/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11741355]

Are there any books that can make me less of a brainlet?
I tried reading "the idiot" and i could not get past the first few pages. It was pretty much incomprehensible to me.

[Anonymous No.11741446]

>too dumb to read the idiot
ironic

[Anonymous No.11741969]

By reading more and learning more words the world will literally get more vivid and you can hold more and deeper concepts in your mind.

[Anonymous No.11742008]

>>11741969
I would like to belive that is the case, however, iq is static from birth, and i feel as if it is a prerequisite to understanding some concepts as well as reading comprehension as a whole

[Anonymous No.11742031]

>>11742008
IQ isn't a good measurement. You can easily improve your score by just practicing the tests . The whole concept of intelligence is very vague and not useful when looking at individuals.

Proficiency in reading is trainable as is most skills, including analytical and critical thinking.

The fact you are even considering these things means you are more than capable of tackling most works. Sometimes it can take some time to get your mind used to reading too. I have days I sit for like 30 minutes before I actually get into a flow, especially with harder books. There is also usually a wall of vocab for each new author/historical period that can feel daunting at first.

[Anonymous No.11742050]

>>11742031
>You can easily improve your score by just practicing the tests .

Bullshit. This is strictly untrue in modern tests. You might bring your score up a few points but nothing of any significance, an average intelligence person will almost never be able to reach anywhere near 120+ no matter how long he trains.
The very point of IQ tests is that they engage the subject with problems that are simply ambivilent to all experience and knowledge. There is simply nothing to learn past merely getting comfortable with the format of questioning. Everything from there is concrete problem solving ability that is ambivilient to experience and knowledge as is the point of the test.

You're an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about

[Anonymous No.11742057]

>>11742050
Is that why I increased my IQ by 30+ points in a few years? Trust me I read about this obsessively for a long time. IQ is a meme and anyone can improve their score by a ton with some effort.

[Anonymous No.11742068]

>>11742031
I appreciate the words of encouragement, but i remember hearing that iq can now be measured in dna tests and is therefore significantly important as well as static. I dont know what my iq is but i dont think it is in the range i want it to be.

[Anonymous No.11742071]

>>11742057
>Is that why I increased my IQ by 30+ points in a few years?

I don't know, who gives a shit. Maybe you had a brain tumor that popped. You must have went up from 60 to 90 if you seriously think this is an argument. Show me the data showing consistent large improvement (i.e. more than a standard deviation) due to training, you won't find it.

[Anonymous No.11742087]

>>11742071
It went up from 115 to 145. And literally go look for the data its not hard to find. Repeated testing consistently increase scores by a ton.

[Anonymous No.11742088]

>>11742071
Jesus Christ. I wish it was more rare for someone to be as mad as you are while still being as wrong as you are

[Anonymous No.11742092]

>>11742087
Unless you were given the literal same set of questions again this is absolute horseshit supposition and again you fucking dummy a sinlge (spurious) anecdotal account.
If you gave a set of 100 people the test and had that same 100 do it again you will not find any such rise in ability

[Anonymous No.11742094]

>>11742088
Not an argument. Show the figures or keep quiet

[Anonymous No.11742099]

>>11742092
If those people would directly train to increase their IQ they would. And even the second time they take the test there would be an obvious improvement.

[Anonymous No.11742109]

>>11742099
>If those people would directly train to increase their IQ they would

They wouldn't. We know this because this very experiment was attempted and it resulted in no such significant rise. Again do the fucking research before talking shit

[Anonymous No.11742112]

>>11742109
You are talking out of your ass. It's pretty obvious that you could improve on the testing aspects. Show me this research and stop getting so upset because reality doesn't fit your brainlet worldview. There's a reason noone actually intelligent gives a shit about IQ.

[Anonymous No.11742124]

>>11742112
https://menghublog.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/educational-intervention-and-the-failure-to-raise-iq-permanently/

Read this article, many such links here. Many MANY attemps have been made in the past trying to improve the results of poor kids to perform on IQ tests and time and time again there has been no significant change in their results.
You'll find some minor rises in IQ but practically absolutely no chance of exceeding a standard deviation

[Anonymous No.11742164]

>>11742124
These studies literally prove what I'm saying. Both that """intelligence""" isn't related to IQ in that the children's performance increased. And that you can increase your IQ with practice. These preschool programs weren't even directly targeting IQ gain.

Now imagine young adults focusing on only IQ that aren't literally 80 IQ 5 year olds and during longer periods and you'll see substantial gain.

[Anonymous No.11742178]

>>11742164
>intelligence isn't related to IQ in that the children's performance increased

Christ you are a fucking retard. Yeah of course it increased by a little but it increases a little ACROSS THE BOARD by a very consistent amount between each subject and then retreats back to their mean value in a very short amount of time. Otherwise you would find no such pattern
How the fuck do you read this other than the obvious fact that it is directly corrspending, strongly, to a real innate performative ability in each person. Thats called a relation you absolute fucking dipshit

[Anonymous No.11742182]

>>11742178

[Anonymous No.11742192]

>>11742178
Your reading comprehension is horrible. The children improved their school performance but the IQ went down to mean after a short time. Meanwhile their improved school performance continued.
Which means that IQ and performance weren't correlated.

Hey at least you tried.

[Anonymous No.11742194]

>training your brain to learn to answer specific IQ-test questions quicker makes one actually rise in IQ points
Ask me how I know you aren't above average.
Pro tipp: IQ test should be taken "blanko" aka not knowing really what comes. MENSA therefore only gives you a change to apply one every so many years and even than I think it's max 3 times. If you circumvent the "newness" and the pressure to make your brain show it's actual calculating speed you are only cheating the test, you will not be actually smarter, you only already use what you know instead of trusting your brain speed.

The only way for a 30 points difference is down.
IQ, aka calculating speed of your brain is genetical. And can't make a glass fuller than to the brim, no matter what.
t. actually 129 individual

[Anonymous No.11742198]

>>11742194
Your entire post is basically arguing my point that IQ is useless.
>Calculating speed of your brain
pure ideology
>t. actually 129 individual
Wow, I'm mensa tier and you are only 129 iq. Must make you feel pretty bad, huh?

[Anonymous No.11742203]

>>11742198
>IQ is useless
Just like any test if people are cheating.

>I'm mensa tier
Yeah, right. That's why you can't even understand that cheating doesn't resul in actual better performance. That's what chinks do, besides by law forbidding rice farmers to participate in nationa tests to make them seem smarter. Just stop already, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11742209]

>>11742192
Oh woah, you mean the nebulous and memorization oriented work improved but the hard problem solving ability didn't. Fantastic

[Anonymous No.11742213]

>>11742198
>>Calculating speed of your brain
>pure ideology

Yes, being able to solve problems quicker is just a social construct

[Anonymous No.11742218]

>>11742203
>t. hasn't heard of intelligence creep
They have to keep recalculating the damn thing because people keep doing better at them (not to mention you can greatly improve your score simply by practicing the particular form of logic questions they give you). IQ tests are a meme and you should feel bad for not understanding that.

[Anonymous No.11742222]

>>11742218
Thats called the Flynn effect and is believed to have been caused predominately by people in the 20th century having better nutrition and not doing retarded shit like breathing unfiltered lead exhausts.
The effect itself has been shown to have ended in the West and infact IQ rates are falling

Do some fucking research

[Anonymous No.11742224]

>>11742209
>hard problem solving ability
I love how no one in this thread has ever taken a course on neuroscience, it's a bit like a playground argument

[Anonymous No.11742226]

>>11742224
Alright Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.11742229]

>>11742203
IQ tests are used in studies with the same individual so it's not cheating. The concept of IQ is faulty though and not a good measure of general intelligence. Which doesn't really exist anyways.
>>11742209
Yeah, what they actually practiced in their programs.

>>11742213
Ironically you are correct, but a frog poster like you wouldn't get why even if I spent the whole day explaining. The ideology part is the idea that the brain works like a computer and that a faster brain would process all input faster.

>>11742224
Can you expand on this, I'm not very familiar with neuroscience but I assume you are hinting at what I been trying to get across in my posts.

[Anonymous No.11742230]

>>11742222
>IQ is genetic
>but also it has been proven nutrition can improve a nations score so much they need to recalibrate the entire scoring system to make up for it
>b-but genetics, t-too

[Anonymous No.11742236]

>>11742230
>height is genetic
>but if I starved a kid he wouldn't grow past 5'0

Fucking dumbass

[Anonymous No.11742238]

>>11742230
Height is genetic as well but if you malnurish your child, it will not reach it's genetically reachable height.

Why are brainlets attracted to IQ threads like flies to shit?

[Anonymous No.11742244]

>>11742230
>they need to recalibrate the entire scoring system

The score is literally built so that 100 is equal to the average person. Of course it has to be calibrated to reflect the average person since thats what the fucking number means. /sci/ is right about this board, there are people here who can't understand numbers for shit

[Anonymous No.11742247]

>>11742236
>>11742238
Right, so to claim "your height is entirely determined by your genetics" is factually wrong. It always amazes me how formal logic can escape you people, the whole fucking test is formal logic.

[Anonymous No.11742253]

>>11742247
>"your height is entirely determined by your genetics" is factually wrong
What is "Potential" for 500, anon.
What is "inabillity to raise the brim" for 1000, anon.

[Anonymous No.11742254]

>>11742247
>Right, so to claim "your height is entirely determined by your genetics" is factually wrong.

The upper boundary of your potential is. As any non-retarded person would understand that statement. I think your problem is you're too stupid and need everything spelled out to you

[Anonymous No.11742269]

>>11742253
>>11742254
>humans can't be infinitely smart
I honestly think you guys don't realize how unimportant this fact is to the discussion. The human brain has limitations, all animals have scope and limit. the idea you have some mythical "brim height" in your genetics is so laughably retarded. There are many factors that play into this, including genetics, but you act as if there is a future you in your genes which will inevitably come about if you get enough calories, which is retarded and anti-scientific. you dont understand biology or brain chemistry.

[Anonymous No.11742282]

>>11742269
>There are many factors that play into this, including genetics,
Intelligence has been shown to be at LEAST 80% genetic, many unbiased researchers will claim even higer numbers but either way epigenetics aren't even counted in. So whatever the real number might be, you will never get a 30 points actual rise in IQ without cheating the test.

People which can't accept hereditary IQ are simply assmad of having been handled a low IQ hand.

[Anonymous No.11742287]

>>11742269
>you act as if there is a future you in your genes which will inevitably come about if you get enough calories
>which is retarded and anti-scientific

There have been literal seperated identical twin studies which found that in order to reach a single standard deviation of difference in their IQ's one has to be in the bottom 95th percentile of living standrds compared to the other being in the top 20%. In any other circumstances these two people born and raised in completely different circumstances will end up having pretty much the exact same IQ
I mean Jesus Christ the amount of delusion you have compared to how little research you've done is hilarious, you are calling others out on ideology while just regurgitating what you suspect to the be the rightthink of liberal society

[Anonymous No.11742296]

>>11742282
>Intelligence has been shown to be at LEAST 80% genetic, many unbiased researchers will claim even higer numbers but either way
No, it hasn't and no unbiased researched have claimed this.
>cheating the test
You keep making these really idiotic posts, please stop posting

[Anonymous No.11742297]

>>11742287
I'm the person calling someone out on ideology and I didn't make that post.

[Anonymous No.11742298]

>>11742296
>No, it hasn't and no unbiased researched have claimed this.

Explain the twin studies retard
https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/IQ%E2%80%99s-of-Identical-Twins-Reared-Apart-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf

[Anonymous No.11742305]

>>11742296
>No, it hasn't and no unbiased researched have claimed this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
It's comon knowledge already, you filthy pleb.

[Anonymous No.11742395]

>>11742229
No it's not agreeing with you, neuroplastic intervention(studying, having good habits, etc.) has been shown in all cases to be more significant to a person's development than some dumb genetic determinism

[Anonymous No.11742400]

>>11742395
I didn't argue for genetic determinism. Maybe you meant to quote someone else?

[Anonymous No.11742406]

>>11742400
iq = genetic = genetic determinism

idiot

[Anonymous No.11742410]

>>11742406
I didn't argue that IQ was genetic. I still think you meant to quote one of the people I quoted. Are you ok?

[Anonymous No.11742438]

>>11741355
>I tried reading "the idiot" and i could not get past the first few pages. It was pretty much incomprehensible to me.
>can't read about 2 retards having a conversation in the train
what startled you? it's not like there's a lot going on in there, just a 2 people having a pleasant conversation and getting acquainted with each other, was your translation garbage?

[Anonymous No.11742484]

> 0 mention of books, brainlets battle over iq
Thread about books to upgrade from brainlet

coming to 4chan is just a bat habit now

[Anonymous No.11742502]

>>11742400
>>11742410
Genetic determinism is real brainlet.Sure in the simply turns IQ can be increased or decreased based on nutrition and education etc, but that was still genetically determined that if his genes were placed under such pressure they would re act in such a way.

[Anonymous No.11742537]

>>11742502
YES, but I wasn't arguing for or against genetic determinism in my posts, holy shit are everyone here unable to read. I merely said IQ is a flawed measurement of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11742541]

>>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.11742563]

op is a fag

[Anonymous No.11742564]

>>11742050
IQ posters are so pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11742582]

>>11741355
>I tried reading "the idiot" and i could not get past the first few pages. It was pretty much incomprehensible to me.
I don't even know how that's possible.
If you have an actual mental disability or injury that's understandable and I wouldn't judge but any adult should be able to read at that level.

[Anonymous No.11742586]

>>11742395
>intervention(studying, having good habits, etc.) has been shown in all cases to be more significant to a person's development than some dumb genetic determinism

That's never been shown ever, what the fuck is going on in your head. No matter how much you intervene an idiot is still an idiot. At best you can ensure he's flipping burgers instead of on unemployment and even that is a struggle

[Anonymous No.11742588]

>>11742564
>duuuuhh reality is pathetic
Get a fucking head on your shoulders

[Anonymous No.11742589]

>>11742563
Hey, what did I do? I just want book suggestions.

[Anonymous No.11742595]

>>11742589
Just read what's fun for you.

[Anonymous No.11742597]

>>11742589
Read books that interest you and if they are too hard look up a lot of words or if its way out of your league put it aside til you have read a bit more.

[Anonymous No.11742601]

>>11742589
Start with some shot story collections, or some sci do/ fantasy whatever you like and it's easy to read.
If you have no clue where just pick up Terry Pratchett

[Anonymous No.11742609]

>>11742582
Thats my reason for starting this thread. I want to know if there are any books that can cure my brainletism. If it is some sort of iq/genetic thing that cant be fixed then i would also like some sort of suggestion on how to proceed.

[Anonymous No.11742612]

>>11742588
At least my head is not filled with IQ nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11742626]

>>11742609
>I want to know if there are any books that can cure my brainletism.
As other's have said you'd just need to read A LOT.
Start easy and work your way up while interjecting a few classics if the classics remain too hard keep reading easy books and try them again. I remember the opening page of The Book of the New Sun feeling as difficult for me personally.

[Anonymous No.11742631]

>>11742612
It is, just rent free
There's no escaping reality

[Anonymous No.11742692]

>>11742031
>The whole concept of intelligence is very vague and not useful when looking at individuals.
>t. pseud trying to sound knowledgeable about cognitive psychology

[Anonymous No.11742703]

>>11742395
>has been shown in all cases to be more significant to a person's development
Adult IQ has heritability estimates around .7
So, no, you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.11742796]

>>11742692
>t. shitposter that haven't considered the subject with any depth and have no argument

[Anonymous No.11742875]

>>11742050
Why are you so angry? You're like the activists who get angry at the mere thought that there might be a biological component, or cap, to intelligence - only on the other side of the spectrum.

If you are referring to culture-fair/blind IQ tests (even though I would argue that pattern recognition is still something that can be incentivised by culture and/or environment and encoded in populations differently across generations, but let's not get pedantic) such as Raven's Progressive Matrices I would argue that there is some pattern recognition to be done in the sphere of the types of problem solving itself. Namely, you can categorise the types of changes that occur, to the extent that you know what to expect in other tests. Much like once you've grasped basic algebra, you can develop a heuristic for doing well at basic physics tests (ie: learn the formulas and treat everything as a very basic system of equations). At basic levels, you can ace a test without having the slightest understanding of physical phenomena. Just treat everything as basic algebra. Same heuristics could be applied to basic chemistry.

My point is that it might be possible to categorise what types of changes to look out for in Raven matrices and categorise them to the point where people can learn them and improve their score. Can you point to any literature that suggests this isn't the case?

Don't get me wrong, Iq tests are a fairly decent measure of cognitive ability (probably better than anything else we've got as far as testing goes), but I don't think they're universally applicable, or 'unlearnable'. Also, they correlate heavily with ability/success in utilitarian modes of cognition, but this is not to say that we know exactly what it is that they measure and how this maps out human intelligence.

They simply work fairly well as a technology for predicting transferable cognitive ability.

[Anonymous No.11743219]

>>11742247
>>11742230

Did you drink nothing but vaccines as a kid?

[Anonymous No.11743247]

>>11742269
>There are many factors that play into this, including genetics, but you act as if there is a future you in your genes which will inevitably come about if you get enough calories, which is retarded and anti-scientific. you dont understand biology or brain chemistry.

>Malnourishment don't real

God I hope you're trolling. All the humanities fags should be out here apologizing and explaining they aren't all as dumb and worthless as you are for all the brain dead garbage you've said.

[Anonymous No.11743257]

>(((IQ)))

Fuck off back to /sci/

[Anonymous No.11743264]

>>11742875
>Don't get me wrong, Iq tests are a fairly decent measure of cognitive ability (probably better than anything else we've got as far as testing goes), but I don't think they're universally applicable, or 'unlearnable'. Also, they correlate heavily with ability/success in utilitarian modes of cognition, but this is not to say that we know exactly what it is that they measure and how this maps out human intelligence.
>They simply work fairly well as a technology for predicting transferable cognitive ability.

Right that's all you should have said retard

[Anonymous No.11743289]

>>11743264
I merely expanded on how and why I believe they are 'learnable' and why 'culture-fair' is an inaccurate descriptor. Apologies if you found the examples redundant, just assumed that since you found these theses completely untenable just a few minutes ago and found the opposite to be true, expanding on my points would make them more clear to you.

Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11743299]

>>11742057
How did you do it? Teach me!

[Anonymous No.11743643]

>>11741355
apostol calc

[Anonymous No.11743669]

>>11742484
>this

Let’s get back to talking about the topic OP brought up

[Anonymous No.11743707]

>>11742008
Retard read the Mismeasure of Man.
Tired of this IQ bullshit. Fucking retards

[Anonymous No.11743724]

>>11742124
Read the Mismeasure of Men

[Anonymous No.11743817]

Is there anything more immodest than a smart/successful person who denies the importance of IQ? It's basically them saying, "I don't have any natural advantage over everyone else, I just worked harder".

[Anonymous No.11743971]

>>11741355
I don't know if it's anything that can be willed but my suggestion is to become curious. Seek out your own intellectual weaknesses (e.g. general knowledge, vocabulary, the rules of logic, problem solving aptitude, etc.) then work to improve them using reading material advanced enough to pose a challenge but not so advanced to completely obliterate your will in disciplines that truly interest you. Aim for subjects that have lasting value in the range of centuries, avoid pure ephemera and trash. Use the aid of flashcards and keep notes. Make it into a lifelong pursuit in order to establish a real habit of it and to maintain what skills you've previously developed. I wish you great success, should you attempt this.