounds like it comes down to intelligence * engagement level.

          • purpletigerbot says:

            Agree. Engagement with the passage is key. A lot of people get caught up in their own mental baggage/personal knowledge bank/feelings when reading through a passage instead of just engaging with the actual damn passage. So when they go and answer questions their whole model of the passage is mixed personal thought/feelings with what the author actually said. So when a noob goes to answer ‘What statement would the author most likely agree with?’, it basically becomes ‘What statement would I most likely agree with after reading the passage?’.

  7. Clean room is a good analogy I think. That’s sort of what I do. There’s a clean room bit, a harmony bit and a slow grock bit, the latter is like the default reboot safe mode.

  8. Son of Distant Trebizond says:

    Interesting read, though the gestalt of brilliance is entirely missed. The format of a list of specific points of difference is probably an attempt to avoid such a description, which the author rightly percieves as fraught with potential for miscommunication, as well as damn difficult to pull off. The issue with the approach adopted is that the list tends towards being over-specific to the mind of Vox Day; some of it fails to be generally accurate. Anyone wishing to spot the rare genius in the wild will be left quite bamboozled if this is the page of the field guide they choose to consult. For a decent general impression of the ‘feel’ of extreme intelligence to genius, peruse this:
    https://cjshayward.com/mindstorm/

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I agree with most of this. However, FWIW I don’t believe Vox is describing genius per se, but only the intellectual side of genius which is addicted to insight.

      • Son of Distant Trebizond says:

        Seems that way. All the same, he’s over-specific to his own mind. Should his readers, and I suspect a few will, try to apply this list to their circle of acquaintances in order to seek out any brilliant folk, I’d expect their success rate to be dismal.

      • Son of Distant Trebizond says:

        >UHIQ is holistic and solipsistic.

        Solipsism is an excellent descriptor for many UHIQ Theories of Mind. I suspect that you understand why this would be so.

  9. Santoculto says:

    What this acronyms mean*

  10. Santoculto says:

    It’s simple. Many or most ”higher iq” people are just like average iq people BUT with some important cognitive steroids, the common mistakes or errors of the ”average iq” people is significatively present among conventional higher iq people.

    The fundamental mistake of the humanity is the binarism ”or’ dualistic thinking, be or not*

    in my view, most part of the time, everything that works only works because is balanced, so the truth, the existence IS balanced, of course, it’s not all the time, but even when we have chaos, it’s not full-chaos. So, the truth of almost living/existent things is invariably in the middle of any spectrum, just like a weight balance.

    For example, the full-functionality and well being of any society or collective organism is in their middle-point, where there are a greater diversity of righteous things and this is place where they can be correctly inter-connected.

    Most people seems to be quite subconsciouly tribalist even when they are pretending to be a pure thinker, they are thinking, for sure, but to the tribal goals and not purely intellectual, to find the hidden truth.

    Conventional thinkers connect large OR vague assumptions, pre-exposed, of the world resulting in generalizations of the reality, while unconventional ”bright” thinkers broke this large or vague webs and tend to literalize the over-abstractized information to build a concrete, coerent, factual, palatable arguments, thoughts, ideas or conclusive point of views. they tend to see the mechanisms among this large, generalized or vague assumptions, for example,

    causality is not correlation

    races don’t cause per si ”their” avg behaviors that tend to be correlated with them, specially if you have a bunch of exceptions, instead proving their rule, they also prove themselves.

    via ”causality is not correlation” i believe many scientific, seriously philosophical and artistic works are done.

    but to the conventional avg thinker many times causality will be correlation,

    why many them as well many conventional ”higher IQ” ones tend not to see this evident realities or at least accept them when they are exposed*

    natural/sexual instinct blind/blur the lines between us and the factual reality. This is what we call ”human stupidity”.

  11. Santoculto says:

    Based on this description i would be a ”ultra high ‘iq’ ”…. but IQ is a generalized term to the convoluted pieces of mental operationalities that invariably works more specialized way in many if not most of exceptional individuals. Seems you can’t eat whole cake, or genius most part of the time is very specialized, relatively less when their area of super-expertise is naturally holistic, for example, philosophy.

    In psychology there is the myth that only gifted people who have higher developmental assymetry/and their results, it’s not total true, because most if not almost of human beings are intrinsically assymetric if not they/us no had strenghts and weaknesses. Of course, developmental assymetry/and final assymetry tend to be huge among gifted people but non-gifted also will be very assymetric.

    And i no have even a ”very higher IQ”, performance specially.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Paul Cooijmans found that g is still operative in the extreme ranges of intelligence. However, he also observes that intelligent people of this sort are what Vox describes as VHIQ: normal intelligence, just more of it. Such people are not geniuses or “brilliant” in Vox’s terms.

      • Santoculto says:

        What do you think about Paul Cooijmans and other alleged ultra high IQ ones, Vos Savant, that korean guy*

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Cooijmans is legit, Vos Savant is a charlatan. Ask about others specifically, I can’t make generalizations here.

          • Santoculto says:

            I don’t asked in generalized way i believe of course many genuine ultra higher IQ is super intelligent… but my question is about creativity, essential to the genius. My question is about the correlation between ultra higher IQ and higher creativity levels & potential, i have impression, of course tendentious and pedantic, that most of them are not equally ultra creatives…

            http://www.bertiekingore.com/high-gt-create.htm

            Unfortunately [or not] hbd pay little attention to this qualitative informations about intelligence. I find it very instructive/elucidative. Analyse this differences, instead only iq tests, about how people ask and behave and how their behavior is related to their kind of intelligence or ”giftedness”.

            • Santoculto says:

              Analysing very superficially ”men of genius” i take note that those who give significative or bombastic contributions were or appear to be less ”stereotypically creative” and had/have during their life

              – few but great ideas
              – pay great focus on this ideas

              So i speculated about two [or more] types of creative people

              continuous and discontinuous creative

              Continuous creative is someone who have creative personality and cognition, they tend to have many creative insights but generally with lower -to- average impact. They are more lateral thinkers, i mean, they tend to improve already existent ideas instead to create news.

              Discontinuous creative is someone who have creative cognition/mental operationality but not exactly a creative personality and they tend to have lower density of insightful ideas BUT some them seems more predisposed to have bigger insights. They are more qualitatively divergent thinkers.

              Charles Darwin would be a example of discontinuous creative, a man with formal personality, maybe some melancholy there but nothing significatively exccentric.

              Isaac Newton is other example. They on avg [or not] produced less but great insights, less diverse but very focused.

              I don’t know who i could to use as example to the continuous creative. I believe artistic geniuses are more prone to be like that. Or not, speculative for sure. Usually continuous creative tend to have more intermediary personalities and cognitions. This explain why instead they have great density of original ideas they are less prone to produce the bigger ones. Intermediary natures tend to have their vantages and advantages of course. You can see, understand more than only one world BUT become less super-specialized. On other hand, people who are more specialized/less divided by more than one area/intermediary and specially who are at the same time, specialized and with original thinking skills, will be more focused in only ”one” area and be more disposed to improve it in significative way.

              Sorry i’m writing too much here, i will stop now.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              This is a good breakdown. I’d categorize these two types as

              Discontinuous: High intelligence, medium associative horizon (scientists, political policy wonks, some doctors)

              Continuous: High associative horizon, medium intelligence (comedians, artists, computer programmers)

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              “Intelligence, when reaching the very highest altitudes, somehow reduces the frequency of genius; it has been pointed out that geniuses tend to have high, but not the highest intelligence; that those with the very highest I.Q.s are typically not geniuses. I do not know the precise mechanism yet, but relevant is my own finding that, in the high range, there is a significant negative correlation between I.Q. and 1) psychiatric disorders in oneself; 2) psychiatric disorders in one’s parents and siblings (which reflect genetic disposition); 3) disposition for psychiatric disorders as measured by personality tests.

              Perhaps the very highest I.Q.s tend to go with just a bit less than the needed extreme conscientiousness and associative horizon (both of which are forms of disposition for psychiatric disorders)? Perhaps those with the very highest I.Q.s are too neurologically “normal”?

              This possible limiting effect of the very highest I.Q. levels is something I am less certain of yet than of the other two thresholds.”

              http://paulcooijmans.com/genius/genius.html

            • Santoculto says:

              ´”disdvantages and advantages” of course, little bit[ch] adhd, lol

            • Santoculto says:

              Today i like to use the authenticity levels

              what i mean

              authenticity

              how authentic you are about your area of expertise, for example, a super-good doctor versus a avg doctor versus a unhappy doctor, only choice your career because family pressure.

              Greater you are about your expertise area more intelligent you are about it and creative geniuses tend to be over-authentic, just like partial and total empathy, they live their expertise area/intellectual passions everyday, at natural way, just like a hobby, this partially explain the theory of Malcolm Gladwell, indeed, intellectually obsessed people really Spend many hours of the day thinking about your interests directly or indirectly.

              But this disposition to this intellectual obsessiveness come before the many hours of obsession, is its cause. In my specific case I spend many hours of the day thinking about these subjects, and I love doing that.

              partial empathy: put in the PLACE of the ”other”

              total empathy: put in the ”SKIN”/mind of othe ”other”

              Great difference, in the first case, partial empathy, you put in the place of other still as yourself, so when you analyse by the perspective of other you’re not analysing as if you are like him/her/it BUT as yourself… when our father or mother give [mostly failed] advices for us, why they failled to give precise and/or definitively useful advices**

              just because they are puting in our places but not in our skin, in our minds… analysing our perspective but as themselves, it’s counterproductive.

              ”Discontinuous: High intelligence, medium associative horizon (scientists, political policy wonks, some doctors)

              Continuous: High associative horizon, medium intelligence (comedians, artists, computer programmers)”

              Exactly, just like fluid versus chrystallized intelligence…

              or white matter versus grey matter.

              Continuous creative have greater fluid intelligence, fluid while short-term reasoning, this explain why they can produce so many ideas, many them that are on avg to reasonably great size or relevance.

              Discontinuous creative would be like the combination of higher chrystallized capacity (memorize many abstract pieces of information/knowledge) with ponctually higher associative horizon.

              I already read many texts of Paul Coojimans, :)

      • Santoculto says:

        In UNZ i call them ”high functioning avg joey’s”, they look/act/think exactly like that. This explain partially why they tend to be competitive and status-signaling specially against avg people, because as they are just like avg joeys with cognitive steroids so they feel naturally superior to them and like to endorse it all the time, try to separate themselves from the masses BUT they are high functioning masses who need virtue and intellectual-signaling to pass as superior, it’s sad and pathetic.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Because I primarily observe people and their behavior as scientific objects these days, these things tend not to upset me. Exceptions to this do occur, and sometimes I have to let off some steam.

        • Son of Distant Trebizond says:

          > “High functioning avg joeys”
          What makes you suppose that the very smartest haven’t simply made a study of the minds which surround and vastly outnumber them, and and learnt to project an ordinary persona? Perhaps you’re witnessing the apotheosis of Game; Read a biography of John von Neumann to get an impression of what this entails.

          Truly, the thinnest air is the Twilight Zone; It’s where the Wild Things Are.

          • Santoculto says:

            No, where I said it?

            • Son of Distant Trebizond says:

              Sorry, I think there was a misunderstanding.You said you’d met high iq people who had temperaments and tastes similar to average: “high functioning average joeys”. I was suggesting that some of these characters might be much, much cleverer than they appeared, and had simply allocated some brainpower to generating an ‘ordinary’ persona.

              I was probably being facetious, but wanted to make the broader point that the kind of abilities, possibilities and people that manifest at the stratospheric end of human ability can seem incredible. To a casual observer of this Twilight Zone, Occam’s razor will not yield meaningful insight. So your ‘average Joeys’ may not have been as average in personality as they seemed. Appearances deceive.

              Btw, what is your first language?

            • Santoculto says:

              My first language is portuguese.

              I’m saying there are many ”gifted people” who are just average joeys with very similar cultural tastes, moderate self awareness but higher cognitive skills.

            • Son of Distant Trebizond says:

              Cool! Would like to learn Portuguese some day. Useful for travel to Brazil :)

              Yes, you’re right, of course. This group is very common at ‘elite’ universities. Have you read ‘Beggars in Spain’? The characteristics of the ‘Sleepless’ remind me of such people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s