Is it true that high intelligence is a burden?

>no-one fucking knows
Bad attitude. Scientists are curious, and can ask impossible questions in hope to gain some knowledge from the discussion that follows, even though they know the solution is impossible to find with current technology.

Although scientists should focus on asking relevant and useful questions.

This

I disagree with the following statements
>There's no God or afterlife
Proof please.
>We all are literally pieces of matter in infinite universe
We are also radiation and information. And the duality of consciousness (we know what our brain is but where is our *mind*) is yet unsolved problem. Your thoughts?
>Our lives are meaningless, and so are all our feelings and emotions
But those feelings are real right? If I'd give you a choice of: (1) I'll saw your arm off with a bonesaw without anesthesia, or (2) I don't do that, which would you choose? How about (1) you can choose any woman and have consensual sex with her or (2) you don't do that? How about (1) I take away all your food and let you starve for a week or (2) we'll let you eat? So you do have at least feelings of 'pain', 'pleasure' and 'hunger'. They have real consequences and so have real meaning.

>Although scientists should focus on asking relevant and useful questions.

Exactly. And statements about the minds of extremely intelligent people are not falsifiable, and thus do not fall into the category of scientific questions. There might be other contexts in which such could be discussed, though.

I bet you're the kind of half-smart 18 year old who pretends to have read Locke and Hume and enjoys saying "ad hominem" and "not an argument".

HAHAHA get out loser

>are not falsifiable
People always say that some events or objects can't be measured. EVERYTHING can be measured. On the top of my head:
>IQ tests
>Brain neuron firing rate
>Interviews
>Memory tests
>"What is 90238109*18290381?"
>Playing some games with him/her and see how he does

I bet you say "IQ is just a number". Yep. It's a relation. Let me review you on the concept of measuring
>I have 10 rocks, I'm supposed to find how hard they are compared to each other
>I take two rocks and rub them together
>The one who gets scratches/other-deformation is named 'less hard'
>Repeat until you get sequence of 10 rocks from softest to hardest
>Now you can say "This rock has hardness of 7 4chanSciRock -units"

But we have not observed any persons with an extremely high (exceeding 300, as in the OP) IQ.

IQ tests top out at like 190, retards

130 IQ here, I can teach myself everything I've wanted given the time.

i have an IQ of 307 and i have a hard tome talking to you earthlings.

Jason Caltado's answer makes it seem that she is retarded and wants her to fell a bit better about herself by spreading lies about intelligence.

An IQ of 100 means you are among the smartest 0.5 of the population.
An IQ of 115 means you are among the smartest 0.159 of the population.
An IQ of 130 means you are among the smartest 0.023 of the population.
An IQ of 145 means you are among the smartest 0.0013 of the population.
An IQ of 500 means you are among the smartest 5.73e-157 of the population.
An IQ of 1000 means you are among the smartest 1.24e-784 of the population.

IQ test doesn't measure the intelligence of a person. An IQ test is just a means to gather data to make a statistic. If you are talking about everything beyond IQ 130, then the statistics is simply too low to yield reasonable results. An IQ of 500 simply makes no sense whatsoever. It says: If there were about as many humans as there are atoms in the universe squared, then we had one specimen as intelligent as you. We have absolutely no way of saying how intelligent that is. Maybe it isn't even that insanely intelligent because there is a physical barrier that we don't know about yet. The IQ value is not a scale that goes linearly or anything like that.

I love how most math geniuses are utterly insane and how mathematical knowledge is so similar to lovecraftian knowledge.

>The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

compare that last line to ted kaczynski. It's almost poetic.

...

I disagree. If you had a 500 IQ, wouldn't you be smart enough not to get annoyed by petty human interactions?
I think there is a gap of intolerance when it comes to IQ. Stupid people don't care about others being stupid, intelligent people don't care about others being stupid, but in the middle, say from 110-150s, people are intolerant as fuck and have a complex about being the "smart one", and get really mad when stupid people do stupid shit

High IQ doesn't stop you from having emotions. If you've ever dealt with mentally handicapped people you'd know just how frustrating it can be. Even Stephen Hawking predicts humans will be extinct within 1000 years due to our own stupidity.

It's hypothetical, Einstein. The question is how it would look like, not if a IQ of 500 can be tested.

There's an example of ONE woman going insane. But that's a woman. There's a dude in the US that approaches 200, and he's perfectly fine.

What would an IQ of 500 or 1000 would look like?

i suppose this person would like turn into full cyborg with fully-functional exocortex

Seems to be some redundancy in your rhetoric.

clone 5.73e-158 retards
you and everyone else alive now has an IQ over 500
congrats you deserve it

This is a good answer. Congratulations.

>things 100 IQ's say

This. The world would be depressing and boring.

>But what's the point of taking joy if I will die and there's no God?
Would you prefer suffering to taking joy?

I don't think that being a genius means being crazy. It's just that a genius has a lot of processing power, and when that genius has a problem with receiving input from the outside (not processing; i.e. is crazy), they tend to go batshit insane because they start at a point that is wrong by default and get more and more wrong about reality as they process the information.

He's right though. A lot of intelligent people fall for the "smart but lazy" meme, isolating themselves from society and underachieving thus ending up in a bubble of arrogance, justifying all their failures with "muh IQ."

307 IQ and you can't capitalize?

You may well still have the emotions, but the way in which you interpreted them and how you let them affect your actions would be more evolved than a normal human

Smart answer bro, I bet your IQ is like 600

That's not true at all. Intelligence has nothing to do with self control or emotional balance. You're thinking of a person with an above average EQ, not IQ.

Pretty sure the mental illness is the cause of the high IQ, not the other way around

>There needs to be purpose to enjoy things
Lel, you give nihilists a bad name you fucking wuss

This is what I like about having a somewhat high IQ. If I want to learn something I can just pick up a textbook and learn it. Textbook learning isn't hard in and of itself, but realizing that it's possible takes a certain amount of confidence in your inteligence.

>IQ thread
woo and pseudo-science belongs on

hah of course high intelligence is not a burden, you can use that smartness to make it all not a burden to you.

intelligence is a great thing

a side effect is that it makes you more prone to depression but the benefits greatly outweigh the downsides

>IQ is the same as intelligence
you should follow your own advice, brainlet

If human, an IQ of 500 would probably be fairly unremarkable compared to other high-IQ people. IQ is defined statistically, not according to some invariant standard of objective intelligence.

Assuming a 15-points-per-SD scale, that's about 27 sigma. So you'd need a population of around 10^160 people. The person who scores best on the tests would have an IQ of around 500 regardless of how their mental function compares to a typical 100.

Practically meaningful IQ only really goes up to about 145. Then you're identifying one-in-a-thousand cases. There's not enough people above it to get a good sample at reasonable expense.

If you calibrated the tests using the whole world population, IQ would max out around 180. After we've expanded into the solar system and have a population over one trillion, it might go up to 205, but that's no guarantee that the 205s would test better than today's theoretical 180, it would be a different population.

Somebody already posted that man.

I've got an IQ of like 700, I don't have time to read all of the crap you ants post, nor am I going to waste my time trying to explain all the ways in which my version of the explanation is superior.

>tfw 2 intelligent 2 post an amusing picture of a badly drawn man with an enormous brain doing non-brain things

Let's look at what IQ is. The two hard rules that IQ test designers are constrained by are:
(1) the population's scores must fit the prescribed distribution,
(2) the mean male and female scores must be equal.

Yes, (2) is fundamental to how IQ scores are drawn up. Despite the obvious, easily-measured differences in mental performance between men and women, the averages have to come out equal.

Sometimes you hear arguments like, "Well, we're looking for the heritable genetic factor, so we're trying to measure around sex differences." but the male and female populations don't have to fit the same distribution, just the same mean, and in practice, high scores disproportionately go to men.

So right away, you can see that IQ is going to be a failure at measuring anything sensible. The brains of men and women are as different as their musculoskeletal systems. How would a "strength quotient" work organized along the same lines, so it has to be a test of physical performance, but men and women have to have equal average scores? It certainly wouldn't be a good measure of strength.

With such an absurd prior constraint, what IQ ends up being is like a measure of how well you can perform basic tasks of manual dexterity... with your feet. Many of those who do better than average will be adaptable and naturally athletic, but the people who are really good at it probably have something wrong with them, like missing arms or some sort of obsession with doing things in inefficient ways.

...

...

...

In all honesty, my IQ is about 250 so you have to understand I have quantum computers shitposting on Veeky Forums on 3 different LCD screens using Python scripts I write when I wake up every morning while reading a book.

I barely have the time to make this post between creating homemade time crystals in my lab and doing lines of sleep-inducing horse suppositories mixed with adderall so I can see things while I read The Tibetan Book of the Dead while I play The Perpetuum Mobile by Café Penguin Orchestra over and over again all day.

I do this very day, besides other various things like using my logging script to find and identify people using posted information on various Veeky Forums boards and banging their mothers while they don't know about it. I am responsible for roughly 50% of your collective brothers/sisters probably.

They would soon realize the futility of intellect and would dumb themselves down in order to fuck hot girls and make loads of money. They would also distrust Jews, Asians and Muslims.