/lit/ - Literature

Took wechsler in the middle of the day and got 140. Took another at around midnight, administered by some russian over a discord call, and got 133 SBV (in SD15).

IQ does matter, but not as much as the people of /sci/ believe. I believe it does measure the common denominator of human intelligence, but there do exist factors beyond it. I was aware from a young age that I was higher in pure cognitive ability, but I also had blind spots in problem-solving not shared by others. Some of this was due to my upbringing, some due to my personality, which is likely genetic in large part. As for literature, I think having a relatively high IQ is necessary but not sufficient. Reading and writing should always be an intellectual activity. Critical thinking skills are required to explore possible interpretations of a work, and truly thinking critically requires a certain amount of intelligence*. I'm not going to put a number on this imaginary threshold, but it is there in a very fuzzy way.

* - This, by the way, is why I'm largely against introducing 'critical thinking skills' into schools. The techniques now taught to schoolchildren as in picrel are only useful to minds of a certain processing-power. Giving children a set of mental paradigms to think in is not teaching them much useful, because truly deep thought is different every time it is done. Critical thinking is, by definition, thinking outside of a system, and can therefore never be taught as a part of a system. Such systems do not create thinkers; they create redditors. For this reason, there has never existed in human history, nor is there likely to exist, a 'critically thinking public'.