Do you need high IQ to be a genius writer?

IQ is a meme for insecure STEM autists. Sure if you have a low IQ you're less likely to be able to write a good novel but it's not going to have a huge bearing.

>>9988816
No. But you need to stop frog posting.

File: 150519_tao_lin_apa.jpg (171KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 640x480px

You don't.

>>9988834
>>9988838
>>9988839
how much IQ do shakespeare, dante and cervantes had?

>>9988816
No, but you need high EQ

>study and practice iq tests
>you can now ace the iq tests and have a high iq

File: power level.png (79KB, 500x422px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 500x422px

>>9988844
Over 9000, each.

>>9988886
yea. not fluid intelligence.

>>9988886
This isn't really accurate

Practicing for an IQ test before taking it has been known to give test-takers a small performance boost... which with time fades back to their authentic performance level, almost exactly to dot.

Somebody with a sincerely high IQ will repeatedly achieve at high levels over time, and they won't require preparation either

IQ tests are incredibly reliable, much more so than just about any other psychological measurement. It's virtually impossible to make lasting improvements to your IQ; either you're born with a high one or you're not

To answer OP's question, J.D. Salinger had a mediocre IQ of 104 and he was still a very talented and influential writer. I would assume boy geniuses like Norman Mailer or academics like Susan Sontag had higher IQs, but Salinger was still a better writer than both of them

It depends on which year you took the test. In the past IQ was heavily determined by verbal intelligence and analogies. These days IQ is dependent on visual cues and pattern recognition. There's no correlation between writing and IQ, but it is facile to suggest there is no correlation between writing and intelligence.

Yes. Sorry brainlets

You don't need high cognative intelligence to have high virtue, but you do need it to think rationally. Basically you can convey diverse ideas, but you might not be able to do so cleverly.

IQ is a STEMsperg meme
>>9989031
>they're reliable becuz i sed so
Not an argument

Depends which of the many multiple currently in use unrelated IQ tests that all give wildly different answers because it's not an official thing and there are no mutually respected standards.

File: 1481168124413.jpg (58KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1000x800px

>>9988816

No. I have an IQ of 84 and I write best selling novels.

>>9989031

Great points, anon. The one thing the IQ test doesn't test for is "creative ability" ... I've always wondered if Mondrian or Picasso or Klee would have had a high IQ

>>9989847
considering a huge part of iq tests are those weird pattern recognition things i would say an elite artist would probably score pretty well on them yeah

>>9989860

I scored perfectly on those and I have little to no discernible talent in the arts

>>9989864
>perfect score on iq test

yeah ok dude

>>9989867

>jumping to conclusions

On the online versions I got the pattern ones right, but I don't take those tests particularly seriously. I think my overall score was like 110 or something? Other aspects tripped me up

>>9988816
probably higher fluid iq

>>9988886
>take the tests outside of the context they're meant to be applied
>even then you have only marginal gains in performance
I wonder why people so adamantly oppose IQ when it's basically the most fundamented, well researched psychometric that exists

>>9991612
>psychometric
there's your problem

There's the treshold theory that states an IQ of 120 is optimal for creativity, anything larger and creativity declines. There's also talk of positive schizotypy desu, but that is somewhat speculative. Industriousness and high openness to ideas will probably help too.
But really, it is better not to think of these things I think.

>>9988816
Mine's 141 and I am a genius writer so perhaps