Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:15:23 UTC No. 16489821

>>16489799
A rule of thumb is that 1 standard deviation = 50% difference in learning time.
However, this obviously doesn't scale linearly, someone with a 70 IQ will never be adept at calculus for example regardless of how much time you waste trying to get them up to speed.
In other words your post is overly simplistic and retarded, which is unsurprising but disappointing for a wojak obsessed zoomer.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:19:11 UTC No. 16489826

>>16489821
Someone with an IQ of 90 could learn Calculus, it just takes longer. than someone with an IQ of 110 or 160, the higher the IQ the faster you learn, that doesn't automatically mean low IQs cannot learn it just takes longer. But there's a threshold, at a certain point that you cannot actually learn, so maybe it's 70 IQ, or 60, or whatever it may be, and that threshold is the car starting. A low IQ is a shitty car that drives really slow, but eventually reaches the destination, but a very low IQ is the car that doesn't even start up the engine.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:23:29 UTC No. 16489837

>>16489826
I think it's also reductionist to say a mastery of a topic is simply learning time, I think there is also a depth of understanding involved, like seeing concepts from a higher and higher vantage point and having a better sense of how they connect and being able to contextualize them with other concepts.
So you might be able to get a 90 IQ to perform rote exercises from a calculus text book but that doesn't mean they've "learned calculus" like a 160 IQ has in terms of true understanding and mastery.
A theoretical perfect intelligence would understand everything and see all of existence as a unified phenomenon.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:47:14 UTC No. 16489886

>>16489837
You cannot learn without understanding, and you cannot understand without learning. If you learn something you automatically have an understanding of the concept, and to test whether you've actually genuinely learned is if you're able to solve problems. So in the car analogy, we can also say the complexity of the subject is the distance from the destination. A short distance (less-complex subject like learning how to sweep a broom, shoot an arrow, or whatever it may be) will have a little to no-difference on determining different IQ capacity, since the 90 IQ, 110 IQ, and 160 will be able to learn so fast that the difference in intelligence will be barely noticeable at best (the same way you'll barely notice a shit car or a ferrarri reaching a destination that's only a foot away) whearas a complex subject like quantum physics, you'll notice a great difference of the 160 IQ, 110 IQ and 90 IQ in terms of learning speed (whearas you'll also notice a difference in a shit car, average car, and ferrarri in speed in terms of long distances).

The ability to solve problems, to memorize, to understand, and other theories of intelligence, none of it can happen without the ability to learn, therefore intelligence is simply the ability to learn something.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:24:18 UTC No. 16489963

>>16489886
There's the question of what exactly is being learned.
Does a parrot understand what it's saying?

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:54:50 UTC No. 16490007

>>16489963
A parrot trained to repeat addition facts like "2+2=4" has learned how to repeat something and only understands how to repeat, but of course doesn't understand the actual concept, which means they haven't learned the concept. We know the parrot hasn't genuinely learned anything if you give them a practice problem on addition and they don't know how to solve it or even comprehend on what's going on. The parrot is intelligent enough to learn how to repeat but isn't intelligent enough to learn how to apply addition in real world scenarios, thus we now know what the parrot is able or not able to understand.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:56:39 UTC No. 16490009

>>16490007
Yes that was my entire point, there is something about learning beyond simply "time." There is understanding which is not as easy to quantify but exists nonetheless. So you cannot equivocate between a 160 IQ and a 90 IQ with mere time.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:07:33 UTC No. 16490023

>>16490009
But like I said earlier, you cannot understand without learning and you cannot learn without understanding. If you understand something, you have learned it, and if you have learned something, you have understood it. If you have "learned" something but do not understand it, then you haven't actually learned.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:15:19 UTC No. 16490032

>>16490023
You're just repeating the contention.
The point is that "understanding" exists as a gradient whereas you are treating it as a binary on/off switch.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:17:53 UTC No. 16490033

>>16490007
Math is such a weird subject I'm not sure it is the best measure of intelligence.

CS algorithms may be better

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:23:17 UTC No. 16490037

>>16490032
Then how would you define intelligence? One could be a genius at math but stupid at being a chef, it doesn't mean they're stupid, it just means they haven't learned how to be a chef.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 02:03:19 UTC No. 16490071

>>16489799
"intelligence" is the ability to consistently get the correct answer. this means that intelligence can only be assessed subjectively and that's fine

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 02:09:41 UTC No. 16490078

>>16489837
definitely, but I think IQ is a tainted term. There definitely is a metric of what you are describing but it cant be IQ otherwise East Asians would've been far more developed.
there is a reason East Asians never developed calculus, neural nets, ChatGPT. East Asians have effort if nothing else but to describe them as deep thinking's would be disingenuous even in this current zeitgeist that rewards hard work and perseverance.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 04:28:25 UTC No. 16490176

>>16490071
You can't do that unless you have learned though. Learning requires an innate ability to reason with logic and abstraction, if you don't have those innate abilities then you cannot learn. So anytime you learn something, you can than your innate abilities that it was possible to learn.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 05:26:36 UTC No. 16490207

>>16490037
I think if you were to study this you would find that people who excel at one thing tend to be very capable at exceling at other things too.
The "idiot savant" type, where someone is a genius at 1 thing and a complete failure at everything else is actually not a normal expression of intelligence. Most intelligent people can excel anywhere because they simply learn faster and grasp concepts more profoundly.
The idea that everyone has a "calling" and just has to find it in some stroke of destiny is libtard cope ideology. The reality is intelligent people select what they are good at and there is a plethora of options available to them.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 13:09:58 UTC No. 16490403

Damn, Ferrari...

Now go back to solving your "high IQ" anagrams, and leave helicopters alone.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 13:14:45 UTC No. 16490406

Intelligence is also EXPERIENCE. Therefore stuff you've been trough.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 15:59:49 UTC No. 16490526

>>16489886
You put the metapher of the car too far. Solving a intellectual problem is not like driving a given route.

>>16490207
Usually. But there are exception to this rule. People who are brillian at one given tasks and average on all others.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:09:41 UTC No. 16490571

>>16489799
Intelligence is the ability to make use of your knowledge, not merely learn.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:21:48 UTC No. 16490579

Intelligence = information transfer rate/quality and reception rate/quality.

Raphael at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 23:32:40 UTC No. 16490994

>>16489826
No nigga a 90 FSIQ even profile ain’t learning calculus idk what kind of dick you’re smoking

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 23:58:38 UTC No. 16491027

>>16490994
Any cunt working with numbers since their youth will be fine

The problem is having a strong childhood education

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 00:00:31 UTC No. 16491028

>>16490994
My point is that IQ is based on childhood education

raphael at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 03:44:19 UTC No. 16491244

>>16490571
wrong

raphael at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 03:44:58 UTC No. 16491245

>>16491027
no you need spatial and visual spatial nigger that wont cut it even though childhood education is g loaded with verbal

raphael at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 03:45:29 UTC No. 16491246

>>16491028
wrong where the fuck are you reading your shit

raphael at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 03:46:06 UTC No. 16491247

>>16490037
being a chef isnt g loaded nigger holy shit wtf are you on about

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 05:50:37 UTC No. 16491335

>>16489821
my IQ is over 1000. i'd devour calculus for tests and then spend the rest of the day gaming kek. it is so fucking easy.
only the theoretical stuff that would demand more of my time, but then i'd write any bullshit for my essays just to get the bare minimum

raphael at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 20:37:05 UTC No. 16493246

>>16491335
you are prob 140

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:14:37 UTC No. 16494477

>>16489799
Intelligence is a lot of things, but one of the big factors is degree of communication between the conscious and subconscious parts of the brain.
The conscious portion, the thing you consider "you," is basically retarded. That goes for pretty much everyone. The subconscious brain does almost all the heavy lifting on cognition, and portions out results to the conscious brain according to the available bandwidth between the two. There's certainly a difference in ability between one person's subconscious and another's, but in EVERYONE, the subconscious is monstrously powerful compared to the conscious.