iq and literature

>>9721886
>utilizing a normal distribution application for outliers
yeah you're dumber than a 14 y/o

>>9721904
yeah im dumb, sure - but the thread is asking what that means

>>9721922
What does that shit has to do with literature? Go back to /b/.

>>9721886
IQ is just a dick measuring contest with no actual value more than the one you pay.

>>9721922
it means you're dumber than you think you are, and your scores are neither consistent nor valid.

Do you really think of yourself in terms of chan speak and questionnaire results? IQ is a historically situated technology for the exclusion/production of subjects, I'm not sure how it pertains to literature.

>>9721886
IQ is almost useless in the humanistic branch because it only observes logic-mathematical skills. Read Gardner, there are different types of intelligence.

in this thread: bad-faith-reading faggots

intelligence is helpful, of course, but not everything. it's impossible to draw the line, even if there is one

>>9721962
The other types of 'intelligence' can't be objectively measured the way IQ can. I'm an IQ skeptic myself, but I'll take something with some degree of objective reasoning behind it over what may very well be a bunch of aesthetic posturing.

>>9722044
the supposed objectivity and of IQ is itself nothing but aesthetic posturing

>>9722044
>>9721962
>>9721951
>>9721935
>>9721886

IQ is the only valid way to measure intelligence.
IQ predicts performance in fields which defiantly require intelligence, such as academia and business.
If there is more than one intelligence, then it should be correlated with IQ and performance in fields that require high levels of intelligence. So far, no measurements have been found that satisfy these requirements.