/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17051762]

DISCLAIMER: Ludicrous claims require outlandish proof and such is why I will verify, in advance, every verifiable claim I make.

I've perpetually sought out wherever my gift came from. An IQ that locates me at the 99.997th centile (https://imgur.com/FolqqEz)) is notably scarce. There is a rather artless answer to my troubling query; I was genetically engineered to be this way.

Numerous decades of research has established that "g" is ~90% genetic. Whatever intelligence I exhibit, I inherited it from my ancestors. I've been confided that I am the product of a eugenics program that has been ongoing for at least 300 years for which the criteria for selection have always been: intellect, height and looks. As such, I can tell you that my lineage includes venerated army officials, chess grand-masters, renowned scientists, successful athletes, accomplished engineers, Oscar nominee actors and beauty pageant supermodels.

My peers abstain from commenting on my intellect because they are intimidated that I deem them puny imbeciles unworthy of my time. There is no need for them to evoke whatever I'm already cognizant of because I absolutely loathe redundancy. I freshly graduated out of college in mathematics with a cumulative GPA of 3.74 (https://imgur.com/5ft4Vxq).). It is not humble nor exaggerated of me to state, but having 500+ absences throughout my curriculum while having managed to obtain a high GPA in a difficult major is a true testament to my intelligence. What took weeks for my classmates took me a day or two. I've easily self-taught myself the material needed to mark a solid performance on my midterms and finals. Due to my social and professional obligations, I had to miss school. I reached the finish line triumphant, however.

[Anonymous No.17051782]

>>17051762
Why are you using pseudoscience to prove you’re smart?

[Anonymous No.17051884]

>>17051782
This is a low IQ cope.
I also provided anecdotes.

[Anonymous No.17051930]

>>17051762
what no pussy does to a mf

[Anonymous No.17051936]

taleb disproved iq

you must be an imbecile not to know this

[Anonymous No.17051938]

>>17051762
If you can't tell that IQ is a scam peddled to earn money by shilling it to government agencies, the military, corporations etc. you're probably a retard. Read Taleb.

[Anonymous No.17051951]

This is some pretty epic bait

[Anonymous No.17051956]

>>17051762
>that "g" is ~90% genetic.
Exposed yourself as a LARP.

[Anonymous No.17051975]

>>17051936
>>17051938
Taleb is an amateur, who is easily disproven based on his methods.

[Anonymous No.17051997]

>>17051975
Even disregarding Taleb the best scientific research shows a correlation of 0.3 between IQ and wider success. It's hardly anything to be excited about, I say that as a white man with 135 IQ. It's no measure of man or his virtue. One can be incredibly intelligent, as yourself, and still cling to unwise totalizing doctrine that misses entirely the complexity of human thought and behavior. I claim that a deeper, more profound intelligence would lead you to a much deeper and more accurate conclusion.

[Anonymous No.17052033]

>>17051762
Nice creative writing anon. Now go back to writing your novel with an epic "cold calculator" protagonist.

[Anonymous No.17052041]

>>17051762
my parents are cruel morons

[Anonymous No.17052089]

>>17051997
Wider success is rather vague.
IQ results are usually applied specifically, as certain things require more intelligence than other things. IQ is also not just one thing.
>I claim that a deeper, more profound intelligence would lead you to a much deeper and more accurate conclusion.
This is a bit fetishistic don't you think?

[Anonymous No.17052097]

>>17051762
>Ludicrous claims require outlandish proof
ok, where is the proof of this ludicrous claim

[Anonymous No.17052107]

Taleb's irrationally biased against the ability of IQ to predict academic success. He's deliberately throwing out the data from k-12 because he doesn't like school (which I can agree with but still...), and then the data from college because "tests used in selection confound it" or something (which seems to contradict what he says elsewhere about the SAT).
Correlation with income isn't necessary to validate IQ as a measure of intelligence. But another potential issue is that the data comes from NLSY79, which uses an old cohort and apparently AFQT scores. I'm guessing that correlations might be improved with a test including measures of cognitive proficiency (WM/PS)

[Anonymous No.17052130]

Unless you are ESL, your writing is subpar. Nice b8 m8.

[Anonymous No.17052151]

>>17052089
No, IQ and human thought cannot be reduced to binaries, espescially those with poor correlative evidence. There's more to cognition than test performance. Just as a low IQ native can retain knowledge about his surroundings and memorize the qualities of thousands of plants and animals. IQ only proves that you are good at some things that aren't necessarily connected to improvements in human life. Each human experience seems highly variable and has the ability to be equally insightful given certain circumstances. Many of average intellect have climbed lofty heights through sheer determination. Humanity isn't some binary monolith that we can stuff into algorithms and perfectly predict their potential. Now should we want to.

[Anonymous No.17052217]

>>17052151
>especially those with poor correlative evidence
You must not be very fluent in statistics.
Also, Taleb manipulates his statistics, if that's what you are referring to.
>There's more to cognition than test performance. Just as a low IQ native can retain knowledge about his surroundings and memorize the qualities of thousands of plants and animals. IQ only proves that you are good at some things that aren't necessarily connected to improvements in human life.
You do not understand what IQ measures.
>Humanity isn't some binary monolith that we can stuff into algorithms and perfectly predict their potential
I don't think anyone claims this, but IQ is definitely more predictable than you think it is.

You seem to have a fetishistic idea of intelligence based on some egalitarianism.
Not everyone is smart, this is obvious.

[Anonymous No.17052234]

>>17052089
>This is a bit fetishistic don't you think?
IQ is a fetishistic understanding of intelligence