Lolita's IQ

An IQ of nothing than less 121, pretty high? Isn't it? I would kill myself if I scored less on any IQ test than this little girl... Wouldn't you?
What made Nabokov chose this big number for the co-protagonist of his book?
Anyways, do you have a higher IQ than this child?

>121
Please, everyone knows you have to have an IQ(or intelligence quotient) of at least 130 in order to truly understand literature

Last I checked my IQ was in the high 80s but it hasn't affected my ability to function except I'm bad at math

Graduated from a good college with a 3.8 GPA last year in Marketing and English and am interning with a cruise company. Not super worried

Why would I waste my precious time trying to understand literature when other doofus can do it for me? Just read a book and then read a review. It's the easiest way to form an opinion that goes beyond basic.

Veeky Forumstier thread

iq is more of a constraint on processing power than anything. so literature yeah you can get it by reading slowly, but youll have difficulty trading in higher-order concepts, or performing complex mathematical operations.

having a low iq doesnt make you a drooling retard by default, if you put in effort you can become reasonably competent by working at your own pace.

I don't know what my IQ is.
But I'm shit at doing math in my head. Even addition. So It's probably not amazingly high.

Still have alot more going for me than my siblings. I'm smarter than all of them, and the best in mathematics if I have a fucking paper.

I'm 30 and took one IQ test when I was in grade school, with the physical blocks and shit and I really was puzzled by it. I couldn't figure out what they were trying to learn from making me play with toys and I kept trying to analyze the tester who just kept staring back at me. In the end I gave it a cautionary effort but was really curious about the whole event. I have no idea how I scored but I gathered it wasn't exceptional.

Sometime this year, far earlier than today I serendipitously took one out of boredom, and got scored as being in the range of 130-140 or something higher. It made more sense to me now that I understand the significance of pattern recognition, etc., but in my continued ignorance of the general scale of scores on the tests, I felt disappointed in myself.

Now, reading things like this almost make me feel scared. My post here is anonymous so please disregard any perceived arrogance. I'm not trying to bait or posture, I just want some opinions from other voices I recognize intelligence in. How important is this stuff, really? I was led to believe that no one trusted IQ tests when I was a child, likely a contributing factor to my little arc here. Am I really so far apart from other people? It would make me miserable to feel like I couldn't trust the perceptions of others based on these scores.

Is there anyone else who scored similar to me who can reassure me that the test is silly? Does anyone have anything else significant to add about IQ tests?

Also, as a related note to the opening topic, I've never read Lolita, but am well aware of it's topic, significance, etc. Am I missing out by avoiding the core experience or is the actual writing as irrelevant as it seems?

>What made Nabokov chose this big number for the co-protagonist of his book?

Well it's possible Humbert is making her out to be much smarter than she actually is -- a common habit among pedophiles. But I hate reducing everything in the novel to 'unreliable narrator,' so it's probably more likely Nabokov correctly decides when writing that Humbert's dream girl isn't a dumb one.

Iq tests are very specific. They have to do with things like pattern recognition.

It's also dumb because it changes with age. I used to have one around 120 as a kid. I took a test 6 years later and and I dropped nearly 10 points.

I turns out IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient.

It's a score on some test, divided by your age.

You literally lose IQ as you age.

I dunno. Maybe I'm biased. But I think IQ tests are kinda dumb.

It's even more extraordinary considering the dïspositioneme to low IQ.

I would trade in, like, 10 IQ points for a little more work ethic.
Would put me at about your level OP lul

>another fucking IQ thread
leave this fucking board

Spotted the 135 IQ brainlet

Pattern recognition and problem solving have broad implications though. IQ tests are very specific because the question type remains the same and understanding that type, practicing on examples of it, and studying logic/mathematics. Will all improve it. So for true IQ, a certain standard of education (with ensured understanding) would be necessary.

why are you insulting me?

IQ tests are a measure of how quickly and accurately you can solve complex abstractions. This is not the only thing to take into account. An attourney typically has very high IQ but low openness ; writer high IQ high openness. Intelligence is an important personality factor, but it isn't the only one that matters. You can see this by clearly smart people working jobs they see themselves as above. They are miserable. And they aren't actually above these jobs, as they often have unbalanced personality types such as low industriusness or are highly neurotic. Intelligence is just one, albeit important, component in the machine of genius.

>98 percentile
>brainlet
i know youre right but this hurts.

That's nothing in McNab's world. Mona had a 150 IQ and Ada's was supposed to be about 200. Maybe it was Van, my memory is hazy. They are both introduced as super geniuses.

I honestly don't think it means anything to not be able to do mental computation, since the schools don't actually emphasize it, and actively discourage it (show your work faggot). There is no mental training whatsoever. They don't teach memory work. They don't care about computational speed. It's all "study this" "do these practice problems" "read the book again." Except for the lucky few who have had private tutors, almost no one can be expected to graduate from a western educational system with much more than the barest rote methods of calculation.

very true. I notice I get better grades on essays when I simplify it, and don't attempt to be creative with the prompt. It doesn't matter if you show deep knowledge of the topic, answer the prompt - and go beyond. The professor won't put any effort if you put any expectation on the reader. They don't bother to interpret what you mean in complex sentences. Everything has to be layed out as simply as possible for these intellectually lazy midgets. It could be because I attend community college.

Sorry it was meant to be light hearted and also I implied work ethic is far more important than IQ. So just work hard.

IQ tests are adjusted for age.

True, but you have to understand the grading rubric. For example back in HS I had a writing prompt that required the usage of certain vocab words. I used them all in the introductory sentence, which gave me total freedom for the rest of the paper. I go balls to the wall whenever there's a pass fail essay; I will intentionally go over the teacher's head because there are no consequences. And sometimes I just don't give a fuck about the grade and write to the best of my ability. The task of training one's mind is a solitary endeavor and should not be compromised by incompetent authorities. Still, getting A's in college English is easy once you realize the prof is just happy to have someone capable of stringing a sentence together. The required courses are only required because most incoming students suck at everything.

you're describing a primitive model of IQ. it wouldn't be considered an actual quotient these days

>"She's so smart! I couldn't have taken advantage of this little genius! She's the one who teased me! She was asking for it!"
It's Humbert justifying his rape. Lolita is a masterclass in how to write an unreliable narrator

I'm like 70 I think your fine.

IQ is based on problem solving ability relative to one's age. So a high IQ on a young person just means they are smart for their age. Not only that, but this is an assessment of her intelligence by a man who would like to justify his lust for her and thus not all that reliable.