🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:43:10 UTC No. 16080964
>Tharaldsen says she saw Pynchon’s IQ score, somewhere in the 190s
Is it possible to have an IQ that high?
Isn't there a record of all the high IQ scorers that we could check?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:50:26 UTC No. 16080972
>>16080964
the calculator says 190 is 100th percentile iq, another proof that psychology and computers are bullshit
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:52:26 UTC No. 16081104
>>16080964
Well he’s one of the best authors of all time, and at least he put his intellect to good usage.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:27:24 UTC No. 16081327
>>16081104
>Well he’s one of the best authors of all time
According to what measure?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:16:51 UTC No. 16081392
>>16081327
>According to what measure?
Nothing that's transcendentally true is popular, and nothing that is popular with the masses can be transcendentally true.
This is why profane religious dogma exists too by the way
>Monkey see, monkey do
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:19:18 UTC No. 16081397
>>16080964
No lol
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:27:45 UTC No. 16081410
>>16080964
>Is it possible to have an IQ that high?
Not in any reliable sense. How much stock would you put in a score of 10? At some point there's just not enough actual difference in test performance to say anything meaningful.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:36:27 UTC No. 16081770
>IQ!! IQ!! I NEED ANOTHER IQ THREAD!!!!!
IQ is literally the opiate of unaccomplished simpletons. It is not a videogame INT score. It is a predictor. Cope that you'll never actually do anything that will be of interest to any other human being.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:59:18 UTC No. 16082720
>>16080964
Stop questioning the science goy
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:51:01 UTC No. 16083022
>>16080964
There are historically two different kinds of IQ, the "mental age over biological age" kind and the "normal distribution by definition" kind. The first kind has been obsolete for about 40 years and has a much more tail-heavy distribution and is usually what people are using when they claim super high numbers like that. 190 on the modern scale is (by definition) about 1 in a billion. 190 on the old scale is about 165 on the modern scale.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:10:54 UTC No. 16083219
>>16083022
Not this anon, though; tests themselves were weighted differently, and test and assessment infrastructure was not homogenized with one another yet, even on a geographical inconsistency. We still have geographical difference, such as with Eastern Europe and South America using many of their own systems. Equalizing different tests and their scores creates implied inaccuracy from the get go.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:21:41 UTC No. 16083226
>>16080964
literally whos?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:54:01 UTC No. 16083259
>>16083226
Thomas Pynchon, boy.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:12:49 UTC No. 16083470
>>16080964
Even if you have "good genes" (Einstein levels of IQ), you will still grow mad knowing she'll leave you for chad. Even if you're "friends".
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:14:05 UTC No. 16083595
No, his IQ is ~139 based on his leaked SAT scores
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:15:33 UTC No. 16083597
>>16083470
Einstein the fucking deadbeat dad lmao
Should've become a watchmaker faggot
El Arcón at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:16:41 UTC No. 16083598
>>16080964
>all the high IQ scorers
There's probably like five people that ever scored about 190. Tests aren't designed to go that high, and once they're saying you're above 160-170 it pretty much depends on how much of a BJ they want to give you when they say what your IQ is estimated at.
t. 200+ IQ