[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 273 KB, 1895x3731, BooksthatmakeyoudumbHuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1215661 No.1215661 [Reply] [Original]

1. Name your top 5 favourite books.
2. Open this image.
3. Match the highest ranking book on the graph if it's there.

You now know how stupid you are.

>> No.1215667

None of my favourite books are on there

Clearly I am too intelligent for this

>> No.1215915

lolol 1350

>> No.1215921
File: 61 KB, 1024x768, 1284051506070.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1215921

>mfw 1400 dont read bookz
lolita fag reporting in

>> No.1215924

Lolita and catch-22 are both on my list.

Have yet to read the other books around it on the scale.

>> No.1215926

>Lolita
>Erotica
God fucking damn it. Every single time.

>> No.1215927
File: 76 KB, 350x218, 1275435642357.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1215927

>>1215926

>> No.1215937

>>1215667
I came upon the same problem. Some books written by the same author. This is a retarded graph though.

>> No.1215943

>>1215937
>This is a retarded graph though
u mad sci-fi fag?

inb4 I READ THE DOSTOYEVSKIS & NABOKOVSKIS, U WRONG

>> No.1215946

>>1215943
I've barely read any sci-fi other than Wells. No, I'm not mad. I'm bored.

>> No.1215952

>900 The Holy Bible
>1050 The Bible
>1100 The Book of Mormon
good luck with that op

>> No.1215958

>unlabeled axes

stopped reading right there

>> No.1215969

One Hundred Years of Solitude here, I'm not getting this graph at all. I'm assuming the higher numbers represent the "less dumb" you are, yes?

>> No.1215971

Crime and Punishment. I'm not.

>> No.1215974

People with scores over 1350 don't read books at all?

>> No.1215978

One Hundred Years and Lolita.

But I fail to see any objectivity in this graph at all. No scholarly references, no BMJ or APA studies. I think it was simply made by somebody who has read a number of books from diverse genres, then felt guilty about most of them.

Or perhaps he wrote down how many words he had to look up the definitions to, and correlated those loosely around a number system.

>> No.1215976

None of my books were on the list. But I don't get how the numbers work or what's supposed to be wrong with half of the books on it that I have read, so maybe I'm still "dumb".

>> No.1215975

Oh look it's a list of popular books. Welcome to hipster elitism OP.

>> No.1215986

http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/

OP could have posted more details.

The chart is based on top 10 books at colleges across America, and the numbers are average SAT scores for said colleges matched to the book.

I.E the higher the number, the "smarter" you are.

>> No.1215996

Babby be trollin'

>> No.1216037
File: 475 KB, 640x393, a great idea.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1216037

>Dan Brown not at the tip top of the list

>> No.1216040

i've read Da Vinci and Alice in Wonderland. I'm a nonfiction fag but all philosophers love Alice in Wonderland...

>> No.1216045

My favorite is Cat's Cradle. I'm not familiar with the SAT but got a 29 on the ACT. Never bothered retaking since I'm staying in-state anyway.

>> No.1216058

DID YOU KNOW?

Liking CS Lewis < Liking Eragon.

gg, Mystical Christfags.

>> No.1216064

>>1216058
well, because narnia is a children's series. unlike eragon. and it's much more classic and well-known, and the movie they made it out of it was better, ergo: much more widely read. ergo much stupider readers.

>> No.1216083
File: 17 KB, 300x300, desperate-dan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1216083

>>1216064
>Eragon, not a child's series.

>> No.1216084

>>1216083
eragon is a young adult series. narnia is a children's series. the demographic is the same, but the whole attitude and quality and thought-process of the two is really different. narnia is of course much better.

>> No.1216092

There is no such things as children's books, only childish interpretations.

>> No.1216093

>>1216092
no sorry you're wrong, there are obviously children's books

>> No.1216096
File: 22 KB, 500x333, iloled-pam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1216096

"Atlas Shrugged"

>> No.1216113

Not very PLUR as in the Unity part removed, but Ender's books are kind of dumb

>> No.1216127

The Pynchon obviously comes up much further down.

>> No.1216156

>SAT

>> No.1216167
File: 21 KB, 255x288, 568ujw4e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1216167

>>1215661
>Lolita
>erotica

>> No.1216206

>>Lolita
>>Erotica
That puts Virgil Griffith in the 'I don't read' category

>> No.1216241

I've read every one of these books.

The only book I truly enjoyed reading was The Book of Mormon though.

>> No.1216260

Ender's Game is the highest ranking book I like. I have no idea if that is a good result because I am not American.

>> No.1216286

Ender's Game is a good book.


For eight-year olds

>> No.1216288
File: 64 KB, 248x250, 1283712972465.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1216288

>The Grapes of Wrath
>Lower on average than Harry Potter

Just as planned.

>> No.1216290

Seriously anyone who considers Lolita simply erotica shouldn't be allowed to read books for they have zero ability for comprehension. Same retards who want to ban and burn good literature the world over because it has bad language and sex in it.

>> No.1216337

>>1215661
this scale is clearly bullshit.

>> No.1216375

>Dune overlaps with the Book of Mormon
Erm.

>> No.1216385

>>1216288
Why is that picture so fucking sexy?

>> No.1216390

>>1216385
Because you never get laid.

>> No.1216391

>>1216385
>teen pregnancy
>obviously she's easy

>> No.1216393

where is twilight on the chart?

>> No.1216394

>>1216393
Too far to the left to be shown.

>> No.1216423

And Stephen King? I don't see him on the chart.

>> No.1216471

So is this saying that people who read "fahrenheit 451" are less intelligent than people who "don't read"?

>> No.1216479
File: 45 KB, 350x473, james joyce has something in his eye.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1216479

>Atlas Shrugged doesn't make you stupid
>Hamlet does
>Freakonomics to the extreme right
>At least he tried.jpg

>> No.1216485

>>1216423
he ranked too low as an outlier, sorry

>> No.1216486

what do the numbers represent?

>> No.1216538

>>1216385

Because Ellen Page

>> No.1216550

>>1216486
SAT scores on the old SAT, when it was out of 1400

The distribution is obvious. Books in the middle are all standard high-school literature class material. People who don't read at all out of class will only be able to select books out of that pool. Those are the average people, and have average SAT scores.

People who read long, complicated books outside of class are (even if they have bad taste) self-motivated and more likely to do well on an SAT test.

>> No.1216551

>>1216486
SAT Scores

>> No.1216571

I just realised all the "chick lit" and "African American" books are on the FAR left.

Feels good to be a white male.

>> No.1216585

>>1216571
Does your SAT score mesh with the chart?

>> No.1216597

>>1216585
I don't have one as I'm not American.

>> No.1217892 [DELETED] 

can someone spell out for me in stupid terms why fahrenheit 451 is so stupid?

>> No.1217893

can someone explain to me why reading Fahrenheit 451 is more stupid than not reading?

>> No.1217902
File: 25 KB, 442x454, 1287379582678.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1217902

>Cat's Cradle makes you dumber than Nicolas Sparks.