IQ Battle

Eco the better scholar, Borges the supreme artist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

I believe I agree with this.

>>Having any expectation of intelligence on this sit
>>IQ Battle
>>Who was smarter

Really dazzled my brain with that one

You linked me a page that clearly states this is a hypothetical concept

Is this the power of psychology?

Ask an Argi they will tell you Borges because of Italian decendency, ask an Italian they will say who?

Alberto by far.

Borges didn't have any italian blood tho. He was spanish and english

everything is a hypothetical concept. you can't prove shit, least of all your own existence.

he was a filthy basque sheepshagger

Borges and it's not close.

It's your fault for expecting Veeky Forums to be serious.

>academic in prestigious schools
>smart

Generally, academics are barely above average in intelligence. They're nothing special (especially out of the hard sciences, but even there). Don't be fooled by their jargon. Most of them would be embarrassed when asked to solve 17x17 or 616/8.

t. former academic in a "prestigious school"

i love eco but it's borges easily, anybody who has read both can easily see that.

Tell me more

>anons argue like retards about irrelevant topics
>meanwhile in heaven Eco and Borhes drink coffee and eat cake together discussing literature and life

That's the difference between a smart man and a stupid man.

They weren't even saved, they're both in hell.

You can't possibly know that.
t. Socrates

Uhm, yes I can based on their beliefs.
Eco was an agnostic / atheist.
borges = agnostic.

Lol?

their beliefs are irrelevant if you, yourself, confess certain religion.

There is only one way to heaven.
It is Jesus Christ.
Those guys are not in heaven, they are in hell.

Wake up, user.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

>If you can't solve a basic operation in your mind in a very short time you are dumb
Whew, lad

So just die already and get out of my board, would ya?

Instead of using your brain, you resort to the knee jerk reaction of telling me to fuck off. As you wish, when you stand before God, I guarantee this will come to mind.

"Oh if I only had asked how I get to heaven?"

You silly goat.

Eco's intelligence is vast, but not deep. He's just a guy that reads a lot (and he probably has read more than Borge).
Borges also didn't have a deep philosophical knowledge (he probably didn't give a shit about boring books that are required to build up a serious analytical framework), but his insights are more powerful than those offered by Eco. I guess his is the smarter guy.

I did not say "in a very short time" or even "in your mind" though.

Innumeracy is real, and it's not the only flaw of our elites.

I think, therefore I am nigger

>t. former academic in a "prestigious school"

It's true and it's not especially flattering.

>t. doesnt even have a bachelor degree

>tfw to intelligent for professors

I really don't want to know what Eco thinks or does with basic calculus, I'm interested in his views on aesthetics and semiotics.
Why do you people hate academia this much? All of it's problems (cliques favouring each other, inflated egos, feelings of impotence) are present on literally everything else from what I gather from friends not involved in academia.

t. doesn't have an argument

t. is upset because he has been told he is smart throughout his life, but can't understand Borges or Eco, he is just an autistic man-calculator who can do mental arithmetic.

I've read all of Eco's fiction, maybe a dozen of his essays, and watched most of his lectures in English. Only things left are 'Kant and the Platypus' and 'Travels in Hyperreality'. Have been putting this off because most of the ideas he's introduced lately in this unfolding have been things I've grasped already, in more or less words.

As far as Borges, I've only read The Lottery in Babylon. What can you guys reccommend? If Borges was esteemed enough for Eco to include him in his most famous novel, he's worth taking a crack at.

IQ is just potential.

But niggers don't think.

That's why you are one.

Umberto Eco is dead.

I don't think "smarter" has anything to do with how much you could enjoy their books. For what it's worth, I think George had the superior imagination and Roberto had the superior "analytical mind."

Borges stomps him by a large margin.

This is another thing I've been extremely puzzled. I've read him in english, spanish and portuguese and never understood what's there to not get in Borges. How can people not understand his stories? He sets up his puzzles and mirrors, yes, but he's mostly preoccupied in guiding you through the labyrinth than watching you struggle to do so.

my diary desu

>roberto

no u

My argument was not about Eco himself, but about people who thinks "h-he's an academic" is an actual argument to assess smartness--although brilliant academics do exist.

I don't hate the academia, it's just a place full of people who did well in class (and think this is intelligence), then write derivative stuff in jargon about minutiae (and think this is creation and/or that it matters). That world is not very interesting in general.

Personally, I've never really read Eco apart from Il Nome della Rosa fifteen years ago, so I can't comment on him. Borges certainly did better than this novel, though.

>t. mad brainlet who can't into simple maths

>umberto

What's wrong with "Umberto"?

>wrong

>I don't hate the academia, it's just a place full of people who did well in class (and think this is intelligence), then write derivative stuff in jargon about minutiae (and think this is creation and/or that it matters). That world is not very interesting in general.

this is a very juvenile generalization of academia that whiffs of superiority complex. it's okay to dislike and find academia uninteresting, but to generalize it so is kin to people who dislike to read saying the world of literature is just people writing stuff.

The entire academia is not like that, but you cannot deny that it's full of people like this.

The typical professor or researcher is someone with an IQ of 115 (?) who:

>works laboriously
>writes things not even his peers bother reading
>gets applauded in symposia for just any awkward speech (in faulty English if he's not Anglo)
>may have a mediocre to poor culture out of his specific field
>is forced to deliver research papers even when he has nothing to say
>won't discover anything really useful or insightful in his entire career
>instead, builds up his career with forced memes (like calling "Satyrica" the Satyricon, writing about "intersectionality", etc.)

Yes, not everyone is like this. But that's the majority of academics, thus the general trend. And even if you're "better than that", it's hard to shine because you may have to fit in: find a meme niche, write speeches and papers while knowing they're useless, etc.

Source: I worked with these people for years. I was one of them.

mate, your argument whittles down to most people being mediocre in their chosen field or profession.

the only appropriate response to that is: duh.

No one is expected to do anything other than that in any other area in modern society. Your calculator man hardly knows shit about contemporary art or philosophy.

Get his Collected Fictions, or any complete collection fo his short histories. I don't think it would be more than 500 pages in total.

Borges did read a lot too. He was slowed down in his reading when he got blind in his fifties.
He was alsoe very well read in philosophy, including analytical.

pseud opinion

This is true for any field, including literature for sure, but in the academia that mediocrity induces stifling conformism, the celebrated (albeit forced) production of mediocre articles, etc. The social nature of it, and the necessities of massive education... often result in self-feeding banality.

>your calculator man
You've been damaged by this one, huh? But that was my point when I said researchers have poor culture out of their field. That's especially true in hard sciences. Women with two PhDs who will only read personal development books, and maybe one Haruki Murakami novel, bought in the airport...

He was not.

He only liked Schopenhauer because when you strip Kant out of his ideas (Borges didn't bother to read Kant), what you're left with is a bunch of esoteric will makes matter real Buddhist matrix things, and Borges loved that; many of his tales took that to heart.

Wasn't well read in continentals, barely knew who were the analytics apart from bertrand.

Still way better than Eco.

It's not about what they read, or how much they wrote. It's about originality.

Eco made a shitty gothic whodunit and some boring essays. Borges brought almost singlehandedly literature into today's postmodernism.

No pynchon without borges. No anything from the past 50 years without Borges.

We can forget Eco no problem.

You try studying semiotics or literature and forgetting about Eco the theorist, not eco the Author, and tell me how you you do.

>It's not about what they read, or how much they wrote. It's about originality.

Actually, the topic of the thread is IQ.

Eco's work within semiotics and translation theory indicate an IQ of a very high order, possibly higher than Borges'. Also, The Name of the Rose can be read on at least 4 levels of interpretation, out of which the gothic whodunit is only the easiest one.

Borges was a better writer, though, he had more aesthetic feeling and an uncanny ability to summon the synthetic qualities of language in order to convey strangeness and infinity.

It's apples and oranges, really.

any italian fags here?

how hard is eco's writing 'italian-language-wise' compared to calvino's (which is relatively easy) and dante's (which is pretty hard for a non-native italian speaker)?

I like the themes of his works but I would like to jump straight into italian instead of reading a translation.

>ps. native language is portuguese, so I am having little trouble with italian. for instance, with 3 months studying I can read italian pretty well (mostly italian news and a world-wide italian group in whatsapp, though I've read some pages of genesis and a bit of cosmichomiche by calvino) and, though I struggle a bit, I can maintain a converstation in with people through messages. can also understand like 80% of podcasts depending on the guy talking, last one I heard was about machiavelli and was pretty comfy

It is not like semiotics is a serious field of study though

I doubt you could even read Baudolino in portuguese, let alone in english. Eco loves his archaisms and patois, but there's nothing particularly beautiful about his use of language that would be lost in translation, so no need to do it (only for his academics texts if you ever plan to study his work)

you sound smart

>I doubt you could even read Baudolino in portuguese
care to elaborate a bit more?

u is saying i's stupid?

The guy's just being a prick. Baudolino isn't complicated on a surface level and it has an actual plot.

Yeah, i think you haven't read Borges enough.

I exaggerated a bit, but that's it: Eco loves rare or archaic words and this carries over in translation. Just read him in portuguese, he spoke the language and probably oversaw his translations (I know he did some of his brazilian academic ones because he mentions it on the editions notes, don't know about his fiction though)

Probably way more than you. Sorry to shatter your stupid idea of him, but everything i said is correct.

It's just a silly/shitty field. Thinking that it requires "high IQ" is as retarded as the name of the rose.

yeh ill just go learn portugeuse to read a book, good lord

Never actually heard a smart person talk about IQ. What is it with young men and this sort of thing, inadequacies in the pants?

You dolt, the guy who asked about him first said portuguese is his native language

>he can't into Pierce

the fucks that got to do with me, if you think im learning portugeuse you can think again

because im not

I would say they both clock in at about 115. Extremely high for their time.

borges

t. guy who's never read Borges's essays.

He was better than Eco in every single way, down to the fact of not falling for the "a novel" meme.

I can confirm this. I was very close to be one, but I wasn't interested in kissing ass so I didn't get there. That's all it takes, intelligence has nothing to do in 90% of the cases. And those that earn their place in their own terms, usually have a rough time because everyone else tries to fuck them over.

t. guy who hasn't read Borges
You would know this is wrong if you had read A New Refutation of Time, which is included in Labyrinths.

humm ok. thanks mate

Can we say that Eco was the virgin writer and Borges was the chad one?

You should actually read what you're refering then. Or improve on your comprehension.

As i said before: He has barely a grasp of continental philosophy, only really caring about schopenhauer. He dismissed all the others, playing with their ideas of time and space just because they were novel to him.

No only i read Nueva refutación del tiempo in spanish, because i'm not a fat merican like you, but also his conversations and memoires.

The guy was brilliant, but he didn't care, almost at all, for classic philosophy.

Fuck off to your mancave my friend, people are discussion great writters here.

other way around

Borg died virgin

Borges lived with his momma almost until her death, and was married because old momma told him so.

He was above carnal things like sex, food (favorite food was rice, didn't care for flavors) or music... Was a drunk but because of depression.

so.. no. Borges is the Virgen one, not by choice or autism, just didn't care.

>tfw too intelligent to sex
literally

The ultimate NEET.

you may not like it but this is what peak literature performance looks like