/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21427596]

>The CTMU has a meta-Darwinian message: the universe evolves by hological self-replication and self-selection. Furthermore, because the universe is natural, its self-selection amounts to a cosmic form of natural selection. But by the nature of this selection process, it also bears description as intelligent self-design (the universe is “intelligent” because this is precisely what it must be in order to solve the problem of self-selection, the master-problem in terms of which all lesser problems are necessarily formulated). This is unsurprising, for intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon that could never have emerged in humans and animals were it not already a latent property of the medium of emergence. An object does not displace its medium, but embodies it and thus serves as an expression of its underlying syntactic properties. What is far more surprising, and far more disappointing, is the ideological conflict to which this has led. It seems that one group likes the term “intelligent” but is indifferent or hostile to the term “natural”, while the other likes “natural” but abhors “intelligent”. In some strange way, the whole controversy seems to hinge on terminology.

holy based

[Anonymous No.21427688]

>>21427596
Keyed

[Anonymous No.21427704]

>Le Based 200 IQ Man
>never been actually tested independently
>hasn't done anything with his supposed 200 IQ: no widely known books, discoveries, business sucsess - any actual and practical feats of intellect
>The only thing he produced is some gobbledygook Boomer New Age "theory" which is really just another variation of "we're all in a simulation brooooo"
>has no online presence or space to interact with, demands you to pay him thousands of dollars to be able to talk to him

[Anonymous No.21427716]

>>21427704
High IQ low conscientiousness
Many such cases

[Anonymous No.21427729]

>>21427716
>High IQ
Never proven

[Anonymous No.21427745]

>>21427716
He scored 117 on the wais.

[Anonymous No.21427746]

>>21427729
I know nothing of him just saying the archetype exists

[Anonymous No.21427751]

>>21427745
K

[Anonymous No.21427819]

>>21427704
>hasn't done anything with his supposed 200 IQ: no widely known books, discoveries, business sucsess - any actual and practical feats of intellect
If you want success and renown you need to be around 120. Smart enough to perform but not too smart to be understood by the majority.

[Anonymous No.21427865]

boy howdy, a shovelful of mediocrity!
i can't help but wonder if he would have been better off without the smart-guy gig. most of what he's saying here isn't novel thought, nor is it impressive or useful, but what do i know with my measly 141 IQ?
Frankly, I wish I had never been tested. I know I'm smart, sure, but the hindrance it caused, the pressure to perform, the unwarranted boost to my ego, it's done naught but batter me, make me ashamed of being satisfied with normalcy, pursue things outside my scope and ability, and set me up for failure after failure due to unreasonable expectations. I could sit around, try to seem like I'm contributing, bare my naked ass like this gentleman on the pretense that my shit is gold, but it would be an even larger waste of my time than my life has already been. What better way to destroy a young man than to give him even the remotest sense of having already been *given* that which must be accomplished?
IQs should remain confidential, and never told to youths, especially if they're "gifted". It's a terrible thing to do to someone.

[Anonymous No.21427882]

>>21427865
>but what do i know with my measly 141 IQ?
You know how to understand when I tell you that knowledge isn't the same thing as intelligence. You have the capability to gain much more knowledge than most people but that doesn't mean anything if you don't do it. You're right that it's more difficult for you but that's the nature of hard mode. More risk more reward.

[Anonymous No.21427884]

>>21427745

[Anonymous No.21427917]

>>21427884
Funny how all these apparent American geniuses are always poor nobodies

[Anonymous No.21427930]

>>21427917
Being above 140 is as bad as being below 80.

[Anonymous No.21427966]

>>21427930
repeat that statement this time with more detail and clarity

[Anonymous No.21427967]

>>21427917
shows how complete the demoralization process has been.
>>21427882
i'm not saying anything to that end, yes it's been more challenging to get at the world and all that, but the idea which is consistently pushed that -potential- is the same as -accomplishment- is a terrible trap for many youths, one i've seen destroy others, and has probably destroyed me as well. I can have this capacity without the label, and i would have profited more from being without the faux badge of intelligence. i still get to be a clever fucker, but without the accolades i never deserved. which is what i got. "oh you're so smart, anon!", from every fucking teacher, every adult i encountered, every single one (i genuinely wish this was bragging or embellishment but it ain't) and you start to look around and say "oh well if it's that easy, i needn't even try at all". establishing a work ethic, challenging one who has more capacity is far better than spoiling them with useless praise they don't yet have the maturity to ignore. of course, i sound like a whiner, and will is will. i'll always choose a person who is hardworking over a clever fucker. might not have the same ceiling, but at least they'll damn sure reach it.

[Anonymous No.21428009]

>>21427966
I haven’t slept in 45 hours so no, but TL;DR:
>if there are more than 20-30 IQ points between people, they have a hard time understanding one another
>most people are around 100, so up to 130 is an advantage
>in mentally taxing fields this gets dragged up, usually to 110 or 120
>being out of the range of comprehension for the average person causes as many professional problems as being stupid
>maybe this is a cope for underachievement, maybe it isn’t
If you want some whole Atlantic-style article then http://polymatharchives.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

[Anonymous No.21428026]

>>21427596
His CTMU model is reasonable. He could have decided to not fuck up its presentation with a bunch of invented words but it makes sense. I unironically think that if you take the principles he outline and model them into a machine you'll have a conscious entity.

[Anonymous No.21428030]

>>21428009
>most people are around 100, so up to 130 is an advantage
>most people are around 100
My nigga I'm a FSIQ-certified midwit and even from my POV there's no fucking way "most people are around 100" - most people are complete retards that visibly struggle with basic abstractions. "Most people" are probably 90, and the 100 average was agreed upon to not make anyone feel bad.

[Anonymous No.21428070]

>>21428030
90 is the new 100 you retards t. i have over 100iq trust me

[Anonymous No.21428073]

>>21427704
And yet if you attack his poorly constructed philosophy dozens of "fans" come out of nowhere to attack you.

[Anonymous No.21428093]

>>21428030
I’m going to assume you’re baiting

[Anonymous No.21428236]

>>21428030
Usually being able to tell how smart someone is, including yourself, you have to be at least 120 or so.

[Anonymous No.21428283]

IQ 180+ here (don't even bother to ask for a proof).
Let me deboonk the most common midwit misconceptions about IQ.

>but intelligence is multifaceted
IQ tests numerical and symbolic pattern recognition, verbal comprehension, short term memory, spatial visualization and logical reasoning. Wanna add something? Then present a rigorous test and justify why it should be included in the definition of intelligence.
>but what about emotional intelligence, social intelligence, twerking skills, number of followers on tiktok/onlyfans
Sorry sweaty, we're measuring intelligence here, not your ability to copy NPC behaviour.
>why didn't you win a Nobel prize/Fields medal? IQ means nothing when you're a loser
Intelligence comes with no obligation to contribute anything to the industrial-technological system. Acadummic success is mainly determined by obedience and social networking. A shitload of midwits (and in social "sciences" even actual brainlets) have a PhD nowadays.
>but what is your IQ good for then?
IQ enables you to quickly learn, understand, connect and creatively play with abstract concepts and to analyze, question and improve theories. Unlike a midwit whose highest achievement is superficially regurgitating what he's told.
>but IQ is racist
No, IQ is a factual statement. It doesn't tell you morally how to treat others.
>if you're so smart why aren't you rich?
Because I wasn't born rich and our economy wants obedient workers, not smart workers. You don't get rich by being smart, you get rich by being popular and sociopathic.
>if you're so smart why don't you get laid?
Attractiveness is determined by looks and status. Women are generally anti-intellectual and think of an intelligent man as a nerd in the negative sense, unless he's a gigachad. I say this as a married man btw.
>isn't this just cope?
The only ones coping here are the IQ denialists. If they didn't need to cope they'd just accept that there are people who are rightfully proud of scoring high on the IQ test

[Anonymous No.21428558]

>>21427865
140IQ gang, ours is a cursed existence

[Anonymous No.21428670]

>>21428283
Let me guess, you scored 180+ on a random Paul Cooijmans (or any other "high-range IQ test" seller's) test. It's literally impossible to gage an IQ that high, stop believing these charlatans.

[Anonymous No.21428691]

>>21427596
>uses the same IQ test from a magazine that Keith Raniere did to claim "smartest person in the world"
>retards still fall for his pseudery

[Anonymous No.21428712]

>>21428283
How can you be rightfully proud of having a high IQ?

You just stated that a person with high IQ isn't obliged to contribute in any field. I'll ask then, why would you feel pride because of an inborn quality?
I understand the feeling of pride after one achieves a milestone of some kind, but not for natural unactualized potencial.

It's akin to feel pride for being 6'8, but you haven't built upon that godgive ability to be a great basketball player.

[Anonymous No.21428739]

>>21427596
This reminds me of an idea I've been working on, but I phrase it in a less pretentious way.

[Anonymous No.21428953]

>>21428739
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.21429159]

>>21428283
>IQ 180+ here
Even if this were true you'd have no right to say it on the internet and expect to be taken seriously. It's akin to me barging into a porn thread on /gif/ and going "bros I have a 13 inch penor let me tell you how great it is."

[Anonymous No.21430084]

>>21427917
t. mammon