Can an 110 IQ write a great novel? Is an unremarkable intellect capable of literary greatness?
Yeah if you can’t rotate shapes in your head then you’re going to fail. Stick to writing screenplays
Salinger's IQ was 109.
>>24695812Mediocrity is a requirement for writing a commercially successful novel.
>>24695821Commercial success is not my metric of greatness
>>24695812Why don’t you just write it and find out?If everyone said yes would you do it or are you just looking for an excuse to not even try?
>>24695820Mine is 107 but only because the math part is mental retardation level so it brought the rest of it down quite a lot.
>>24695817screenwriting require stronger visuospatial IQ tho, You've to actually imagine the scene to details and apply cinematic tact based on the right settings.
>>24695812If novel is really your measure of things then even an 70iq can do it
IQ doesn't matter.IQ is effectively a measure of your ability to solve logic games.I have a measured IQ of 131 and I'm a fucking NEET that can't drive a car or hold a job because I sperg out.
>>24696114Pretty much. The IQ meme is heavily pushed by arrogant retards. I've not known anyone who put a lot of stock into IQ who wasn't also insufferable.
>>24695812>Can an 110 IQ write a great novel? Yes. In fact, any novelist with an IQ significantly higher than that is well-advised to imitate someone with a 110 IQ.
>>24695812
>>24695812I remember reading Amy Tan and Faulkner both got retard tier SAT scores which is somewhat like an IQ test
>>24696066you can just draw stuff thoughbeit
>>24695812IQ may be a good predictors
>>24695812https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39If you can understand the arguments in this correct broken-clock-faggot's article, you can write a great literary piece
>>24696648>medium.comFunny that IQ skeptics went deathly silent when COVID researchers were pumping out headlines mentioning drops in IQ scores. Even the most woke American psychological institutes still accept the validity of IQ testing.
>>24696648>This is sooooooooooo gamable with trainingWhat a faggot. You can tell by his zesty writing style he is pandering to people who don't perform well on IQ tests. >Notice the noise: the top 25% of janitors have higher IQ than the bottom 25% of college professors, even counting the circularity. The circularity bias shows most strikingly with MDs as medical schools require a higher SAT score.Yeah buddy ever heard of a movie called Good Will Hunting?In all seriousness though, the graph he chose uses bars not data point dots and this is an important distinction because, from what I've heard anyway, at least some colleges will let the children of employees attend for free. If you are a janitor making $50k and you just saved $200k tuition for 5 kids you are "making" a lot more money in a relative sense because the post-tax income you'd require to save $1mil over 22 years (18+1 year for each addition kid) is ~$45,000 per year. So if you have a lot of kids working as a janitor is the equivalent of working as an MD without the time investment or financial investment which means you also start having your kids sooner. His whole argument is trying to deny IQ as a valid psychometric because it doesn't correlate strongly enough to high income despite low IQ having a very strong correlation to low income which he then omits to strengthen his argument for the former. This is dangerous because people with IQ below a certain level shouldn't be told that their IQ is effectively meaningless, it's not, they should be told that they can find financial success but it will likely either require more hard work and intention than someone with high IQ and/or they may need to find ways of earning income outside of an office setting which generally operate with more traditional competency hierarchies.IQ serves as a valid means of psychometric analysis but IQ alone doesn't guarantee success in life which in and of itself is a metric that is highly individual and subjective and therefore hard to define while unsuccessful is much easier to define, is less subjective, and likewise does have stronger correlation with low IQ among other things.TLDR; IQ has diminishing returns and therefore above a certain threshold IQ is not sufficient enough in and of itself to determine outcome in life. Conversely, we can see that IQ below a certain threshold does have a very strong correlation with negative outcomes in life.
>>24696648>if you can understand the arguments in this correct broken-clock-faggot's article>>24696941>oh yeah? well he says IQ is useful for discriminating between degrees of stupidity>but useless for discriminating between degrees of above-average intelligence>so what now huh!Faggot, that's the entire fucking point of the article. Are you on the left side of the bell curve?
>>24696555Actual gifted kids that got sent to gifted programs and schools aren't told their scores. These people don't need to tell anyone their IQ any more than a 6'6 man needs to brag about his height. Its immediately obvious to anyone that interacts with them that they are a step above
>>24695812I actually think that having a high IQ is an impediment to becoming a great novelist. The giga-nerds tend to become literary critics instead, like Harold Bloom.
>>24695812Stop agonizing over your IQ and just do your best anon. You'll never write anything if you get demoralized, let alone anything good. If you work hard, learn your craft well, and study deeply, maybe you won't be on the level of Joyce or Dante, but few in the history of mankind can. You can still probably write something worth reading and worth remembering.
>>24696954That’s not even what I wrote you retarded nigger nor is it what the article is about.Try again or simply kill yourself instead
>>24696648Taleb only ever publishes academic articles for his safest observations. When he's worried that his math or reasoning may ultimately be sloppy, he tries to minimize exposure to people who understand it, preferring to punch down on his inferiors. Reminds one of the joke about Euler and the non-mathematician atheist and how Euler dropped some complex equation and said, "Your response?"
>>24695812Of course not. The entire midwit class spends their life worrying whether their iqs are high enough. To write a great novel you have to write a novel.
>>24695812Honestly a lot of high IQ people fall into the "smart guy" trap where they get a massive ego as everyone worships them for being smart in 1 catagory and assumes their smart in every catagory. Elon Musk and Neil Degrasse Tyson are the prime examples of this sort of thing. IQ is overrated and experience trumps it every time. There are tons of novels by people without any formal education who spent their childhoods and youth living in absolute poverty in active warzones or some other form of hell on earth and they written novels that changed my perspective forever. I think an African child soldier who lived through hell has a lot more to say about the human condition than some silver spoon smart guy who has never faced significant hardship in their life.
>>24695833but it is a measure of greatness
>>24698840I don't think Black Science Man is especially smart. Not dumb, did a stellar job riding the affirmative action wave his whole career and managing to contribute to real science. But if he wasn't black he'd be a nobody.Elon Musk is a freak of nature I've never seen anyone summarize him in a way that aligns with my observations of his behavior.
>>24695812>can't read the graphbros I'm filtered...
>>24696648> Designed for learning disabilities, and given that it is not too needed thereThis is extremely wrong. >blah blah racismLogical fallacy. > explains at best between 2 and 13% of the performanceWay off. > Given that those designing IQ tests aren’t geniusesBut how could he know that? Unless…> This is sooooooooooo gamable with trainingWhich he could prove by taking someone from an IQ of 60 to 140. What’s that? He can’t? I wonder why. > no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth> Wealth may not mean successThis is fucking embarrassing.
>>24697059This might be “safe” in popsci or with the general public but it’s absolutely idiotic. His big gotcha is entirely revolving around an unsupported assertion success is measured in wealth which he also has to immediately undermine because that /would/ be unsafe to say. Yet he returns to his trading priors and asserts it as his big argument from authority as far as metrics go. If he wanted to play it safe he wouldn’t take up a position where IQ is entirely meaningless. Where pray tell are all the cases of people diagnosed with mental disabilities who become CEOs and scientific luminaries? IQ testing that he claims is useless for even this purpose is routinely used and if the metric is just noise there are apparently geniuses walking among the spergs who can’t tie their own shoes. He should be able to produce quite substantial data showing how meaningless IQ is since it’s widely applied but he retreats back to his “erm well according to my models based on trading”. This isn’t a fucking theoretical proposition we solve with dueling models. Either he is right and we have somehow a herd of normal to genius level people who are for some reason content to be treated like morons or he’s wrong. This should be easily verifiable as is his “easily trainable” argument. Just take someone from an IQ of 60 to the top percentiles. I guess he suddenly got busy and doesn’t have time for that haha time to write another book about how he’s smart and everyone else is dumb.
>>24695812>Can an 110 IQ write a great novel? Yes. But he would have to read more than the average 110 IQ person.
>>24695812>Can an 110 IQ write a great novel?No. You need 98 at the very most, and even that's really pushing it. 88-92 is the optimal range. If you can't reach that low now consider alcohol and hard drugs, many major figures relied on substances a bit to achieve a low enough IQ for literary greatness.
>>24697027I'm with >>24696954, you got buttblasted without even comprehending what you read. Nobody disagrees that IQ test can be used to validly detect retardation. But it's not described as a "test for mental deficiency", the only place where it was ever used that way (also coincidentally the only place where it was in legitimate use en masse) was the US Army, and that only because people who conduct recruitment are as a rule borderline retarded themselves and have issues differentiating retards and mentally functional people, so a standardized metric that excludes the human factor is necessary. Everyone else has little trouble identifying retards, including professionals actually working with retards. All while faggots use high IQ test results as a proof of high intelligence, when the IQ tests are objectively untrustworthy on that.
>>24699396>Which he could prove by taking someone from an IQ of 60 to 140. What’s that? He can’t? I wonder why. You can't train anyone to run. Wanna prove otherwise? Here, teach this quadriplegic to run a 100m in under 10 seconds.
>>24696938Much of psychology is rife with insane pseudoscience. For instance, Motivated by the most basic uncritical dualism, there were (maybe still are) serious papers that insisted that trannies were a "woman in a man's body" or that gay men had the "brain of a woman". That such a provably bad metric is still taken seriously is a problem for psychological institutions, not a validation of them.>>24696941>TLDR; IQ has diminishing returns and therefore above a certain threshold IQ is not sufficient enough in and of itself to determine outcome in life. Conversely, we can see that IQ below a certain threshold does have a very strong correlation with negative outcomes in life.You're getting part of his point. He's saying something even stronger, which is that "below a certain threshold" would work with ANY test of competence for people who are bad at it. There's nothing special about IQ - you could test 10,000 people on their ability to juggle, and all the complete mental retards would all perform poorly. There is no equivalent test for high performance. When you recognise Mental retards are responsible for the most of the correlative power, with the rest being noise, it means that "above a certain threshold" you're not saying anything at all.>>24697059I do agree that he is a gigantic faggot, who also only blew up because people wanted an explanation for the 2008 financial crises. Unfortunately, that's what makes this so embarrassing for IQggers. >>24699396If you're too lazy to address the points at hand, why bother replying?>>24699441He's not denying the existence of mental retards, just that ANY test can prove mental retardation. Above the level of total mental retardation, there's no positive distinctions that can be made >using an IQ test<. That doesn't mean there you can necessarily find geniuses among plebs, only that IQ does not distinguish them. He uses the IQ data itself to show that it's actually split into two sections - one that correlates mental retards (that any test could prove), and one that is full of noise that has no correlation. The retards correlate everyone else (incorrectly). At best, he says that it shows you can take tests well, which, IS a skill that can be trained. Simply put, why is MENSA not responsible for producing the world's geniuses?
>>24699441>>Taleb only ever publishes academic articles for his safest observations. When he's worried that his math or reasoning may ultimately be sloppy, he tries to minimize exposure to people who understand it, preferring to punch down on his inferiors.>This might be “safe” in popsci or with the general public but it’s absolutely idiotic.No, I'm not calling this medium.com blog post safe. On the contrary, I mean that this is an instance where he's minimizing the exposure of his math/reasoning to a bunch of yes-men fanboys, mathematically unequipped groypers, sundry laypeople, and at best the odd D-list researcher or two.I probably should've written "academic journal articles." He publishes his safe shit in academic journals and publishes stuff like this IQ cope on his blog, where he knows it's not going to get the best mathematical and neuropsychological minds scrutinizing it for sloppiness, omissions of research evidence, etc. He's basically just punching down with big 'n' scary statistical math that he knows hardly anybody dicking around on medium.com is going to have the background to assess for rigor -- and that the two or three viewers who do are going to be math nerds missing the knowledge of the vast neuropsychological corpus that validates IQ testing.
Knowing Taleb and the fact he's whining so much about scammy "average IQ by country" lists in that Medium article, he probably saw some such made-up list derived from one of those Ranjeet "pay $50 to get a certificate showing your inflated IQ" sites and chimped out over Lebanon being placed at an average IQ of 40 or something lmao. Then he decided to shit on the entire field.
How do I cope with being a 160iq midwit? All I can do is rotate shapes in my head, not make stories.
>>24698840I don't think anyone smart is humiliating themselves on the internet as often as Musk does.
>>24696636No it isn't. Sat scores correlate most with income of parents
>>24696983I went to a middle school that administered an iq test for entry. They never told us our scores, not even on graduation.
>>24699776Cool headcanon
>>24695833Who the fuck are you? Lol.
>>24695820I know this is said about him, but I have a hard time believing anyone with a sub 120 IQ could have written Seymour an Introduction. He either had a verbal IQ comparable to a much smarter person, or he got anxious during the test and fumbled it or something.
>>24696636I don't know about America, but in my country the college admission exam is 100% a covert IQ test, specially the verbal section. I could see someone with raw talent doing badly if they aren't used to reading long texts though. But in my personal experience, having attended the best college in my country, there was a direct correlation between intelligence and your admission score. Those who got accepted on affirmative action were with no exception at the bottom of every class no matter how much effort the school put on getting them on equal footing.
>>24698888>managing to contribute to real sciencehe contributed something?
>>24700800This fag's never heard of "practicing"
>>24700800IQ isn't a real metric
>>24695812Read about Solomon Maimon's methodical inventor in comparison to genius
I wonder what was Shakespeare’s IQ.
>>24695812There are probably a lot of people with an IQ lower than 110 who wrote a book in the canon. The most important factor in writing a book for most of history was being privileged enough to be educated.
>>24701567Funny how the plebs of today's world have the privilege but refuse the opportunity. Rats stay rats
>>24695812IQ is a jewish scsm. The most high IQ people I know are extremely unremarkable autists who are happy wasting their lives on vidya. All you need to write a great novel is SOVL and a good grasp of whatever language you're writing in.
>>24695812Better Question: If AI can generate 1 billion IQ because it can simulate 10 million brains working at the same time, what does that say about AI-generated literature?
>>24698840>an African has more to say than a white personYou lost me there, anon.
>>24702538I don't think that's how any of it works, but regardless, it would say the same thing it says now: it represents the Public, which means mass-approved patterns, themes and references, which means common knowledge, which means bland, unengaging work, the exact opposite of what movements like modernism strived for.
>>24702541What if the data set was limited to higher works, asking the AI to derive and expand on ideas provided by previous elite thinkers rather than the nu-males?
>>24702572I guess it would be interesting since I already dislike the "originality" argument people try to apply to AI, and especially in philosophy it becomes obvious when someone attempts a dialogue with another thinker they were inspired by. But considering everyone's views and style of work are a result of their lives, I can't imagine the end result of this looking like anything we can understand. If humanity's great works are based on our own limitations, making AI replicas of them seems pointless.
