Do whatever you want, books don't come with IQ restrictions

im sure youre not too dumb to read
just take your time with a story. as long as you are enjoying it, then it is worth it.
im positive that there are authors who write books that you would breeze through, perhaps you just haven't found them yet.
what have you read so far?

>>25503014
It sounds like dumb tankie cope but the cult of IQ is largely capitalism driven. Employers can generate a lot of value with high IQ individuals so people focus on it the same way they focused on physical strength back in antiquity. Out of all activities, art is the least IQ-demanding and in some cases it might even help, because there's loads of poetry out there where discoursive reasoning actually hurts your understanding.

>>25503034
I'm a capitalist, IQ is just a metric and not an absolute measure of intelligence, otherwise even in the capitalist system most jobs would require an IQ test, they don't. Even in intellectual fields IQ tests are largely unimportant.

>>25503058
There is no absolute measure of intelligence, but there is a definite fetishization of logical reasoning, which is what most uncertified IQ tests are trying to measure. How capitalists end up utilizing these tools is another chapter, but I did have to pass them during the hiring process before.

>>25503014
Truly dumb people never even try to improve.

Yes, you should keep reading. As long as you're not too stupid enough to read the words on the page and understand them then you will never be too stupid to read. At worst, you'll just be unable to pick up on the subtler themes of more difficult to parse books but even that can be improved upon as you read more. Build your confidence with less challenging books

>>25503014
Did you enjoy reading it though? It's not a competition. Do what you enjoy, your time here on earth is limited

>>25503026
>what have you read so far?
I have read a good bunch of Stephen King books, three or four by Jack Ketchum (The girl next door, Off Season...) and a bunch of Gothic novels like Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde, The Phantom of the Opera...

I also like Charles Bukowski and John Fante, I struggle less with those but I fewl it's because it's more grounded or realistic and the others seem more abstract which sucks because I'm really into horror and I would like to enjoy Gothic literature more

>>25503074
>>25503089
That's true, thank you. I'm sure part of it has to do that I don't have a lot of practice so sometimes I'm not paying proper attention, that's part of it. There are other times where I do pay attention and I can't seem to grasp what the author is trying to say

>>25503092
I do, yeah, I get frustrated because I would like to better at it but I do like it. I really like horror as a genre, and rock and metal music that sometimes takes inspiration from Lovecraft, for example, so I would like to explore that side of the genre, I think it's literary form it's perhaps it's purest form and I feel like I'm missing out

I also travel quite often and carrying a book is a really practical form of entretainment when you are in such a enviorment

>>25503114
Your brain quite literally grows when you experience new things, you'll get there.

>>25503120
I understand your frustration. I've recently gotten back into reading after not doing much of it since my teens. It feels like any other skill, needs a bit of practice to keep up to speed

>>25503072
>but there is a definite fetishization of logical reasoning
Yes because logic is extremely useful, still there are other aspects of intelligence, IQ is just a poor measure of intelligence, now that I think about it you raised a good point because logic tests would be more standardizeable than IQ tests.
>but I did have to pass them during the hiring process before.
Lol, you had to pass an IQ test to get a job? I'm guessing either it was a specialized occupation or your employers are questionable.

>>25503134
>there are other aspects of intelligence
>IQ is just a poor measure of intelligence
Correct. Which is why IQ being at the forefront of people's minds these days needs an additonal explanation. And I think it is in capitalism. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying the market wants smart people and the most efficient way for them to grasp this is via IQ. And people respond to that.
>a specialized occupation or your employers are questionable
At least two of those times were KPMG. One position might have been a data analyst, where IQ tests make at least some sense. But I remember the other position was unrelated to analysis and I was surprised I have to go through the garbage tests again. And these were sets of tests, mind you: a sudoku-like inference game and then a bunch of verbal intelligence tasks mostly based on deduction, and then a third test but that might have been a language test. A colossal waste of time energy.

>>25503164
>Which is why IQ being at the forefront of people's minds these days needs an additonal explanation. And I think it is in capitalism.
You guys just blame everything on capitalism, it's silly, but I suppose a natural consequence of dialectical socialist nonsense.
>I'm saying the market wants smart people and the most efficient way for them to grasp this is via IQ. And people respond to that.
The market wants whatever people value, because at the end of the day the market is just people voluntarily interacting and trading, if people valued the ability to balance an apple on your head they might test you for that.

>>25503205
Yeah I feared that this is how I'm coming across, that's why I clarified it's going to sound like dumb tankie cope. I am fine with capitalism. I just see financial utility as the driving force behind people treating the brain the way they used to treat muscle.
>if people valued the ability to balance an apple on your head they might test you for that
Exactly. Now imagine arriving to a planet where the market behaves exactly this way. Wouldn't you think this is driven by them being able to make a living with balancing apples on their heads? Or would you just shrug and say 'people be valuing what people be valuing, correlations with the market conditions need not worry me'?

>>25503014
Yeah. Reading is fun. Just read books for lower level readers if you have to. It doesn't matter.

>>25503211
>Yeah I feared that this is how I'm coming across, that's why I clarified it's going to sound like dumb tankie cope.
Fair.
>Wouldn't you think this is driven by them being able to make a living with balancing apples on their heads?
I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

>>25503120
Its okay to be frustrated with it. I am trying to become a better reader too, I've fried my attention span on trivial things, so I am working to restore it with reading. I find it frustrating when I can't focus on a page or end up re-reading the same three lines because I lose focus.

>muh low iq
let me guess by the end of op's posting he's saying he has a phd in philosophy but he just doesn't understand kant or derrida or sth so he must be low iq lame old troll didn't read lol

>>25503092
>It's not a competition.
Speak for yourself, punk

>>25503014
Whenever you get to a part you don't understand, simply ask AI to explain it to you. You'll probably end up with a deeper understanding of the text than 99% of people who read it as well.