/lit/ - Literature

>>18559988
I would not choose the 130iq group.
I would not choose the 80iq group.
I would do what I did 30 minutes ago and deem the situation as retarded. No one is dancing around the question. We're trying to explain to you that the question is retarded.

>>18559939
so lets change the situation

you either chose the 80IQ group or choose the 200IQ group and get raped in the ass by a black 100% african blood nigger

now what? still not choosing the tards?

>>18559854
If the only information you have is totally irrelevant to performance then yes you have no reason to privilege one option over the other, so you shouldn't mind at all choosing the 80iq group, why not, as far as you know it's just as good since you have no relevant information. Notice I am totally comfortable saying it dowsnt matter to me whether I pick the blond or red hair group because I genuinely think this information is irrelevant so either group is fine if I have nothing else to go on

>>18559792
If you actually thought iq wasn't real you would just say 'sure I'll pick the 80iq group, what does it matter?'

>>18559596
Again you're just adding variables instead of addressing the question. If you want to add in personal interviews then you need control groups, it is not 'interviews or IQ'.

The test of whether you truly think IQ is just 'meaningless puzzles' is if you would be fine choosing the 80iq group instead of th 130iq group if you had no other information. I notice that despite repeated proclamations of IQ being not real nobody itt has felt comfortable stating they'd do this.

>>18559318
Your post avoided to the question by adding in another variable, personal interviews. I'm asking you to choose based on nothing but the IQ measure. Since you dont think iq is real you're saying youd be happy choosing the 80iq group right?

>>18559279
So you wouldn't see any reason to pick the 130iq group over the 80iq group if you couldn't get any other info? This is your sincere opinion?

>>18559183
If your life depended on building a bridge and you could choose as your engineer team a group with 80iq with 20+ experience building bridges or a group with 130iq no experience would you still say that IQ is obviously real?

>>18559243
>>18559228
If you knew nothing else but their IQ you wouldn't mind picking the 80iq group to design and build your bridge? You genuinely think this?

>>18559051
If your life depended on building a bridge and you could choose as your engineer team a group with 80iq or a group with 130iq would you still say that IQ is obviously not real?

>ITT sub 80iq sunnis giving islam a bad rep
When will this stop?

>>18294122
> fuck off bitch. I can't waste my time with weeb faggots who think they've stumbled across something profound in a dumb video game that just regurgitates the old ideas of existentialism.

That's fun. You are willing to argue with me instead of discussing existentialism.
You truly are a 80IQ subhuman.

>>18286576
>If you can't accept that the way we percieve the world is primarily defined through a cultural lense
That's your opinion, and you can't prove it because you believe nothing is objective. It's a self-defeating game. People like you are the <80IQ idiots who always make themselves known with these claims.

>>18223557
But Bakker is considered really good by authors goodreads loves such as Erikson. It’s clearly people getting filtered by the massive amounts of sexism in his works, especially given that so many readers now are women.

Again, just read the 1 star reviews, they're all some variant of "So much sexism, I literally can't even" or "wtf, I don't understand what he is saying".

Also you didn't address my point in any way. The fact that people who can barely speak English have just as much weight on goodreads as people who have a high literacy/OECD level makes it worthless to use. A scholar at oxford might give X book a 5/5, but a ESL 80IQ kid might give it a 1/5 because its nothing like the video games he plays.

>>18144512
It WAS.
now it doesn't matter anymore, since language already developed to that point. You know that some of us have an inner monologue/dialogue. Talking and communicating is secondary. Humans could all vanish over night and I'd still come up with beautiful word-structures and dwelling in their beauty

But yeah, I wouldn't expect a le based edgy nihilist 80IQ teenager like you to ever understand this

Now go forth and kys please

>>18084341
>The alternative is the average 80iq zoomeroid writing unintelligible essays
That's the thing. Low IQs don't need to write more than a short sentence here and there. High IQs are restricted by those intellectual straightjackets, even as teenagers.

>>18083928
I publish in scientific journals (granted in electrical engineering which isn't the most /lit/) and I've never followed any of this bullshit. You just become a machine to write standardized papers, ten thousands are written every day in the same manner.

>>18079269
The alternative is the average 80iq zoomeroid writing unintelligible essays
>>18081938
>innate love of knowledge and learning
doesn't exist

>>18051520
either a good troll or genuinely 80iq cant tell

>>18025349
hopefully you stick to your word and never reproduce because passing on those 80iq genes would be a sin

>>17971418
>le mac fucking ebic wicipedia research....
I've done a phd on that topic next to a hundred else of my kind. I'm not proud and wish death upon my kind. But never ever lecture me on that childish 80IQ bullshit, faggot

>>17903008
Are they really wrong to do this if they view a Diverse UK as the future? You can't really expect 80IQ Africans or inbred Pakistanis to be able to read sheet music...

>>17877069
I am a big fan of this recent woke intensification because I like watching commies have to apologize and defer to 80IQ retards calling them racist
>I-I'm not a class reductionist I suppo-
>ITS NOT ABOUT YOU SHUT UP YT
just lmao

>>17847693
As a start, you could stop calling dimwit moralists "Progressives". This concedes "Progress = mass migration of 80IQ welfare claimants, fat black women in the infantry, children on puberty blockers, etc." which is obviously false.

>>17805588
In his debates with Sam Harris he seems so rational and intelligible yet some of the shit he says sounds like it came out of a 80iq high school student