/lit/ - Literature

>>18558931
Posting bookshelves

Probably reading a very dumb book

>>18558931
an IQ thread on /lit/ still? but with all the midwits decrying IQ.

t. chad 150

>>18558937

>>18558931
>bravenewworld.jpg
>I thought this book was meant to be a dystopia

>>18558937
>>18558944
just checked out the shelf thread. not the same

>>18558931
Posting your results on one of those apps that measure your vocabulary. And yes, I'm an ESL who is intimidated by the results of native English speakers

>>18558931
Probably posting a book about iq

Imagine believing IQ is real

>>18558944
Woman?

>>18558931
making a thread about the bible

>>18558931
Posting about Husserl & Phenomenology
> purely an excuse to show off power level
> makes pseuds go fucking wild
> real, but useless in the hands of /lit/ retards
> actually really useful if you truly are high IQ

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

>>18559179
>I swear philosophy is useful!! You're just too dumb!!!!

>>18559194

... yes?

>>18559183
Are you retarded? I would choose the team filled with better engineers; IQ has nothing to do with specialty knowledge and experience. IQ is absolutely meaningless

>>18559183
Keep believing that a number obtained through a videogame determines your intelligence

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

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

>>18559256
Usually when trying to understand a phenomenon you control for variables. So youd want 4 groups, low iq w exp, low iq w/o exp, high IQ w exp, high iq w/o exp.

>>18559256
If I knew nothing else I wouldn't certainly stick to a fucking number. I would look at them in the face and talk with them and see who would convince me more. But let it go, I don't expect a burger to understand anything about human interaction.

>>18559256
I soo soooo honour you hire Mr Wong for amaaaazing bridge construction

>>18559279
meant for >>18559249

>>18559279
> I would take a team that has serious deficit in accomplishing basic logical tasks over one that is assembled from the 90+ percentile of society.
Fucking retard.

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

>>18559295
>I would choose a number obtained with crossword puzzles instead of human beings I personally trust
Fucking retard.

>>18559300
My sincere opinion is that you should improve your reading comprehension

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

>>18559310
this

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

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

>>18559228
>IQ has nothing to do with specialty knowledge and experience
It does because low IQ people don't become engineers lmao

Evidently, the /lit/ equivalent to posting an IQ thread on /sci/ is posting an IQ thread on /lit/.

>>18559614
I would never choose a group solely based on their IQ. To put it simply, the bridge would never get built.
>>18559626
yea pretty funny how that happened but I would be lying if i said that wasn't my intention.

>>18559321
>>18559614
>choose based on nothing but the IQ measure
Things that will never happen, so your question is meaningless.

>>18559654
>>18559675
Lel you won't answer the question because you know what the answer is. If your life depended on it you would 100% choose the 130iq group and you know it

>>18559725
You just don't seem to understand that not everyone judges people on their IQ. Therefore, to us your question is completely unrealistic and impossible, and we cannot provide you an answer.
My advice? Stop living your life thinking you are smarter than everyone.
Everyone is smart, and everyone is stupid. Its just situational, everyone has tradeoffs. That's the duality of humans. Ying Yang.

>>18559725
There's one problem, my burger friend, and you're totally missing it: the fact that you pose that question indicates that you attribute more value to a made-up number than to the person itself. Forcing someone to answer your question doesn't validate your method of measurement. If I believed, say, that hair color determines the value of an individual, and I forced you to answer a question where I ask you if you'd rather choose a group of red-haired people or a group of blonde-haired people to do something, the fact that you wouldn't answer wouldn't mean that my method of measurement is valid or real.

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

>>18559800
I would say that it doesnt matter at all if you pick the red hair or blond hair group, because as far as I know it doesn't. You guys are curiously incapable of saying that it doesnt matter if you choose the 80 or 130 group, because you know deep down it does matter

>>18559801
no i wouldnt. because what if the purported 130IQ group is better? thats the whole fucking point man. WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH INFO ON THEM TO PICK ONE.

>>18559825
If iq isn't real then there is absolutely no reason to think the 130 group is better, so it's just a coin flip and you can pick at random, that's all the infi you have. If iq is real then you'll pick the 130 group I'd thats all the info you have

posting an iq thread on /lit/

>>18559830
So you've added a new rule now where if we don't believe in IQ we have to pick a group randomly?
Anon I...

>>18559792
Imagine being this guy. He would have no problem believing that some people are naturally more gifted athletically but ask him if some people are naturally more gifted intellectually and he recoils.

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

>>18559874

>>18559883

>>18559861
not him, but accepting natural differences in intellectual ability and accepting IQ as an accurate measure of intellectual ability are two different things

>>18559894

>>18559183

I wouldn't care desu
>HE GOT MORE POINTS ON AN EXAM ABOUT FINDING PATTERNS!!!! THIS WOULD SOMEHOW EFFECT HOW THEY BUILD A BRIDGE!!!!

>>18559897
Yes obviously but the reason people deny IQ so much is for the very reason that it implies natural inequality. It’s somewhat analogous to judging someone’s physical fitness by a set of lifts or running time and mathematically assigning a score. Sure that might be flawed and won’t give you a 100% accurate or wholistic measure of athletic ability. But if somebody started arguing that the test didn’t show anything at all about underlying fitness and that anybody can be just as athletic as an Olympic athlete if they were giving the right environment you would think they were foolish.

>>18559932
Then you would probably die lel

>>18559816
>>18559880
You seem unable to understand that fantasy-like questions do not oblige anyone to a serious answer. Fantasy-like scenarios are not taken seriously by someone who has enough self-control not to meddle where he shouldn't. Your question is as dumb as the trolley problem. The only answer I can give you is that I refuse to choose blindly, period. Choosing only on the basis of a fictitious number is the same as choosing blindly, so I refuse to. Deal with it.

>>18559939
>BROOOOOOO THE BRIDGE BUILDERS HAD LOWER PATTERN GAME POINTS!!!!! THEY CAN'T BUILD A BRIDGE DO NOT CROSS IT NOOOOOOOOO

>>18559948
Why am I comfortable saying that it dowsnt matter if I choose the red hair or blond hair team butbyoure not comfortable saying that it doesnt matter if you choose the 80 or 130 team?

If your life were on the line you would choose the 130 team, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. It's becoming tedious watching you dance around this

>>18559880
I am not comfortable choosing either group in the bridge test because I have nothing to base my decision on.
I am not comfortable choosing either group in the hair color test because I also have nothing to base my decision on.

>>18559956
Do you think there are a lot of structural engineers with 80 iq lmao. By all means though risk your life to virtue signal over le sacred unknowable intelligence and equality

>>18559861
Imagine being this guy. He would have no problem believing that some people are better at athletic pursuits due to experience and practice but ask him if some people are better experienced at an intellectual task and he recoils
Smug faggot face.jpg

>>18559939
so lets change the situation

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

now what? still not choosing the tards?

>>18559966
If you have nothing to go on it doesnt matter which group you choose, so if you're forced to choose one you can just flip a coin. You would flip a coin for the hair scenario, you wouldn't flip a coin for the iq scenario, you would choose the 130 group.

>>18559981
Your sexual fantasies are unrelated to the bridge building abilities of the two teams in question

>>18559964
Again forcing people to answer your question. I'll try for the last time to show you where you are wrong.

By imposing your question to me, by compelling me to answer, you are forcing your opinion that IQ matters on me. Since I don't share this opinion, I'm not putting myself on the same ground on which you stand. The fact that I refuse to answer does not mean that I am uncomfortable with the content of your question, but that I do not share and agree with its premises. You are fundamentally a violent person, and I don't want to deal with you.

>>18559988
if its the only variable they give me than yes i would choose the 130 iq group but that doesnt mean that their bridge would be 100% better than the tard group's bridge
in construction, exp and knowledge about how to build a bridge is more important

jfc anti-iq guy, seriously kill yourself, reading that exchange made me feel like I just lost 20 IQ points.
Its an abstraction that has consistently been shown to be a good predictor of test scores, job performance, GPA, success in mathematics and law, and the average age virginity is lost.
My advice? Go pack to /pol/, where you can masturbate with other anti-science retards.

>>18560010
Lmao you are such a pussy. You know the 130iq group is better, that's why you won't just say it doesnt matter which group you choose. You refusing to choose a group is just being a child who won't engage in the question at all

we postin IQs?

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

>>18560011
Of course iq is not remotely the only thing that matters. I was only responding to the guys who said its 'not real' when it clearly does measure some aspect of ability

>>18559157
No, sorry. Cock and balls, unironically.

>>18560024
If your life depended on choosing a group youd choose the 130 group without even blinking

>>18560023
yes
mid wit and proud

>>18560018
>>18560038
I don't think it matters what we say anymore. You seem to also have made up your mind 30 minutes ago. This has been a massive waste of time for all parties involved. Bygones are bygones.
This is still the opinion I hold >>18560010

>>18560018
No you just don't get it bro. I do not refuse the possibility that the lower IQ group will work with me, I refuse to flip a coin. It's different. I want and I demand to have a serious basis on which to choose. That serious basis is not a number, but my actual knowledge of the people who are in those groups. It might be that I'd choose more people from the higher IQ group, or it might be the opposite. Either way, it would be a coincidence, because I wouldn't care about a fake number.

If I forced you to tell me if you'd rather kill your girlfriend or your mom I would be doing violence to you, so I do not ask you that question, and I don't want you to answer in your next post.

>>18560053
>>18560058
Why are you denying that gun to the head you would obviously choose the 130 group if forced to pick? Its certainly amusing to me but dont you feel like fucking retards?

>>18559825
>>18559792
>>18559800
The question is not "Which would you pick?" the question is "Would you be fine with using the 80IQ group?" If someone asked if I'd be fine using the blonde group, I'd say "Sure." The fact that you refuse to say this means you're either dealing with a terrible reading comprehension or you would really prefer the 130IQ group.

>>18560071
>>18560084
>the question is "Would you be fine with using the 80IQ group?"
Oh, fine! Now it's acceptable. The answer is yes, I would be fine with using the 80IQ group.

>>18560089
Youd be fine using the 80iq group knowing your life depends on them being more capable of engineering and building a bridge than the 130iq group? Let's say it's the Milan viaduct

>>18560041
How many language do you know?

>>18560089
If you didn't understand that was the content of the question to begin with, you're retarded. If you did realize it and chose to feign ignorance anyway, you're arguing in bad faith. Either way, you're not worth engaging with.

>>18560114
2.5
English, Chinese and a tiny bit of Japanese
I can read Hiragana and Katakana and recognize some kanji, but I lost interest before I got to learning grammar because I didn't really need to go beyond this point if all I wanted to do was consume Japanese media

>>18560084
Reading comprehension is fine. You guys just don't seem to understand that in my eyes, there is no difference between the two groups and since we're not allowed to have any more info on them. Picking one is simply impossible and would have be a gamble. And taking a gamble on a situation like this would be retarded. Therefore in my eyes your question is unanswerable.

>>18560134
You're forced to pick one. If you're forced to pick between red and blond hair how do you decide? Coin flip or equivalent random selection. If you're forced to pick between 130 and 80 are you also going to coin flip? Or would you choose the 130?

>>18560148
I would die as a martyr refusing to give an answer to your flawed question.
I want to know the people I'm choosing to build the bridge.
If I cant, then I cant answer your question.

>>18560110
You're forcing your opinion on IQ upon me again, and your incredible stubbornness (stupidity?) makes you unable to understand what I mean. But I'll try again, with different words again.

You think IQ determines "intelligence", I think it's nothing but a grade you get after a videogame. If you want to ask me: "Would you be fine with knowing that your life depends on a group whose grade in videogames is lower than the grade of the other group?" then I respond that yes, I'm fine with it. But what you are actually doing here is asking me: "Would you be fine with knowing that your life depends on a group that is less intelligent than the other group?". In this case, I have the right not to answer, because I do not share your interpretation.

In other words, the answer that you are so desperately trying to steal from my mouth is not the answer to the question as I read it, but the answer to the question as YOU read it. For this reason, you are basically forcing the answer that YOU'd give upon me. Since I do not share the premises of your system of thought, we can not share the question.

Did one of the Communist discords call for a brigade of this thread or something?

>>18560169
>I would die as a martyr rather than admit iq predicts for ability
Fucking lmao
>>18560176
If you actually thought iq wasn't related to intelligence then you would say 'seeing as I have no information to go off and am forced to choose a coin flip is how I will decide, it's fine to choose the 80iq group'. You are incapable of saying this because some part of your hilariously retarded belief system tells you this is wrong even though basically everything you think is incredibly stupid

>>18558931
/sci/ is all abour 1=/=0.999999.... IQ, antivaxx and race vs IQ now.
/lit/ is kind of about dense about guenon and evola, but isn't as repetitive, low IQ and autistic as /sci/

>>18560191
Wow, now you're recurring to ad-hominems? Says a lot on your insecurity.

Again, I simply can not answer "it doesn't matter" because you would interpret it as if I wouldn't give any importance to intelligence. This is incorrect, because I do give importance to intelligence, but differently from you I am absolutely sure that it doesn't have anything to do with a videogame score.

Ask me if I would put my life in the hands of a group with a higher videogame score and I will answer yes.

>>18560210
I'm asking you about iq, you can consider it a video game score if you like, it really doesnt matter. If it's a video game score then you should be fine choosing the 80iq group, since it has nothing to do with intelligence

>>18560191
no. our belief system tells us that it would be wrong to choose either group. therefore we cannot answer your question.
I've lost count of how many times we've worded this differently.

>ctrl f "translation"
>0 results
Maybe not so much now but there used to be never ending arguments about translations, especially for Russian novels.

>>18560058
>If I forced you to tell me if you'd rather kill your girlfriend or your mom I would be doing violence to you, so I do not ask you that question, and I don't want you to answer in your next post.
What does this even mean?

>>18560219
Alright, then I am fine with it.

>>18560221
You're forced to make a choice in this scenario, when forced to make a choice with no relevant information you have to choose at random, like you would with the hair scenario
>>18560230
Then you'd die lol, there are no successful structural engineers with 80 iq. You cannot build the Milan viaduct with only 80iq people

>>18560243
Millau*

>>18560243
What happens if I don't make a choice?

>>18560259
you get no bridge
and people with higher IQ than you builds a bridge

>>18560259
You die if you refuse as well. You're at gunpoint and need to choose the team that can build the bridge

>>18560263
So you're saying I've successfully avoided your question? If that is what you're saying then I think we've reached an agreement.

>>18560229
Do you go to dinner with friends and pose them such a question out of nowhere? Or wouldn't it be inappropriate?

There are questions that do not have answers, even if you insist on forcing people to answer. And above all, if you force people to answer a question against their will, the answer they will give you can not be taken as indicative of something. Only an answer that was not extrapolated by force can be indicative of something (which is like saying: it can be used to draw conclusions).

This is basic knowledge of how interviews work. Read some history of the Holy Inquisition or a fucking manual for court judges.

>>18560271
In that case, as I stated earlier, I die as a martyr.

>>18560290
very well, that's the best you can do anyway
cleanse the world of your idiocy

>>18560290
Youd really rather die as a martyr than admit the 130 group would do better? I dont really believe youd actually die for this but whatever it's your funeral, the rest of the world will unhesitatingly pick the 130 group and not die lol

>>18560288
Except this question has an obvious answer. The entire point of this hypothetical involving guns and bridges is to compel you to be honest since you won't otherwise. In reality we can just test the iq of structural engineers and see hat none of them are 80 lol.

Also stop being such a pussy about propriety where do you think you are

>>18560243
>Then you'd die lol, there are no successful structural engineers with 80 iq. You cannot build the Milan viaduct with only 80iq people
Haha based retard, do you feel satisfied now that you abused of my answer to impose your dumb point of view on me? You have just forcefully put your own words into my mouth, in the same way that inquisition lords obtained "confessions" on nocturnal sabbats from witches. Congratulations.

>>18560334
ok, who gives a shit what a burning witch has to say

>>18560334
You know iq predicts reliably for outcomes while 'witch tests' do not?

>>18560334
Also your analogy doesnt even hold. If iq doesnt matter then you arent being compelled to choose the 130 group, if you choose the 80 group and they do better(fucking lmao) you won't die

>>18560356
>>18560341
>still pretending not to understand
Holy shit, what an annoying prick. The analogy works very well, because the interpretation that an inquisition judge would give of any daily activity or habit of an alleged "witch" is incompatible with the system of values, hence the interpretation, of the witch. I already told you that I do not share your idea of what IQ is, therefore my answer (which I never gave by the way) is of no use for you.

I might have the chosen the group with the higher videogame score, and yet you would be still laughing and claiming that I eventually agreed that a higher IQ matters. The reality is that no, I have categorically never admitted that, but only that I would choose the group with the higher videogame score.

Keep baging your head against the wall, mate.

The issue that is always forced in these discussions is whether intelligence( as measured by IQ) = innovation. The bridge building anon asks a question that is totally out of context (much like an IQ test) since what's vastly more important is if the two groups have equal knowledge of the last 2000 years of bridge building and whether each group has built bridges before. Across the history of bridge building you have people of different IQs contributing to what would become the Millau Viaduct because contribution to a field is about the intimacy one has to knowledge and the circumstantial connections one makes. The point is that innovation is largely the result of experience (and circumstance) and thus can be accessed by all regardless of IQ EVEN if IQ was actually predicting intelligence. I would speculate that IQ past a point will only measure a person/groups willingness to adhere to rules.

>>18560441
Does the higher video game score correlate with bridge building ability and with other tasks generally thought to require intelligence? If so then choosing the higher video game score is perfectly reasonable isn't it?

You said iq isn't real, if it's not real there is no reason to choose the higher scoring group. You know it's real, you know you would choose the higher scoring group, you're just incredibly dishonest and won't admit this

>>18560448
Assume equal experience and knowledge, the only difference is in iq score

>>18560461
>Does the higher video game score correlate with bridge building ability and with other tasks generally thought to require intelligence?
It absolutely doesn't, because I've known people in my life who were good at videogames and totally shit at school, which is often the case.

>You know it's real, you know you would choose the higher scoring group
No my dude, I have clearly stated that:
>It might be that I'd choose more people from the higher IQ group, or it might be the opposite. Either way, it would be a coincidence, because I wouldn't care about a fake number. (>>18560058)

The point is that IQ does not matter, because it is absolutely irrelevant.

>>18560502
what's your IQ anon...

>>18560502
IQ does correlate with being able to structurally engineer a bridge though, and with many other things as well. This correlation is the entire point, and the reason that you would pick the higher iq group. If the video game score doesnt correlate with these things then it's not analogous. If the video game score does correlate then it's reasonable to use it to choose between groups

>>18560508
Never took the test.

>>18560518
hmm...

>>18560516
>IQ does correlate with being able to structurally engineer a bridge though, and with many other things as well
No it doesn't, and you're only saying this by hearsay. Keep taking everything that comes from American-Jewish authorities as gospel truth ;)

>>18560536
It absolutely does, again there is no successful team of structural engineers or physics profs who all have 80 iq

>>18560538
And that means nothing.

>>18560528
what are you insinuating

>>18560547
Yes it does, it means youd be absolutely retarded to pick the 80 iq team, which you know, again you're just a lying retard

>>18560551
nothing... nothing...
I just don't understand why a person who has never taken the test would have a reason to hate it so vehemently
unless, of course, you're lying...

>>18560562
I've taken the test and I don't believe in it.

>>18560562
No, I'm not hating on IQ tests simply because I got a low score
I didn't take the test

>>18558931
Posting an IQ thread on /lit/.

>>18560632
Yea lol. Even got myself wrapped up in it.
And it all started with this guy >>18559051
All it takes is one guy

So in reality
what is /lit/'s average IQ?
is /lit/ smarter than east asians?

>>18560562
I'm not >>18560597
I don't hate the test, I simply think it is beyond absurd to attach a number to the forehead of people and believe that it says something about their "intelligence" when the test creators themselves have no idea of what is "intelligence".
Something that makes slightly more sense is the 16 personalities test, because it is qualitative and not quantitative, it describes you instead of rating you. I believe you can describe people, but I don't believe you can rate them (as if they were goods).

>>18560556
I guess the liar is you, since you purposedly made a question that involves 80IQ engineers when you perfectly knew that 80IQ engineers do not exist. Your question was flawed since the beginning, you're just a naughty little goblin who likes to waste people's time.

>>18560688
>because 80iq engineers dont exist
Yeah and what does that tell you you fucking imbecile?

>>18560693
don't be so hard on them anon
people with low IQ suffer on pattern recognition and logical deductions

>>18560698
He's not dumb he's a lying sack of shit

>>18560707
well then the fault kind of falls on you then huh anon
if you know he's a lying sack of shit why are you letting it bother you so much

>>18560693
Again: nothing. The fact that a farmer, with less education, would get a lower IQ score than a laureate engineer does not mean that the engineer is more intelligent than the farmer. It only means that the skills developed by the engineer through education enable him to get higher scores in fucking games and quizzes. That's it. In reality, I've known farmers and peasants who had a better global understanding of the world than fucking PhDs or uni professors.

>>18560707
Oh, lying because I disagree on the particular value you assign to a computer test? That's hilarious.

>>18560757
you're too smart for that
you're like a bright teenager buckling against his parents despite agreeing with them

>>18560740
Education doesnt impact iq much, anti iq people truly have not read even the most basic overview of the literature lol
>>18560757
Lying because you know yous pick the higher group because you know it does actually correlate with intelligence. It's completely disgusting

>>18560765
Stop being the chaotic neutral jester of the thread.

>>18560783
but it's fun
in reality
people who browse /lit/ probably have an average IQ of 110+

>>18560773
>It's completely disgusting
Fucking kek, you're a walking meme my friend

>>18560803
Seriously it's repulsive that you're this dishonest

IQ predicts and corellates with all the things that one would expect a test of intelligence to predict and corellate with.

The thing that should really frighten people about IQ is that according to some quite robust research average IQ is going down.
what's worse is that Spearman's G is going down not just the meme test. The Fucking General Factor of Cognitive Ability is going DOWN!!!!!!!!

you may have heard of the flynn effect and how it seemed to show that IQ is going up, but what you don'
t realise is that there are different component measurements of an IQ test, some parts of which are trainable through practice or becoming more familiar with critical thinking concepts in daily life, these trainable components have been the main driver of this Flynn effect. there was a minor component from improved nutrition and lower disease burden but by and large this flynn effect was driven by better test familiarity.

those sections of the test that simply aren't trainable like tests where you have to repeat back a sequence of numbers in reverse or colour acuity tests have slowly trended downwards.

The unwillingness to tackle IQ as a serious subject or use it as a political football prevent us from tackling and fixing the underlying problems. or worse these trends and differences in IQ level between ethnic groups are used as a weapon by evil people

>>18559228
You're a dishonest person. Intelligence is real, different people have different levels of intelligence, and it's possible to measure intelligence to some degree. If you claim not to believe any of those points it's because you are lying.

>>18559228
The military doesn't take in recruits with an IQ below 83.....

>>18559228
>>18559256
>>18559279
Peak midwits. You guys don't even know what IQ measures.

>>18559874
The first one pisses me off, crazy how some people can't understand a hypothetical condition. Literally feels like talking to a brick wall, in fact, I'd rather talk to a brick wall

iq is fake

>>18559874
Scheherazade?

>>18559907
>Why do you think the military strategists of WWII didn't use laptop computers to help develop their strategies?
because women are heavy and you wouldn't want them sat on your lap for long they're also terrible strategists

>>18560740
What book on intelligence research did you read to come to this conclusion?

>>18562946
it;s in line with the flynn effect, your farmer's intelligence could be higher than your engineer but if your engineer is more familiar with the abstract reasoning tasks common to IQ tests he could score a higher IQ

Making a thread about books that will help you get laid. Everyone knows that books cause erectile disfunction.

>>18560012
>and the average age virginity is lost
Explain further.

>>18563098
Mind answering the question asked instead of dodging like you have for this whole thread?

>>18559621
Correct, engineers are midwits

>>18559183
I can guarantee thr majority of big infrastructure from history that still stands today was designed by people who would score around 80 iq on today's tests

>>18563575
Youd be very wrong making such a guarantee.

>>18563587
Lmfao nope, the average iq of humanity has increased by a large margin the last couple of centuries. Engineers were not aristocratic intellectuals, they were treated no different than the normal craftsmen. It wasn't until the early 20th century Bridge builders had to actually be exact eith their measurements once the complexity of infrastructure and architecture exceeded everything before it

>>18563575
Engineers back then (and mostly today) just followed procedures and rules laid out for them. It was like any other job. The men who came up with the procedures and like of course they were more intelligent but that wasn't the majority. Most engineers were taught their trade from their fathers or guilds like any other craft as this >>18563599 anon stated. It wasn't until the industrial revolution when engineering took on a very complex process

>>18563599
>the average iq of humanity
There are different populations with different averages and the increase in recent centuries is vastly overstated. If you think the men who designed the Roman bridges or whatever were the stupider people in their society you're just deluded. Masons have always been a relatively learned discipline

>>18563631
You think it was easy to design and build the great pyramids, the Colosseum, the gothic cathedrals? It was extremely complex

>>18563642
>Roman bridges or whatever were the stupider people in their society you're just deluded
Who said "stupider people in their society" idiot? It's them taking modern tests in a modern context. Roman engineers would score low.

>>18563649
No they very likely wouldn't, they knew the math of their time, 80iq people can't learn geometry to that level

>>18563648
>pyramids, the Colosseum, the gothic cathedrals?
There is nothing complex about these structures in a engineering sense. Complex engineering in the west began in the 15th century and onwards and only really took off in the 19th. And you couldn't even state the actually complex roman structure like the pantheon?
Engineers back then were idiots compared to modern engineers. These people literally had to build multiple domes on the hagia sofia because they couldn't figure out how to measure mass correctly. Pre modern engineering was a brute force process

>>18563667
Try building the giza pyramid or a gothic cathedral, they were geniuses.

>>18563673
Lmfao are your serious? There was no "genius" its a result of a long process of trail and error and a passing down of knowledge, just like how an engineer today wouldn't be able to independently come up with calculus even if they are intelligent. The impressive aspect of these structures is not its engineering.
Think of something like roman art in how is declined in the latter centuries. You think because people became genetically stupider? No, its because the traditional avenues of knowledge transfers of the older more complex art broke down for economic and poltical reasons.

>>18563710
Yes I think it took geniuses to invent the means that created those buildings.

I stopped going to /sci/ because of these fucking IQ threads and pseuds

>>18560679
Damn you op

>>18562881
She's the woman from Arabian Nights who tells the sultan 1001 histories, didn't understand what he was trying to say though.

>>18559249
IQ measures fucking pattern recognition. If only IQ was known, i'd flip a coin because it is largely arbitrary and deserves an arbitrary decision process.

>>18563806
Then you'd die because the 130 group would outperform the 80 group every time. At least youd die knowing you said the correct pieces of bullshit to not get in trouble in contemporary society lmao

>>18558937
this

>>18559183
Given that being an engineer is tremendously challenging and those that are 80iq have the same experience and knowledge as those in 130+ bracket, I would choose the former because it suggests that they would be "autistically" competent at their jobs since they're equals to those with a higher IQ.
Of course we'd have to define the preliminaries for where the overlap for what's tested on the IQ and what is considered when building that bridge is, but given the parameters of your question the people in possession of an >=80iq are a fantastic anomaly.

>>18564016
Yeah the people in this question are not engineers. They're random people who have to learn how to design and build a bridge and you know nothing about them except their iq score

>>18558931
talking about atheism

>>18559043
You shouldn't be, since those test don't even attempt to measure one's range in all the specialist lexicons that are out there: Music, science, medicine, law, taxonomy, architecture, commerce, industry, etc. And this is not to mention how much more difficult it is to weigh a reader's depth & experience when it comes to common terms that have very different shades of meaning depending on context. Even irony has unlimited possible shades to it in that all irony at the surface or mere verbal level is any noticeable contrast between denotation and connotation.

>>18563197
II was contributing to the comment chain, not that guy,

This thread was moved to >>>/qa/4620957