[ 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: 1.00 MB, 2000x2000, 1464707055496.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8111830 No.8111830[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

So apparently /lit/ has the highest I.Q. per capita of 4chan's user base.

>> No.8111839

IQ tests are not scientific, sage for not literature

>> No.8111852
File: 193 KB, 762x785, 1464678878600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8111852

>No source
>No data sets
>Calls it scientific

>> No.8111862

>>8111830
This gets shitposted here a few times every couple of months and I still have no idea why.

>> No.8111869

>no /po/
fucking teflon origami ninja geniuses, they pretended they were us so /pol/ and /sci/ would bother us for buttstuff instead

>> No.8111871

It explains a lot about /jp/.

>> No.8111879
File: 1.02 MB, 1840x1550, 07_revolte.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8111879

>>8111839
Quick! go sage this one! >>8108576 it's not literature related!

>> No.8111883

>>8111830
9.274.

Well that proves that OP is a faggot.

>> No.8111896

>>8111879
>sage
wtf is wrong with you? at least teach newbs the old triforce code instead of the real one, don't fucking teach them that sageru is anything other than their own admission of social imposition. i get you're lonely, but there's /soc/whores for that.

>> No.8111897

I'm willing to bet not a single person here has a IQ worth 160 points or higher besides myself and one other person.

>> No.8111905

>>8111897
>besides myself
wew

>> No.8111923

>>8111897
>one other person
>/lit/ draws straws for who has to be the dangleberry associated with the arsewipe

>> No.8111952

And how exactly was this data collected?

>> No.8111974

>>8111952
captcha accuracy

>> No.8111975

I remember these IQ testing. man were they rigorous

Does anyone else remember doing the /pol/ test and intentionally getting low scores?

>> No.8112000

>>8111975
Yeah, it was pretty hard. Reminded me of that penis inspection day we had some weeks ago.

>> No.8112934

It's pretty accurate

>> No.8112939

>>8111974
this

(I failed five captchas before making this post)

>> No.8112942

>>8111830
But anon, I post on /lit/ that should bring the iq down by a whole friken lot!

>> No.8112975

>>8111830

If you believe this graph you're retarded as shit.

I can see see /lit/ being 110 or even 115 but 150 is completely insane. There are a lot of stupid fucks on this board and honestly a non-segregated discussion board of 147 IQ individuals would be a wondrous place.

/pol/ would also be a lot higher.

>> No.8112981

>>8112975
>t. brainlet

>> No.8112985
File: 1.50 MB, 250x233, 1464251248261.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8112985

the worst part is /lit/ has horrible opinions on just about every topic they listed.
>>8112975
>/pol/ would also be a lot higher.

>> No.8112992

>>8112981
Don't know why I laughed.

My cracked rib hurts.

>> No.8112994
File: 226 KB, 737x601, 1461420526893.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8112994

>mfw anti-intellectual anyway

>> No.8113001

>>8111830
>highest I.Q. per capita
Apparently, no.

>> No.8113080

>>8112975
>Superior IQ mean higher levels of discussion

Nah

>> No.8113087

>>8111869
underrated post

>> No.8113104

>>8112975
>/pol/ would also be a lot higher.
Not that I believe the graph to begin with but i sincerely doubt this to be true too

>> No.8113916

>>8111869
this

>> No.8113924

>implying /s4s/ is not the best

>> No.8113934

Disregarding the fact that it's a troll image, there's no way regular posters on /fit/ would be so high.

>> No.8115251

>>8112975
Saying that pol would be higher completey discredited your post

>> No.8115274

>>8113080
this, a lot of people with "high" IQ's are cunts of the highest degree, including myself

>> No.8115280

iq is a spook

>> No.8115289

lit aint smart. half the assumed smarties here, too, fall for my simple ruses

>> No.8115400

>>8115289
demonstrate a ruse, i am intrigued

>> No.8115456

>>8115400
i will not. even if i were to commit a ruse, i'd never reveal that i rused outside of this instance of me speaking of committing a ruse with close-to-zero ties to my person when committing said ruse. it'd ruin the magic

note: i do realize now that if i were to, say, write a given word, or type a certain way, i'd blow my cover. i'm wary now of my typing normally, or rather in a odd-but-slightly-endearing manner

>> No.8115465
File: 37 KB, 524x468, 1393669640478.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8115465

>>8115456
so you basically post bait threads, and plebs fall for the given meme

>amiapleb?

>> No.8115505

>>8115465
hm? i can assure you, if anything, that this here, right now is no ruse. but no, i wouldn't call it bait, nor would i call the recipients of a ruse plebs. they're merely a part of the process, as in witness to the spectacle, that being the unfolding of the ruse (its true form is occluded to even the discerning eye). it's hard to type like that though, and growing accustom to such a style makes expression in general difficult. i can't say that i am either person

but– as one who commits the ruse, i am no focal point. i am only enacting what is laid unto me from high heaven

>> No.8115531

The charts is based on Captcha accuracy, which probably isn't too closely related to IQ. All it means is we aren't drunk, robots, or drunk robots.

Unless of course, Captcha and IQ are related.

>> No.8115532

>>8115505
well said. i can tell you're going places

>> No.8115571

>>8111830
only because [s4s] is not included

/lit/ could never handle post-post-ironic memes

so long fig newtons and thanks for all the doubles

>> No.8115659

>>8115274
>humblebrag