Is there a point in reading and philosophizing if you're a 110 IQ brainlet...

>I thought about QM interpretations for 30 minutes that one time
>tfw I'm a philosopher
This is the extent of your typical physicist's thinking abilities.

>Gets called an autist
>Immediately starts sperging
Mathematicians, everyone.

>get told
>LAMO SPERGING XD
I'm beginning to doubt you're over the age of 18, let alone a physicist.

>dude??? numbers real or don't real?? dunno...
this is the extent of your typical mathematician thinking abilities

>tfw was expecting some cheeky nerd banter, but it's just a 14 year old ebyn trolling

Confine this shit to Veeky Forums you fucking autistics

>I'm beginning to doubt you're over the age of 18, let alone a physicist.
And I'm pretty sure you're an actual mathematician considering the general sperginess and the lack of reading comprehension

Just make an extra effort.

My IQ is 124 and it's apparently similar to Feynman's. Obviously, IQ probably makes more of a difference in physics than in literature, so this means I have an ever greater advantage than he had.

Provided that you are not mentally retarded, you can do a lot if you work hard. You will never be Goethe nor anything near it, but you don't need to be the greatest in order to write good books. There are some writers who seem to me to have had not particularly impressive IQ's. I don't think Fitzgerald had a very high IQ.

>I don't think Fitzgerald had a very high IQ.

What about Papa?

>similar to Feynman's

He got that on one IQ test in high school, then took another one late in his career and got 190. The point is that if you box yourself in with definitions and categorizations then you'll always be self-limiting. Also bear in mind that getting the 125 impelled Feynman to teach himself multiple branches of calculus before he left high school, which demonstrates the quality of genius that can't really be accounted for with numbers

Of course. You should read for the experience in and of itself, not for social capital. The acquisition of knowledge is pleasurable, especially when its coming to you in the form of dramatic narratives and beautiful imagery. Similarly, philosophy should enrich the way you interpret and exist in the world. Whether somebody else has a more complex lens or system is irrelevant to your own experience

How true is that?

I don't really think you can get an IQ increase like that. It's too much.

Or maybe - maybe - IQ tests aren't 100% reliable
But I agree that 190 is too much, at that level you have basically transcended humanity
On a side note: does somebody know what was Gauss' IQ?

>Carroll, John Bissell (1996). Sternberg, Robert J.; Ben-Zeev, Talia, eds. The Nature of Mathematical Thinking. Mahwah, New Jersey: L. Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-1799-7. OCLC 34513302.
>"The general experience of psychologists in applying tests would lead them to expect that Feynman would have made a much higher IQ if he had been properly tested."

Considering the extent of his alcoholism, depression and cynicism, he probably had relatively high pattern recognition abilities

>Implying there's a point to anyone doing anything.

Is there a point to skiing even though I know I'll never compete in let alone win a downhill gold? Fuck yeah skiing's awesome.

If you read something and feel like you don't get it, maybe it's because you're a dumbass. Or maybe the author's just full of shit. Eventually you'll find something that makes sense.

That's bullshit

>believing the IQ lie
you've already lost

The two most important qualities that you should try to cultivate from the outset are curiosity and drive; others follow, but they hinge on those two.

Don't let anyone else put you down and call you stupid, regardless of "IQ". If you want to learn about something then let no man stop you.

Bullshit

>tfw you're a 170 IQ brainlet

Anyone else scared to measure their IQ?
Same reason I don't measure my dick

>Same reason I don't measure my dick
I guess you don't look at it either then?
Just looking at it should give a "close" measurement.

This is a good, positive post. Well done user.

Hey look at that, a serious, good post

Who is this cute girl?

I'm sure nobody will argue that these are bad advice. But these don't address the problem I associate with these sorts of threads and with my own experience: there does exist certain hard things that seem like insurmountable barriers. On Veeky Forums that's probably either getting published or writing something truly worthwhile, depending on personal aspirations; on Veeky Forums it's some kind of math which varies person to person.

Presented with one of these, there are two options:

(1) Give up.
(2) Don't give up.

Assume (1) is undesirable for sake of discussion. How do I manage (2) if what seems to be the straightforward approach is, for practical purposes, impossible? Do I have to cut out every other pursuit and dedicate myself entirely to developing only one skill, just to be faced with a harder problem later and to be passed my cleverer people? Or can I obtain through some other means some of the attributes and ways of thinking of the people for whom my obstacle is no great issue? Or, what do we do when we face a problem in life which seems to put us at our limits?

*passed by cleverer...

Just lol at even attempting to do philosophy or mathematics if your cranial index is under 85.

>Is there any point in trying