Hey I'm pretty average intelligence (think somewhere between

>>7718486
No it isn't, IQ has nothing to do with it.

>>7718486
Whoever tells you that intelligence is innate is lying.

Read literature, read philosophy, learn a language! You can be as smart as the best of mankind if you apply yourself intellectually. Man does not become brilliant by nature, but by habit.

>>7718486
You don't need to be intelligent to read
Just look at /lit/

>>7718486
honestly yes, you'll probably enjoy your time more if you spend it at /mu/

trust me people on this board are actually really dumb. spend some time here and you'll realize most people haven't actually read the authors they namedrop and that the analysis is high school tier. also everyone should read regardless of intelligence

File: bg-the_shining_12.jpg (21KB, 790x506px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 790x506px

Nah same faggots here as /mu/, just like a different brand of snobbery.
You can play with us though. Forever and ever. Come play with us...

IQ is more indicative of problem solving skills than anything else. It's relevant for engineering, not so much for literature.

Anyone who thinks something as infinitely complex as the vague abstract notion of human intelligence can be condensed into a 2-3 digit number has their head up one of their cavities. Anyone who boasts about their IQ for the specific purpose of convincing people that they are intelligent is a tfw no gf sperglord.

Just read a book.

File: image.jpg (679KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 2000x2000px

Reading is like uploading info into yr brain a la the matrix. Yeah it takes longer but stop being retarded. Velcro to yr new home capitan, pic related.

File: image.jpg (33KB, 346x363px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 346x363px

>>7718537
IQ correlates w/every talent including emotional intelligence, writing, and reading comprehension.

>>7718558
IQ is not an accurate measure of intelligence or talent.

>>7718486
Average intelligence is actually at 100 and 56%~ of people are in between 75-115, if i remember correctly

Anyway, probably not, I'm of the belief that with enough work and effort, the more books you read the easier each one becomes. Don't get discouraged if something is too hard and you don't get it, maybe it's just not right for you yet. Other books need to be re-read a few times over, and each new time can be a different experience in itself. But at the very least try not to absorb too much genre fiction and look at canonized authors and works.

I'm also of the belief that IQ is bullshit though and the intelligence you seek can be trained. If you're still in school, have a chat with your English teachers some time.

>>7718549
Where's /r9k/?

>>7718486
Reading is never a waste of your time. If you read enough you'll start to grow a huge lexicon and you will be able to amaze plebs with big words and pretend you're patrician while you cite obscure authors most people don't even know exist.

>>7718643
85, I'm assuming you've missed typed, iq is normally distributed my math is shitty, you can work it out

>>7718549
How would one even be able to collect such data? This chart is absolute bollocks.

IQ as a limiting factor is a lie

>>7718558
IQ has nothing to do with emotional intelligence, or writing talent. Nor any creative talent really, it's not even designed to be able to.

IQ is really only clinically significant when measuring the functioning of mentally disabled people, it's not a measure of how successful you'll be.

>>7718486
No, it's not a waste. It'll feel hard if you jump into hard books to start with, but stick with things at your level and you'll definitely benefit from it.

Also most people here are just parroting opinions they've heard before, or giving basic analysis you can get from a wikipedia article. They're not actually any more intelligent, they just like to think they are.

>>7718549
Kek, I hope you guys know that /lit/ gets mocked by every other board as a result of this chart.

There's not actually any evidence to it, and if you actually believe that any board on 4chan has an average IQ about like 110, you're retarded and should stop posting.

Same with saying that any of the boards have an IQ in the 80's, which is seriously clinical mental retardation, they'd barely be capable of putting sentences together much below that.

>>7719062
It wasn't gathered at all, it's just made up figure by some /lit/ poster, and obviously this board got put at the top. All the boards will have very similar average IQ's, with a couple maybe sitting a little above the other. None is anywhere near fucking 130 as an average, not even most STEM degree classes could claim that.

Don't let this get you down. Anyone can be "smart" if they apply themselves, especially if you don't have any form of mental handicap.

>>7719104
/lit/ does not care for the validation of lesser minds

>>7719104
It was done using google spying software, pieca cake really

>>7718549
I don't remember anyone conducting any surveys, and I've been on 4chan longer than this board has been extant. I've seen "hey, lets all take this online IQ test" threads, but without any mention of doing cross-board research (although, that's probably wise, since if the agenda was known, /b/ would have probably raided all threads) Is that what this is?

who made the chart? how was the data collected?

>>7718549
>Weishaupts Plateau.

Googling that gives me two Weishaupts on a Wikipedia disambiguation page; one's a general, the other's the founder of the Illuminati.

The rest of the Google results are archives from /mlp/ and /co/ talking about this very chart.

>>7718499
So mentally retarded folks can just read a lot of books and become "as smart as the best of mankind", right?

What about very slightly mentally retarded folks. Do they have to read just a few more books than the average man, or is it the same for everyone?

Wouldn't having to "read more books" be an indicator of lower innate intelligence? What a dumb fucking argument

>>7719535
Maybe not as smart as the absolute best, but definitely more educated than the average person, and able to discuss more topics at a higher level.

And no, having to educate yourself in order tobe educated does not make you stupid, even the absolute most brilliant people would have to read a lot in order to be anything more than just wasted potential.

>>7719229
I like you, let's have a beer.

>>7719229
No-one collected any data or did any surveys, and even if those online IQ tests were supposedly what it's drawing from, they're unreliable and that invalidates the whole chart.

>>7719713
sure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_npwPiFZuM

>>7718486
What exactly are you afraid of? If you actually follow through and read a couple books a month you'll be in a better position than most of this board.

>>7718558
>>7718558
Sauce on pic plox?

>>7718486
I have 174QI
Do as you fucking want

>>7719104
The IQ-80s aren't retarded, just dull. 70 is potato-tier.

People here confuse intelligence (an innate quality) with education. Intelligence is more or less like the processing power of a CPU. Education is what you've got stored on your hard drive.

It's a simple analogy so don't take it too literally.

>>7719535
those are very obvious mental defects that are simply in fact mental illnesses: abnormal, detrimental to living a fairly normal human life. incurable, really, defects at the very physical level. if op is living a fairly normal life, as projected from the television, say, then he can probably work the rest of the way up to the best and the brightest, no biggie.

>>7718704
>>7719062
>>7719229
>>7719306
>taking the chart seriously
>>7719104
it was specifically made by /lit/ to bait /sci/ (and other boards, sure) who kept on hand-wringing on and on about IQ, and coming here to talk about it. like "why into hum when you can into stem, big iq, hurrah!" etc. that is: inflate their ego by putting them all the way up, and then have them only second best. the rest of the chart is just the usual opinions on average intelligence of boards, well, at least the order. the numbers mean nothing, and well, it's bait.

>>7719306
>the other's the founder of the Illuminati.
well there you go.

maybe in fact the chart was made by a falseflagging /pol/tard. hmmm.

>>7721958
Yeah, you're right sorry. Still, 80 is pretty fucking stupid, it's only 10 points above clinical retardation. I doubt any board here would have an average that low.

>>7723712
That makes more sense I guess, and yeah, /sci/ is fucking terrible when it comes to that. The STEM meme is just absolute cancer, and ruins any thread involving education, because apparently everyone here is studying high level sciences.

It's the sort of bait that people started taking seriously though, same as the manlet charts that say that 5'10 is noticeable small over on /fit/, when in reality it's pretty average for a young white guy.

I think it's the taking it seriously part that people mock.

My diagnosed IQ when I was 7: 88
with 17: 102
with 20: 115

this should prove that IQ-tests are bullshit.

I didn't expect /lit/ to be this sci-tarded but I guess I shouldn't expect more from a group of 19 year olds jerking off to the prose in infinite jest.

1) whether you like it or not IQ is a wholly valid measure of intelligence
2) the rate at which you can retain and understand knowledge (i.e crystallized intelligence) is correlated with your fluid intelligence (think spatial abilities, backwards number recall on the WAIS, word puzzle interpretation).

Sorry that I have to invoke Rubio here, but I needed to "dispel that myth". /lit/,read a book that's not an angsty novella.

To answer your question OP, reading is typically a byproduct of passion, the need to squelch boredom, or to satiate inquiry. Typically, high IQ people read out of a need to satiate their curiosity.

To answer your question OP -- well, I can't. You read what you're interested in regardless of your IQ. The only thing your IQ might preclude you from is understanding more complex philosophical texts and it will probably hinder your ability to retain information that say, a person of 130 IQ would.

>>7725504
This post sounds like a bag of ass, but I'm on mobile so go fuck yourselves

File: 1449445590516.jpg (131KB, 525x809px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 525x809px

>>7719535
If they could read

>>7724334

IQ is known to vary over time. normie bitter about their normie IQ detected

>>7726365

I really like this post

>>7718486
Can I ask why you think it might be a waste of your time?

>>7718549
/diy/ are the smartest regardless of what this made up chart says.

>>7718549
months ago pol make a iq thread, most of them have more than ~120

>>7726565
if you made an iq thread on any board they would all be at genius level.

Take me for example. I have an IQ of 170.

>>7725504
This is nearly completely comprised of bullshit.

There's no correlation between IQ and personality, or reasons why someone does something.

IQ is nearly universally recognised as being an unsatisfactory method for measuring an individuals intelligence, and intelligence does not mean how smart you are. If you don't educate yourself, you're going to be just as stupid as a person with a 90 IQ and no education.

It also doesn't relate to memory, and if you had any knowledge, you would have already known this fact.


Stop posting this shitty pseudoscience as fact, and fuck off back to /sci/.

File: 1455976449210.jpg (60KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x380px

>>7718486
>you guys seem like you're a cut above the other boards
Our hobby just seems more patrician to others. Other boards have the same knowledge but in other areas.

>>7725504
There's also different measures of intelligence; Asians have selected for higher spatial IQ while whites have selected for higher verbal IQ, which is probably the most relevant measure to this thread.

Reading literature is a waste of time and perfect for sub average and average intellects. Why do you think the entertainment industry is so large? To placate the plebs. Those with actual intelligence change the world and make it better while those incapable sit at home and read made up stories.