http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/1 90.pdf Holy. Fucking. S

>tfw only part of the top 14%

i'm only smart enough to realize that i'm not smart enough to be one of the greatest and it hurts

Pretty sure mega society is supposed to be a parody.

Ask yourself what kind of person would see appeal in and seek out and join "High IQ societies" and you'll have your answer.

>>8279981
I used to be like you.

Well still am, sort of.

Realize that the academic waterfall you're on will automatically wash away any wish not actively trying to traverse the road to becoming Gyarados (pronounced gya-ra-dose).

Anyone too stupid to get in to university, doesn't, anyone too stupid to make it through grad school doesn't, anyone who hasn't become Gyarados isn't publicly revered.

This is not to say that the waterfall is something that should be shunned. Of course it's a little hard to glorify people in front of others if they do not know about the person you are talking of.

If you care to look beyond just the waterfall though, you'll find that it's not too difficult to respect people doing things other than desperately trying to become a water dragon/FlyingThing.

If you actively belittle yourself then doing this might even be a good thing! Notice how the arrogant genius "I want X or I'll kill myself" trope only amuses in the context of people who are actually geniuses, notice how sad it looks applied to anyone else.

Life outside the waterfall is better than you think, consider how only about 0.01% of people kill themselves yearly, consider what a small fraction of people the people you wish you were are.
Widen your mind long enough and what you previously aspired to be will start to look like a comical pipe dream straight out of a Vietnamese Video Game based around taming monsters.

TL;DR: Most people are stupid, most people don't kill themselves, most people aren't depressed. Chill your tits. I'd prescribe Vipassana meditation.

>>8279990

I don't know, I see plenty of professors in Mensa, I'd assume this would be just like Mensa but better?

>>8279968
what is all this knowledge good for if you just circle jerk it inside a group?

IQ is the aspie equivalent of comparing dick sizes. You might be above average but you're not likely to do anything useful with it.

>>8280206
Underrated.

>>8280206
Define "useful"

File: ted.png (567KB, 626x431px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 626x431px

I've had this theory for a while that smart people have a tendency to believe strange things because their natural ability to find logical conclusions precludes them from making the intellectual mistakes which yield important lessons in epistemology which most people learn through being wrong over and over again. As anyone in the hard sciences will tell you, some people are smart, but nobody is so smart that they do not make mistakes. No matter how smart you are, mistakes are frequent and significant in sufficiently complex subjects (which nature has in spades). The super smart person fails because they never learn to be critical of their own logical prowess.

It's kinda like how rich people aren't necessarily good with money because learning to be good with money is a lot easier when you don't have very much of it, you're forced to learn to be good with it or starve.

I think there is probably a sweet spot in intelligence where the person is smart enough to be agile and innovative in the application of logic, but not so smart that the opportunities for experiencing epistemological pitfalls are rare.

This wouldn't be a problem if epistemology, logic and the nature of debate were a central part of early education. But they aren't. I think by the time people are exposed to these things in college, if they are at all, it's usually too late.

>>8280363
[+]

>>8279968
>IQ isn't, Mega society is?

They're the same.

It's /sci/ etiquette to not make IQ threads, let's leave it at that.

sage

>>8279968
>Marilyn vos Savant married while still in high school, rapidly had 2 kids and got divorced

>using the numeral for any number less than twenty in an English sentence

In 2 the trash it goes

>>8280416
>using letters for any number greater than or equal to 20 in an English sentence

in two the trash it goes

>>8280325
Contributing to the society

>>8281296
I thank god for janitors and Jews daily anon

>IQ
Who fuckin cares?

>>8279968
Mega society is bullshit. I don't know that there is really a good IQ test for measuring above 145 or definitely over 160 (3 and standard deviations over the median respectively).

>>8280416
Vos Savant is proof that IQ doesn't mean as much as people think. She has one of the highest IQs in humanity, yet she's done virtually nothing beyond birth children and write a column in Parade (plus she dropped out of the 2nd-3rd tier college she went to). There are people with super high IQs that do well like Terence Tao.

>>8281296
>contribootin ta saciety

fuck yer

>>8281323
I heard Vos Savant is a fraud, so there's that.

Fuck off with the IQ threads already.

File: sunflower.jpg (30KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x300px

>>8280000
>Gyarados
>Is that a character from Greek mythology or something?
>Look it up
>It's a pokemon

>>8281394
That's possible, but I don't really see any evidence that it's true. Even Guiness recognizes her as the highest female IQ.

allegedly I'm in the top 2% but I'm too lazy to study so I just scrape by in sci/eng. any tips to combat laziness/apathy/procrastination?

>>8281296
I dropped out of college to become a Naval nuclear operator on a submarine, and an instructor after that.

Now, I distill liquid oxygen for rocket fuel. Is that contributing enough?

>>8281431
>>>/global/rules/15

>>8281476
Drugs

Welcome to /sci/

>>8281698
No

>>8279981

r u me?

y live?

>>8281804
Then try "The Power of Positive Thinking" by Norman Vincent Peale.

File: autsim.jpg (190KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 800x534px

>IQ societies

IQ is how the worthless measure their worth. IQ is not a substitute for real achievement.

The next trick they use to mask their worthlessness is to conscript great men of history into their IQ bracket. You've all seen them:
>Goethe: 200
>Napoleon: 153
>Mozart: 176
>Kant: 188
>Beethoven: 200
>etc

It's really quite pathetic, since they are just taking equating achievements to IQ, and assume that every exceptional person must have an exceptional IQ. I'm sure this also strokes their ego.

Take a handful of high IQ society members and just have a look.
>precocious children
you always have the "child genius"/autistic savant that have yet to actually achieve anything. Since they have achieved nothing yet, they attach themselves to their IQ. Ah, you read the Iliad at 14, well done, do you actually understand it? ah, you listen to Beethoven.. Do you actually understand it? They only join these societies because they are immature and probably don't have any friends. They also like to feel superweeor to others.

>nostalgic hack
"Ahh, I remember my days at Cambridge, are you at Kings? yes I was there too", said the old man. We have all met them. Old men 50-70 years old that have not achieved anything in their long lives. They "peaked" at 18 when they were admitted to a good university, and they will always remind people which university they "read classics" at. Again, it's pathetic. He was a barrister perhaps, and he will hold a conversation about Wittgenstein however, he uses IQ societies to nurse his fears that he is indeed an arch-mediocrity.

>deluded kook
"I'm a Gnostic", "I'm a Randian libertarian", "I practice magick", "I am the greatest poet that ever lived, only posterity will recognize me". A simple mechanism, they act as though they have some hidden or "esoteric" knowledge, and that only a small elite have this hidden truth. "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"

Delete this thread.

File: autism.jpg (7KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x200px

>>8281963
>you listen to Beethoven.. Do you actually understand it?
Wtf is this blatherskite

There's nothing to understand, there is only something to feel you stupid cunt.

>intellectualizing Beethoven

>>8281963
>Tfw as tall as Napolean, as smart as Napolean, and want to conquer of all Europe like Napolean

Am I reincarnated Napolean?

>>8280453
>using letters for any number greater than or equal to XX in an English sentence

in II the trash it goes

>>8281682
no

>>8281963
it feels good to agree with you but i think the 'above it all' approach you have is bad

>>8282199
Whew, take music theory and try to crawl out of your own ass.

>>8282403
What counts as a contribution to society?

>>8279981
Even if you're Mensa material, that still means there's still more than 100 million people out there smarter than you. Even the luckier ones aren't all that lucky.

>>8279968
Not a scientific paper, not worth my time.

File: KC Green.jpg (7KB, 148x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 148x200px

>>8281963
>tfw 140+ IQ
>tfw my ontology permits the existence of demons

I don't even know how I got here, cripes.

File: 4254252gsgs.jpg (67KB, 425x425px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 425x425px

>>8282441
>>8282441
>music theory
Oh so you're one of those pseudos

I think Mozart made a song just for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78HBp-Youk

>>8283580
>tfw my ontology permits the existence of demons
explain

If you're just a /pol/ faggot I don't care though.

>>8283586
Nah, I'm anti-/pol/. I'm some sort of idealist and I'm having trouble reasoning out how something with a history, name, dialectical impact on people, and a material effect on the world isn't real.

>>8283598
I think you can find Spirit in everything, and there are subjective experiences that would confirm demons in some fashion or another, but in what sense are you using the term real? it seems like you're using the term real only, and only, in a historical way. You permit the existence of all that was in history even if it had only minuscule effects? what's your standard of judging whether an idea had any real influence, and for how long did it have to have influence?

>>8281963
what you seem to fail to understand is some people value potential in itself. also achievement is overrated, all this effort for a transient reward. sure it's a worthless life but lets not kid ourselves life is pointless. i don't care whether or not you or the rest of society values me.

>>8283615
more on achievement: at the end of the day it's something you do to feel better about yourself. do fucking meth or something, it's easier. if achievements stood the test of time they would make sense but hey a transient high is just the same. all a release of timed dopamine, that's the goal.

>>8283606
I'm playing loose and fast with definitions so I'd have to get back to you on how, precisely, I mean 'real', but I guess the root issue I'm touching on is where you draw the line between something as a concept and the existence of said concept in and of itself. I certainly believe ideologies are real, and in turn the concepts they entail should also be real.

Consider someone who builds a shrine to a spirit in the woods that others go pray at. The person who built the shrine was real, and so are the visitors, and so is the shrine itself. But if people are visiting that shrine on behalf of the spirit, then the concept of the spirit is having an effect on people's behaviors (building and visiting) and the material world (the shrine itself). Further, how people talk about and interact with said spirit affects the idea of the spirit itself, so the idea of the spirit at this point can both act and react in and to the world. So when do we delineate between real and unreal here? When does it make sense to draw that line?

>>8283625
You'd probably be interested in Spinoza's earlier metaphysics. He talks about how certain concepts have their ground in us only because the cause of the concept either exists formally or eminently.

I think you make a strong point about the effects of the concept itself, and I have actually have been having similar thoughts on the subject lately. If you listen to Russian propaganda during WWII I think there are nationalistic spirits you can definitely ascertain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjZaQWnSv-4

I don't know if you've read Kant or Fichte, but I don't think there would be anything inconsistent in Kant's metaphysics to say that there could be spirits outside of our a priori space-time forms of intuition and categories

Hell, I think if he uses God in a practical way to support his ethical system there wouldn't be any detracting influences on the correctitude and cohesiveness of his system if he used demons in a similar sense. Rationally speaking, he'd say that reason is not pinoned by any of our thought structures that help us produce the experiences we have, he'd say that reason would lie outside those structures and that it would not be inconsistent to say that reason can have an effect on our empirical appearances even though it lies outside them. I'm taking that logic further though and using that to perhaps see if there could be reasons to support your ontology.

But fuck, I wouldn't be able to say anything that I haven't already thought about myself and winnowed out of my thinking when reflecting on the same sort of ontology you're proposing. The only thing, obviously, would be the empirical verifying/falsifying.

The only problem I think is that you're judging causes from effects, but that's it. It's hard to confirm your ontology OUTSIDE your ontology is what I'm basically trying to say.

>>8283625
The meaning of "real" is context-dependent. Pokemon are not real, but Bulbasaur is a real Pokemon and Zagradash is not. Normally when people say that demons are not real, they mean that there is no such supernatural phenomenon, not that the concept of demons isn't real.

>>8281963
>you always have the "child genius"/autistic savant that have yet to actually achieve anything. Since they have achieved nothing yet, they attach themselves to their IQ.
Jacob Barnett is the greatest mind of our age.

>>8282199
This is objectively false.

>>8283642
I'm pretty poorly read for a self-styled smartypants. Kant is pretty high up on my list since I assume it's a prerequisite for Deleuze, who's my favorite person to pretend I understand, but thanks for the Spinoza and Fichte recs.

My choice of the word demon is theoretically arbitrary, but there's a historical significance because I think the idea of demonizing something, or specifically personifying 'evil', is really fascinating, and it's a topic I've thought about a lot.

>tfw 150+ iq
>tfw life is great
>tfw literally everybody who gets angsty about intelligence is an idiot

you see, the secret to a good life is to stop worrying about "you", the subject, there is no "you" with objective qualities and likes and dislikes, so there's nothing to worry about. What matters is only what you actually do.

Protip: social class correlates to life success far greater than IQ.

File: 1464544547153.gif (1MB, 480x290px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x290px

>>8283653
>This is objectively false.
So if you understood the theory behind Beethoven you're telling me you'd feel more than you felt before you knew?

Come on now. You can still appreciate Beethoven if you don't completely understand him. That other faggot was implying that appreciating and understanding are one and the same?

Do you agree with him?
are you saying you're a faggot anon?

I don't want to call you a faggot, but I might have to if you think in the same way as a faggot does.

>>8283654
In the beginning of the film The Witch (2015) the girl takes on the spirit of the witch in order to facetiously fuck with her siblings. It's interesting how well she embodies it, and then later actually embraces it.

File: uA0pcdD.jpg (384KB, 1349x563px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1349x563px

>>8283657

>>8283656
You sound mentally unstable.

File: 1462657028236.jpg (232KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1024x768px

>>8283660
*flips hair*
heh

>>8283660
That's because you're a normie and can't understand my true genius

>>8283658
I should give it another try maybe. I only got halfway through because a) I watched it in a party setting and everyone got bored and b) there were Chinese subtitles which reaaaaally fucked with my ability to understand the overaffected accents.

File: YKsks04.jpg (322KB, 1327x529px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1327x529px

>>8283659

File: q4UsAeH.jpg (324KB, 1343x485px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1343x485px

>>8283666

>>8283665
Watch it alone, get the ambiance right. Pay special attention to that scene by the creak/pond/rivulet/whatever the fuck, I don't remember, but I think it was the part where she caught her brother's voyeuristic salacious look. And then she starts to fuck with the kids. Adorable scene, but scary at the same time because of how well she adopts the spirit.

You'd be interested in it I think

File: L6nLnev.jpg (261KB, 1361x445px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1361x445px

>>8283668

>>8283665
Ah yes, I forgot to mention that Schelling talks about a "dark ground of spirit," he was actually the first precursor to Freud's theory of the unconscious, another thing you might find fascinating in relation to your ontology.

>>8283666
Demon Anon here, I also like astrology, haha. I think it's cool that folks developed a whole narrative and mythology for tracking stars and planets before we had a good understanding of orbital mechanics, especially since it was so necessary for navigation and understanding the passage of time.

>>8283011
math

>>8280363
>I think there is probably a sweet spot in intelligence where the person is smart enough to be agile and innovative in the application of logic.

IQ<Passion, drive, exposure.

>>8279981
>only part of the top 98.5%
Endless suffering, kill me please

This is proof that having a good traditional education beats any sort of self-learning garbage out there.