/lit/ - Literature

>>19063335
My IQ is 409, eat shit faggot

>>19063335
i'm smarter than you.

>>19063339
>>19063340

Send me the proof. Post the side of your head or send it to me in an e-mail at Kurtlopezdavis@hotmail.com

Or else you are lying.

IQ is defined based on a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. It's not an absolute value that represents some underlying measurement, but a relative one that shows one's intelligence in relation to the rest of humanity. Since there are appoximately 7.9 billion humans, the highest possible IQ is the equivalent of being in the top 1/7.9 billionth of humanity. This is the equivalent of being ~6.267 standard deviations above average, which within the definitions of the IQ system is a value of about 195. Any IQ score above that is simply meaningless.

>>19063335
Go away and never come back

>>19063408
That's not right at all when someone that is 100% smarter than the average person has people that are 62% smarter than they are walking around.

You need to reconsider what you're writing. It's racist to yourself.

I am laughing so hard at this, espacially the iq 409 pigs send my sides flying into the chronosphere.

#11.) Adolf Hitler is a good man, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Do not believe the lies about his life. He didn't do anything wrong to anyone. He stopped extreme and real animal suffering in his lifespan by stopping cruel and demonic men from living and then reproducing and slaughtering weaker life. All of the intelligent/sentient men escaped before anything ever came to them.

*WARNING: DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WANT WOMEN RUINED FOR YOU. THIS DESTROYS EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT WOMEN AND IT MAKES THEM UNAPPEALING. DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU ONLY LIKE WOMEN IN LIFE. YOU CAN NOT GO BACK TO NOT KNOWING THIS AND YOU CAN NOT FORGET IT*

>>19063413
If you're not schizo larping or otherwise baiting, please learn some basic statistics. Someone with an IQ of 150 isn't 1.5 times as smart as someone with an IQ of 100. Rather, someone with an IQ of 100 is smarter than exactly 50% of humanity, while someone with an IQ of 150 is smarter than 99.957% of humanity, given that they are 3 1/3 standard deviations above average. IQ doesn't measure how proportionally smart you are compared to any other given person, it measures how many other people in total you're smarter than.

>>19063449
Why are you answering him, this kid is obviously an american, propably still in high school.

>>19063449
You say this, but according to that type of thinking Nathan Leopold is "210" IQ (really a 2.3x on the average male), and his skull looks like this.

My brain is literally bigger than his.

>>19063335
Mine is over 9000

>>19063339
>>19063340
>>19063370
The photograph should look exactly like this

https://i.postimg.cc/PXCPGySd/413-IQ.jpg

>>19063370
>>19063335
>hotmail
>esl
kys

>>19063335
>These writings totally put Nietzsche to shame as a philosopher
>#4 People are fundamentally evil.
"408IQ" individual cannot even transcend good and evil lmao.

>>19063779
I've never read good and evil because good and evil are both relative from person-to-person and animal-to-animal.

He was just caught it on that idea, and I am not.

>>19063370
I'm proving my higher intellect by not doing that dumb shit

>>19063793
That means you're a liar.
That's all. Thank you for telling the truth.

>

>>19063335
>#24.) Do not feel bad that you are alive
OK, now this is where I draw the line.

>>19063788
>good and evil are both relative from person-to-person and animal-to-animal.
>#4 humans are fundamentally evil
"408IQ" individual can't even maintain logical coherency rofl.

>>19063335
>the worst part is they'll probably be lost to the sands of time because people want someone that looks like Michael Jackson to explain life to them
Nietzsche did not look like the King of Pop
Your pastebin comes across as schizo ramblings with no supporting evidence, no transition from one thought to another, just poorly constructed ESL thoughts
>And Yes, men are best off fighting for their life in this place. That is the most gratifying life possible. This is called a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The human body needs fish, water, vitamin D, fiber, and meat/vegetables to run at its best. If you can not secure these things yourself, you're best off buying Omega 3 supplements and taking a daily Vitamin D capsule. Buying Fiber gummies. This is a complete list of everything I do to care for my body at 325 IQ
>Goes on to list a daily schedule that does not, in fact, pertain to hunting or gathering.
Have you ever actually hunted, or are you just pulling this out your bumcheeks? The schedule you described is not at all "fighting for your life" like people did in the past.
And where did your other 83 IQ come from?

>>19063893
If there is such a thing as evil, then it is the creation of suffering for nothing. If you have to define evil, then that's the best definition for it.

Human life, as it stands in the mixed-raced way, is almost worthless. So it is evil for anything alive to genuinely suffer for it.

>>19063895
Yes he did. He looked exactly like Michael Jackson with a higher forehead, but otherwise t he facial appearance was the same. They were both murderous people.

There's no reason in fighting for your life today. We're not living in the great band of tribes anymore where love made that worth while on top of the fight itself. It's gone.

>>19063335
A little read for you might learn a bit about yourself mister 408iq.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>>19063335
Actual schizophrenic

>>19063335
How high IQ is the thinking in pic related?

>>19063983
Or this

>>19063975
>Nassim Nicholas Taleb
>Literally a 344 IQ against a 408 IQ

This man is mentally retarded compared to me. You shouldn't listen to him. He's even elderly as well.

>>19063335
> Life is likely eternal. The Universe is fundamentally unstable as there is something instead of nothing. There are only so many ways for a big-bang to begin, so that is a finite number of variables. Because the universe is fundamentally unstable it is likely eternal. What is happening is a finite number of variables in an eternal Universe at the very start. The big-bang can only begin so many ways, and even if there is a 1E100 in 1 googol of a chance of you, a chemical computer, being re-assembled, it will happen. As soon as it starts, it is all pre-determined to make you no matter what happens due to simple cause and effect. Due to the expanse of the Universe (which may extend into a multi-verse because there is likely more room beyond the big-bang itself for more instability/big-bangs), each big-bang has somewhat of a high chance to create you even if it is very unlikely to be so. Do not live your life like this is a guarantee even though it likely is. Assume oblivion on death. This is called Eternal Return.

Pic related

>>19063995
Prove me he's wrong then? Must be really easy for you no?

>>19063975
>>19063995
Actually only 336 IQ.
Just pure garbage.

>>19064007
Lol.
You seriously think that dumb image macro is on the same standing as what I've written? It's not.

It's assuming that you can apply classical mechanics to the beginning of the Universe which is largely unknown as to how it works.

I read through and you are much less intelligent than you think you are. It frustrates me to see. I hope that some day I will reach the point where the existence of such silly ideas as yours does not frustrate me as much as it does. Until then, I will continue to insult you for your blatant stupidity and hopefully enlighten you to that fact of your pathetic existence

But of course, you're not all wrong. But the "big ideas" that you've reached are beginner tier at most. And you've made other inexcusable errors that cement my opinion of you as a dullard.

>>19064007
>>19064019
I do have some respect for it, but it's no where near the accuracy of my thinking as to this problem.

>>19064026
Tell me what your problem is and I'll accept your perception of me. Otherwise I chalk it up to racist hate that wants to cover up my incredible mathematical purity.

>>19063963
>good and evil are both relative from person-to-person and animal-to-animal.
>If there is such a thing as evil, then it is the creation of suffering for nothing. If you have to define evil, then that's the best definition for it. This is all objective, by the way, and totally not relative to me.
You're a joke. Even a 120IQ midwit could outwit you.

>>19063335
awful bait

>>19063335

What you wrote is schizoretarded to be blunt. Just from the first couple paragraphs. I thought you were joking. Didn't bother reading the rest

>>19063963
>There's no reason in fighting for your life today. We're not living in the great band of tribes anymore where love made that worth while on top of the fight itself. It's gone.
So if you've never fought for your life, how are you able to claim that life in such a tribe is so much better?
Why can't love make life worthwhile today without fighting to survive?

>>19064034
I'm going to assume that you're trolling. I could write out a lengthy reply, but I won't because:
1. I need to sleep soon
2. It's a waste of time (casting pearls before swine)

But I will tell you this: you need to completely rethink your ideas of morality. It's at such an infantile level, really laughable. Oh my goodness, it is just awful. You're so stupid, sorry. Maybe if I could mentor you in real life, then you could possibly become enlightened. Online or by yourself? Never. Never in a million years. You just don't have it. So silly.

>>19064047
Morally we all stand on the same leg. Nobody wants to be executed or experience pain. Such an experience inflicted for no reason is biologically considered evil.

Now, morality, which is "this is good. This is evil." is relative from person to person. Some people that are extremely susceptible to pain will have no issue inflicting extreme pain on other beings even if they admit that such pain is evil to themselves. We all have the same morality to a certain standard because we all share the same common ancestors, but how we enforce that morality is relative even if we all know what is considered evil and what is considered good.

Someone that may think it is evil to kill young girls would have no issue with killing adult men that look like themselves even if they are aware it is immoral. There's no real rationality here. Good and evil, as in morality, are relative. Evil itself is pretty much the negative for all living things inflicted without purpose or reason.

Evil itself exists as water exists outside of the human body at this point. It is an independent entity outside of the observer. You can say "oh it's just an event" but we have all evolved to understand what is good and what is evil.

The logic being that we all come from the same ancestor, so we all have that programming installed into our brains. It's the same thing as everyone smelling a rotten body.

Now to apply the same morality to everyone is wrong.

>>19064054
he has spammed this on other boards, I think it's actual schizophrenia

>>19063370
I will email you later

>>19064179
Go ahead.
I'll be waiting.

>>19064087
>Evil is objective
>Evil is subjective
Real Horia Belcea vibes. Was he also 408IQ?

>>19064181
You are brilliant. I will fully read what you've written tomorrow and then email you.

>>19064261
It doesn't change the fact that it's a biological understanding of evil and not a metaphysical construct like you desire it to be. That's the wrong way to think about evil.

We are just programmed computers in the end. If I were wrong about this there wouldn't be near universal human laws stopping animal cruelty, child molestation, etc. Seemingly random things that aren't necessary to enforce.