How fast do you think a hi-IQ person (130+) would be able to learn a language, relative to the average person? Taking as an example an english speaker learning any romantic language.
How fast do you think a hi-IQ person (130+) would be able to learn a language, relative to the average person?
Learning a romanic language is easy af. In particular if your native language already has a lot of words with Latin etymology. Try learning a language from a different language family and see how fast you'll master that.
>hi-IQ person (130+)
for todays standards i guess
Much worse. Many never learn it adequately, they guess too much, and often have too poor hearing to learn speaking it, and may only be able to read and write. Low IQ people have little trouble speaking several.
>Low IQ people have little trouble speaking several.
if that means they can parrot the same 10 sentences in every romance language, sure
What is your IQ and how many languages do you speak?
It really seems to be a disadvantage. Africans seem to be expected to speak several, and it can be easily four or six.
I believe that Daniel Everett never actually learned to speak the language, but unknowingly invented a pidgin as the tribe tried to communicate with him.
It's dependent on the individual's verbal IQ, and whether they have language specific neural advantages like bilaterality
>hi-IQ person (130+)
Percentiles are cope.
Up to around 150 is still midwit territory, and even that midwit ceiling is being generous, for there should be ~250,000 people in the world with an IQ of 160 -- so easily millions in the 150-160 range. Personally, I'd probably regard a high IQ as around 180 or higher.
You’ve probably never interacted with people of this confirmed IQ, nor have you taken a real one yourself. Your opinion is based on mental masturbation, not critical thought. And you haven’t answered the question.
I know you're probably proud of your 130-something IQ and your Mensa card, but it's not high by any stretch of the imagination.
I've never taken an IQ test. I'm just telling you what your opinion actually is.
This was the only way to win that interaction, anon. Have you really never taken one?
The only way to measure IQ is relative to other people, and 130 something is like 95th percentile.
You're trying too hard
>t. engages in the percentile cope he was talking about
>>>/x/
>You’ve probably never interacted with people of this confirmed IQ, nor have you taken a real one yourself.
Low verbal IQ on display. What is the antecedent of "one" in that sentence? Are you suggesting he hasn't taken a real IQ? No, you're thinking of an IQ test, but your low verbal IQ bungled the coherency of your sentence.
homosexual
youre a midwit. you have yet to show anything at the 150 or higher mark.
Percentiles are cope.
Congratulations on being smarter idiots than a world full of idiots, but at the end of the day, your 130-something-IQ minds are pathetic.
No physical athlete would pride himself on not even making the top million in the world lmao.
you're just making /misc/nogs mad.
picrel pretty much but for 115iq to 135iq midwits.
ohnonononono, stormgay bros?????
I learned german in 3 weeks, then I forgot it because I never needed it after my class.
I haven't bothered to learn another language since.
I'm not a genius, I have a high IQ but not a genius, I just have an excellent memory.
Why is he upset that he's very average? Is he stupid and doesn't know what a normal distribution is saying? It actually makes way more sense that the average person is NOT very high intelligent and scores near the middle... that's literally the point.
I'm not upset that I'm a midwit, I'm pretty lucky. I know a lot of geniuses and they are mentally ill. I've often found myself advocating for them because of how inept they often are, especially socially. It's strange though, I've never met a genius woman. Not that I haven't met plenty of very smart women who are midwits like me, but I've never once met a genius women.
>a genius women
2/10
are you saying that genius women are too ugly for me to notice them at all whereas for men it's easier to notice them because I'm not attracted to them so the only value they have is their utility?
nta but I'm guessing he's saying stupid women are more enjoyable overall.
>I learned german in 3 weeks, then I forgot it because I never needed it after my class.
Guess you didn't really learn it then
I tried to learn german to impress some chick but failed miserably.
Yet further evidence that you may have severely overestimated your ability.
>I speak X.
>I speak X, but the sound is too bad.
"The sound is too bad"? Man, you barely even speak English
Yes, I'm an ESL, but how is that wrong?
Are you saying that German as a language sounds like shit so it was a wrong choice to try to impress someone with?
I mean when someone claims to speak a language, but then insist they can't tell you what people are talking about for various reasons, such as the stream sound quality is too poor.
How would that possibly apply here
People sometimes get so convinced of their ability to speak a language even when they don't actually speak it that they refuse to accept the truth when faced with undeniable evidence that they have no useful ability to speak it.
Filtered
It's very common when you learn a language by books.
It means your written language is good but not so much the spoken one.
I learned it to the degree necessary to satisfy the intensive course while putting minimal effort.
The trick is that you need to start thinking in your target language because that way you're using your thoughts as a memory tool. If you're trying to think about the language in your language you're going ton be slowing down and running through layers of recall.
Because I have this flexible memory, it was really easy to just forget all the german I knew because I didn't need to know it, it was useless and served no purpose, especially to think in the target language.
So you've never learned it, got it
the fact you midwits seethe at and cant ignore this thread proves youre midwits.
>na na na na
You can't ignore us because you're a brainlet.
you actually, QED
At sub 130-140 iq, you will very rarely encounter someone with even close to the same intelligence. Now, imagine what that is like. If you are able.
Next, recognize that you are not seething at the reported intelligence of others, but at your own. Perhaps try an encyclopedia?
Again as above. Not when it comes to learning languages. Low IQ people have a very obvious advantage.
No, that's wrong. You're operating under your own anecdotal observations of your surroundings of people you've encountered. I once saw a blind man reading a book. Does that mean all blind people can read books? No. It means nothing outwide of the stated observation. It does not count outside of a statistic. Allow me to further illustrate. I live in France. Some Africans, despite being potentially "fluent" in English, a regional language or two, and perhaps French, are generally still completely at a loss to be able to explain what a metaphor is, or how to use it,or to comprehend the finer points of modal verbs and their interactions with pronouns. The same goes for many high schoolers. They can speak at a base level, or understand at a base level. The higher understanding necessary to truly know a language is a byproduct of higher intelligence. Higher intelligence means it probably takes longer to learn, because you're learning at a deeper level, and will thusly speak the language at a higher level at "fluency" than someone of lower intelligence. The "advantage" you speak of comes from proximity to said language. It is environmental. Once a person of higher intelligence chooses to expose themselves to the same environmental variables, the results are different to an astounding degree.
It seems you agree with me.
>still completely at a loss to be able to explain what a metaphor is,
Metaphors are kind of abnormal. Figures of speech typically rely on analogy. English is the odd one.
>They can speak at a base level, or understand at a base level. The higher understanding necessary to truly know a language is a byproduct of higher intelligence.
What the hell do you mean?
>you're learning at a deeper level,
I don't think so.
>Once a person of higher intelligence chooses to expose themselves to the same environmental variables, the results are different to an astounding degree.
No they won't.
See
>Higher intelligence means it probably takes longer to learn, because you're learning at a deeper level, and will thusly speak the language at a higher level at "fluency" than someone of lower intelligence.
stupid conjecture. getting to the conversational level for high or low iq takes about as much time.
if you think higher iq takes more time youd have to back yourself up with data, because its a nonsensical midwit take.
It's not something that requires data. Someone of lower intelligence learns how to say "c'est compliqué" in French And is satisfied. Someone who is learning at a deeper level learns "cest quelque-chose qui nécessiterait un peu de circonlocution pour déterminer ce que je dois faire" which obviously requires more time and study, even for someone of higher intelligence. Believe me, you should hear the average American or African try to explain themselves in detail. "conversational" and "fluent" are separated by an enormous gap.
People speak like that to compensate for their shallow thinking. It takes more words, but it takes less thinking depth to process.
OK, great, well you're obviously trolling, but go ahead, just speak in two-word replies to everything. It will make obvious your stunning intelligence.
>Being able to talk for hours about washing my socks makes me le smart
You are fricked in the head.
>strawman argument
>whataboutism
>false equivalence
Do you really want to do this again?
It's none of those. Such people always talk about something trivial. Their thoughts aren't any complicated, they are only expressed in too many words and explained in roundabout ways.
again, stupid troony, getting to conversational fluency takes as much time for high and low iq learners in class time. and if anything, high iq people enerally get there faster with the right teachers or material, because they learn faster for everything else.
the fact that you dont understand english enough to automatically frame fluency in distinguished levels of fluency enough that you just let the levels of fluency blur in your original post shows you dont know what youre talking about. im the one who had to distinguish "conversational" level first.
your claim is "1 higher iq doesnt give advantages because 2 higher iq people dont get to conversational fluency faster and 3 take longer to reach their desired level of skill". only 3 is true, and you have yet to back up your claims for 1 and 2 with data.
fricking troony.
Tl;dr
>I realize in one post it's (you) the board contrarian
>I no longer read anything you post
Many such cases
jaccepte ta concession
higher iq will generally understand faster, end of story troony
That's what the FRICK i said, nerd
>still can't into reading comprehension
>still can't into post numbers
Sad
what do you add dipshit
if youre not the french troony you havent added anything insightful. at least hes shown he somewhat understands language learning.
Yeah, that's me, numbnuts.
Laughing at you from my Paris apartment.
You always do this, you start confusing people and arguing with the people you actually agree with.
I suggested you take a break, before. And yet here you are, six months later, doing the same old stuff.
Again-
>many such cases
this is the only thread im in troony
you said
>Higher intelligence means it probably takes longer to learn, because you're learning at a deeper level, and will thusly speak the language at a higher level at "fluency" than someone of lower intelligence.
which is a double digit iq cope post that puts fluency in quotes because you dont actually understand what that means, and does not contain
>higher iq will generally understand faster, end of story troony
implicitly
so yes youre the idiot.
The point is, and I thought this was self evident, is that people of lesser intelligence simply stop learning once they are satisfied with their level, and intelligent people continue to learn-to actual fluency. You'd be amazed at the amount of people who have opened some little "alimentation", have been in France for 20 years, and still speak absolutely atrocious French. The more intelligent individuals keep rising in their level, and can attain a level as high as C2, or commonly known among francophones as "speaking better French than the French"
That takes longer, you see.
I maxed out the WAIS-IV under the supervision of a neuropsychologist. Seethe.
>reported intelligence of others, but at your own
"at your own" isn't a clause, so the comma before the coordinating conjunction is erroneous. You have neither a high IQ nor a rudimentary education.
>I maxed out the WAIS-IV under the supervision of a neuropsychologist. Seethe.
doesnt show
you seem mid tb h
You have no idea how little I value your mind.
>tb h
dude, you have zero attention to detail.
he at least larps well. you're 115 tops.
I'm not LARPing. I just need these midwits to know that I completely dominate them mentally. Being a former Navy SEAL, I also completely dominate them physically.
Idk being smarter than vast majority of people seems rather fortunate.
But I guess I understand your point. good luck in whatever you're seeking then, Anonymous Genius, and not at all another-midwit-like-me-except-for-some-reason-terribly-insecure.
>150 or higher mark.
150-or-higher mark.
debunked
I moved to France a few years ago
I started learning French in 2020
I now speak it so well that all the foreigners think I'm French
And the French think I'm German, or they don't notice anything at all. My accent is very good.
Is that good for a little more than 3 years? Would someone of a lesser intelligence take longer? I have no idea. Any responses you get will be anecdotal anyways. My iq is 98th percentile. Sub 140.
Depends on how you study
Look up Benjamin keep on YouTube to use the best practices
Also, actually fricking read instead of hyper-fixating on whether or not you’re doing it “perfectly”
>romantic language
any language is romantic compared to english - with the possible exceptions of dutch and german.
English is a pidgin language, German is a real, properly structured language
There are some fringe linguists who hold that English could be considered a creole, but a pidgin is really pushing it too far
>German is a real, properly structured language
and also ugly as frick.
Not sure if you're pointing out OP's mistake or if you're committing a bigger one
It depends. Just because someone has a high IQ does not mean language learning is their strength.
IQ tests is their strength
Oppenmeme learnt Dutch in 4 weeks. At least it was what Hollywood told me.
And he was friends with Einstein.
He was like super intelligent.
Well, here's an anecdote: I tested in the 98th percentile as a child for IQ. My verbal ability in particular was tested twice in highschool; once at 13 and again at 16. Both times I scored in the > 99.8th percentile. I was speaking in complete sentences by 18 months and had passively learned to read before starting kindergarten. On top of this, I'm able to acquire new phonemes as an adult - I can hear sounds that native speakers in my language can't hear (I've abused this ability all my life as a cheap party trick doing foreign accents). To give you an idea of what I mean, I naturally spoke with pitch accent without any awareness of it while learning Japanese. I'm even able to speak French in a flawless Japanese accent. Speaking of learning Japanese, I watched subbed anime when I was younger and without any intention or effort on my part I was at a roughly N2 level after about a year of 4-5 hours of anime a week. In my final year of highschool I took a Japanese elective and was able to learn 2 week's worth of new vocab with 100% recall after reading the word list 3 or 4 times (about 10 minutes of effort). I recently started watching Mandarin TV shows as I figured I might as well make fuller use of my talent. To my surprise I started being able to pick out 90% of words after 10 total hours of exposure. I now have a Mandarin vocabulary of about 160 words (yes I did sit there and count all the words I can remember and have inferred the meaning of ). I actively recall 160 but I probably recognize a good 1.5x that
all this talent and you waste it on being a weeb.
Speaking mandarin is not a waste, it's like learning English in the mid 20th cemtury, he's gonna use it.
>new phonemes as an adult - I can hear sounds that native speakers in my language can't hear
That's expected of anyone studying a language at university level or going for C-level proficiency. I reckon most people can do it; they just need to abandon their naïve understanding of language to do it.
>learning a language
>hi IQ
two year old children learn languages
downies learn languages
african immigrants learn languages
>filtered by languages confirmé
Yes, but not all understand language. Case in point: you failed to understand the question in the OP
Unless it's verbal IQ, not much faster than anyone else. Learning a language is different from any other kind of learning because you have a dedicated structure for it in your brain.
How much does language acquisition really have to do with intelligence? Even stupid people generally end up fluent in their native language, barring language-specific impairment.