What if there's something I'm really smart at that I haven't discovered yet and it turns out I'm the Newton of this century?

>>81929626 (OP)
newton was a hack, where my Leibniz niqqas at

>>81929626 (OP)
For a Newton, you sure could use some better sentance construction.

>>81929626 (OP) https://youtube.com/shorts/rw-22LWQlgk

>>81929695
>sentance
ok buddy

>>81929626 (OP)
Newton did his most famous work when he was taking a break from 4chan

>>81929626 (OP)
We probably had tens of thousands of geniuses die deaths of despair before they could have even realized they would amount to something, it's just the way of modern life. The Carmack of your generation will likely just die in some tent city from a fentanyl shot as a KHHV while jews and whores in the 90-100 IQ range live off the perks of a make believe economy.

>>81929626 (OP)
its possible but if you were Newton-Smart you would have excelled in multiple fields already

>>81929626 (OP)
unlikely. intelligence is generally very, well, general. so you're likely just overall retarded.

>>81929953
it's not the fault of the current system really, except for social welfare but then it's the opposite of the issue you're describing. intelligence is vastly dependent on genes, and i can be fairly certain that the guy who ended up as a fentanyl addicted KHHV homeless hobo didn't exactly have great genetic material. being born with an IQ > 140 is unironically better than being born in a millionaire family.

>>81930957
>intelligence is vastly dependent on genes
Exactly and a lot of good genes are currently rotting in poverty and/or because they gave up on life for various reasons.

>>81930971
someone smarter has higher chances of making it in life. that's just how it is. nothing is perfect and there always be that rare exception, but most good genes are in the upper classes. and they are there for a reason.
eliminate welfare policies, and the genetic failures won't be able to live parasitically off the efforts of the genetic successes.
you just need to let nature take its course.

>>81929626 (OP)
Nobody starts "really smart" at anything. Anyone who has ever learned or became good at anything, was once a clueless beginner.

>>81929695
well hes not Newton at forming sentences

>>81930957
While it is true that the overwhelming majority of people who abuse substances are from very impoverished backgrounds, and had horrific upbringings; it is also true that people with higher IQs are also more likely to abuse substances than people of normal IQs.
It is also a common misconception that someone with a higher IQ is someone who is wise. This is not the case as they are distinct things. Someone can be intelligent but foolish, and someone can be wise but stupid.
>>81929626 (OP)
That is unlikely, you would need to apply yourself to become smart. Even if you had a higher IQ that doesn't mean you instantly know things. IQ is the ability to process information faster. This allows you to acquire information, solve problems, and learn skills faster than your peers. However if your peers are willing to put in more effort they can match or surpass you if you rest on your laurels and do nothing, that's why we have people like Feynman with an IQ in the 120s considered a great in his field despite most graduates of that field having an IQ above his. He was dedicated and put in far more work than most do, so he surpassed them. Ultimately though IQ is a gift that opens many doors if it is utilized, if it is not utilized it is a tragic waste. A prime example of a waste of life with a genius IQ is the murderer Nathan Leopold. He contributed nothing, excelled in nothing, and was educated in nothing.

>>81931874
I have to correct myself. Nathan did make minor contributions in Ornithology, but they still were insignificant and his abuse of his potential stopped him from being a great in his field.