/lit/ - Literature

>>12478448
>guess the IQ of the OP

0

My dad scored 140 as an adult and I tested 130 in elementary school. Foucault has to be 160+

IQ is fucking stupid.

Pre-OD? 185.
Post-OD? Above 200, surely.

>>12478483
>IQ is fucking stupid.
Yeah, it’s a fun thread idea though. Don’t be so serious all the time

>>12478448
Does contracting AIDS turn you into a genius?

>>12478483
IQ as a number is close to meaningless. What SD were your scores?

>>12478706
I dont remember the SD. I had bad report cards when I was a kid and my parents had me IQ tested to emphasize I should be doing better. It was probably unwise of them to reveal the number to me, though they did so with good intentions.

I remember being hung up on that stupid number for many years. It said "youre pretty smart but nothing special."

I know its meme but IQ is a bunch of nonsense. I have a close friend who tested around 130 as well, and when we exchanged these facts I was astonished. One of us was significantly better at thinking than the other.

I really don't think you can apply a number to the mind. It has far too many subtleties.

124

>>12478725
>Bertrand Russell described Wittgenstein as “the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating.”

>>12478725
Couple of facts to back up my reasoning
>Was a mediocre student, couldn't spell
>Designed a very ugly house
>Tried to become an engineer
>Homosexual
>His only book is autistic nonsense

His autism made people believe he was smart, but in reality he was a hack.

>>12478733
Fuck Bertrand Russell and fuck your pathetic tripfag ass. I hope you get Michel Foucault AIDS

>>12478751
Kill your self, I usually just write down kys but you deserve it in full.

>John Green
145
>Pynchon
110
>David Foster Wallace
160
>Dante
120
>Joyce
136
>Sartre
132
>Chomsky
130
>Heidegger
137
>Hemingway
115
>Simone de Beauvoir
140
>Descartes
155

>>12478448
190

>>12478787
Turns out that his "dwelling for the gods" was only fit for bulgarians. Sums up quite nicely what all the things he accomplished in his life are really worth. Looking back his edgy book is garbage and the philosophers who thought he was a genius were fools.

>>12478448
220

>>12478483
>Foucault has to be 160+
you give him far too much credit

>>12478484
Is that Ted Bundy?

>>12478795
How the fuck can you know the IQ of people like Dante and those who didn’t even live when iq tests were invented? What kind of horse shit is that?

>>12478721
I think IQ is useful for society scale stuff but of course on a personal level your score could be an aberration

>>12478483
>IQ is fucking stupid.
Bullshit, if you were really as smart as you say you'd know IQ is a fairly decent way of judging the differences in problem solving capability between different people. What is true is that it is not an absolute and that the actual number is not a set in stone score, nor can it be used to judge how wise, experienced, or knowledgeable someone is. But someone with a higher IQ is more likely to surpass someone with a lower IQ in these areas much quicker, as the problem solving capability leads them to the superior conclusions much more easily. Someone with an IQ of 135 and someone with an IQ of 140 will probably not even be able to tell the difference in each other objective ability, aside from when used in personal variances regarding what hobbies, pastimes, practices they favor. Perhaps one might feel just a tiny it ahead or behind. But someone with an IQ of 140 is absolutely and undeniably going to be much more intelligent than someone with an IQ of, say, 100-110. IQ is not stupid, people who think IQ is an objective measurement of total intellectual capacity like some sort of DBZ powerlevel are stupid.

>>12478483
>>12478496
>>12478706
Tabula rasa faggots at it again, I see.
>Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][56] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points[citation needed]. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][57][58] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[59]
You can find citations in the footnote of this article, if you're going to pretend like you didn't know that:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity

>>12478483
>>12478496
>>12478706
>>12479198
Other stuff it has predictive power for.

145 to 150

>>12479346
Full resolution where?

>>12479346
>>12479362
More, please?

>>12478448
>>12478484
>>12478814
>>12479356
not as high as mine

>>12478867
>>12478725
probably around mine

>>12479361
I'm not so good with image search, found this in a sociology of knowledge lecture of mine. Professor didn't put any source in.

>>12479371
Shame, it's a very interesting chart.

>>12479375
Try looking for demarcation, disciplines (within art). The lecture was on how science is being done (our views of it). Maybe the image has anything to do with that. Philosophers involved, or talked about in this lecture were: Foucault, Kuhn, Lakatos, Bloor and Bourdieu

>>12479198
My point was that 130 IQ is very different depending on what SD is used. 130 IQ with SD 10 is entirely different to 130 IQ with SD 20.

>>12478448
170

900

Also IQ is dumb

>>12479399
Thank you for context, I'll see what I can.

>>12479418
Found it already

>>12479401
Isn't it normally assumed to be 15?

>>12479414 see >>12479198, >>12479204.

>destructive and violent, tearing down things he don't understand
110 dropped to 85-95 after chemical exposure

>>12479420
You scholar, thank you.

>>12479421
Oh wow so it can predict how well someone can do certain things. Why should I care?

>>12479458
I guess you wouldn't, because you're a NEET. But institutions, governments, economists, et alia, like having the ability to predict things. Because it is useful for increasing efficiency.

>>12479421
You often see it assumed as 16 as the most popular tests use that. You also have many using 15, fewer using 20, and a couple using 10.

>>12479479
True, the statistical methodology is its major weakness. Not the test itself.

>>12479479
>>12479488
I should clarity, when I say "test", many of them test the same components.

>>12478483
130 lQ as a kid is like average IQ as an adult.
Explains a lot. I tested over 160 as a child.

>>12479061
We don't know, we're just guessing, and Dante could have been tested same as anyone. I'm going to guess within 10 points, setting the highest possible score as 170:

DFW 151-161
Joyce 155-165
Shakespeare 153-163
Dostoevsky 137-147
Kafka 139-149
PKD 131-141
Nabokov 151-161
Borges 140-150
Steinbeck 132-142

>>12479495
>*clarity -> clarify

>>12479469
So there is no reason for the average person to care

>>12479521
Well no, because the average person isn't ever going to occur the limits that they would otherwise encounter if they were moving in such circles, like academia.

>>12479420
>poor intellectual
>poetry
most apt

>>12479541
Brutal.

>>12478725
He had to be higher. IQ tests the ability to manipulate logic, and witty was so good at that he got professional logicians to defer to him as a student. He could easily have been around 200

>>12479503
interesting. I think DFW and Borges should switch though.

>>12479409
he was a pedophile and child reapist

>>12479499
No... IQ is adjusted for age

>>12479198
tabula rasa means something different faggot

also question of IQ is meaningless if you think about it

>>12480041
>tabula rasa means something different faggot
Don't try and step to me, if you're wrong.
Tabula rasa faggots, in terms of psychology, think for some bizarre reason that the emergent phenomena of the brain are due to purely to nurture.
Which isn't true, at all.
Considering the heritability of IQ once you reach adulthood is between 70 to 90%, due to the GENES interacting with the enviroment.
So, with different genes, they would be expressed differently, even in the same starting enviroment.
So no, faggot, it does apply.

>>12480041
>also question of IQ is meaningless if you think about it
Not really. You need upper classes in your society or you get shitholes like Nigeria.

>>12480041
>>12480057
Fyi, that clenching feeling in your throat, as the humiliation rends your psyche in twain, is exactly the same feeling of me pressing my jackboot down onto your sissy throat.
Enjoy.

>>12479503
God this is triggering me so hard. Fuck you for thinking David Fuckboy Wallace was as intelligent as William Shakespeare.

What the hell is wrong with you?

>>12479925
On second thought I'd say DFW 145-155 and I'd keep Borges in the same place. These are hard to predict though, many people thought that Kasparov, being one of the best chess players ever, would get a maximum score of 160 to 180 but he got 135, which sorta reaffirms the idea that much of chess is about opening theory, memorization, and practice. Writing is practice too. The only one I can say with 100% accuracy is that Joyce is not under 140. I'd be surprised if PKD would be over 142, but he'd be hard to test, I'm sure he wouldn't like that kind of thing either.

>>12478483
So what u doin with your life

>>12479503

You people are putting obscenely high IQs in your lists. I honestly believe that many of the greatest writers of all time would all be around 130. You are confusing learning and effort with plain crude computing and problem solving capacities.

>>12480089
I'm just guessing their overall IQ, not verbal/language IQ. DFW's thoughts are more stringently structured, he gives me a feeling of someone who would excel in mathematics but his overall IQ allowed him to excel in language as well. I rated him lower than Shakespeare anyways, and I did revise it to 145-155.

>>12480107
Yeah you might be right, I could be biased on account that I'm around 130 and have achieved fuck all, but I'm also pretty good at knowing who's smarter than me, and those are some of the best writers we had.

>>12480120
Lol you ain't achieved shit bitchboi

>>12480057
Saying that IQ as a number is close to being meaningless doesn't mean that you believe in tabula rasa, dumbass.

>>12479503
>shakekike
given that /lit/fags can't compete with physics/maths/comp sci wrt to IQ, why are you giving all these /lit/tards ultra high IQs? this is a circlejerk thread pretending /lit/ is the smartest.
u aint. get over it ffs

>>12480129
fite me irl bitch

>>12480143
It may be true that writing attracts people with just above average intelligence but not the very high IQs, but to assume that there were never any writers with very high IQ's doesn't make sense, that's why they're some of the best.

>>12480144
Wya

>>12480143
When it comes to subjects outside each's academic field, almost every lit guy or gal I know argues better and has a smarter approach to whichever topic than most physics or maths guys or gals I know. Not even talking about opinions cuz I stopped having those, but these sci guys I know tend to be too arrogant about their rather cliched, commonsensical (in the worst of the ways) views

>>12480131
It does, because it is akin to saying you don't believe in the hereditary component of intelligence.
Not only that, but IQ isn't "just some number", not only does it have an impressive amount of predictve power (ala: >>12479198, >>12479204).
To measure it, they test certain things that are useful for everyday life, like visual-spacial intelligence (among other things, see pic), which plays a major role in your ability to perform well in STEM.

>>12480227
>*spacial -> spatial

>>12480107
>>12480143
Jordan Peterson is 152, let that sink in.

>>12480252
Or so he says.

>>12478448
F sure was 140 or above
Derrida is a solid 135

>>12478484
>above 200
Impossible moron
Can't go higher than 195

>>12480268
>Derrida
Was just a pedant, and a sophist.

>>12480283
Epic

>>12480284
He's the semantic argumenter incarnate.

>>12480289
>*He's... -> He was...

Whenever you wonder if DNA has an effect on something, think of a separate species and how it fares.

>>12479198
>>12479204
>>12479421
>>12479469
>>12479528
>>12480057
>>12480076
>>12480227
giga autist

>>12480306
>Implying that is a negative in terms of AS/HFA:
Pfft:
>https://www.iidc.indiana.edu/pages/Genius-May-Be-an-Abnormality-Educating-Students-with-Aspergers-Syndrome-or-High-Functioning-Autism

>>12479147
I view it as probability of creating a favorable solution.

I've seen stupid people get lucky and do something brilliant, but I've also seen geniuses doing retarded shit.

I have more thoughts on this but I'm too lazy to type them out right now. I will say modern IQ is grossly exaggerated.

>>12480315
>I've seen stupid people get lucky and do something brilliant, but I've also seen geniuses doing retarded shit.
But the chances are that: Stupid people do more stupid things than geniuses, who in turn, do more brilliant things than those aforementioned stupid people.
Nice try though.

>>12480315
>>12480323
Whilst I'm at it, tearing down your worldview:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier
Might also explain that.

>>12480193
>I know argues better and has a smarter approach to whichever topic than most physics or maths
aka persuasion
yep. the fast witted talkers, the sales and customer relations, sit on the other side of the office to me. I hear them and they make me laugh with their fast comeback lines and charm. They are good at getting their point of view across.
but actually their arguments depend on some conviction and confidence rather than straight logic. Women are persuaded by conviction and confidence, and aren't impressed with logic. The former will always win in arguments until the results have stockpiled in the logician's favour.

>>12480269
This is the dumbest meme.

>>12479428
nice bait(not really)

>>12478483
IQ does not equal skills or achievement. If someone like Foucault is dedicated enough in their field they can achieve much more than some random who's got 20 points on them and therefore come off as smarter.

>>12480401
This, IQ is just a "measure of potential", and as such, can go completely wasted.

>>12480269
nigga you even know gaussian

>>12480337
Is you illiterate nigga I said I ain't talking bout opinions
Part of what I say seems a more common virtue among lit kniccas rather than sci ones is some sort of respect to each possible problem. It's the sci guys who I've most usually found to be absolutley convinced and confident on their intuition (which doesn't usually exceed common sense or cliches) whenever a new problem is brought (concerning politics, the news, everyday social interaction, interpersonal relations, whatever the fuck) to the table.
On the other hand even if I disagree with them or I don't care about whichever the discussed problem is or they only manifest their indecission in favor of any particular point of view I've usually found "lit" ppl to be more logically careful with each problem. Obviously a lot of lit guys get the wrongest conclusions but even tho I feel like they are more prone to search for at least pseudological reasons unlike sci guys who are just very passionate about whichever first comes to their guts.

>>12480463
>They're wrong, because they disagree with my worldview.
Lmao, gosh yeah, you're such a logical powerhouse.
Lol, the fucking balls and ego on this guy.

>>12480315
>I will say modern IQ is grossly exaggerated.
It still sits between 90-110 for the average person, leaning closer to 90

>>12480474
Seriously mate why are you on a literature board if you can't read english

>>12480485
Awh, did I hurt your ego?
> Obviously a lot of lit guys get the wrongest conclusions but even tho I feel like they are more prone to search for at least pseudological reasons unlike sci guys who are just very passionate about whichever first comes to their guts.
Is literally you saying:
>They're wrong, because they disagree with my worldview.
When it comes to things like philosophy, there isn't really a "wrong" conclusion.
Seriously, don't square up to me, unless you want to get socked right between your eyes, four eyes.

>>12480498
Awright lets do this step by step. Who do you think is the "they" in the "they're wrong" from your paraphrase?

>>12480524
Other non-zero /lit/izens who aren't mapped to you.

>>12480089
two people of equal IQ would not necessarily be equal in the quality of their writing

>>12480529
Nah you can't read english

>>12480583
I can, faggot. Go on, bitch, tell me why I'm wrong?
You're playing with some mean fire here,

>>12480594
I tried to make it obvious enough that I wasn't talking about opinions or "worldviews". Read again.

>Tharaldsen says she saw Pynchon’s IQ score, somewhere in the 190s.

>>12480632
most tests for normal people top out at 160-170 so stories of IQ's higher than that are always suspicious in that they don't provide a lot of background info about what kind of test it was, why it was taken and so on.

>>12480618
Golly, for someone pretending to be so smart, you sure are dumb.
You gave your opinion about something, opinions are shaped by your worldview. Therefore, you gave your worldview, regardless of whether you said you did or you didn't.

>>12478751
add in:
>was in the military

>>12480819
Ok almost got me there. If ur baiting thats fair enough.
(But just in case you possibly ain't baiting, just read again)

>>12480867
Plz bite :(

>>12480877
Nah but for real you didn't really get the point in the first posts

>>12480921
I did, faggot.

Less than Heidegger

>>12480925
Dass yet to show

>>12481003
It's an observation, not an attack.
You observe that /sci/ tend to be more sure of their intuition, whilst /lit/izens tend to be more logical in their approach and less arrogantly cocksure.

>>12481022
Now you got it
Even tho I wasn't talking bout sci or lit but some blokes and gals I've known irl who prolly never heard of 4chan

>>12481082
You were using /sci/ and /lit/ as the archetypes of reference, I get it.

>>12480306
When your entire world view and self-worth is derived from the concept IQ no action is too autistic in defending it.

>>12481143
>When you don't have a valid argument, so you make a character attack instead.
No, when you're wrong, I'm going to tell that you're wrong, and why. Certainly if you're attempting to opine outside of your sphere of expertise.

>>12479198
But this overrates iq by including cases where an 80 iq man is compared with an average one. Of course the man with a score of 80 will be less competent. A man who fails at certain basic tasks will also be less competent, but those are not an intellgience test. It's easy to measure stupidity.

What a real test would do is tell us who can succeed in physics, or writing, or biology. The iq test does this only insofar as it tells which stupid people should be included. It generally falls apart after 120 or so. where its not uncommon for someone to outperform persons exceeding him by 30 or 40 points.

>>12481178
It tests intelligences that are used in such fields, such as visual-spatial intelligence.
>It generally falls apart after 120 or so. where its not uncommon for someone to outperform persons exceeding him by 30 or 40 points.
Pulling things out of your ass, and no, ancedotes aren't valid.
People really need to stop talking about intelligence testing, if they understand it so little.
Go and look at what some common IQ tests test: >>12480227
Many of the things they test are skills that are extremely useful, if you're better than the average person at those things, you're going to be more functional than them. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.
But as I also said, IQ doesn't indicate "competency in a field", but rather the potential.

>>12481193
>Pulling things out of your ass,
Nope. Feynman never scored above 120. I suppose there are several potential feynmann in this thread, according to you. You can believe that if you wish. I am telling you that your test functions mainly as a measure of stupidity, a truncated version of information that obtainable in practical places.
>People really need to stop talking about intelligence testing, if they understand it so little.
Your data does nothing whatever to refute my claims, since it includes people who have iqs below 90. Of course people who score below 90 will be stupid. We could as easily get this information by monitoring their performance in class, or even in conversation.
>But as I also said, IQ doesn't indicate "competency in a field", but rather the potential.
Everyone knows you claim this already. We also know it isn't true, since Salinger had an average iq and the average man isn't a Salinger. Feynmann never scored above 120. You may claim there are for the sake of argument, but there aren't legions of Feynmann's wandering around.

>>12481429
Ugh, fucking hell.
This is exactly, exactly what I mean. Just shut up, step away form your keyboard and stop typing, you fucking moronic little twat.
Okay, where to start?
>Nope.
Uuuuuuuuh, yep, idiot.
>Feynman never scored above 120.
That was only VIQ, not a full IQ test. So, that's wrong to start with.
> I suppose there are several potential feynmann in this thread, according to you.
See above, so also wrong.
>You can believe that if you wish.
I've posted studies, and evidence, you've posted what? Opinion? Which one requires more belief? So, also wrong.
> I am telling you that your test functions mainly as a measure of stupidity, a truncated version of information that obtainable in practical places.
Nope, see above, if they map to achievements and can be used for prediction, then it isn't limited to this... but definition.
So, also wrong.
>Your data does nothing whatever to refute my claims, since it includes people who have iqs below 90.
Yes it does, see above to do with predictive powers.
>Of course people who score below 90 will be stupid.
I'm guessing you'll be sub-90 then. Considering how much of a "fight" you're putting up here, lmao.
>We also know it isn't true, since Salinger had an average iq and the average man isn't a Salinger.
>I don't know what an outlier is.
Fucking hell, you're really, really, really unfairly stupid.
>Feynmann never scored above 120.
Wrong, that wasn't a proper IQ test, and was only designed to test VIQ.
>You may claim there are for the sake of argument, but there aren't legions of Feynmann's wandering around.
See above for why you're literally a bumbling retard.
Stop licking floors, and again:
>People really need to stop talking about intelligence testing, if they understand it so little.
Just stop, I don't take that much pleasure in crushing your hopes and dreams.

>>12481453
>*... but... -> ... by...

>>12481429
>>12481453
Oh, and if you could be a dear and expediently reply, so that I can also crush that nice and quickly, so we can get this over and done with. Without having to wait hours, and hours.

>>12481460
>>12481453
Everyone is a potential Salinger?

>>12481471
>What is an outlier.

>>12481475
>>12481475
>>What is an outlier.
An outlier, in this case, is a fictitious entity employed in dodging the question when you have no argument. Either he had the intelligence or he didn't. This isn't basketball, where an outlier who is too short or too awkwardly built might have other advantages like speed or strength or muscle composition. Your test said he should be average and he wasn't.

Did a test when I was a kid but I never had the results, I just had to skip a grade shortly after. Are online mensa tests decently legit?

>>12481453
>Ugh, fucking hell.

>>12481504
>>>12481178
What did I tell you about being stupid? It just makes me not want to reply, and if you're at least smarter than your average garden potato you should understand the implication.
This, he could've been an outlier, and truly an average person, who just so happened to "break the mold" as sometimes occurs due to statistical error.
Or perhaps, we was extremely asymmetrical, a high VIQ, but a low PIQ. Meaning, when averaged out, his FSIQ presented as "normal".
But again, to make it CLEAR to you, ONE EXAMPLE does not contradict a LARGE EXAMPLE.
Now please, stop typing.

>>12481550
I will find you.

>>12478751
He also didn't know when to set commas. Have you read the Tractatus in German? He constantly leaves out commas and then sets them where they're not supposed to be. Infuriating to read.

>>12481504
>>12481551
And also, outliers apply to everything, not just sport. And if you attempt to imply that it does, that's going to be me ramming special pleading up your ass.

Alfred North Whitehead estimated Gertrude Stein to have the highest IQ of any person, including himself, he knew of

>>12481551
>This, he could've been an outlier, and truly an average person, who just so happened to "break the mold" as sometimes occurs due to statistical error.
You're just giving the definition of an outlier. An outlier, presumably, is one who breaks the mold for a reason and, if given the facts, we should know why he is an outlier. That's the case when we're missing facts. We aren't missing any in this case. He took a test that proposes to measure nearly every aspect of intellectual power and his score was average.
And we can add:
Watson, Shockley, Alvarez
>But again, to make it CLEAR to you, ONE EXAMPLE does not contradict a LARGE EXAMPLE.
I presume by "large example" you're trying to say "large sample." I'm not talking about that here. I'm asking whether any given person with an iq of say, 150, is likelier to succeed than someone with an iq of 127. You've posted no data proving this itt.

>>12481591
>You're just giving the definition of an outlier. An outlier, presumably, is one who breaks the mold for a reason and, if given the facts, we should know why he is an outlier. That's the case when we're missing facts. We aren't missing any in this case. He took a test that proposes to measure nearly every aspect of intellectual power and his score was average.
This isn't some liberal arts assignment, you don't need to know why he was an outlier. He is an outlier, because he goes against the trend.
That's how statistics works, although, it was probably due to something as I mentioned with PIQ being below average, and VIQ being above average. Because no ones brain is perfectly symmetrical, and is why they average it together for the full IQ.
>Watson, Shockley, Alvarez
Four people, including Salinger, aren't a large enough sample size. And could easily be outliers too, considering how large the comparative sample(s) are.
>I presume by "large example" you're trying to say "large sample.
I phrased is like that, because "one sample", doesn't make sense, and I wanted them to be similar enough for rhetorical effect.
Hence them both being writtein in uppercase.
>I'm not talking about that here.
Well you are, because you're speaking about averages. That's, again, how statistics works.
>I'm asking whether any given person with an iq of say, 150, is likelier to succeed than someone with an iq of 127.
The answer is, probably.
>You've posted no data proving this itt.
I've literally posted studies about its predictive power of success. So yes, I have.
It isn't my fault if you're too stupid to grasp this, which you clearly are. That's entirely your problem.

>>12481632
>This isn't some liberal arts assignment, you don't need to know why he was an outlier
If your test was accurate in his case, than it proves that it's not so accurate as you claim.
>Four people, including Salinger, aren't a large enough sample size
They're much larger than your sample size of 0. That's how much data you've given me showing the advantage a 150 iq has over 127.
>I phrased is like that, because "one sample", doesn't make sense, and I wanted them to be similar enough for rhetorical effect.
You phrased it incorrectly because you are scarcely literate, as your misapprehension of my views and hysterical responses show.
>The answer is, probably.
What happened to all your statistics? "hurr probably"
>I've literally posted studies about its predictive power of success.
I never denied it correlated with success. I argue that it does so less and less as you remove the lowest scorers.

>>12481453
>Ugh, fucking hell.
>Uuuuuuuuh, yep, idiot.

>>12481661
>If your test was accurate in his case, than it proves that it's not so accurate as you claim.
I don't think you understand how IQ tests work, if your VIQ is above average, that doesn't make you a genius. Sorry. - Also, an outlier doesn't diminish the accuracy. If there were thousands of similar cases, which there aren't, then it would, because it would show a TREND. A single person, or a handful of people are not a TREND. Learn some fucking stats.
>They're much larger than your sample size of 0. That's how much data you've given me showing the advantage a 150 iq has over 127.
If you want to know the example sizes, go and look at the citations on the article... you know... as I said in those posts.
I don't need to go onto the article, which you can easily access, and then paste each citation, when that's already been done for you (and for me).
>You phrased it incorrectly because you are scarcely literate, as your misapprehension of my views and hysterical responses show.
Lmao, ironic, considering you clearly have almost NO UNDERSTANDING of how intelligence testing, or statistics works.
>What happened to all your statistics? "hurr probably"
That's all statistics can say, levels of probability. If you don't even know that basic fact, then you probably shouldn't be talking about this, until you're a little more educated.
>I never denied it correlated with success. I argue that it does so less and less as you remove the lowest scorers.
>It doesn't do what I say it does, when you deliberately misrepresent and doctor the data!
This is why we don't let morons like you into STEM.
By the way, reading shitloads of fiction doesn't make you educated. As is clearly displayed here.

>>12479503
>Nabokov
good bait

>>12481690
It gets pretty tiresome having to argue with people, who're so sure of themselves, whilst suggesting you deliberately doctor data to prove their point.
Unlike your ickle literature, "editing" doesn't improve data.

>>12481695
>*example -> sample

>>12472752
at least 160

>>12481695
>If you want to know the example sizes, go and look at the citations on the articl
I did- sample size of what I ask is zero.
>Lmao
upset
>That's all statistics can say,
Yours don't say much, as they don't exist.
>By the way, reading shitloads of fiction doesn't make you educated
Yes, you're more educated than Nabokov I'm sure. Try mastering English first lol

>>12481695
>It doesn't do what I say it does, when you deliberately misrepresent and doctor the data!
That's not doctoring the data, it's looking at what IQ actually tells us. Statisticians do things like this all the time. That you're ignorant of it is actually embarrassing.

>>12482318
>I did- sample size of what I ask is zero.
>What I ask...
Special pleading, I was JUST waiting for it.
>Muh speshul rools!
>Yours don't say much, as they don't exist.
They do, you're just too lazy to look.
Look, you're a liberal arts faggot, this isn't your territory, stop acting like it is.

>>12482329
>... as you remove the lowest scorers.
Is doctoring the data. Because that matters to the overall distribution, it would change if you removed them, and then it wouldn't be representative of the actual population.

>>12482333
>Special pleading, I was JUST waiting for it.
Fallacy fallacy
>Muh speshul rools!
Yes, special rules for special information. Not hard to understand. If I wanted to know whether the upper bounds of iq measurement differ from the lower, I'd need to look at the data differently. It's a simple concept, I don't see why it upsets you.
>Look, you're a liberal arts faggot, this isn't your territory
No, I actually have a conceptual understanding of these things. You don't and that's why you treat fallacies and outliers as divine scripture rather than mental tools.

>>12482339
>Because that matters to the overall distribution, it would change if you removed them
That's the point, idiot. To change it so that we can get new information out of it. "Doctoring" implies cheating, which is fucking stupid. This is not complicated but I don't know how to simplify so that even you could understand.

>>12482349
>Yes, special rules for special information.
What exactly are you trying to prove?
>If I wanted to know whether the upper bounds of iq measurement differ from the lower, I'd need to look at the data differently.
Go and look at the Bell curve, you don't need to alter the data to to this.
>It's a simple concept, I don't see why it upsets you.
Because then it would skew the average, and it wouldn't be representative.
>No, I actually have a conceptual understanding of these things.
You don't. You think you do, but you don't. You lack basic understanding of things like averages, for a start.
>You don't and that's why you treat fallacies and outliers as divine scripture rather than mental tools.
Outliers are part of the data, just "ignoring them" would skew the data. You data "as is", you don't doctor it to your pleasing when you're looking at the "average" and the difference between the "average" and the "top" and the "bottom" of your distribution.
As for fallacies, if you're going to make an argument, but then try and justify it with some ad hoc reasoning. I'm going to tell you that you're being stupid, and tell you I stopped your fallacy

>>12482359
IT WOULD CHANGE THE DATA, MAKING IT UNREPRESENTATIVE OF THE GROUP YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPARE IT TO!
Fucking hell, how do you not understand?
You do know, he's easy to explain right?
His IQ was reported as 104.
So, let's take a realistic example:
>120 VIQ, which is admirable.
>90 PIQ, which is below average, but above retarded.
>120+90=210/2=195
>FSIQ of 105
There, explained.

>>12482359
>>12482369
Or, you could be unrealistic, and say:
>130 VIQ, which is gifted.
>80 PIQ, which is retarded.
>130+80=210/2=105
But I doubt his PIQ was that low.

>>12482364
>What exactly are you trying to prove?
That IQ measurement gets less reliable as you approach the upper extremes, and that it is a better measure of stupidity than intelligence. How many times must you be told this?
>Because then it would skew the average
I'm not talking about the average you absolute imbecile. I'm saying the difference between iq 120 and 150 is less than that between 70 and 100, in a practical sense.

>>12482374
>>12482369
This fails right off the bat since he's in the top .00001% in terms of achievement. So much for that

>>12482376
>That IQ measurement gets less reliable as you approach the upper extremes, and that it is a better measure of stupidity than intelligence.
Above 125, this is largely true. I'll conceed that, but 125 is still 1.6 standard deviations above the weighted average of 100.
>I'm not talking about the average you absolute imbecile.
But didn't you say your "special examples" were of an average, if slightly above average, IQ?
>I'm saying the difference between iq 120 and 150 is less than that between 70 and 100, in a practical sense.
You don't need to ignore parts of the data for this, and it would skew them if you did.
If memory serves, the Bell curve is identical on either side.

>>12482386
An IQ of 120 would be perfectly capable of that, an IQ of 120 is still very good.
Besides, IQ doesn't measure creativity, because that's very hard to define.

>>12482391
>Above 125, this is largely true. I'll conceed that, but 125 is still 1.6
I don't care what you concede. 110 is closer to 130 than to 90.
>But didn't you say your "special examples" were of an average, if slightly above average, IQ?
I said one of them was about average, overall- Salinger. The others I said were above average but not out of the ordinary. Their achievements, however, were extraordinary.
>You don't need to ignore parts of the data for this, and it would skew them if you did.
If memory serves, the Bell curve is identical on either side.
What are you trying to say?

>>12482386
>>12482394
To clarify on that, an IQ of 120+ means you’re smarter than 90% of people your age.
So, his VIQ was better than 90% of people his age.

>>12482394
>An IQ of 120 would be perfectly capable of that
Of doing what tens of millions could not? There aren't even 10 Salinger in a generation.

>>12482407
>To clarify on that, an IQ of 120+ means you’re smarter than 90% of people your age.
Yes, that's why it's totally insufficient. 10% of the population are not potential Salinger.

>>12482403
>110 is closer to 130 than to 90.
110 to 90 is 1.3 standard deviations, 110 to 130 is also 1.3 standard deviations, and 130 to 90 is 2.6 standard deviations.
In other words, a person with an IQ of 130 is as smart, as the difference between a person of an IQ 90 when compared to a person of an IQ of 110.
That is rather considerable.
Remember, your average college graduate has an IQ between 112-115, whereas, your average PhD has an IQ of 125.
>Their achievements, however, were extraordinary.
As I said below, an IQ of 120 still places you within the top 90%, even if that is only for VIQ, that means you're within the top 90% for verbal intelligence.
>What are you trying to say?
In other words, there are as many geniuses on the right-hand side of the Bell curve, as there are retards. Most people fall toward the mean.
>>12482414
>>12482421
That's only 32,81,025 people, and not all of them would have grown up in the correct enviroment.

>>12482441
Correction, misplaced a comma.
>*3,281,025

>>12482441
>>12482445
That's 0.3 for every square mile, or a 30% chance of meeting someone with a VIQ of 120+.

>>12482421
>>12482441
That's 0.3 persons per square kilometer, or 30% chance of meeting someone with a VIQ of 120+ in the United States.

125

at least 1000

>>12480252
Online tests doesn't count

>>12482421
>>12482441
>>12482481
Also, I just found something that makes it even more likely:
>Outstanding linguistic achievement
>But not every field requires a near genius IQ of 135+ to be a Genius. Let’s take “linguistic intelligence”, exemplified by T.S. Eliot. According to a study reported in the WAIS-IV technical manual, the written expression subtest of the WIAT-II correlates 0.6 with WAIS-IV Full-Scale IQ. 0.6 multiplied by the 0.82 correlation between talent and performance suggests a 0.49 correlation between IQ and writing achievement.
>Thus, assuming TS Eliot is 6 SD above the mean in linguistic achievement, he would likely have an IQ that is 6(0.49) = 2.94 SD above the white mean (IQ 144). We would expect, with 95% certainty that his IQ is anywhere from 118-170. So writing is a field where Genius level achievement seems to require a minimum IQ of about 120.
And, as I displayed earlier, it is plausible for Salinger to have an IQ of around 104, but a VIQ of 120.
So actually, it does explain him.

>IQ

>>12478483
Both of my parents scored over 140 as kids; brother scored over 130 as an adult. I've never taken an official test but can hardly crack 120 on online ones. I've always breezed through school, though. It makes me feel more inferior than it probably should.

>>12481551

What’s your IQ?

>>12482421
>>12482521
Something else that further increases the plausibility of a VIQ of 120, but a PIQ of 90.
The lower grades are probably due to issues with processing speed in tests, despite having impressive comprehension.
I think I've quite adequately explained Salinger, don't you?

>>12482563
No idea, I've never taken an IQ test.

>>12482521
Just from his writing I'd guess Salinger is 118-138. His stories were so precise, I think even Nabokov mentioned liking some of his stuff?

>>12482441
>*... as there are retards. -> ... as there are retards on the left-hand side.

>>12482579
His reported FSIQ was 104, but that can explained via him having a decent 120 in VIQ, but a PIQ of 90. That wouldn't really hamper his writing, if he was doing it in his own time.
But for tests, it would, due to time constraints, which explains his Bs.
Also, if you're the anon I've been arguing, I'm sorry for being rude with you earlier.

>>12482547
Unfortunately life is 90% about hard work.

>>12482599
Only around 50% of your literary ability seems to be due to IQ, so about 50% is due to hardwork.

God this thread is outrageous. I think every single classic writer/philosopher easily would score 150. The luminaries, like Dostoevsky, Shakespeare and Joyce, would be off the charts high.

DFW maybe 130-140.

That being said it is crazy to think one number can capture the propensity of a mathematicians intellect vs. Someone gifted with high verbal retension, or someone with creative vision, or the spacial/athletic abilities of say Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan.

>>12479499
Childhood IQ doesnt normally vary more than 10 points or so from adult scores, from what I recall.

>>12482617
>Let’s take “linguistic intelligence”, exemplified by T.S. Eliot. According to a study reported in the WAIS-IV technical manual, the written expression subtest of the WIAT-II correlates 0.6 with WAIS-IV Full-Scale IQ. 0.6 multiplied by the 0.82 correlation between talent and performance suggests a 0.49 correlation between IQ and writing achievement.
Nope, only 50% of your IQ accounts for your literary ability.

>>12482619
Hang on, I phrased that poorly. Only 50% of your literary ability can be accounted for by your IQ.

>>12482623 is for >>12482617.
>Let’s take “linguistic intelligence”, exemplified by T.S. Eliot. According to a study reported in the WAIS-IV technical manual, the written expression subtest of the WIAT-II correlates 0.6 with WAIS-IV Full-Scale IQ. 0.6 multiplied by the 0.82 correlation between talent and performance suggests a 0.49 correlation between IQ and writing achievement.

>>12482603
40% IQ and 60% hard work is the best I can do
>>12482617
Joyce and Shakespeare sure, not sure about Dostoevsky, but I didn't read him in Russian, so I do wonder how well did Dosto juggle the Russian language, is a lot of wit lost on me due to reading a translation?

>>12482641
>40% IQ and 60% hard work is the best I can do
The numbers disagree, I'd feel happier at 49% IQ, 50% hardwork, 1% moxie.

>>12482623
I find it absurd to think numerical metrics can capture the mind like this. I dont think you guys are appreciating how unspeakably subtle and complex a mind is, how infinite its avenues of thought and problem solving.

Frost wrote "Stopping by woods on a snowy evening" in a single go, without editing. Coleridge composed Kubla Khan in a dreamlike improvisation. Even mathematicians like Von Neumann would discover solutions in their sleep.

If you have ever experienced sensations like this... if youve ever felt the bizarre grip of creative process, its a practically mystical phenomenon (hence the invocation of the muse in epic poetry).

Borges has a great short story, about slowly possessing Shakespeares memory. One of the strangest things that any mathematical mind discovers is the freakish sensation of the subconscious producing solutions or pointing the way to them without the conscious mind being able to.

The mind is marvelous, impossible to capture with a number.

>>12482654
You'd think, but no.
Considering mathematics has such complex models, like string theory. Or such predictive powers, such economic analysis.
I don't think it is that outlandish, you simply think it is, because of the amount of reverence you place in literature.
The human mind is incredible, but no more incredible than the laws of physics that is operates within.

>>12482595
I'm not that anon but I forgive you. Interesting info regarding possible disparity between verbal and non verbal IQ, so thanks. Is it possible that when Salinger took the test he didn't try very hard? Many of these stories of reported IQ are anecdotal, the writers themselves don't come out and say it, and no one tests them.

>>12482682
It's like with Feynman, they always go on about his IQ "only" being 120.
I mean, not only wasn't that a complete IQ test, and only vested VIQ, that still places him within the top 90% of people for VIQ.
I suspect his PIQ would've been considerably higher, at least 145+.
Which would've made his FSIQ around 132, to 133. Which makes much more sense, considering the average PhD has an IQ of 125+, and STEM graduates in physics, have an IQ of around 133.

>>12478795
>Heidegger
>137

>>12482694
I think he said 125, which is top 5%, but you said it was a vested VIQ? How do you know? Also, did you read any writings by Kaczynski? It's abysmal, while Feynman did give good speeches, but my own understanding is very limited so I'm talking out of my ass.

>>12482774
I'm drunk too don't even know why I mentioned Kaczynski

>>12482774
>*tested
It was a typo.
As to answer your question:
>Feynman was universally regarded as one of the fastest thinking and most creative theorists in his generation. Yet it has been reported-including by Feynman himself-that he only obtained a score of 125 on a school IQ test. I suspect that this test emphasized verbal, as opposed to mathematical, ability. Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test.
And mathematical ability to highly correlated with IQ, as it is also highly g-loaded (0.78).

>>12482791
>Kaczynski
He was probably the opposite, a normal VIQ, but monstrous PIQ.

>>12482565
>I think I've quite adequately explained Salinger
Lol no, you absolutely have not. It's sheer sham guesswork.

>>12482521
>We would expect, with 95% certainty that his IQ is anywhere from 118-170
This was my point exactly lol, look at that fucking range

>>12482441
>That's only 32,81,025 peop
>only 33 million fucking people
lol, imagine thinking there are 33 million potential Salingers alive rn in the US alone. Surely we just need to educate them.

>>12478483
Your dad married a stupid woman unfortunately. Also genotypic reshuffling has some nasty hidden outcomes for people who suffer a malicious roll from the fates

>>12482441
>In other words, a person with an IQ of 130 is as smart, as the difference between a person of an IQ 90 when compared to a person of an IQ of 110.
You mean to say such a person is as much smarter than than the 110, as the 110 is above the 90. That isn't so. 130 and 110 could get along fine as friends imo. You might not even be able to tell the difference in conversation, depending on level of education. 90 would be noticeably deficient.

>>12482774
Kaczynski had a mediocre verbal but high quantitative and visual-spatial intelligence. Many unbalanced autists, like Ted, have shitty verbal intelligence but excellent mathematical and spatial intelligence; its uncommon, less common than litcels having high verbal and low everything else, but he fits the profile very well. His logical reasoning in those writings are excellent, diction, style, syntax, voice are very weak compared to much more mediocre thinkers like Jung or Mailer.

>>12483057
>>12483066
>>12483072
>>12483080
You know what? Fuck you. You're a fucking sophist.
I've given huge amounts of evidence, including studies and professional manuals.
You've given NOTHING, no evidence, nothing, Just your opinion.
I give you evidence, you cherrypick a part you dislike (even if it doesn't have a great deal of bearing on the topic, for instance, the 50% IQ component is important because it lowers the "intellectual requirement" for literary work). You just gloss stuff over, and keep on going because of your bias.
There's no point in me even trying. You don't understand it. You don't want to understand it, and you don't want to accept it.
You're as bad as those fucking /pol/tards who can't accept that hereditary component is valid for between-group comparison, because it measures within-group variance.
You're intellectually disingenuous, and I'm done trying to actually give you a decent understand of IQ.
Fyi, your shitty little sample of a handful of ancedotes mean shit. If anything, you're evidence that IQ really does matter, because I tell you're a semi-sentient cave slime.
I hope you get hit by a truck, you waste of oxygen.
Next time, I hope someone makes you CITE everything you spout, just like I did, and for them to just brush you away.
Cunt.

>>12483072
Also, it was a typo (and if you actually bothered to pay attention you'd know that):
It is actually 3,281,025, which is perfectly acceptable. If you actually understood magnitudes, and stopped wanking over a writer, which again, only 50% of can be attributed to IQ. Unlike mathematics, which is 78%.

>>12482670
Bro thats a clown post.

Please go to /sci/ with your reverence for timed SAT style multiple xhoice questions designed by The Knowing Ones.

>>12483243
Lmao, I knew /lit/ was anti-science, but cracka this is crazy bad.
This board deserves to rot, and I understand why we have such contempt for you lib arts fags.

>>12483343
Bro I did two semesters of analysis and two semesters of modern physics. Im not "anti-science." Im anti "science has a quantitative metric for complex subjective phenomena like intelligence."

Incidentally this board does deserve to rot, and is in fact rotting at this very moment.

>>12483480
But it isn't "subjective", considering we can measure things like visual-spatial intelligence.
You're literally just pulling shit out of thin air, with more basis than an OPINION.

>>12478483
tripfags are fucking stupid

>>12483160
>You know what? Fuck you
kek

>>12483701
>Spent hours arguing.
>State points back up with science, whilst giving evidence.
>Literally get back nothing but opinion, and muh feels, whilst masturbating violently over an author, trying to put him on the same intellectual grounding as a fucking mathematician, even when it has been shown that only 50% of literary ability can be attributed to your IQ, because it doesn't actually require the same intellectual rigor as mathematics.
Yeah, fuck you, seriously, fuck you. So much, I hate you, cunt.

>>12483668
Yup. Nam quidem magister discipulum mei interrogat, respondebat ille "nomenfag optimum est."

>>12483734
Typing in Latin doesn't prove your intelligence, uneducated peasants throughout history have been able to speak fluent Latin (and could write it if taught).

105
smart enough to make arguments, too stupid to realise he's wrong.

>>12484397
What do you think he’s most wrong about?

>>12484399
>What do you think he’s most wrong about?

acts like he's objective while he isn't. Claims morality can be begotten by science, without showing or explaining how. Somehow blind to double standards he enacts by using the good intentions defense with regards to US policy, which is objectively not only unverifiable, but empirically and historically false. Regularly makes an idiot of himself but doesn't notice it (i.e his correspondence with Chomsky).

>>12484413
>Claims morality can be begotten by science, without showing or explaining how.
He just says that things can be defined, and morality as well in relation to what it means to be human. I don't see a problem with this.

>>12478795
Pynch's ex girlfriend claimed he scored 190 back in the 60's.

>>12484978
>He just says that things can be defined, and morality as well in relation to what it means to be human. I don't see a problem with this.
that's he's a hypocrite? It somehow boilds down to WE GOOD THEY BAD as a given without the objectivity he feigns.

>>12478483
This
I’m 140 and didn’t even get to enter university

>>12482595
According to Wikipedia 111-115, don't know how reliable that is. Encouraging to many people if true, because his writing was pretty damn good.

>>12483710
yea m8 he's a low iq cunt >>12483701

>>12485610
actually reading back the posts you both are low iq cunt
>>12483701
>>12483710

>>12480252
>Jordan Peterson is 152, let that sink in.
the fact that you just said that speaks more about your IQ than his

>>12478484
Post-OD Land is 60 tier, the guy is now an average boomer who blogposts in China

I really wonder how do the people who believe in IQ determinism live with themselves, I mean imagine having a high IQ and being a very mediocre human being with no notable achievements, it would really break a person if they believed IQ was an accurate representation of someone's intellect.

I scored an IQ of 105, almost failed high school, was university valedictorian in literature, and am now a NEET.

Explain this.

>>12485659
It's about statistical probability, not absolute certainty.

>>12485684
Well you'd still be a failure even though statistics favored you to lower IQ individuals that surpassed you

>>12485679

>>12485687
Yes.

150

>>12480129
Struggles with reading comprehension

>>12478483
I'm a mensa member since I was a kid, I can tell you IQ doesn't work as a smooth increment, more like vague tiers. 100ish to 130ish are normal fags. 130ish to 150ish ate clever fags. 150ish to 170ish are smart fags. And 170ish or 180ish and above are geniuses. But these tiers are pretty loose and there's plenty of overlap, I've met people I could swear are geniuses but only tested 150 or something

>>12480377
I was being serious.
I know you don't care.
You don't need to call out bait every time you see it like some retarded fish that thinks the rest are even worse off and he's doing them a favor. You are really just shitting in the pond.

You faggots need to leave the IQposting in /sci/

>>12484978
>He just says that things can be defined, and morality as well in relation to what it means to be human. I don't see a problem with this.
Actually, in his book “the moral landscape” he does claim that the philosophy of morals is no longer needed becuase science can now generate a true “objective” ethical system. But, being Sam Harris, most of his arguments are weak or just not there, and in the end he doesn’t prove anything. He just makes a laughing stock out of himself

>>12486001
>people in the top 0.15% aren't geniuses
Yeah you're nowhere close to 130

he said he got 150

Keats, Hegel and Borges are all easily 160+.

>>12486582
I have a pretty strict definition of genius.
There's 10 million ish people with IQs above 150-160. There aren't 10 million geniuses

>>12486001
lol fuck off retard

>>12487502
>There aren't 10 million geniuses
out of 7.5 billion? why not?

>>12478448
Foucault is a honorary Jew.

>>12486001
Unironically 160+ IQ mensa member here ama
(I'm at uni my new card is at parents home)

>>12489154
What are you studying?

>>12489154
What was the hardest IQ style question you thought you got wrong but got right?

>>12478725
wittgeinstein was probably 200

>>12478795
accurate

>>12478814
150

>>12489154
How old were you when you took the test? You got 160 on the test that requires 132? Do you read fiction? Have any favorite writers?

>>12489154
Not even valid anymore. You could be 80 IQ now for all we know.

190 IQ here
AMA

>>12478795
John Green is about average, maybe 105.

Iq is useful for populations not individuals

115

>>12480252
It has been proven that he lied about that. He failed a test that is mostly passed by 115-125 IQ people. Juden Peterstien is 130 on a good day, which is why he's just a psychologist

>>12489942
>It has been proven that he lied about that.
Source?

>>12489481
Philosophy and mathematics >>12489569
At the beginning of a 4 hour test the proctor read a short story out loud. Then the very last section of the test, 4 hours later, was a bunch of very detailed questions on that story.
>>12489676
My father fancied me a math prodigy for a long time so I've been taking IQ tests since I was 8 or so. I took the mensa one at 12 I think
>>12489710
This is true, I could be

>>12489676
I mostly read fiction. No particular favorite writer, but my favorite novel would be Ulysses--unironically, as snobby as that seems. I'm currently reading War & Peace and Tolstoy is definitely one of the best writers I've read, but his nonsense theory of history he occasionally rants about can be tiring

>>12489942
>Juden Peterstien
That's so fucking witty. How will he ever recover?

>>12490007
>At the beginning of a 4 hour test the proctor read a short story out loud. Then the very last section of the test, 4 hours later, was a bunch of very detailed questions on that story.
That's not that difficult if you're paying a good amount of attention, as you should for an IQ test.

>>12489908
He has zero reasoning skills, just read his tweets. He has 110 IQ at the most and that all comes his VIQ. He understands certain concepts that other novelists in his genre (thriller/horror) do not understand. But that may have been because he was on cocaine when he wrote them. His resent work is not even slightly impressive. Dude might just have an average IQ

>>12490194
Why are you assuming that he actually believes what he claims to?

>>12489902
John Green is a member of the Episcopalian church and is a widely quoted expert on history. His iq is at least 145, but could very well be higher

>>12490203
wait, that guy is a fuckin episcopalian? wut

>>12490214
Episcopalian church was unironically a front for Cuban and Puerto Rican communists.

>>12490214
yup. He was even enrolled in divinity school and thought about becoming a minister (like many geniuses in history)

>>12490202
You don't think King believes all the batshit things he says on twiter? He probably does work for the CIA and says what they tell him, but he is still a moron when it comes to actually thinking about things.

>>12490203
>Episcopalian
So he is a communist. Also is that guy a massive shill or what? If he believes in god why does he come across as an athiest?

160ish

>>12490286
>If he believes in god why does he come across as an athiest?
Because he's Episcopalian, that's the way they are.

>>12489793
how does it feel knowing that despite all the talent you have, you are wasting your time on 4chan and you will inevitably have died unfulfilled and only with the remembrances of arguments you had with people over books that neither you nor them actually read.

>>12490047
I glanced at it myself once and let me tell you, I side with Shakespeare on brevity.

>>12480076

>given IQ test as a child
>score 130

Am I a midwit?

>>12491726
See >>12486001

>>12486001
>you have to be smarter than average to be average

>>12489154
do they hand out those fucking stickers that say: "THIS BOOK WAS READ BY A MENSA MEMBER" so you can slap em on books?

>>12492455
I haven't seen them before. I haven't gone to any events in a long time

>>12493620
I thought it was going to be harder to get in than it was. I did the Mensa admissions test and the non-verbal test and got in with both (my highest was the non-verbal in which I scored a 141, maybe I got lucky). I was a member for a while and went to one event. I stopped after I had noticed all the Mensa fags were boring.

>>12490203
>knowing about history makes you intelligent meme

>>12482617
What is your actual methodology for estimating? To come up with that number of 160, you must at least have an idea of what percentile James Joyce is in writing ability/fame, and what the correlation is between that ability and general intelligence. You could also look to see how well he did in school (was he a 1/1000 student? or a 1/300?) and make estimates based on other things that correlate with IQ. But you just guessed.

>>12494018
I agree they're kinda gross and old usually

>>12494072
>Finnegans Wake

>>12478483
Foucalt would be expected to have very high-iq possibly around 160. In terms of academic citations, he is pretty close to chomsky who based on citations I once saw estimated around 160. No statement on their politics or philosophy but they have been successful in academia.

>>12482510
Lol he has a lot of publications on IQ, I don't think he took an online test. But he might have only reported his verbal score.