Which authors and works can somebody with a 100 IQ not understand?

Which authors and works can somebody with a 100 IQ not understand?

Attached: image.gif (480x351, 1.06M)

A Critique of Pure Reason, mostly because of it's obfuscating language.

most of them

people with that low of an iq couldn't aspire to read anything more complex than newspapers and Dan Brown novels

kant is a pseud

>140
You can read anything, in multiple languages
>130
You can read most stuff, some philosophical texts. High reading ability in a 2nd language
>120
Can read anything outside of philosophical texts, and some complex novels. Might be able to read proficiently in a 2nd language.
>110
Can read some classical lit, but nothing too complex. Likely monolingual.
>100
Harry Potter, Nora Roberts, Michael Chrichton would make the bulk of your reading material if you read at all.
>sub-100
Can struggle to read newspapers. Mostly restricted to communicative reading.

Read this expecting to argue about some aspect but it's pretty damn close to what I'd say. If anything I'd say that people around 120 can read philosophy if sufficiently motivated.

I went through a whole bunch of cognitive tests after a brain haemorrhage, and my iq was rated at 130. Can identify with this t b h

Michael Crichton is, unironically, a complex, subtle, ingenious, and compelling writer. He has a strong command of the language, a vast amount a knowledge on a multitude of subjects, and a complete mastery of the elements of storytelling. He employs sophisticated metaphors effortlessly. His focus on the speculative is what keeps him out of the “literary” discussion.

History will look back on Crichton as a dominant force in western literature. And no, I’m not meming.

Mobile Suit Gundam

Crichton himself is clearly very smart and a capable writer but his work itself isn't nearly that strong.

Knowing multiple languages has nothing to do with intelligence.

IQ helps when learning new languages once you're no longer a child though.

t. el cretura fiftysixpercentos de la unitedstates of america

I was in mostly dumb people classes in high school so there is no way my IQ is over 100. I read all the same others as Veeky Forums though. Dostoyevsky, Joyce, Pynchon, Proust, Dante, Faulkner, whatever. I still enjoy them and take from them a lot. I might not pick up every small detail but I don't care to because there is enough surface level stuff to enjoy it.

Attached: 228id_421_w1600.jpg (1600x900, 90K)

False. Next is a work of art and absolutely genius. Same with Sphere.

That's adorable. You can be Veeky Forums's pet brainlet.

>the IQ meme
you idiots realize that IQ deals with reasoning and logic and not emotional intelligence or interpretation of text.

>robust logical reasoning skills and working memory don't help with interpreting complex texts

Attached: brainlettttt.jpg (800x450, 41K)

There is generally a strong correlation

>la unitedstates of america
At least try.

I never said they didn't but IQ doesn't equal that skill one to one. >le sub 100 IQ brainlet is defeatist and an excuse to not even try challenging books

It's true, but any anglo that knows multiple languages likely had to go out of his way to study and acquire that proficiency. something brainlets are unlikely to do.

I'd say that around 120 you can understand easier philosophical texts, there's a difference between reading Plato and reading Kant.
>am of that IQ range

IQ can be cultivated to some extent, and reading increasingly challenging texts as a child and adolescent is one of the most important ways that Anglophone people do that. If you have an adult IQ under 100 it's almost certain that you haven't developed your reading skills that way and would be better served starting with something a bit easier and working your way up. I'm not so much saying that such a person will never be able to get the most out of Infinite Jest, but that they almost certainly cannot right now if they score that poorly on a general intelligence test.

I scored 127 on the Stanford-Binet and literally everything even semi-complex I read nowadays makes me feel like a brainlet.

Reading complex texts is a function of both your brain's raw processing ability and reading-specific skills you have to practice.

I scored ~127 on three IQ tests taken between the age of 12-25. My higher than average score has had no impact on my comprehension of the types of literature this board reveres.
Pynchon, for example, is utterly senseless, disjointed drivel. DeLillo, at least stylistically, retains enough of his modernist roots to make some sense. Gaddis is nonsense. Gass is nonsense. Barth is nonsense. Joshua Cohen is nonsense. DFW is nonsense.

When I apply my cognitive skills to a modernist text, specifically Joyce and WOolf, I find a structure inherent in the work from which my working memory and critical reasoning abilities allow me to derive a pattern. A method to the madness, if you will. This is simply inapplicable to most of the texts memed on this board, as they’re all written by talentless hacks.

there's nothing worth reading that an averagely intelligent man can't read in a few days.