How much IQ is required to be a good writer?

polish shit all you want, it's still gonna be shit

doing drugs with an IQ under 100 is a recipe for fucking up your life. Leave them to people over 120

IQ is necessary but not sufficient. You need mild schizo + IQ high enough to make it work for you

Isn't IQ generally a fluid measurement of problem solving, rather than understanding of complex concepts (which is what writing deals with mostly)? So wouldn't IQ not apply?

nufaggs...

In principle, yes, but the correlation between those things is very strong because it's so much easier and faster for someone with a high IQ to figure out and apply complex ideas

I'm propably 120-125 and cathinones destroyed my soul(and i used them for only 6 months with breaks, clean about 3 months and i see progress) Some drugs are just too hard, for example 4-MMC, cocaine and meth - amphetamine also but not much as the upper ones. I tried codeine but opiates are not for me, sorry for retarded eng, I'm slav - read S.I Witkiewicz "Witkacy"

Billions.

Sounds reasonable. It's just always disheartening to assume the line of thought that some people, no matter how earnest they are, cannot be "good writers" based solely on "physical" limitations, that are sort of set in stone

Probably like 85. Writing is the easiest art form. That's why nobody takes it seriously.

>not painting
Lmao the state of Veeky Forums

Supposedly I have a 128 IQ, and I don't even feel that smart about anything. What do

Try learning a skill

Faggot.

107?

Experience is more important than IQ for a writer.

See It's very idealistic to assume one do anything they want in this reality, but the truth is regardless of experience it's your genes that really determine your fate.

It's a shit mindset to have though, because it's self-handicapping. Maybe it's a bit of a logical leap, but it seems like it's telling (or implying) people to give up if their "intelligence number" isn't high enough, and that it's not worth trying.

But I suppose the dude who wrote ready player one is probably not particularly smart and wrote a "great" book in the sense that it sold well/got spielberged.

remmember

Attached: 1521683572104.png (1920x984, 38K)

>but it seems like it's telling (or implying) people to give up if their "intelligence number" isn't high enough, and that it's not worth trying.

What's wrong with that? People need to be aware of their limitations. Sure it hurts that not everybody can achieve their dreams, but this is not a fair world.

>an excel chart that shows that Veeky Forums's retard containment board is smart
i lol every time i see it

What on Earth are you saying? Of course if someone isn’t intelligent enough they should not comprehend certain things. But this should be analyzed on a basis of how hard you try, I.e. what effort you put into knowledge.

I don’t judge others by IQ scores. As a matter of fact I try as hard as I can not to think about it. It’s another way for you fucking anime losers to make yourselves feel better about being autistic. Intelligence is determined on a case by case basis

Even if someone with average IQ put in maximum effort 16 hours a day they still would not reach the ability of someone with 130 IQ.

What does this sentence even mean? You are really butthurt and obsessed about IQ scores, seems like you’re a little

A) insecure
And
B) want Jordan Peterson to be your father

>neeeding a father figure

Faggot

None, assuming you have an interesting outlook and a good editor.

How is the meaning not clear? You said they should be analyzed by how hard they try, but ceiling of potential and diminishing returns mean that it truly doesn't mean very much how hard they try. To achieve lofty dreams and ambitions requires hard work AS WELL AS talent.

IQ can be improved by drugs and soon by medical peocedures

dont worry about it. and dont be a coward. just do it or dont

>/v/ that high
It's fake

Yes but talent in what area? Surely you aren’t saying there is only one kind of intelligence?

And it actually does matter how hard you try, no matter what your perceived ‘intelligence’ is. I can guess relative intelligence of individuals as I read their thoughts or listen to them speak. I don’t need a number to judge this for me.

It’s my reality, not the scientist’s

>lgbt higher than /pol/
Fuckoff faggot

>IQ
An idealised form of 'intelligence' - whatever that may be - by academics and the so-called 'learned'. You'd probably just have to copy whatever is acceptable 'intelligence' to seem like you have a good IQ.
>good writer
What constitutes 'good writing' is ordained by power groups, however large or small, from atop the hierarchy or at the bottom. Usually, if your language in a book is perceived as 'clear,' 'emotive,' 'moral' and so on by the most powerful, they will replicate your language into their own Standard Language. If it's loved by the poor, they might take it up into their slang, but this will either be swallowed by the Standardization, or completely forgotten like Cant or Polari.

If it is put into Standard Language or speech, it will then begin to be taught to the masses through nationalised language programs, or simply through the exchange of high culture. I don't think anyone can truly tell what will be influential or not, sometimes copying the old fogies will make you seem antiquated, if you're too 'out there,' you're perceived as a nutjob. This is all down to the individual to try and influence the masses.

You do realise /lgbt/ is full of just as many info-graph-spouting racists right?

Creativity, far more abundant in Europeans, is the most important x-factor of all. High IQ groups like E. Asians and jews are bad writers precisely because they lack this feature.

I thought you retards thought Jews only had verbal intelligence, and that Euros were the ones with spatial intelligence.

These guys are considered some of the best for their respective countries: Proust, Kafka, Salinger, Heller.

Those jews are not good writers, especially in any creative or stylistic sense.

Attached: (you).jpg (210x240, 8K)

please /lit don't become one of the IQ boards. /Sci does it all the time and /his does it sometimes. every thread is about how high one's IQ ought to be or how important iq is or if your iq isn't x amount high enough you should quit. i don't know if that is true and a thread on Veeky Forums will never be able to sufficiently prove anything, it will only remain a fatalistic hypothesis. my IQ has driven me close to suicide many times, The only thing i really love are creative things like literature and science but i only have a 115 i am told this isn't good enough to achieve any level of greatness and that these two small joys i have will germinate to a frustrating hurdle i cannot cross once the season shifts into that of a competitive environment. it is said to be wiser to remove these desires, history has warned me so. of the two realities we struggle most with are that creation is given only to god and that god's graces only lie within the most exceptional of us. even as I return to read this post I my own damnation, the mediocrity of my fears, the predictably of my views and the banality of my syntax are a terrible omen.

Attached: 1520902774558.jpg (600x600, 40K)

Attached: 92d.jpg (211x239, 5K)

oh is this where that iq trash comes from pseudydoody boards like Veeky Forums

hey u notice /g/ never comes with any pseud bullshit, maybe those guys arent totally retarded after all

i never really tried /G i will thou. seriously go to /sci you will find atleast 5 threads about iq. not even about the concept of iq itself just arguments over how important iq is and how much you need to be cool. it may be true, i wish i had a higher iq

iq is fake shit for pseuds, but there was a recent nytimes article about how there is a gene that's common to people who end up doing grad degrees and not so much to people who dig ditches and live off gibs, it was dangerously flirting with admitting racism is real, so much so that it was probably the only nytimes article to get flagged on HN lol iq is a stupid metric for a lot of reason, but clearly cognitive ability varies, but Veeky Forums is dumb because most stem shit just comes down to memorizing skills, so they should be bragging about memory scores or whtever not iq, because when i ask some math major to explain what a certain formula means or what it represents they're just like "lol idk man just memorize it" not too smart

why do noble prizer winners and elite creators have high iq regularly to the point that there are few that have even a slightly above average iq

>noble prize

yeah i'm sure you're an expert on nobel prize winners, and what the fuck is an "elite creator"

Well, just do as you like. At least once you inevitably fail after a lifetime of effort you wouldn't have to fear failure anymore.

why are you mad at me i am the poster who was concerned about my own IQ. also i am not an expert on noble prize winners but i know there average iq's this is something i obsess a lot about to the point that i know the IQ's of many famous people and go on forums that try to determine the iq's of those who have never taken the test. james crick is a common example brought up in this kind of discussion he had an iq of 120 quite high in standards of the world yet among major scientists he was considered a low-end outlier. i agree i was wrong to use the term elite creator it is too nebulous a term and i shouldn't have said it, it is late and i made it up, i am sorry.

Salinger had an IQ of 106 and he was more knowledgeable, more successful, more talented, and more influential than virtually every member of Mensa.

Storytelling is just another talent like playing the guitar or fixing light sockets. It has nothing to do with intelligence, not really. That isn't to say that everybody can tell a good story, only that a good story can be told by anybody. No, you probably will never be a canonical giga genius like Rilke or Shakespeare. But you, like everybody else, still have the potential to entertain people in an original and emotionally resonant way. You still have the potential to create a work of art and express your own experience through compelling images and characters.

Will you niggers stop caring about IQ and just focus on working, reading, writing, or whatever you enjoy doing? Let's say you have a low IQ. What then? Are you going to kill yourselves? Are you going to stop reading and writing?
Just focus on what you love and keep pursuing it. Screw what other people think, screw what some test says about you. Just push forward.

yeah but i also wouldn't have to fear failure if i just never tried. cut my losses and move onto something more realistic. it is the anxiety about limitations as a human being. also once the fear of failure is gone the horrible reality of failure is the new problem

are u larping as a dumbfuck or what?

How do you know Salinger's IQ

>Consider the IQs of three past American Nobel laureates in physics. In 1965, the year he won his Nobel, Richard Feynman gave a talk at his former high school in New York and told the students that when he took an IQ test at school, around 1930, he scored 125. A ‘merely respectable' figure (notes his biographer), somewhat below the level of about 130 generally considered to indicate ‘giftedness'. William Shockley was tested twice at school in the 1920s and failed to reach the IQ of 135 required to join Lewis Terman's pioneering survey of gifted children, started in 1921 at Stanford University. Luis Alvarez, too, was rejected by Terman--which meant that Terman's programme lost a further opportunity to ‘discover' a future Nobel laureate. In fact, none of Terman's gifted children went on to win a Pulitzer prize or a Nobel prize.
>The much older Einstein was of course never tested as a youngster. But when he visited the US in 1921, he was informally subjected to a question set by the inventor Thomas Edison (see picture), an advocate of intelligence testing for his prospective employees. Some journalists asked Einstein: ‘What is the speed of sound?' He confessed he did not know, and replied patiently that there was no need to carry this information in his head, as he could look it up in a book. Next day, the inevitable headline was: ‘EINSTEIN SEES BOSTON; FAILS EDISON TEST'.
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sudden-genius/201101/is-high-intelligence-necessary-be-genius

i suppose your right. everyone wants to be great. i don't trust a lot of iq studies people go back and time and predict peoples iq which i doubt the accuracy of. some studies vary greatly like faraday which goes from a measly 105 to a staggering 170 from study to study. this is a site that varies greatly and never cites anything but claims to be one of the biggest iq authorities. eoht.info/ i don't know the iq's of rilke thou

please don't bully i am not larping

Gotta love Einstein. He was right, of course. Memorization and being able to remember patterns does not make you ‘smart’ by any stretch of the imagination

I know the answer to this!

Or, rather, to the question of how much ONE great writer has of IQ.

Antonio Lobo Antunes, arguably the best living novelist, has an IQ of 183.

Everyone in his family was famous, specially in scientific areas, and Lobo Antunes was a physician himself for many decades.

He talks about his IQ this conference (Catalan audio), saying they took a test when he was in school, but he also mentions he doesn't care about it:

ccma.cat/tv3/alacarta/programa/Antonio-Lobo-Antunes/video/3379990/

My Firefox won't load the damn thing, so I can't really point the moment in the video when he says it, but he does. I think it's in the beginning. He also mentions a lot of useful things, such as his experience seeing a boy of his age becoming a famous writer while Antunes himself was barely starting to write, and so on.

I would say you need to be 30 points below Antunes AT WORST if you want to be a great writer, but a good writer doesn't need to have a high IQ necessarily. Anything above 100 is enough for a good writer, I think, although I suppose the average is probably 120-150.

t. 124 IQ

It's not an estimation, Salinger took an actual IQ test when he was a teenager at Valley Forge. The score is given in his famous 1961 Time magazine cover story. I tried to find the actual text of the story itself but it's behind a paywall. Fortunately a Time journalist mentions his IQ score in this article
time.com/3677041/catcher-in-the-rye-review/
summarizing the magazine's coverage of Salinger. Apparently I misremembered--it's 104, not 106.

Anyways, the point is that IQ itself doesn't matter so much as what you do with it. Salinger had a mediocre IQ but he milked it to the point where he became one of the best writers of his generation. Meanwhile there's plenty of "geniuses" who will die having done nothing with their lives but solve puzzles and tell others about their elite IQ.

Attached: pic (10).jpg (400x527, 45K)

It's interesting how much cross-over there is between Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums. Are these boards comprised of the same posters?

There are some crossboarders between Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums but this thread is created by a /pol/eb. /pol/ crossboards everywhere and spreads their unintelligent, irrelevant drivel regardless of the board.

No, Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are, Veeky Forums people post here but a large number of them don't read and a majority of users here never go on Veeky Forums at all. verbal and mathematical reasoning do not crossover necessarily at all

jews are creative and very verbally intelligent, they just naturally avoid positive ideals, so they wind up writing shitty, disgusting literature

IQ is ability to perform within a system, which is why it's not a perfect metric. It gives you an idea of someone's agency, but not their perspective. Many people with high IQ's but low creativity follow default role aspirations and end up in business or medicine. That's why it's conventional wisdom that genius is IQ + schizotypal tendancies

incredible

Yeah, probably. A lot of people give up on their dreams and switch to something more realistic once they realize their limitations. If you think you can just give up like that, go ahead. If you can't, proceed as you see fit. Not everyone gets a talent or a happy life for that matter but you just need to live as long as you exist. Don't be so hard on yourself.

You do realize high IQ corresponds strongly with mental illness right?

20 points higher than your audience

That doesn't mean every single mentally ill person is a genius retard

If you're obsessed with IQ, you won't be able to create anything meaningful.

"Opiates are not for me"

Said no one ever.

/thread

If you're obsessed with IQ, you won't be able to create anything meaningful.
If you have high IQ but no motivation, you won't be able to create anything meaningful.
If you don't have high IQ, you won't be able to create anything meaningful.

IQ is tied to time and efficiency. Artists, no matter the medium, are not bound by the same standards as others. They can't be, else they wouldn't create - or couldn't.

I've seen and heard intriguing and profound realizations from across all IQ ranges, and even from retards. This does not mean that they are capable, it does not mean they can maintain that quality. A lower IQ requires more work for same result, but a lower/different peak. I can't say the point at which it becomes hopeless, I'm not qualified.

What was the IQ of Jesus Christ? How relevant is it?

>How much IQ is required
Ah, I'm an idiot! All of it, duh.

Attached: 14.jpg (505x552, 188K)

>If you don't have high IQ, you won't be able to create anything meaningful.
In regards to writing, this is the case. However, if you look at aboriginal art, you see meaning. Though I doubt any of them understand what they do.

those are binary, he said non binary

140+ if you want to be a great writer.
120+ if you want to be a popular writer.

/thread.

Higher than 106, but lower than 104.

>take timed test
>110 IQ
>no time restriction
>140 IQ

Does ADHD severely hinder processing speed ? I know I can get to the answer to most things, I just spend longer getting there. It's really annoying

Yeah it can. Don't worry about it, IRL getting the correct answer slowly is worth more than speedily coming to a poor conclusion.

Oh so this thread is allowed, but my thread about God's IQ isn't allowed. That's cool

Attached: image.jpg (220x283, 17K)

I'd say 90 is a reasonable cut-off point.

Most literature is written at an level a 12 year old should be able to understand.

A prerequisite is either trying to sell an idea, a weird passion, your time is worthless or desperation as if you write for a living you are making like 2$/hr at best.