If you could sacrifice 1 IQ point for 1 inch of height, how many

>be 6'3" 160lb
>tfw lanklet irl

I'd give an inch in exchange for 15 more lbs

Make it atleast 5, if not 10 per inch to make it an interesting comparison. Otherwise, the difference in IQ is pretty much neglibible

t. 6'3" 153 masterrace

I'm 5'11 and my IQ is probably around 130 (years ago it used to be >140 but then I discovered 4chan). Absolutely sacrificing 1 or 2 IQ points to be able to say I'm 6ft.

>>41365942
I'm already 6'5" master height with and IQ of 152 and an 8 inch dick. Lifting-wise I'm 2/4/6/8, BF 10%, why wouldn't I love myself. I'm 32 years old and I only started lifting two months ago. My lifting forms have been rated "perfect in every way" by Rippetoe in person and he's requested I help him write his new book.

Why would I change? You're all pathetic.

>>41365942
all of it i would give anything to be taller

File: qNNunBL.png (340KB, 331x438px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 331x438px

>>41366016
try again

5'10'' scored a 165 back in high school, but i think iq tests are a bit bullshit desu
the difference between 140 and 170 is a lot more insignificant than most think. unless you're in the 190 range and have a great memory, IQ can easily be outdone by someone working hard consistently and intelligently.
if we're assuming i'm actually in the 150+ range, i probably wouldn't feel any different if i dropped to 120-125

None. I'm 6'1" and I already have trouble with shit like fitting in sports cars because for some ratarded reason most of my height went to my torso.

>>41365942
For 35 points of IQ I could literally be the tallest man that has ever lived? Sure, why not?

If the ratio is different, say 2 points of IQ per inch, then I would be willing to give up 20 inches to gain +40 IQ. That's more than two standard deviations, which would be a very large increase.

>>41366576
standard deviations, you retarded nigger, mean that the difference between 140 and 170 is immense. 190 range? lmao, there's almost nobody that high.

but go on, spew more garbage and inflate your pathetic ego on how you're somehow more than 4 standard deviations higher than average when you were in high school.

>>41366620
i've known many people who scored rather high on IQ tests, and what i've noticed is that tests really only show someone's aptitude towards that test on that day. IQ tests heavily weigh what you scored highest in compared to what you're deficient in, so two people could have the same iq and have completely different aptitudes that may not affect their life at all. i've known people who were fucking math wizards, but outside of their specialty they were normal people. i've known people with average range IQs that outclass people with much higher IQs, even within their specialty. IQ may determine someone's natural aptitude, rate of information uptake, or their starting proficiency, but someone with an iq 30 points higher isn't going to be a night and day difference. 100 is about average, and 130 is roughly where most people who would be almost universally considered "smart". 160 is past genius, and would be high enough to likely be recognized early on as "super smart". but long term, the difference between smart and super smart isn't much because they can accomplish the same shit in roughly the same time frame. the "smarter" one *might* not need to study as hard (assuming they are pursuing a degree directly relating to their specialty), but in all likelihood the differences would be minor outside of very constrained parameters.
and the 190 range was just to illustrate a point on how only the extremes can heavily credit their natural aptitude, rather than hard work and consistency, for their rapidity and extent of success

>>41366777
>cope
iq is the best predictor of lifetime success there is, it makes a huge fucking difference

>>41366607
> then I would be willing to give up 20 inches
H-How tall are you anon?

>>41366817
got any sources to back up your claim that IQ is the best predictor of success? because there are plenty of IQ test junkies that prove you can prepare for it, so anyone with a high level degree would likely have trained themselves up to be able to score higher than they would otherwise. successful people having high IQs isnt necessarily because of their naturally high IQ. it's definitely correlated with success, but not in as such a huge way as you're implying. but if you have evidence, feel free to present it

>>41366819
6'1". I would be a manlet, but 40 points of IQ is more than 2 standard deviations. A 100 IQ person would go from 50th percentile to >99.6th percentile. You would go from being 1 in 2 in rarity to 1 in 161.

If instead you had an IQ of 130 you'd end up at 170: 1 in 164k. These kinds of increases are just very large compared to the general population.

File: 1490711498253-fit.jpg (18KB, 255x247px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 255x247px

>have 130 IQ
>5'11
>give up 121 IQ points
>become 16 foot retard giant
>move to Scandinavia
>tfw ice giant

6'2"
120 IQ when I did one for the CBC

I might do 3 inches to hit 6'5"

>>41365942

None. 6ft 6in and 143 IQ.

File: IMG_0815.png (694KB, 854x1200px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 854x1200px

>IQ of 140
>6'4"
>be tallest man in world at 11 feet tall, play in NBA and crush puss puss

>>41365942
Better a manlet than a joblet or brainlet.

I have around 125 so I would give up 13 iq points to be master chief elite 7'2 with average intelligence. Only if my body scales proportionaltely of course.

>>41366016
kek

>>41365942
6'1 and get between 110 to 160 on all tests I did.
I think the latest one was 125 or something.

>>41367477
Underrated

>itt: everyone pretends to have an IQ over 140

Nothing to see here folks, an imageboard about muscular men, David Gandy and farting just so happens to consist of people smarter than 99.7% of the population

I dont know my IQ but 5'9" is a perfect height for me

>>41367757
I'm >>41365990

Physicist and one of the few lifters at my faculty. The general lifting population is quite dumb though, so it's less about it being a fitness board but more about it being 4chan

>>41367711

IQ scores don't vary by 50 points for one person. Real IQ tests have reliability coefficients of over 0.9. Your score is highly unlikely to vary more than 10% from test to test.

source: (https://books.google.com/books?id=2Nr6-Ss2vh4C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=IQ+test+reliability+coefficient&source=bl&ots=rmSaLWV1aw&sig=PAFthkHSBOh5mipmAr3A2WsNVsc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9kNz_uuHTAhVS3mMKHUfqBxg4FBDoAQgzMAM#v=onepage&q=IQ%20test%20reliability%20coefficient&f=false)

File: h0bwnckpng.png (337KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1280x720px

>>41367757
>99% of the people on a shoelace braiding forum are 6'3+
>with 7"x5.5" dicks
>at least 8/10 face
>Turns out they're also high IQ
oh man

>>41367855
and then you take a look at the /fit/ meetups we had in the past

oh...

>>41367802

I am not claiming that there are no high IQ people here, but they should be a small minority of posters, just as they are in the general population. Even if the average IQ of 4chan posters is higher than average (which I doubt, since the general nature of discussion I see here does not indicate high intelligence), people with IQ's of 150+ are so rare that they would be outliers even in a "smart" group, such as a Mensa meeting.

>>41365942

Can I give up inches of my height for IQ points? I would give up 5.5 inches regardless of conversion rate, as long as I keep normal proportions. I would give up the gained IQ points from the trade for more female shape.

t. failed tranny

File: Bill_Wilson-0.jpg (79KB, 716x768px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 716x768px

>>41366016

>>41365942
I would give up 1 iq point for an inch of length and girth on my dick.

Well my iq is about 160 from a random test I found online 4 years but I'm also already 6'3" and have a gf so I wouldn't give up my iq. I also have a gf and I am very happy with my life LOL

>>41368066
yeah but the more IQ points you gain, the less you'll want to be a woman

File: 1488081754381.jpg (215KB, 1564x1034px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1564x1034px

>>41365942
>go from 6'2 101IQ to 6'3 100IQ
seems reasonable

I got assessed at like 108, I'd give up 2 point to go from 6' to 6'2". I feel like at this point in my life work ethic and general distrust of the world means more than raw intelligence.

I'd give up 4 IQ points for 4 inches. The diminishing returns on smartness are such that I feel like the height would actually make me more successful

>>41365942

>IQ is about 131 (official mensa test)
>5'11
>would ez give 3 poitns