Is literature a hobby for only high IQ people?

Is literature a hobby for only high IQ people?

For some, sure.

There's bad literature, too, though. I find that women read more than anyone I know, and they all read trash.

>not having a girlfriend who's a Proust scholar

kek

not at all. read what you love, fuck the literati communists trying to beat you down with empty erudition. it's so easy to get lost in bad vibes of shitty people that you forget the joys of literature or hobbies like it.

some take it more seriously as a livelihood, but if you're not trying to craft the human experience in print or what the fuck ever, then mere pleasure can suffice as a reason to enjoy dem books boi.

...

kys

Switch music and sports and this is absolutely correct

media consumption isn't a hobby friend. Sorry

Have you ever read half the shit that is fantasy? Good joke bro.

No, have you seen Veeky Forums?

>implying Veeky Forums even reads

Nope, I'm a dumbass but I like reading

theatre should be higher than literature

Depends. A lot of intelligent people who read tend to read certain types of literary fiction and nonfiction. I'm not necessarily saying that anyone on Veeky Forums, including myself, is intelligent for reading those books.
However, adding on to what said, most people who read, read trash. Just take a look at the New York Times Bestseller list. A lot of guys I know don't read, but if they do read, they read some generic genre fiction. A lot of girls read trashy romantic/erotic books. There are also many people in their early-to-mid twenties who still read YA novels.

I read exclusively horror literature.

it is for +1 to +2 sigmas, physics is for the +3 sigmas and beyond

IQ doesn't mean shit. You can learn to appreciate and analyze literature just like you can learn how to understand and mend a car engine

Depends on the literature and what they take away from it.

This. Reading is enjoyable and worthwhile, but not a hobby.

>video games
>55

55 is literally retarded. there's no way this is accurate.

What this graph fails to account for is that IQ scores are distributed across the population as a bell curve. Instead of just ordering the IQ of these hobbies by linear increments, they should be mostly grouped around 100, differing slightly at the top and bottom by a couple standard deviations.

(The only reason I went this ape is because it listed sources at the bottom)

>sports at 113
Someone needs to step out into the real world.

>hurr sources
>daiquentin

please, please, please just go back