No amount of books that I read will make me stop being stop being stupid.
>>24834226>stop being stop being stupid
>>24834226Lies. You'll stop being stupid at 480 books. Get cracking, and digest the prose with humility!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91gT68xeDMM
>>24834226Better to be stupid than to be ignorant
>>24834226As long as you recognize you don't have the highest IQ and read accordingly, I think you'll be fine. The problems arise when dumb people think they're smart and get in over their heads
>>24834226At least you're not ESL.
>>24834635Being stuck a retard is preferable to convincing yourself you're intelligent?
>>24834834accepting your own level of intelligence is preferable to falsely believing that it's higher than it is.
>>24834226Read a math book.
>>24834593>Better to be stupid than to be ignorantI'm stealing this
>>24834635>>24836660You're right in your reply to the second guy, but IQfags are so painfully patronizing. No better than redditors in that regard.
>>24834226Working out and building muscles will unironically make your brain function better and make you smarter
>>24836689This.
>>24834226Why do these threads always attract the wisest anons? It almost makes me forget that I most likely called one of you a retard in another thread and likewise.
How come I can read a lot of early modern English works, like the writings of the Puritans, and understand it just fine.. but can't understand any philosophy? Someone posted a line from Schopenhauer, who I'm told is one of the more plain-speaking and accessible philosophers, and I read it 5 times and still couldn't make sense of it?Philosophy makes me feel legitimately retarded, and as a result I hate it and cope by calling it useless nonsense.
>>24837373I tried reading The Crying Lot the other day, too, and couldn't follow anything and got.mad and threw it away, lol
>>24834226Human cognition is necessarily limited, so everybody has a point of complexity beyond which he does not understand things. I have like 145+ IQ bit that doesnt change the fact that I have seen 170 or 160 IQ people talk and be astounded by their ability to make reasonable and insightful connections. I can only work with what I've got and so do you. Books will give you an advantage in crystallized intelligence, so they will at least dampen your self perceived stupidity.Also in the current time average IQ falls, so high IQ people literally get no pussy.
>>24836660Misery isn't always preferable to bliss.
does reading make you more intelligent, or just more knowledgeable? huh? i feel like i need to read wittgenstein now.
>>24837809Reading gives you more crystallized intelligence, but your fluid intelligence largely remains the same. So yes, reading can make you more intelligent.
>>24838529This is largely a meme. You improve what you practice, but practicing intelligence by general reading is like practicing cardio by walking to the store... There will be a marginal side effect at best. Read a celebrity memoir and you might even lose an IQ point or two.
>>24836660Whether dumb or smart, people love confidence. Therefore better to be a confident dummy, than an "honest" self-deprecating smart.
Perhaps you should CONCEDE defeat, anahn
>>24838540You think intelligence is limited to fluid intelligence while disregarding crystallized intelligence. Intelligence is about problem solving and knowledge (crystallized intelligence) enables better problem solving.
>>24838550I don't think that, no. I do think intelligence is not about knowledge whatsoever, yes, unless you mean procedural knowledge like re-framing skills.
>>24838560Knowledge is not only applied like a dead fish, it is an active part of problem solving, of understanding the problems in the first place. IQ tests are only testing for very limited fluid intelligence, not for real world accomplishments. Knowledge takes a bigger part in the latter.
>>24837309only if you do cardio and build your heart so it can pump more blood to the brain
>>24838572>active part of problem solvingThat's what I said. Why are you responding with vague terms instead of using the concrete ones in the very post you're replying to?>IQ tests are only testing for very limited fluid intelligenceOne day they might be this narrowly focused, but as it is right now, IQ tests are measuring general intelligence altogether with an increasing focus on analytical (as opposed to synthesizing) thought. Fluid, crystalized, spacial, social etc. are pop-sci terms at this point.
>>24838593Yoir strict distinction between procedureal knowledge and knowledge is moot. Any knowledge can have a procedural use in the right circuumstances.
>>24834226But there is an amount of books that you can read that will help you accept it. :)
>>24838615> Any knowledge can have a procedural use in the right circuumstances.Exactly wrong. Any procedural knowledge can be converted into propositional knowledge, but not vice versa. E=mc^2 will never be procedural. What will be procedural is your handling of algebra, not knowledge of this relationship between matter and energy.And there is the distinction I am pointing out. Using the equation is intelligence. Knowing it, is not.
>>24838629But if you dont know E=mc2 then you cant use it either. Knowing E=mc2 is a precondition to using it and therefore enables applications (procedures) that require its knowledge. Im not arguing against your point, Im saying that you overlook the dependence on knowledge to achieve anything - independent of fluid intelligence. A 170 IQ person born and confined to a tribe in a rainforest isnt going to do much because he has very limited access to knowledge and therefore is comparatively very limited in building his crystallized intelligence.
>>24838629On the importance of knowledge, I recommend you this knowledge: "The Use of Knowledge in Society"By Friedrich A. Hayekhttps://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html
>>24837373they write differently than fictions authors of their time, you just have to read more of it. the terms and writing style will make more sense over time. and most philosophy of the past 200 hundred years is just quoting other people and using terms they made up. i know they always say start with the greeks but it really is the way to go. plato and aristotle are quite accesible despite the age and are free of the constant referencing that plagues everything that came after them.
>>24834226iktf Honestly I have no clue how anyone copes. I wasn't born a precocious genius so, why bother? Nothing will come of anything. No matter how much knowledge I acquire or breadth of understanding attain, I'll always question whether my views and opinions have the slightest worth compared to a naturally gifted man of far less learning. How the fuck does one cope? :(
>>24837373Don't torture yourself by reading excerpts. It's always infinitely easier to actually read a sentence in context. Just sit down with Schopey's essays and actually read a few. Don't worry if there's some terminology or whatever you don't get; just skip it and keep reading what makes sense. The essays aren't some rigourous logical chain of deduction: it's fine to miss a bit in the middle.Trust me: you can get Schopenhauer. There are some things that are beyond people. Christ I know that. But It's just about not psyching yourself out by saying 'oh I'm too retarded'. You're not! Just take it slowly.
>>24838653>Knowing E=mc2 is a precondition to using itUsing it doesn't make it procedural knowledge. There is no procedural e=mc2.>you overlook the dependence on knowledge to achieve anythingI'm all for knowledge. I'm just pointing out that declarative knowledge is the narrowest one of them all.>fluid intelligence>crystallized intelligencePopsci term, mostly meaningless in contemporary cognitive science.>isnt going to do much because he has very limited access to knowledgeThis is absolutely true, but it doesn't really have IQ ramifications. You can be an uninformed genius. General intelligence isn't a question of declarative knowledge. It's a question of computation and relevance realization, where some skills (procedural knowledge) plays a role. But knowing many propositions is absolutely not what IQ is even rmotely about.
>>24838825>uninformed geniusNta, but perhaps I am, but i know i am not (using this site), but hoping it is true.
>>24838875Perhaps you are. But it doesn't matter as much as we like to think. Intelligence today is what brute strength was during antiquity - a marketable skill. And the market causes us to over-emphasize its importance, but a quality life is ultimately defined by the harmony between your attributes, not by the relative strength of any specific one.
