/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10671910]

How much IQ do you need to have to be a great writer?

[Anonymous No.10671914]

iq is a dumb measurement which indicates little

[Anonymous No.10671917]

one (1) IQ should be enough

[Anonymous No.10671920]

>>10671914
Please refrain from posting in my thread if you have low IQ. I would like to have an intelligent quantitative discussion on this topic with fellow geniuses instead of meander around with subhumans.

>>10671917
Hahahaha. You. Subhuman peasant. Out.

[Anonymous No.10671922]

>>10671910
IQ does not equate to creativity.

[Anonymous No.10671925]

>>10671920
t. grug

[Anonymous No.10671928]

carl panzram was a brain damaged drunk from like 8 years old and even he wrote a book

[Anonymous No.10671929]

>>10671922
this
/thread

[Anonymous No.10671938]

>>10671922
Oh, it is is blissful to be idiotic, is it not? To me, a simple comparison and contrast of the definitions of intelligence and creativity, coupled by a cursory glance of some empirical neuroscientific research are enough to see the sad state of your assertion.

Now, I would like for no more falsehoods to pollute the integrity of the brilliant discussion my thread can produce. Although maybe that is not fair to say, as any cooperation between high IQ folk leads to the extraordinary. Either way, as such I would really like for no one whose IQ is below 145 to post in this thread. Thank you, and I pity you.

[Anonymous No.10671939]

>>10671920
>quality
>demands quantified measurement

[Anonymous No.10671940]

>>10671910
Less than 150.

[Anonymous No.10671942]

>>10671910
>>10671920
protip redditors: this is bait

[Anonymous No.10671943]

>>10671938
>T. Mr is is verbiage
IQ does not measure creativity.

[Anonymous No.10671945]

>>10671938
Nice rebuttal you fucking nigger.

[Anonymous No.10671948]

>>10671939
It's called Intelligence Quotient not Intelligence Quoltient. Ergo, anything intellectual is quantitative. A rudimentary ~140 IQ pattern recognition level is sufficient to observe this.

[Anonymous No.10671951]

>>10671943
>m-muh brevity is wit
>m-muh minimalism

Brainlets can try, but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.10671975]

>>10671951
>How much IQ do you need to have to be a great writer?
>145 IQ
>against minimalism
>great writer
>advocates verbiage

>Now, I would like for no more falsehoods to pollute the integrity of the brilliant discussion my thread can produce. Although maybe that is not fair to say, as any cooperation between high IQ folk leads to the extraordinary. Either way, as such I would really like for no one whose IQ is below 145 to post in this thread. Thank you, and I pity you.

>It might be unfair to say that I would like for no more falsehoods to pollute the rich discussion my thread could produce; as any cooperation between high IQ folk leads to the extraordinary. Either way, I would like none whose IQ is below 145 to post in this thread. Thank you, I do pity you.

[Anonymous No.10671984]

I teach special children. There is a basement level of IQ where teaching literacy becomes too difficult to be practical, but I forget what it is. I think it's two standard deviations below the mean or something like that. All you need to be a writer is the ability to write and to write, so someone with a below average IQ can be a writer as long as they actually write, whereas someone with a high IQ who wastes time on Mongolia hotrod construction forums instead and f writing would never be a writer. Writing something lengthy and complex like a novel would just take much more effort on the part of a stupid person, and likely would be of lower quality than something produced by a person without a handicap, since the basics would come naturally to the average or gifted person and they could thus concentrate on style. I know there are some successful novelists with significant brain damage.

[Anonymous No.10671988]

>>10671910
Goethe was a decent writer and he had an IQ of 240, so quite a bit more than that.

[Anonymous No.10671989]

>>10671938

Well said good sir, well said indeed. Verily I tip my chapeau in the face of your most excellent and riveting exposition of the follies of the unwashed masses, which, I do quite dare say sweet sir, are so unlike gentlemen of loftier intellectual prowess and powers, such as ourselves. Quite indeed, if the aristocrats of intelligence can no longer parade their superiority in spite of the ill-will and regret of the plebeians, what has become of this dear old globe? Flaunting brilliant verbiage is just a singular out of a plurality of the elevated pleasures that regrettably remain outside the scope of the limited and bestial nous of posters on this here board of sportful vexation, whose unruly kind you just encountered.

Indeed good sir, my chapeau tips violently and rigorously in awe of your splendor and majesty.

You giant fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.10671999]

>>10671989
There is an ironic sentiment behind your writings, but you and I both know the lower one's IQ, the less human they are. It's not wrong then to assert superiority over those feeble-minded creatures. Just as we naturally take dominance over lower animals, so goes the gift and curse of us gifted ones.

[Anonymous No.10672000]

I can see right through your pretentious facade Original Poster. Have you no shame? To project your stupidity in this inert way? I sometimes envy ignorant souls like you, enjoying their simpleton minds while the weights of the world lay on our backs.

[Anonymous No.10672005]

>>10671910
>>10671920
>>10671938
>>10671951
>>10671948
>>10671999
psychometrics is a pseudo science and anyone who takes IQ seriously (ironically or not) is an idiot
Also we've had this thread too many times kill yourself OP

[Anonymous No.10672008]

>>10671984
>I teach special children
You must not hold much value to your time, though I suppose being in a profession with an average IQ of ~100 means your time was never of much value in the first place.

Fortunately, the animals you take the feminine form of pity on called teaching will soon never appear again. I look forward to the genetically engineered generation where the average person's intelligence might be close to mine. Some worthwhile dialogue awaits, at last.

[Anonymous No.10672011]

>>10672008
Is this what happens when reddit tries to bait

[Anonymous No.10672017]

>>10672000
I am OP. So you dare to challenge my intelligence. I see. Not the first one, mind you, but perhaps the first to win? I doubt it.

Here is Mensa's IQ test: https://www.mensaiqtest.net/
I will post my results in 40 minutes. If you do not post yours as well, I will take as your conceding of defeat. Good luck, though as we both know, there is no luck- only intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10672024]

>>10672017
This has to be some sort of joke
Can somebody actually be this retarded

[Anonymous No.10672034]

>>10672024
Joke? You do realize IQ has been proven beyond any shade of doubt to be 85% genetic, immutable, and positively correlated to academic success, vocational performance, wealth, happiness, mortality as well as negatively correlated to suicide, depression, mental illness, and crime? Ergo, it is not preposterous to assert that in an argument, a flow of information the formation of which is constructed using reasoning, the foremost component of the g factor which IQ accurately calculates as shown above, IQ would be the determining factor. No, it is not preposterous at all.

[Anonymous No.10672041]

>>10672034
>psychology
>proving anything

[Anonymous No.10672065]

>>10672017
>no luck, only intelligence
>being this annoying

130-139 is considered the IQ range. Also, above 140 IQ is basically bunk, the prediction of genius is less-so fluid short-term working memory, but the ability to formulate thoughts, understand those thoughts/emotions, refine that, and continue until a finished product is made. That second step -though, needing to be preceded by formulation, more IQ dependent-, is not measured by IQ tests. The reason pyschometrics gets shit on, is because most people aren't familiar with threshold theory. Creativity is heavily correlated with IQ, but after 120 (I'd be willing to say, about the average in a good thread on /lit/) that correlation doesn't exist. The same can be said for literature, complex synthesis of information is at 130+, but the ability to articulate, reformulate, metaphorize, and then unify is not then correlated with IQ thereafter. Also, IQ to IQ tests vary by a wholesome standard deviation, which is absolutely bonkers and should clue you in that they are approximations.

Basically, IQ is useful en masse and can help clarify cognitive output at a given time under given circumstances, but it's not that terribly useful in a case by case basis.

[Anonymous No.10672068]

>>10672041
This is what I mean when I say that productive dialogue cannot happen with low IQ subhumans. It's simply impossible.

Whether you like or dislike the spirited paraphrasing of my posts in mine own thread, it does not take a keen eye to see that the essence of my information can all be found in peer-reviewed scientific articles. To go further, it does not take more than an elementary reasoning ability to see all the arguments opposing mine as no more than a range of petulant disparages to fantastical liberal ideals.

Read The Neuroscience of Intelligence and come back to this thread. If you don't want to read it or still disagree with me afterwards, rest assured you have low IQ and continue your genetically bounded all-too-biological life. Otherwise, cross to my mental side of the frontal lobe and let us finally have discourse. There will be no further worthless posts by me in this thread. I have wasted far too much of my valuable high IQ time.

[Anonymous No.10672070]

>>10672034
>Joke? You do realize IQ has been proven beyond any shade of doubt to be 85% genetic, immutable, and positively correlated to academic success, vocational performance, wealth, happiness, mortality as well as negatively correlated to suicide, depression, mental illness, and crime
Income not wealth
happiness, but after a point mental illness goes up, despite happiness going up too
Mortality and income are correlated better, bad stat
crime because high iq people come from affluent families, as herridity is negatively correlated with socioeconomic status

[Anonymous No.10672073]

>>10672068
>Read The Neuroscience of Intelligence and come back to this thread. If you don't want to read it or still disagree with me afterwards, rest assured you have low IQ and continue your genetically bounded all-too-biological life. Otherwise, cross to my mental side of the frontal lobe and let us finally have discourse. There will be no further worthless posts by me in this thread. I have wasted far too much of my valuable high IQ time.
actually lol'd
8/10 bait

[Anonymous No.10672072]

>>10672070
>crime because high iq people come from affluent families
Affluent families come from high IQ people, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.10672078]

>>10672072
Income of parents is better predictor of income than iq
Again, get out of your echo chamber, the iq income correlation is .4 range, with family to offspring income it's .7
IQ is useful as a secondary tool in high performing and low performing cases, the minority obv, but the brute average is better determined via other factors

[Anonymous No.10672117]

>psychology is a pseudo science
>IQ is a valid measurement of intelligence

Pick one

[Anonymous No.10673036]

>tfw you're smart enough to appreciate good literature but not smart enough to create anything worthwhile of your own.

[Anonymous No.10673089]

>>10673036
You suck dude pull that damn trigger.

[Anonymous No.10673100]

>>10673036
You are smart enough, you're just not willing to put in the effort of making it. Your problem is discipline not intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10673690]

Okay I'll bite OP, I'm hungry and your thread suffices to quench my pallet of psued dickory.

I think you've answered your question by now, but 150 IQ is the range you want to be in to produce a grear works.

On the other hand I'm going to say you'll need over 165Iq to produce an Epic of classical standard.

[Buddha No.10673855]

>>10672034
>mensafags say you can’t increase IQ
>you actually can
face it you’ve accomplished nothing in life but your ego requires some validation for its own existence to sleep at night so you resort to shitposting about your smart points on an imageboard. all the brains in the world don’t amount to shit if not utilized. you’re worthless.

[Anonymous No.10674030]

>>10671938
>uses the word folk
>high IQ

[Anonymous No.10674049]

If you want your book to sell, then you need to water it down so the average reader won't have to pull out a dictionary. So being low IQ and creative can almost be a blessing.

[Anonymous No.10674104]

Ayo ayo I was tested as a kid and I scored 150 on verbal IQ and 101 on spatial IQ. What dat mean?
I ain't a woman.

[Anonymous No.10674173]

>>10674104
Those stats almost always mean you're homosexual.

[Anonymous No.10674203]

>>10671910
Like 70? Illiterate, impoverished, starving Russian peasants who ate their own shit and died by the age of 40 were able to imagine stories more fantastic and beautiful than anything any member of mensa has ever dreamed up. Creative ability has absolutely nothing to do with your IQ score

[Anonymous No.10674221]

>All these brainlets getting triggered over IQ

Lmao holy shit... there;s no more glaring sign of a fool.

[Anonymous No.10674223]

>>10674203
This. The most talented writer I know has an 80 IQ. He's just really imaginitive and talented and worked his ass off at his craft.

[Anonymous No.10674228]

>>10674203
I watched the Peterson video on creativity, and he said success in creative endeavors usually correlates with a genius level IQ.

[Anonymous No.10674232]

>>10674223
>The most talented writer I know, as a young shit who only knows like 4 people, who spends his time on 4chan, who lives in buttfuck nowhere

lmao ok there, dumb dumb
Why aren't you a better writer then?

[Anonymous No.10674280]

Just admit it, /lit/, you fucking suck at writing. No matter how many years you put into it, how much you read, how much you practice, your brain just wasn't cut out to distill large swaths of information such as character traits, syntactical rules, geographic blocking, hitting marks in your passages, keeping a good metric feel in your prose, maintaining an interesting level of melodic flow, keeping in mind consonant sounds that trigger the human's primitive emotional triggers in regards to an image or passage that conveys the same emotion by definition.
You know this. You see your writing is bland and lifeless. There's no movement within while you read it over.

[Anonymous No.10674303]

>>10674232
Because I'm a different person. I have a 141 IQ and I'm not as imaginitive/creative and have zero discipline. I write like once a month. You must have a very weak mind to equate what I said with the idea that "low IQ = good writer". It's not that, it's just that IQ isn't a factor.

[Anonymous No.10674307]

>>10671938
No u

[Anonymous No.10674309]

>>10674303
How do you know he has an 80 IQ? That's near retarded, anon. Me thinks you're just making this up to make yourself feel better or some shit.

[Anonymous No.10674316]

>>10674309
He told me. And also we don't live in a small town. We live in a metropolitan area. You were projecting a lot.

[Anonymous No.10674327]

>>10674316
I don't believe you have an IQ of 141, anon. That seems like a real arbitrary number.

This bullshit reeks of strong bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10674329]

>>10674280
Not really

Here is a small passage i did, its rough but i havent really edited it since ive moved on to different parts

Buttons and all he stood to look tall.
Marching away with a rythm, pinching at the seams, clocking like the hooves, thumping his drums, he was a marching boy, 13 years tall.
He felt mighty, like his old farm stead, and his fathers mead.
He thumped and drummed, the old one gone.
Grown he had shown, his jacket now snug, like arms of when new, and war of then young.
Now old and abused by the sound of the weapons used.
Shocked and made mortal, he thumps on now for ever startled.

[Anonymous No.10674333]

>>10674316
Didn't Norm Macdonald, when talking to Letterman, say the smartest people are the ones who hide their intelligence? because if they didn't, it would only invite patronization, petty attacks by fools trying to cut you down, fake friends who go reveal your fake IQ to fools on 4chan to soothe their collective anxiety over not having any talent.

[Anonymous No.10674337]

>>10672034
>correlated to academic success, vocational performance, wealth, happiness, mortality as well as negatively correlated to suicide, depression, mental illness, and crime.

Well then you must have a low IQ to be a good writer. All of the true greats were depressed failures, suicidal, unhappy, died young, and had little academic success.

[Anonymous No.10674342]

>>10674327
It's what I tested at last time. I think people don't want to believe what I'm saying because you guys are a bunch of relatively high IQ people with no potential as writers so hearing about an 80 IQ writer with talent and potential eats at you.

[Anonymous No.10674347]

>>10674329
Really bad undregrad defamiliarization exercise, like evert shitty writer on here.

[Anonymous No.10674353]

>>10674329
This is meh. Reads like a fucking high school marching band trying to go into some fills, then coming back out of the pocket slightly off.

Free metre with lame A/B rhyme schemes be damned to hell.

[Anonymous No.10674359]

>>10674221
This picture is literally me what the fuck.

[Anonymous No.10674360]

>>10674342
No... it's just that you're lying, and it's obvious.

I've been published four times. I don't care about your faggot friend who thinks you're a dink, so he lies to you about his IQ. You're in here thinking one case affects the parabola.

[Anonymous No.10674368]

>>10672034
saved

[Anonymous No.10674369]

>>10674359
you really didn't think you were special, did you? lmao

[Anonymous No.10674372]

>>10671910
IQ is not correlated with literary success, other than having at least average intelligence in the ~100 range. In order to be a great writer you need to:

>read tons of books
>write a ton every single day
>throw out all the bad writing you do
>obsessively revise the good stuff until it’s perfect

[Anonymous No.10674376]

>>10672005
I'd be willing to bet my first printing of Gravity's Rainbow that your IQ is lower than 135.

[Anonymous No.10674377]

>>10674360
Nothing I've said is a lie. And anyone can be published.

[Anonymous No.10674382]

>>10674372
>Brainlet thinks he can become Joyce by reading

watch this goddamn Peterson lecture. it's actually very insightful, since he's in his own domain, and not catering to normies
he states success in creative endeavors usually correlates with a genius level IQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxGPe1jD-qY

[Anonymous No.10674387]

>>10674369
everyone thinks they are special its just the more common you are the more confident you are that you are special

[Anonymous No.10674388]

>>10674377
Yes it is. And no, not anyone can be published. Why aren't you published?

Please stop pulling pure shit out of your ass to satiate your delusional existence.

[Anonymous No.10674394]

>>10674303
everyone who ever lies about their IQ usually falls onto the 140 range. it's not too audacious to be unbelievable, but it's higher than average to impress normies.

[Anonymous No.10674398]

>>10674388
An intensely insecure response. I've been published and so has my friend. He even won some award.

[Anonymous No.10674402]

>>10674398
No you haven't. I can tell from your responses alone, the way you write, the ideas you have, that you have nothing worth writing about that would be worth anything to anyone.

Why do you continue to lie?

[Anonymous No.10674413]

>>10674387
>everyone thinks they are special
You do know there are people who just go with the flow, right? People who just want to help, without getting anything in return?

Not everyone is as shitty as you, anon.

[Anonymous No.10674416]

>>10674369
I don't think i'm special (I can be really arrogant though) but i'm honestly surprised by how many squares I could check on this card.

[Anonymous No.10674425]

>>10674402
You're reaching a lot. I haven't displayed my ideas. I've just recounted personal experience. And I never claimed to be a great writer. In one of my original messages in this thread I made a point of saying I wasn't. I'm better than some. I'm generally well-regarded by people who know me. But I'll never be great. And my mediocre stuff has been published. Anyone who tries to get published can eventually find some small journal to take them. The insecurity apparent in your responses was funny at first but it's starting to get a little depressing.

[Anonymous No.10674429]

>>10674425
>I'm better than some. I'm generally well-regarded by people who know me.

This reads like a petty Dostoyevky character afflicted with the Dunning Kruger effect, trying to impress some teenage girl into fucking him.
Stop lying, please. Your backtracking like a wounded animal... and that's depressing.

[Anonymous No.10674434]

>>10674425
>Anyone who tries to get published can eventually find some small journal to take them

So... you were taken in by a small journal then? Get the fuck out of here, you retarded hobbyist. There's so many pious contradictions in your story, that I get the feeling you have no idea why you write in the first place.
You get tangled in renouncing your passion as soon as its questioned, which makes me think you're lying.

[Anonymous No.10674439]

>>10674429
You're a child.

[Anonymous No.10674444]

>>10674439
and you're a liar. A petty liar! Lying to 4chan! Inventing friends with near-retard level IQs who win writing awards! Not even Rain Man was this unbelievable! And guess what? He's published too!

[Anonymous No.10674457]

>>10674444
If that's what you need to tell yourself to go on LARPing as an apprentice writer before petering out in the next five years, I concede. Have your fun.

[Anonymous No.10674459]

>>10674444
quads confirm 141 IQ boy is lying

[Anonymous No.10674462]

>>10674457
Dude... you're lying on 4chan. This has nothing to do with me. Anyone with half a brain can sniff through your obvious bullshit.

I think you're the one who's afraid of petering out... if you haven't already.

[Anonymous No.10674471]

>>10674462
I'm not concerned about petering about because I'm not obsessed with writing. Nothing I've said here has been a lie. Good bye.

[Anonymous No.10674474]

>>10674457
>LARPer LARPs as a writer
>has some savant friend with a literal sub-Sarahan African-tier IQ
>calls other people LARPers

literally what

[Anonymous No.10674482]

>>10674471
Good bye, pathetic, talentless liar!

[Anonymous No.10674624]

>>10671910
have you read tolkein? its got to be low

[Anonymous No.10674646]

>tfw 165 iq
I just write short poems
Planning my book out atm tho

[Anonymous No.10674710]

Being smart and talented is so hard. You morons don't even realise how lucky you are.

[Anonymous No.10674732]

>>10674710
Actually.. yeah
Everyone tries their hardest to best me when I speak. The amount of times idiots have smiled because they correct some little thing I say that can be chalked up to semantics.

[Anonymous No.10674752]

>>10674710
There's like 3 intelligent posters here and maybe 1 of those is truly talented. Don't worry, you're just more honest with yourself, not any less talented than the mindless consumers here who daydream about writing the great American novel while filling up cheap bookshelves with shit they'll never read because that would require getting off 4chan or turning off Netflix. No judgment here, I count myself among all of you pathetic fucks.

[Anonymous No.10674774]

>>10674752
Sucks to suck huh.

[Anonymous No.10674793]

>>10674774
I've not put the effort into writing that I always promise myself I will. But I can play guitar really well so I'm not completely worthless.

[Anonymous No.10674910]

>>10672008
I teach regular children, too. My IQ is well above average, thanks. I work this job because I get to go home at 3:30 and can work my other job as a writer which wouldn't be financially viable without a day job. I teach elementary and high school. My special needs kids are wonderful. I have four of them in two classes at one school and twelve in one class at the other, so I have three special classes a week. Most of the kids aren't actually retarded, and one of the boys isn't even stupid at all. He was just horribly neglected, so he's super timid. All of them are a blast too be around except one boy who has oppositional defiance disorder because his parents abused him. I finally got through to him a couple of months ago so he likes me a lot more now and we get along. It's a wonderful job. I can be the kind of teacher that I always wished I'd had in school.

[Anonymous No.10674915]

>>10674752
Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous No.10675029]

>>10674915
I'm confidently speaking for you as well, buddy. Especially now. Anyone who'd respond that way is worse off than I originally imagined.

[Anonymous No.10675050]

>>10675029
Pssshh, yeah ok, nerd. Speak for yourself, you defeatist dweeb.

t. young, talented, published, with a wicked nice cock

[Anonymous No.10675125]

>>10674387
>tfw when you’re actually a super genius

[Anonymous No.10676120]

Jesus Christ. I remember when I first found this board and thought it had some pretty smart people, but most of you dumb motherfuckers apparently don't even realize this is bait. The absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.10676188]

>>10676120
shut up, loser

[Anonymous No.10677353]

>>10671910
Why do usually STEMtards do better in IQ tests while being significantly less capable of abstract thinking than humanities people? They've been training spatial and formal interpretation for all their career, following rigid paradigms that you just have to memorise and repeat in similar situations.
IQ doesn't measure shit, just reflects the grade of "cultural capital" in certain areas of knowledge. And you don't even need it to distinguish oligophrenics from standard individuals.
It might be a good tool for what it was invented (absolutely not): as an admission test for the army.

[Anonymous No.10677356]

>>10677353
Btw, my IQ is 145 officially tested.

[Anonymous No.10677433]

oh look, another thread on 4chan about IQ

[Anonymous No.10677444]

>>10677353
This made me wonder if I'm not really an idiot, I'm just less socialised and adapted into society, which is also a problem one way or the other, sure.

Tell me more about cultural capital, if you want.

[Anonymous No.10677864]

>>10674910
Ugh, pedophile alert.

[Anonymous No.10678985]

If you can be a great writer of Childrens Books/YA books, which is most of the literature market, not very high. I would say maybe... 95?

If you want to write about philosophy like 140. Depends on what you're writing.

[Anonymous No.10679101]

>>10671938
Bait or not, I hate this board

[Anonymous No.10679477]

>>10677444
Cultural capital is a notion coined by Bourdieu, it just reffers to something along the lines of: the distribution of legitimate knowledge between the different social classes, based mostly on the social origin, for example, if your parents are proffesors you'll "inherit" the academic or school discipline, you'll also have a more elaborated linguistic skill aquired from your parents, and you'll probably go to a better school, all of which results on a better school performance and a better social position overall.
These are a few broad features of the concept. This obviously isn't the best analitic tool (class struggle dichotomy), but it generally works. Nonetheless, there's not a "real" you behind your "idiot" self, if the result of all the elements that took part on your socialization makes you an idiot, that's what you are. If being the "victim" of "worse" or "poorer" socialization, which puts the blame on external agents makes you feel better good for you.
In conclussion, IQ tests do not measure inner capacities or genetic potential, they just measure your current state wich has many causes other than "nature" and those other "cultural" causes are much more significant than the latter.
This might be encouraging in the sense that "you could have been something totally different" but that doesn't make you different from what you are now. Also change is possible, but very difficult.
I hope it helps.

[Anonymous No.10679512]

>>10679477
>In conclussion, IQ tests do not measure inner capacities or genetic potential, they just measure your current state wich has many causes other than "nature" and those other "cultural" causes are much more significant than the latter.
This might be encouraging in the sense that "you could have been something totally different" but that doesn't make you different from what you are now. Also change is possible, but very difficult.

[Anonymous No.10679525]

>>10679477
>>10677444
Also, IQ tests do not measure intelligence as a whole (whatever that might be) but only your expertise on certain operative tasks. I as a social scientist might not be good at resolving numerical series or identifying sequences of geometrical figures which will have a deep impact on the overall performance (these are mostly the tasks that a conventional IQ test measure). That doesn't mean that you're less intelligent than those who acquired those skills through training, it just means that you don't have those specific skills.
Now, go read, write and think much more than you actually do and you'll get more intelligent with time and training.
Forgive my mediocre english.

[Anonymous No.10679549]

>>10679512
>Posts a graph as some kind of self sustained evidence.
Link the full paper and i'll tell you how atrociously wrong the "study" is.

[Anonymous No.10679571]

>>10679549
He literally can't. He probably just saved it from another racist /pol/ thread.

[Anonymous No.10679573]

>>10671910
At least 14 kilos of IQ.

[Anonymous No.10679608]

>>10679549
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/8766/genetic?sequence=1

[Anonymous No.10679658]

>>10674732
Semantics is literally everything though, it is the meaning and interpretation of language

[Anonymous No.10679729]

>>10671910
90. Any more than that and the cattle won't have interest in you or ever make you known in history.

[Anonymous No.10679734]

Salinger's IQ was tested at like 110, Kerouac and most of the writers who achieve popular success during their lifetimes would probably test around there as well

[Anonymous No.10679739]

>>10671920
He didn't say he had low IQ, he just said he didn't agree with the concept of IQ.

IQ is bullshit, a means to a social darwinist end.

FPBP
/thread

[Anonymous No.10679837]

>>10671938
7.3/10 made me chuckle
>there are people who actually can't tell whether this is fake or not.

[Anonymous No.10680016]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxGPe1jD-qY
@27:30
Jordan Daddy Peterson settles this once and for all. To be truly creative, you must have a near genius level IQ... which means 99 percent of this board is fucked.

[Anonymous No.10680027]

>>10679608
>N of subjects of study ranges randomly from 25 to 242.
It's obvious that the more subjects of study there are the variance will be higher so the pearson measurements will give less significative results.
>Comparing a group of 250 subjects with groups of 25 subjects.
Hmm... a margin of error of almost 50%, statistically this has the validity of a journalistic report.
>Siblings share 100% of the enviroment.
If you look at the values of the group of 5 years old you'll see that all the cases have almost the same R value. Here it's pretty obvious that they actually do completelly share the enviroment. How the fuck do you determine if siblings of 16 y/o and onwards share exactly the same enviroment without taking their career choices and biography into account.
Also it's pretty obvious that a fucking group of 250 people will have a lower correlation value than the one of 29. The latter is the one they take as evidence of the fixed genetic traits.

Gave up reading here. This study is a fucking insult to scientific practise as a whole.
It's always evolutionary psichologists, psichologists, neuropsichologists, sociobiologists, trying to put on a "white coat" and to imitate their retarded "natural sciences" colleagues.

[Anonymous No.10680052]

>>10680016
Brainlets will never recover.
I actually enjoyed this lecture. When Peterson is in his own domain of psychoanalysis, he's absolutely on point, and is incredibly insightful.

[Anonymous No.10680055]

>>10680027
They usually apologize by saying "b-but this is the empirical evidence we had at the moment, there aren't that many twins ready to participate in our retarded studies...". Sure, but invalid data is invalid, you can be empirically wrong. If you derive conclussions from insufficient data you're just making up the reality you want to see and not the one that's actually "out there".

[Anonymous No.10680066]

>>10671938
this made my night, ty anon

[Anonymous No.10680810]

>>10680016
>lobsters
>serotonin
>"scientific" observations than might well be done from common sense
>Rooted on biology
Mediocre dogmatic retarded psychologist writes self-help book for castrated white conservative males with "alpha" complex, people believes his preachings.
Shouldn't it actually be the opposite?

[Anonymous No.10680819]

>>10680810
nice justifying you're doing there

[Anonymous No.10680971]

>>10680819
I know that memerson is highly seductive for giving taxative explanations by repeating the words IQ, Serotonin and biology ad livitum. >You're gay because you're biologically inclined to.
>You're weak because you're biologically inclined to.
>You're not creative because low IQ.
>You like strawberry lollipop because DNA.
Everything seems so easy when you resort to circular tautological explanations. Is it that difficult to find out that what seems to explain is what it actually is to be explained?
I know you're not guilty of your stupidity but i really feel pity for you brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10681026]

>>10680971
You didn't state anything.
You just said
>This guy makes statements about humans.
>all human function falls under biology
>Circular Tautological

literally what? your whole post in an example of that. You gave nothing worth anything

[Anonymous No.10681053]

>>10681026
You left out the conclusion of Kermit's usual train of syllogism. I know you're trolling, but I'll supply it anyway:
>X trait and Y trait exist in some but not all humans
>These traits seem to exist from a young age
>Therefore they are inborn, biologically determined, and cannot be changed

[Anonymous No.10681074]

>>10681053
Stop pretending to have read Kant, you midwit.

Accept you're not destined for greatness already.

[Anonymous No.10681103]

>>10681026
>all human function falls under biology
Does that mean that every movement, gesture, thought, emotion, etc. is prefixed from the moment the spermatozoid fertilizes the ovum?
If by biology we understand all the interactions between humans and their enviroment, i don't think so.
I see you don't have a clue about what a tautological explanation is. Just google it.
i've already lost enough time with your "scientific" article above. I'm assuming that you're the /pol/ poster from above.
Now, go tidy up your room and sit straight.