With all due respect, the "huge difference" is a matter of opinion. Both are characteristics largely based on genetics.
We have a difference of opinions when it comes to whether it's about "being offended" or not. Granted, English is not my native language, so I may miss some of the nuances. Still, if people feel differently about one feature characterizing a person compared to another, then there is a reason for those feelings. Perhaps "feelings of inferiority" is a better expression. It's a rather common reaction since cross-culturally humans tend to be intimidated by very intelligent individuals.
We do agree on the importance of valid argumentation.
When the poster ("Suckafree") mentioned his alleged IQ, he was replying to the original post about head shapes and skull sizes (bigger, heavier etc.) and his answer should be read in that context. Since you said you are studying for the 2nd BA, I can assume that you don't have a Ph.D. in psychology, and therefore should perhaps refrain from making psychological evaluations (or worse, statements) about people's motives. There are MANY different ways to interpret Suckafree's message and "seeking validation" is not the only one. It's the one that you choose.
"Pretentious" is a subjective value, thus it's a non-argument. You are free to feel that something fulfills the criteria for it in your perception, but it might be wise to remember, that an opinion is still just an opinion and probably doesn't reflect reality from another person's point of view.
If someone says "I have a shoe size of 16" would he come across as pretentious? Would people with size 9.5 feel inferior enough to call such a person "pretentious"?
If someone has a high IQ and someone else is offended by it, then so be it. http://www.subzin.com/s/i'm+surrounded+by+idiots
Well, I can understand any suspicions anyone might have given the current political climate. I'm mostly a lurker and trying to abstain from making bold claims one way or the other. Still, peculiarities exist, and IMO it's ok to point them out.
"...they will probably invite UN soldiers in to help..." This is a weird misconception some people have. UN soldiers won't be called to fight in a war. UN doesn't have soldiers. Member countries have soldiers and the UN can ASK soldiers from member countries. I've served on a few trips like that since the early '90s. Those member countries decide on their own if they want to send soldiers to a particular problem area or not. I know several countries, including mine, where the constitution forbids active participation in the skirmishes between the belligerents. We could participate only, if attacked ourselves or if civilians were attacked. My parliament would never allow us to be sent to US if there was an active civil war going on there. Certain specific US troops train with my guys in my country every year and many of us have served together in places like Libanon, the Balkans, and Afganistan. It would even be stupid to send us because many of us would support the US military in this particular case.
A fun little thought for you - let's say a lot of us (troops in countries who have served with US troops before), would tell the UN: "No, we won't send troops to US". Simply, because many of us would NOT apply for that particular mission. So who would send troops? China? Russia? Some African countries? With all due respect, troops from African countries are not well equipped, and if China or Russia did send troops, do you REALLY think we would fight alongside our "enemies" against dudes we've served together with? We would come in flocks as voluntary and fight on the US MIL side. Because I may not share your beliefs, but I share the idea of free speech and I will fight for your right to disagree with me. Let that sink in. Greets, MSG L. Berzerker
"Joe biden's presser that was interrupted by Hunter Biden accepting a plea deal". Any link to this?
"Can you not see that a random individual claiming a high IQ in this way comes across as pretentious?"
Yes, some people would interpret it like that. I tried to explain to you, that it's a matter of personal interpretation, which is a choice. Not an objective truth. There are multiple reasons why we interpret things the way we do. In our personal, subjective way.
As to your studies, I respect you for the fact that you are willing to educate yourself.
My point was related to the idea of "let's not try to make psychological profiling when we're not qualified to do so, have not met the person in question, and have not studied his/her personality. And even if we were/had, we should be careful and understand that we can be wrong in our opinions."
"I wanted to expand my understanding..."
This mentality gets a "hats off" from me.