/lit/ - Literature

>>14642109
Firstly, the midwit does not understand the extent of their ignorance. Secondly, the midwit thinks consuming mainstream culture that has had its parameters set by the oligarchy is a sign of being informed. Put another way, the diversity of the views they expose themselves to whether it be on television, social media or in books contain ideologies that the elite do not find threatening.

The smart person is the inverse. The more they read and seek to educate themselves, the more they gain an appreciation for the bounds of their knowledge such that they are willing to say "I do not know". This drives a hunger for further knowledge mediated by critical thinking. The smart person does not believe that at some point in this journey they will attain some enlightenment and be able to say "I have the answer". They continue to retain intellectual humility as their ideas change over time and understand they will die knowing the universe is just as mysterious as they found it. All we have are perhaps better approximations of Truth.

>>14642109
>the midwit brain is the worse to have
Agreed, but I don't think the midwit zone is symmetrical around the mean IQ. People 1 s.d. above are far worse than those 1 s.d. below.

>>14642226
>Firstly, the midwit does not understand the extent of their ignorance.
It is worse than that. The midwit can accept his ignorance, but only when an authority figure tells him to. He will accept a counterintuitive statement from a 'trusted' source and continue to double down on it without solid evidence. Show him hard evidence for something that goes against his narrative, however, and he will dismiss it with terms like 'pseudo', 'cute' and 'grasping at straws'.

>>14642109
>disproportionate criminals are 'good' because i need something positive to say about them in order to arrive at my thesis
wew

>>14643249
They also lack most human sensibilities.

>>14643249
>>14643259
it's almost like it's bad to be retarded and the more intelligent generally the better off you are

You have good people and smart people the other way around. High IQ are good, low IQ are smart. I could explain it, but I choose not to.

>>14643262
>the more intelligent
Freakishly intelligent people often experience much loneliness and depression because of it. If everyone around you has the equivalent of a child's intellect you become surly and withdrawn.

>>14642109
the 110-130 IQ range are the absolute dredges of society, this is true

>>14643270
this is actually a myth, high iq people (incl extremely high iqs) tend to be much more social and successful in all areas of life (this scientifically proven)

>>14643270
Case in point: Newton. A terrible misanthrope.

>>14643275
No it isn't. Those would be socially intelligent people. There are different kinds of intelligence.

>>14643277
that was likely caused by some form of autism. most geniuses throughout history have had families and very active social lives

>>14643275
>>14643281
Also success and depression/loneliness are not mutually exclusive. You can operate successfully in the social world and still feel lonely and depressed about it.

>>14643275
Lmao no. If you’re truly high IQ and also properly educated (not this bullshit public schooling education but a proper and thorough in depth foundational knowledge) you’ll realize how much the average person grieves you, how much contempt you will hold for those below you. You will only find true satisfaction and peace in camaraderie with someone whom is your equal or that you can look up to, and if your high IQ and educated, you’ll rarely find anyone in the real world which will reach this same peaks.

the 110-125iq humanities grad students are the most odious. equipped with years worth of tidbits and received 'wisdom' with which to smugly shut down debate. appeals to 'read theory' if one questions their obscurantist idiom. educated beyond their intelligence. their politics curiously always reflect the cultural hegemony (paternalistic liberalism). they receive institutional support, and in turn reinforce the powers of the state.

>>14643275
and here we have a wonderful example of the 110-130 IQ brainlet that thinks correlation studies of population cohorts are relevant to our granular discussion of the distribution tail

>>14643281
this is also a myth. high iq people tend to be very socially adept. they're very funny, witty, interesting, charming, etc. virtually any area of life you can think of is improved by having a high iq.

>>14643284
>autism
Likely but that also feeds into why he was a supergenius. Autistic attention to detail, hyper-interest in specific topics

Midwits are good people too. They are smart enough to get shit done while not being dumb enough to engage in violent or revolutionary behaviour.

A smart elite ruling over midwits is Western developed countries. A smart elite ruling over "good people" is basically some Somali warlord or third world dictator.

>>14643293
There are multiple intelligences.

Has anyone here read Dwight MacDonald's "MassCult and MidCult" essay? It explains this phenomenon very well.

From a review of the essay:

>For Macdonald, midcult is more difficult to describe than masscult, because unlike the latter, it puts on airs of sophistication. It is the mixing of high culture and low, which, unlike masscult, is a danger to actual high culture. Even though midcult can be very popular with the educated classes, it is dangerous precisely because it makes spectators believe they are participating in high culture, in an active community of discerning tastemakers. But this is fantasy: for midcult, just like masscult, builds its responses in for you. This is the promise and peril of midcult, as it creates a simulacrum of high culture, and not the real thing. This doesn't mean midcult can't be highly aesthetically enjoyable, or innovative in its own way—just that it can't fulfill the promise of a work of high culture, or serve as a replacement for it.

>>14643306
there is no proof of that

>>14643291
if u don't have a study to back up ur claim then u have no proof, midwit.

>>14642226
You're claiming a lot for someone that says true intelligence is the acknowledgment of ignorance. Who cares about any of this shit, it's self-hating minutiae that's more rhetoric than truth.

>>14643314
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356869/

>The presence of major depressive disorder according to DSM-IV-TR criteria was found in 65% of the 100 children with high intellectual potential.

The definition of high intellectual potential is 130+ IQ here.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15878179

>DSM-IV MDD was found in 3.6% (95% CI: 3.0-4.2%) of the sample.

Major depressive disorder is twenty times more frequent in high IQ individuals. Just for starters.

>>14643329
What real difference is there between 129 and 130? It seems like an arbitrary distinction.

>>14643339
>base 10 is arbitrary
no shit. but presumably all the depression isn't concentrated in a horde of exactly 130 iq individuals so the general trend doesn't depend on the exact number chosen

>>14643339
130 is just two standard deviations from the mean. You could go with 129 or 131 without a huge change, but people use the two standard deviation marker because we have a good sense from experience that this is about where you transition from over-educated idiot to actual thinking potential.

>>14643348
I'm just pettifogging to fuck with you, it helps me get through the day.

>tfw right on the border between midwit and smart
IM SO FUCKING CLOSE ITS NOT FAIR BROS ITS NOT FAIR ITS NOT FUCKING FAIR

>>14643360
mfw 126 IQ, guess I better do acid, read and try to cultivate my creative potential.

>>14642109
It's Not that the midwit brain is the worse to have, It's that since people dont understand intelligence midwits get socialized wrongly, and live a life on constant misery trying to demonstrate themself to be something that they aren't and won't ever be: actually smart. They're trained to be smug to 90-100 iq people from the astonishing height of their 115 so when said 115 iq doesn't prevent them from being fucking dumbasses, they feel cognitive dissonance. They talk to and about people in their 140s like they were peers, when in reality they're secretaries and lab assistance. Absentee parents made them craving for attention and horrible smug Each time they receive it.
But they never actually do anything that deserves such attention. They can't.
Confucianism is even worse to their frayed nerves than our civilization of course. It's entitelly based on pretende of wisdom and personal excellency, which will forever be denied them. Cry for the chinese midwit, for hes a martyr.
When they actually come to influence, society becomes high school take two: They will never forget Chad for taking stacy to the Prom, and they'll live and felice that nightmare again again and again.
And people don't believe in hell.

>>14643444
I'll direct you to my post as well>>14643316

>>14643275
Here's one midwit. He thinks success in his social kiddie-pool supervised by Immortal Caesar is translable into actual Genius and success.
He can't even fathom that other people are swimming and thriving in the actual olímpic pool, right beside in the same building. And that the best one there feel fucking lonely.

>>14643455
I'll direct You to reddit where You belong.

>>14643267
I think this anon might be on to something

>>14643360
No It's Not. That's why It hurts.

>>14642109
Surely this thread, full of pretentious intellectual masturbation is a huge sign of midwittery. Oh shit I've been caught in the looooooodhrhfnxnakakdirhek

>>14643465
Creative

>>14643444
sounds like me. what do I do?

>>14643478
I dont need to be when I'm right.
>>14643484
Learn humility.

>>14643491
>I dont need to be when I'm right.
Now you're sounding like the midwit you described, indignant and arrogant despite not giving an argument.

>>14643491
should I just kms and roll for a higher intelligence life? I want to have all the knowledge I can about the world and I dont care for fame particularly. Can a midwit brain even begin to handle the nature of reality? Is it going to be eternal torment of living in inadequacy forever?

>>14643508
Don't listen to someone that preaches humility while saying this in the same post.
>I dont need to be when I'm right.

>>14642109

>>14643500
>ad hominem tu quoque! TU QUOQUE!TU QUOQUEEEEEEE!
You've got a Nice argument yourself.
QED.

>>14643508
No You shouldn't, You should find happiness in your situation as everyone can do. Stop trying to be special, stop trying to feel supersmart. Just find an usefull and rewarding thing to do, work hard, and relax.

>>14643537
Saying something that contradicts your argument right after making it isn't ad hominem.

>>14643545
In no way i contraddicted myself.
You're just seething because You know I'm right. Did i give You enought attention now? I suppose so. Goodbye.

>>14643549
You criticized cognitive dissonance and then shut down my point without giving any critical reason for it. I think you need to pay more attention anon.

>>14643518
This copy pasta is not horribly far off the mark, but the numbers are all wrong. He thinks of 100 IQ as the average of his world, but really he has no interaction with niggers and other untermensch. What he conceptualizes as 100 IQ is the average WASP, who has a mean of 110. Bump everything up by 10-15 to get a more accurate reflection of reality.

>>14643293
That is if they read a lot of fiction, or choose a profesion where they can cultivate their verbal inteligence by writing or daily communicating with normies.
Now put that genius to work in stem, where all he writes is technical jargon, or talks only with other smart people, and watch him choke after encountering his first 90-110iq specimen

>>14642109
I like that this image puts people of over 115 as smart. When everyone else says midwittery occurs between 115-130. Deep down I know that I still will forever be a midwit. But your image gave me a brief moment of hope and happiness. Thank you anon.

>>14643578
Midwit is a gradient, someone with an iq of 127 is far more tolerable than someone with 115.

>>14643586
I am 117 anon :(

>>14643590
Humility is what makes those with a higher iq more tolerable. Intellectual honesty is the best trait to have when approaching any academic discussion.

>>14642109
the midwit is the critique of man

>>14643552
Kek that wasn't even the correct anon. I'm the anon in the original post you were replying to.

>>14643693
I'm not going to be so stupid to contradict myself like that.

2/2

>>14643699
I should've known from his shitty spelling and grammar. My original post still stands though.

>>14643286
>operate successfully
>operate
Dissemble is the word you're looking for. As for success, I take it that a lively capacity for play sustained well into maturity, is the index of that, though it's mostly a natural endowment, which like any other isn't exactly earned, unless one is counting the trouble taken to preserve it from the usual ravages of time and chance--most particularly including opinion about what it's for, which tends to be for anything except itself. It is in fact an evolutionary or natural historical ending, a planetary culmination, a seeming result, not a fit beginning to something else. One way to compare the aptitude among children is to notice whom they imagine themselves to be more at ease with--a Matisse dallying with paper, paint and scissors--or a pop star boasting a supercar. Charmed imagination, in this regard, is a form of cunning both inimitable and unfathomable by those who measure and select company by mere wit--attunement to compression, if you will. It's not the time-saver it seems to be, and costs more than it's worth, even as it blends into the mass of expressive acts that smack of cramped and enfeebled eloquence--or the dirty trickery of equivocation about vitality, mood, atmosphere, tone, taste, etc. See also this daft cunt's >>14642109 most excellent service to Prince Hal on campaign. Nice work, if you need it.

>>14643688
Dubs of truth.

>>14642109
The adagium "ignorance is bliss" works both ways. The midwit, if you will, is blissfully ignorant of his ignorance, whereas the smart person is aware of his ignorance and therefore in a state of bliss. The state of bliss, however, is unattainable when one is aware of having a high intellect which nevertheless proves insufficient for independent thought. This is where resentment and cognitive dissonance intersect. Resentment as a result of cognitive dissonance remains absent in the midwit because he rationalizes his dissonance without realizing that the rationalization is spoon-fed by whatever authority appeals to him. The worldview of the midwit is therefore not the product of independent thought, whereas the Superior Yet Insufficient Mind realizes that his cognitive dissonance cannot be rationalized by independent thought. This leaves him loathsome of life. That is why /lit/ is a board often visited by angry people.

I hesitate to correlate moral categories to sections of the bell curve, not because of bourgeouis definitional problems immanent to moral categories, but because experience with a wide variety of people leads me to infer that there's no such correlation. There are shitty people in all walks of life.

i'm currently in the process of coming to terms with my own mediocrity. books to help me speed it up? i've heard that stoner seems to be a good one

>>14643938
Stoner is some good complacency core.

>>14643307
Midcult basically summarizes my experiences with a well-known public University in America.

>>14643858
This is a more nuanced insight into what I was saying here >>14642226. Interesting stuff. When you say independent, is that synonymous with the development of purely novel ideas or the capacity for personally developed critiques within set theoretical frameworks?

If I understood what you said correctly, the smart yet incapable of truly independent though resides behind the smart and capable of independent thought on the hypothetical bell curve.

Also, how would you say the smart yet insufficient individual should reconcile this lack in their thinking? Is it something that can be overcome or is it hardwired into the brain?

>>14644244
Also, I wonder how far behind the smart incapable person is to the smart capable person.

Late to the thread, but my screwball theory is that you can go through life relying on your own conscious, cognitive intelligence or you can ride the waves emanating from your massive and powerful, but only spontaneously accessible, subconscious intuition.
The right two thirds of your graph will default to the first option, and it’s clear why the big-brains win here. But why do the dummies beat out the midwits?
It’s because, since they can’t rely on their available brainpower, they’re surfers on the waves of gut instinct. They’ve learned how to mind their subconscious and have access to a different kind of deep intelligence.
In the end, both sets of tools, for the midwit, are either underdeveloped or atrophied, leading to them saying things like “healthcare is a human right” and/or “science rules.”

>>14643275
>>14643293
>>14643311
This is all very true.
If intelligence in general interests you, I sincerely suggest you guys check those kind of things out, it's very interesting.

The whole "multiple intelligence" thing is actually unproven after a lot of studies. Even the guy who came up with it, Gardner, is telling people to calm the fuck down about all of it. His theory has generally been misinterpreted by people. People just like the idea of "maybe I'm not super intelligent but I'm emotionally/musically/whatevery intelligent".

IQ measure is not perfect, but it's still the best general indicator of intelligence and the thing that can actually help people.

And as that guy I quoted said, high IQ people are generally better at pretty much everything, social interactions and emotional thing included.

Things can get messy and weird when you get to VERY high IQs though, that's true. But 130 IQ is already only 2% of the population, when you get to "problematic" levels of IQ, it's very rare.

Since we're discussing IQ, I figure this is probably the best place to ask this question. Are there any recommendations on how to improve my writing skills/verbal fluency? My below- average linguistic capacity has always made me want to kill myself. For example, it took me a couple of minutes to just formulate this.

>>14644797
I used to struggle with this too, and the only way I could get over it was by reading at a steady pace in a quiet, distraction-free place for an hour, and to write at least one page, each day.
If it’s any proxy for verbal IQ, my reading/whatever GRE was nice and high after like six months of this.
Anecdotal, but these are perishable skills and take practice.

>>14644615
Basically thinking fast and slow. I’ve always been fast andy really consciously thinking is seldom necessary

>>14644844
Well, it's good to hear that my condition is improvable. I've been inconsistent with reading and writing, so I'll implement a daily writing regimen. Thanks for the reply.

>>14642109
>niggers
>good people

>>14643288
>holding contempt for those below you

Why?
I only do this with people that are not willing to learn/understand/teach something.

In Montecristo how Faria teaches Dantes stuff and then Dantes teaches stuff to Jacobo. This cycle happens because the one “below” was willing to learn.
Irl people willing to learn shouldn’t be shunned upon by people more knowledgeable. Looking with disdain at someone “less cultured” just because they don’t know something is dumb.
You never know what you can learn from someone with a different background than yourself.

And I’m saying this out of experience. Being snobbish about everything and not being able to accept (or worse, covering up) when you make a mistake is by far the worst thing an individual can do.

I fucking hate everything desu and I’m pretty depressed rn

>>14643267
Low IQ tend to have more common sense or more street sense. Well, the ones that aren't trailer trash do.

>>14643275
Only because success enables a person to be more selective and elitist about who they socialize with. When you're CEO you don't have to suffer being around the office fatties.

>>14643362
mfw 132 IQ, just a little too smart to tolerate midwits but among geniuses I'm a retard. I get depressed because I am too fully aware of my own mediocrity.

>>14643249
At least they can't do much damage as criminals. For 130 IQ individuals the whole world is a playground of white-collar crime and politics to be exploited.

>>14642375
>140+
>pic related
>tfw literal midwit
Well shit, is there even any hope for me?

>>14645047
>internet IQ test
I think your score would be closer to 90.

>>14643293
>high iq people tend to be very socially adept. they're very funny, witty, interesting, charming, etc.
That's a one-way street though. You can meet other peoples emotional needs, but they can never meet yours.

>>14643303
>They are smart enough to get shit done while not being dumb enough to engage in violent or revolutionary behaviour.
This is precisely why we have corrupt political systems. The midwits are the enablers.
>A smart elite ruling over "good people" is basically some Somali warlord or third world dictator.
Third world dictators are midwits themselves, and usually just puppets of greater powers.

>>14643537
The enunciation was not identical to the conclusion. Therefore QEF, not QED.

>>14643554
Makes sense. Midwit range is probably ~100-130.

lol you stupid kant. only people that are "smart" are the 99.9 percentile

>>14645047
>Well shit, is there even any hope for me?
Just be very careful of counterintuitive statements. Higher ups will use them to program and manipulate you.

>>14642226
>>14643316
>>14644244
It is essentially a restatement of Socrates's Apology. Knowledge is knowing you know nothing

>>14644797
Read something far above your current capacity. The mind is like a muscle and will only grow in response to stress.

>>14643514
based. Thanks anon I was just about to write this myself

Hello, certified 140IQ checking in.

AMA

>>14645244
>stupid kant
Are you Nietzsche?

>>14645008
please be a joke

>>14643518
They've always screwed over asians. What new things are they doing to throw them and the gays under the bus?

Also any evidence that free bleeding was a 4channel prank? Because that's hilarious.

There's nothing more midwit than thinking an IQ test is a measure of intelligence

>>14645325
No, he literally said that.
Niall Ferguson tried to spin it as Henry's dark sense of humor in his biography.

>>14645343
Not realizing some minimum baseline of skills (which translate to high iq scores) are required for intelligence is peak midwit.

>>14643275
damn, didn't know science could be so GAY

>>14643288
>someone whom is your equal
Cringe.

>>14645343
back to >>>/out/

https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>tfw neuropsych testing a few years ago
>got labeled ~100 IQ because I had been psychotic/delusional/etc a month or so before and wasn't anywhere near 100% (acid will do that)
>actually got mesmerized during the testing and experienced dyslexia (moving letters) for the first and (hopefully) last time

Neuropsych testing is fucking scary. As part of the testing, the lady would list off numbers and she usually sounded like a robot, which added to how eerie and disturbing the whole process was.

>>14645343 here, just wanted to say >>14646649 to >>14645505 and >>14646648

regards, anon

>>14645505
>recognizing patterns is the measure of intelligence
based retard

>>14646711
It correlates with being intelligent

>>14646711
>requiring is a minimum baseline of something is the same thing as being correctly measured by it
you probably didn't do too well on the language portion either.

>>14642109
>>14642375
>>14645008
"that which is lowly or weak is good because it can't hurt me"

Yeah I guess dumb people can be taken advantage of the most by smart people however I disagree with that being considered a trait of a "good person". Maybe a good dog or servant.

>>14646649
This is just a very clever semantic game. He has redefined what G factor is, and then made his case from a faulty premise.
>>14646682
This is not only measurably wrong, but it makes you look really pathetic. Like a short guy who believes height is a pseudoscientific construct. It's not actually a manlet's height that holds him back, it is his attitude to it. If you are a happy, confident guy like Tom Cruise you can still live a great life. Same goes for brainlets.

anyone here have a non verbal learning disorder?

>>14646827
height is a pseudo-scientific construct
i'm actually 7 feet tall but i was born in the wrong body
i'll be having painful experimental surgery to correct it so i can rightly live the rest of my life as a tall man
how dare you tell me to change my attitude, this is who i am and it's my biological self that's wrong

>>14646827
also inb4 "sex =/= gender"
yes it does

>>14646818
It's not that they are innately good in some Platonic sense, they just perform fewer of the bad actions in the world. They are also less able to engage with counterintuitives which limits their reasoning ability, but also protects them from a lot of sophist language games.
E.g.
<100IQ: "I've met people of different races and genders. They exist."
>140IQ: "Actually race and gender are social constructs, but they are useful because they correlate with modal distributions of biological traits."
~100-140IQ: "Race and gender are social constructs! Stop oppressing me!"

>>14647043
midwit post

>>14642226
Pretty good post.

I think a simple way to say this is that a truly smart person is a person intelligent in the process of their thinking, not the amount and breadth of what they know.

>>14647019
Good luck with your transition anon. I recommend this surgeon; he is very open minded:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMaaTFBfzGQ

>>14647052

>>14647043
>they just perform fewer of the bad actions in the world
What is the basis of this assumption? IQ and violent crime are negatively correlated. The only possible rationalization of this statement is that you mean their bad actions are less harmful to you as they are not able to complete large scale plans.

Also I was never defining good or bad within the platonic sense but critiquing the idea you reworded that those who weak as they
>less able to engage with counterintuitives which limits their reasoning ability
are "good" simply because they are less able to do "bad" in whatever way you are defining those terms.

As for your interpretation of how IQ correlates with racial views again what is your basis for those assumptions? You seem to be saying that those with an IQ below 100 are not racist.

>>14647208
>The only possible rationalization of this statement is that you mean their bad actions are less harmful to you
It would be more precise to say they perform more of the bad than more of the bad actions, as we cannot count every single action. In the context of generalization this level of precision is not usually demanded though. For example, if we say that ACME LLC made more widget sales than any other corporation, we don't count the number of sales exchanges, but the total number of widgets sold.
Thank you for the correction. Sometimes talking to a linguistic nitpicker of Wittgensteinian proportions does help to keep the mind sharp.
>"good" simply because they are less able to do "bad" in whatever way you are defining those terms.
I try to define moral terms by actions and results, because you never truly know anyone's intentions or inner life.
>You seem to be saying that those with an IQ below 100 are not racist.
Many of them may be racist, but that is a lesser problem. A person who dislikes another race can at least be reasoned with or changed by experience. I have seen people change when they make a friend of a different race, for example.
Refusing to acknowledge the reality of racial differences prevents you from even engaging with racial issues in the first place. Any bad outcome for your race can only be interpreted as deliberate oppression.

>>14646827
>Like a short guy who believes height is a pseudoscientific construct
Height is an objective physical quantity. There is no debate on what length is. IQ is not an objective physical quantity. There is much debate over what intelligence is and whether IQ is a good or fair measure of certain kinds of intelligence.

I agree that IQ test scores and intelligence are correlated but one does exactly equal others rank relative the rest of the population. This can be shown by differing IQ test results of the same person on different IQ tests.

The danger in taking IQ too seriously is leading those who score well to as the first post puts it
>Firstly, the midwit does not understand the extent of their ignorance.

For a real world example see the 200iq of Christopher Langan and his theories.

>>14647406
>I try to define moral terms by actions and results, because you never truly know anyone's intentions or inner life.
I respect this as a valid viewpoint. However, I disagree with it.
My critique of the OP and others>>14646818
that having less opportunity or ability, in this case because of a low intelligence, to do bad does not mean one is good.
I don’t see how this could be refuted other than defining goodness as having less power or means to do bad. A position I vehemently disagree with as it would equate weakness with goodness.
Thus, back to my original statement "that which is lowly or weak is good because it can't hurt me". Which again I think is a poor way to define what a good person is.

>>14642109
>>>/sci/
>>14642226
You forget that at the core, it's humility. Having morality can help anyone, from the stupid, from the mediocre, from the intelligent. If everyone was humble, you wouldn't get that problem. Lastly, intelligence != education. Intellect is nothing if they are too arrogant to learn.

>>14647647
>>14642226
*Not that I necessarily disagree, of course. Just pointing that out, that it's humility. It's easy to think one is so smart if the masses agree with him. Which is also why ideologies concerned with the masses are generally shitty. :^)
Desu.

>>14646827
>Like a short guy who believes height is a pseudoscientific construct
Height is an objective physical quantity. There is no debate on what length is. IQ is not an objective physical quantity. There is much debate over what intelligence is and whether IQ is a good or fair measure of certain kinds of intelligence.

I agree that IQ test scores and intelligence are correlated but one does exactly equal others rank relative the rest of the population. This can be shown by differing IQ test results of the same person on different IQ tests.

The danger in taking IQ too seriously is leading those who score well to as the first post puts it
>Firstly, the midwit does not understand the extent of their ignorance.

For a real world example see the 200iq of Christopher Langan and his theories.

>>14647406
>I try to define moral terms by actions and results, because you never truly know anyone's intentions or inner life.
I respect this as a valid viewpoint. However, I disagree with it. Mainly because, if something cannot be tested, we cannot know it to be true and should not make a conclusion on it.

My critique of the OP and others>>14646818 (You) that having less opportunity or ability, in this case because of a low intelligence, to do bad does not mean one is good.

I don’t see how this could be refuted other than defining goodness as having less power or means to do bad. A position I vehemently disagree with as it would equate weakness with goodness.

Thus, back to my original statement in that the posters are defining good as their own self interest as "that which is lowly or weak is good because it can't hurt me". Which again I think is a poor way to define what a good person is.

>>14642109
I worked with developmentally disabled adults for a while when I was younger. Let me tell you, they were not "good" There were similar to average people in their morality, they just took a more blunt approach.

The smartest people I ever met were able to adapt their problem solving skills to a staggering variety of problems. Like if they were good at something, they could be that good at anything they spent time on. Watching my friend apply his ability to succeeded in academia to industry, meditation, dating, hell even fitness, was wild.

You might not have much of a say where you end up on the bell curve, but how you apply yourself can probably cause you to come off more right or left of where you'd naturally sit.

>>14642109
No, I don't really agree. Midwits are probably the most insufferable than brainies and brainlets though.

>>14647683
>hell even fitness

This one is wild. I was weak as fuck as a kid because I "didn't know how to work out" and thought punching the air hundreds of times was supposed to make me strong.

When I understood how to target various energy systems specifically I ended up getting to the point where a number of different people at the gym would randomly come up to me and ask me for advice after watching me work out.

>>14647654
>Height is an objective physical quantity. There is no debate on what length is. IQ is not an objective physical quantity. There is much debate over what intelligence is and whether IQ is a good or fair measure of certain kinds of intelligence.
Whether people have bothered to debate something is not a measure of objectivity. Nor is physicality. An objective quantity is one that allows you to accurately predict an outcome.
>The danger in taking IQ too seriously
Not taking measurements seriously is one of the most dangerous things you can do.
To use the example of Tom Cruise one more time, he did not try to become a basketball player. He went into a field that he has the natural talent for and realized his full potential.

>>14647920
Testing your understanding of theories and patterns absolutely applies to your own body. Power to you.

>>14647974
Length measurement is fact.Length is a Things-in-itself.
Intelligence measurement is an opinion.

Only one of these things can be measured with certainty. They are not equivalent.

>>14648087
>length is a thing in itself
lmfao it's a comparison it's also approximate just like IQ dum dum

>>14648100
>universal physical constants are approximate
Just fucking stop while you're ahead midwit.

http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html

>>14647654
>Mainly because, if something cannot be tested, we cannot know it to be true and should not make a conclusion on it.
That is precisely why I stick to actions and results as the standard of moral judgement.
>I don’t see how this could be refuted other than defining goodness as having less power or means to do bad. A position I vehemently disagree with as it would equate weakness with goodness.
In the case of an individual or a group of cooperating individuals, the ability to have behaved other than one did would be a salient consideration, as it pertains to culpability. In the context of a group defined by a psychometric measure there is no collective culpability, so goodness is simply the ratio of good outcomes to bad outcomes.

It seems like most of the problems attributed to "midwits" here have more to do with their psyche and mental pathologies than their perceived lack of "true" intelligence. If you aren't a genius but still good enough to understand what geniuses talk about then that should not be a source of frustration unless you have some other underlying problems with yourself.

>>14648087
>Only one of these things can be measured with certainty.

>>14648123
>It seems like most of the problems attributed to "midwits" here have more to do with their psyche and mental pathologies
It's not even their personal pathology that causes the problems. It is their willingness to be enablers for the pathology of others, as the copypasta in >>14643518 explained. Like all the people who saw the proverbial emperor with no clothes, they will play along.

>>14648100
>Imfao it's a comparison it's also approximate just like IQ
no it is not approximate in physics, see quantum mechanics, or in philosophy, see Kant

>>14648117
>That is precisely why I stick to actions and results as the standard of moral judgement.
>so goodness is simply the ratio of good outcomes to bad outcomes.
nobody can perfectly predict an outcome. This would mean we have no way control whether we are good or bad people. Thus making good or bad simply a statement of whether or not I liked the effect of any action happened to have, not a moral value judgement of the person doing it.

>>14648157
>nobody can perfectly predict an outcome
You can control your actions, though, which I included alongside outcomes as part of moral value.
>This would mean we have no way control whether we are good or bad people.
I did explain to you that the standard is different for an individual or group of cooperating individuals as compared to a group of disconnected individuals, because individuals and organizations have culpability. You can control whether you are good or bad by changing your actions, but you cannot control whether the demographic groups you belong to are good or bad.

>>14648217
>You can control your actions, though, which I included alongside outcomes as part of moral value.
So you are judging both actions and outcomes in your conclusion. Two different things that are not the same
and
>>14647406
>you never truly know anyone's intentions or inner life.
so how are you judging someones actions?

>>14648087
>Length measurement is fact.
>Intelligence measurement is an opinion.
No one gives their opinion during an intelligence test. You are given questions to answer and you are either capable of giving the correct answers or you are not, just like your head either reaches a given mark on the ruler or it doesn't. Each possible test result is assigned a numerical value for comparison to other possible results, just as a mark on the ruler is assigned a value by comparison to other marks on the ruler. The different tests are calibrated by the variance of the population, just as rulers are calibrated by physical constants to make sure they are all identical within acceptable tolerances.
If you are worried about opinion getting in the way you can always ask for a blind marking process where the test scorer doesn't know anything about you.

>>14648302
>No one gives their opinion during an intelligence test
whether a test accurately tests intelligence is an opinion

Length measurement is fact.

>>14648314
>whether a test accurately tests intelligence is an opinion
no it’s not

>>14648279
>So you are judging both actions and outcomes in your conclusion. Two different things that are not the same
They do not have to be the same to both carry moral weight.
Some actions are bad in and of themselves. For example, an unprovoked attack or theft. Therefore actions have moral value.
A person can, however, orchestrate a series of good actions toward a bad result. For example, a set of business transactions may each be legitimate on their own, but constitute bribery or collusion when executed in succession. Outcomes therefore have moral value.

>>14648339
>whether a test accurately tests intelligence is an opinion
>no it’s not
do you honestly believe that or are you just that mad about being wrong about something on an anonymous site

>>14648358
>Some actions are bad in and of themselves
please tell me your not the aussie guy who makes these christian arguments

>>14648279
>so how are you judging someones actions?
By the categorical imperative.

>>14648368
what I said is also a fact

188 IQ here, AMA

>>14642109
>tfw midwit

feels especially bad because i never got that great of an education so im not that great to talk to and i have pretty vacant thoughts. sometimes i try to write in a journal and i just keep ithkning...why bother

>>14648314
>whether a test accurately tests intelligence is an opinion
An opinion based on a wealth of data that accurately predicts observable outcomes.
>Length measurement is fact.
Whether rulers accurately test length is an opinion. Also based on a wealth of data that accurately predicts observable outcomes.

>>14648371
No, I'm not Australian or a Christian.

I am getting a little lost with who is talking but i am assuming you are the same anon from>>14647406

>>14648380
>By the categorical imperative.
Ok then if a given an action it is not a necessary action.
and
>you never truly know anyone's intentions or inner life.
Are you now only judging based of outcome?


>>14648386
>what I said is also a fact
a fact can be proven. There are a multitude of opinions on what intelligence is. Non are fact. And even if one was fact it is not a fact that an IQ test can measure it ABSOLUTELY the way a length of something can be measured absolutely. Unless that is, your definition of intelligence is doing well on IQ tests.

this is not the same as measuring length which can be exact

>>14648422
>whether a test accurately tests intelligence is an opinion
>An opinion based on a wealth of data that accurately predicts observable outcomes.
yes
>Whether rulers accurately test length is an opinion
I whole agree, whether a ruler can accurately test length is an opinion yes.

however length is a thing in in itself. Existing independent of opinion. And could possibly be exactly determined

what is intelligence in not a thing in itself. It is not independent of opinion. It cannot be exactly determined

My point is not IQ test are meaningless

>ancient athenians had an average IQ of 125

>>14648399
>i never got that great of an education so im not that great to talk to
Being great to talk to has more to do with observational skill than knowledge. A good conversationalist doesn't tell you lots of facts, but does point out things happening around you and correctly assesses your emotional reactions.
>sometimes i try to write in a journal and i just keep ithkning...why bother
Same goes for writing. Look at how Dickens paints a scene using all the senses. He starts by writing really trivial things about the faint smells in the air or the slight wear on an object, but it builds up in layers like paint on a canvas.

>>14648440
>There are a multitude of opinions on what intelligence is.
yeah, and most of them are wrong
>measuring length can be exact
wrong. any measurement you try to make of length is ultimately an approximation.

>>14648500
>yeah, and most of them are wrong
if you can prove they are wrong and yours is right I will believe you
>wrong. any measurement you try to make of length is ultimately an approximation.
I was speaking more in a philosophical sense of it can be definitive

I didn't really on to get into the physical sense as physics stops making human sense but it is definite aswell. That is where quatum physics gets its latin root quant. Space is quantifiable. There is a smallest subdivision of space called the plank length. Space can be measured exactly.

Stuff in space maybe not so much

>>14642109
>midwit
gayest insult ever uttered

>>14645059
then I'm safe!

>>14648500
>yeah, and most of them are wrong
if you can prove they are wrong and yours is right I will believe you
>wrong. any measurement you try to make of length is ultimately an approximation.
I was speaking more in a philosophical sense of it can be definitive as length is a thing in itself and is independent of observation by us

I didn't really like getting into get into the quantum physical sense as physics stops making human sense but it may be hypothetical definite aswell. Or maybe not. Having position definite makes momentum not make sense. And although there are theories that space is quantized it isn't settled science

>>14642109
Only people who have not spent significant time around dumb blacks, retards and the homeless would be (ironically) stupid enough to make such a conceit, out of comfort.

>>14643270
>he fell for the hollywood sadboy genius meme
bullied nerds just stay at homo studying so they're more educated. But the smartest people in recent history (von Neumann, Turing, Einstein, hell even Hawking) had perfectly normal social lives. The shitty flick portraying Turing as an autist was complete bullshit
>>14643294
being a genius and being autiystic are not mutually exclusive though. Sorry anon.

How do I know wether I am a midwit or not? I have literally never applied myself, so I genuinely don't know what my potentialities are.
I can get great grades with very little study (I'm just a freshman in philosophy, so that might be not that impressive) and people around me seems to think that I'm smart and wise. I'm pretty sure that happens only because I have my way with words, at least in my native language (I'm still not fluent in English). That said, I cannot find in myself any impressive intellectual skill, i.e. my memory is not that good, I'm not a fast reader, I'm not fast when it comes to calculations, etc.
Am I a midwit?

>>14648440
>Are you now only judging based of outcome?
I do not need to know your intentions behind an action to know whether I would wish the action to become universal law. I can therefore judge it by the categorical imperative. This gives the action a good or bad moral value independent of outcome.
There are also sets of individually good actions which when taken in aggregate, I would not wish to become universal law, such as the example given here >>14648358.
There are sets of individually bad actions which, when taken in aggregate, I would wish to become universal law. For example, lying and murder are wrong, but I would lie to hide someone from a murderer and would wish it to be universal law that we lie in this context.
Strict Kantian morality can be used to excuse any bad outcome based on action. Strict utilitarianism can be used to excuse any bad action based on outcome. I am trying to overcome both.

>>14648386
>what I said is also a fact
This was someone else speaking.

>>14648640
>Am I a midwit?
Nobody can definitively tell you the answer to that, and it's better that way.

Keep learning and have a healthy amount of humility. Caring about whether other people think you are smart is the fastest way to find yourself an intellectually stunted midwit. It will leave you too afraid of others thinking you are wrong or dumb to truly enjoy what philosophy has to offer.

>>14643290
>mfw 127 IQ humanities grad student who masquerades as a liberal in my academic writing to succeed socially with professors, colleagues, etc.
>mfw actually a reactionary monarchist and have hidden this from everyone

>>14648696
Do you have any texts you can recommend?

Do you live in Australia?

>>14648709
No, United States.

What kinds of recs are you looking for? My field is international relations.

>>14648715
>What kinds of recs are you looking for?
I'm mostly interested in defences of Monarchy and the basic texts on Reactionary thought.

I've read some, but I want a better understanding of both.

>>14648468
>however length is a thing in in itself. Existing independent of opinion.
That is your opinion. Someone else may hold a different opinion. We determine which opinion is correct by whether or not it makes accurate predictions.
>And could possibly be exactly determined
No continuous quantitative property is exactly determined. It is only determined to increasing levels of precision.

inb4 we can see length with our eyes.
Pure sense data without empirical experiment does not prove objectivity. Pic related.

>what is intelligence in not a thing in itself. It is not independent of opinion.
That is also your opinion. It does not change the standard of evidence required.

>>14648723
I mean, if you're looking for the intro-level stuff, I'd recommend the classics of de Maistre's stuff, especially Considerations on France. Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France are pretty good. Would also recommend everything here, if you want to go more in depth: https://archive.org/details/catholicpolitica00menc/page/n5/mode/2up

>>14648749
Thanks.

>>14648479
It's possible. We can't go back in time and test them.
If you're referring to Galton's work, his methods do make accurate predictions about extant peoples. I'm not sure of the sample sizes, though.

>>14648395
How does it feel to live among us mere mortals anon?

>>14648752
Btw, pro-tip, if you're right wing and trying to blend in with liberals your age, do what I do and just say you're a rigid Kantian and read up on the categorical imperative so you can make arguments against liberal things without diverging from liberal reasoning.

>>14648779
Well, it used to be depressing a bit but I've learned to let the little stuff go and yes, I get that you're being ironic, har-dee-har-har. I still make mistakes. I'm learning Russian right now. Aramaic is next.

>>14648786
>do what I do and just say you're a rigid Kantian and read up on the categorical imperative so you can make arguments against liberal things without diverging from liberal reasoning.
I doubt that'll be necessary since I'm in a STEM field, but that's genius.

>>14648640
>How do I know wether I am a midwit or not?
Take an IQ test. A real one normalized to objective statistical data, not one of the internet gimicks.
>I have literally never applied myself, so I genuinely don't know what my potentialities are.
You will need a test that is highly G-loaded. Tests that include specialized abilities will not be accurate for you if you have never applied yourself to learning anything.
>my memory is not that good, I'm not a fast reader, I'm not fast when it comes to calculations
All of those are learned skills that can easily be improved regardless of your IQ. People with higher IQs may be able to learn them faster, but the result will be the same.

>>14648802
I got into an argument with a liberal colleague about her open marriage, she was talking about how great it was, so I instinctively said it was wrong.
"Why, are you a Christian?"
"Uh, no, I'm a Kantian."

I then proceeded to argue that polyamory, if universally applied, would keep monogamous men and women from gaining companionship (which is universally willed), while monogamy, when universally applied, would still allow people who would prefer polyamory to obtain companionship. Therefore, monogamy conforms to the categorical imperative (because it allows everyone to achieve the universal will), while polyamory does not.

>>14642109
What are some of the biggest Mid-wit traits/tells ?

>>14648696
mfw you get tenure and let the mask slip.

>>14648816
Absolute trust in figures because they have symbols of authority, especially if they're talking about something outside their field of expertise.

>>14648820
I can't even then, my gf is an art major who is super liberal (though she's asexual, so at least she's not an art hoe).

>>14648823
hey don't pick on philosophers it's not nice.

>>14648795
>I've learned to let the little stuff go
Can you give an example? What kind of little things do most people do without realizing how annoying it could be.

>>14648814
How did she take it? Does she still talk to you?

>>14648868
Yeah, we played cards yesterday. She just thinks it's kind of quirky. There's like one friend I have who knows my power-level, and she's agreed to keep it quiet, on the sole condition that, when I lose my virginity, I have to tell her every detail of it, so that she can shame me for it.

>>14648816
Strong political leanings and they tend to see the actions of others through an intuited meaning. People don't just do things in their minds every action has to be filtered through the worldview and their contrivances on social dynamics. For this reason, they lack objectivity and are stubborn when their ideas and therefore self-concept are disputed.

>>14648825
how do you have a gf that's asexual?

>>14648899
We're both actually asexual, but we like romance, so we decided to date.

I'm glad this thread nosedived to self diagnosed geniuses lamenting their plight of genuis. Get a fucking grip lmao

>>14648903
ah, that actually sounds like a chill set up. No sexual jealousy, all personality.

>>14648907
Yeah, it's pretty great. Eventually, of course, sex for children will be a must, but right now we just enjoy cuddling, handholding, and reading romanticist poetry to each other.

>>14648806
>the result will be the same
Pure bro science

>>14648914
Fat people got no reason to live.

>>14648914
>but right now we just enjoy cuddling, handholding, and reading romanticist poetry to each other.

I am happy you made this rebuttal. It definitely made me think.
>>14648747

There must be a physical reality as I am part of it.

I am a going to have to think significantly longer to decide whether or not the concept of length exists in absence of human observation. I’m admittedly having a difficult time disproving this in my head and so I will continue the rest of this with the given that length is only an opinion.

However, I then must disagree with the subsequent statement if length is only a human concept
> We determine which opinion is correct by whether or not it makes accurate predictions.
>We determine
If length only exists within my head as a human concept. How could I possibly know if there is a we to determine with. furthermore
>accurate predictions.
This is another opinion. That has to be determined by the we?
Even if something makes accurate predictions does not mean it is necessarily correct. And that correctness would only be an opinion.
Are you proposing some sort of Marcus Aurelius all is opinion? That there are no facts?
> No continuous quantitative property is exactly determined. It is only determined to increasing levels of precision.
But even in the absence of our ability to physically measure. Hypothetically it could be measured. Even if the concept only exists my human brain it could be measured. Which does make a good argument for intelligence measurement.

<>
That being said

Length measurement still differs from Intelligence measurement

Both length and intelligence are human concepts and can be measured by humans. However, their concepts are not the same in terms of measurability. IQ tests can be arbitrary in questions and they can favor those with certain life experiences. There is a randomness to an IQ test. Someone can take several IQ tests and simply get more familiar with the type of questioning or wording or strategy of it. Some people are better test takers than others but can score higher this way.

Length measurement is universal and not random. A ruler does not randomly favor certain pieces of metal and will always measure it the same. No matter how many times you measure something it does not change its measurement. A piece of wood does not get better at being measured and its length will stay the same.

>>14648864
Remove yourself, dog.

>>14642226
>Firstly, the midwit does not understand the extent of their ignorance.
How do you mean?

prove you aren't a midwit right now

>>14645047
No anon. It's over. Sorry.

>>14648395
Excellent pic related.

>>14648825
>my gf is an art major who is super liberal
>>14648885
>There's like one friend I have who knows my power-level, and she's agreed to keep it quiet, on the sole condition that, when I lose my virginity, I have to tell her every detail of it, so that she can shame me for it.
Sounds like you need better quality women in your life anon.

>>14648839
ISWYDT

>>14648864
First off, don't listen to people like >>14649598. They're just jealous. Secondly, lying with no purpose to it. I'm going through a mindfulness phase in my life right now. I started reading photography heavily back in 2007 and well, it changed my life. I had a pretty severe stroke last February and my prognosis was not good. The doctors did say that because of my age (47) that if I recovered, I would recover well. All things considered, I did recover well but I'm still having problems. I've learned being kind is important, more important that your religion. People are petty. Rise above it. You're a human. Your sapience does matter. I could go on and on but I'll shut up now. For those interested, I was tested for three days in my youth for IQ. It was estimated to be 188.

>>14648938
>Pure bro science
That's how you know I'm /fit/

>>14650094
Philosophy* not photography, though that would have been pretty cool too.

>>14650094
>I was tested for three days in my youth for IQ
IQ Fluctuates with age, it's far more likely to have dropped from that point.

>>14650113
Trust me, I know. I feel thick as a brick. I partied way to much because I was depressed all the time. It had adverse effects. Now that I'm not depressed all the time, I don't party a all. If I were to guess, my IQ probably hovers around 120 now. My grasp of things is very, very average I'm afraid. Luckily, my understanding of them is still deep, if not profound. The only thing impressive about my mind now is my vocabulary and that's marginal at best. I've read posts here on /lit/ that made me feel like a dumbass. In a good way but still. I love to learn so I have that going for me.

>>14649150
>decide whether or not the concept of length exists in absence of human observation.
The scientific method doesn't require you to decide. The decision is based on experiment.
>How could I possibly know if there is a we to determine with.
'We' in this context means beings capable of rational thought. Cogito Ergo Sum. You know that at least you exist. You may also accept that others exist or you may be a solipsist. This is a higher standard of rigor than is required for science though. Science only requires empirical proof.
>Even if something makes accurate predictions does not mean it is necessarily correct.
Again, empiricism does not require this standard of rigor. I assumed you were working by empirical standards, because you were making claims about a scientific concept.
>IQ tests can be arbitrary in questions and they can favor those with certain life experiences. There is a randomness to an IQ test.
That is why the test scores are normalized to data sets to calibrate them.
>Someone can take several IQ tests and simply get more familiar with the type of questioning or wording or strategy of it. Some people are better test takers than others but can score higher this way.
That is why statisticians put great effort into separating G-loaded from non-G-loaded factors.
>Length measurement is universal and not random.
It is possible to have a bad ruler just as much as a bad IQ test. That is why rulers are calibrated to common standards.
>A ruler does not randomly favor certain pieces of metal and will always measure it the same.
Rulers favor straight objects that can be measured against a straight edge. Other instruments exist to measure curved objects, because instrument makers are able to separate length from confounding factors, just as intelligence researchers are able to separate G from confounding factors.
>No matter how many times you measure something it does not change its measurement. A piece of wood does not get better at being measured and its length will stay the same.
Materials expand or contract according to temperature and pressure. People who measure materials for a living are aware of this and take account of it in their measurements.

>>14649598
Like this?

>>14649686
A professor of modern languages is giving a lecture:
"Notice that in some languages, a double negative makes a negative, while in other languages a double negative makes a positive. There is, however, no language where a double positive makes a negative."
A student replies:
"Yeah, right."

>>14650113
Fluid IQ drops with age. You will gain crystallized IQ if you have applied yourself.

>>14650185
>If I were to guess, my IQ probably hovers around 120 now.
Are you sure you're not underestimating (like a reverse dunning-kruger effect). Most people cannot learn a new language at your age.

>>14650735
Probably, yes. I'm actually trying to learn nine languages but I'll tell you, it's slow going. I've seen what 180+ IQ people are capable of and that's definitely not me. I had/have a prodigious memory which makes taking tests ridiculously easy. Also, I have a renaissance man kind of approach to life. I love many subjects. Painting, quantum physics, telomeres. All this should be triggering something deep inside of you. You just have to wake to it. Humans are studying telomeres right now, in fact, in order to understand our longevity. Being endothermic was a huge evolutionary advantage and in some ways allowed us a long lifespan but in the end, it's still has a due date, so to speak.