>>715838302 (OP)
I have a pet theory that the higher IQ you are the less you enjoy revisiting media because you already absorbed and memorized all the little intricacies that a lower IQ person would miss the first time around.

>>715838607
>incel made up some random shit to sound smart: the post

>>715838607
Yes unironically
But about 95% of this website is autistic people trying to cope about their autism, they will disagree. They love repeating the same actions over and over again

>>715838607
>anon doesn't know what IQ actually measures

>>715839269
This site is indeed very autistic. I'd also like to say that my theory probably doesn't apply to autistic people since I do think it's possible to be both high IQ and autistic. For an autistic person the type of intricacies that they're fascinated by would be different from a normal person. Kind of like ulillillia being fascinated by minutia like how many pixels per second a character moves in Bubsy. This kind of thing does take intelligence to measure, it's just that it's utterly uninteresting information to a normal person.
>>715839396
It measures a lot of things, including memory.

>>715838607
That's not what IQ means, and also no

>>715838607
IQ is NOT a good measure at the high end of the curve.
Low IQ guarantees lack of intelligence but high IQ does NOT guarantee intelligence.
It's an incomplete measurement.

>>715839719
Food analogy:
lack of muscles = lack of strength
having muscles /= strength

>>715838607
>fotm normalfags are high iq
your gay little theory gets fucking obliterated by the occam's razor

>>715839719
Taleb is a coping 110 IQ midwit. As I recall, his preferred measure of intelligence is
>be rich
>be accomplished
Even though you can simple be handed those things for all sorts of stupid reasons. Just look at Elon Musk if you want to see an example of a turbo rich person who is clearly not that intelligent.

>>715838302 (OP)
So puzzle games aren't worth playing?

>>715838607
This made me feel smart for never rewarching anything so I am going to have to agree with you

>>715838607
You're missing the point. A higher iq person would absorb more details, but not all media is created equal.
1. A higher iq person might not be interested in rewatching most if not all Nolan movies and won't be impressed in a way that someone with a lower iq would, but they'd still be interested in rereading Hamlet just because it's much more dense.
2. Not all art relies on "memorizing intricacies". You might understand the story, but still enjoy the prose. You might know all the lore to a game or understand all of its mechanics, but sometimes you might just want to experience how it controls and so on.

>>715838607
IQ does not test for long-term memory. I scored 144 but I frequently replay games I have beaten even a few years ago as I have since forgotten random elements that I feel are worth experiencing again.

>>715838302 (OP)
I don't believe anything brown people utter

>>715838302 (OP)
Why would I replay a game when I could play a new one instead?

>>715838607
I unironically can't replay most games because I end up remembering things so well that I get bored of it fast on extra playthrough.

>>715842359
>1. A higher iq person might not be interested in rewatching most if not all Nolan movies and won't be impressed in a way that someone with a lower iq would, but they'd still be interested in rereading Hamlet just because it's much more dense.
I agree, that's why I said "less" instead of "unable to enjoy at all."
>but still enjoy the prose.
The better your memory, the faster you will literally memorize that prose. You won't even need to consult the original work, it's there stored in your brain if you ever want to contemplate its beauty. For me, I have a stream of music playing in my head all the time and I rarely feel the need to actually listen to music because that library is there. When I do listen to music it's new music I haven't heard before so I can add to the library.
>>715842526
Yeah it does. Did you take an online IQ test or something? Real IQ tests aren't just progressive matrices, they also test things like vocabulary. Vocabulary requires memorization.

>>715843047
>Yeah it does. Did you take an online IQ test or something? Real IQ tests aren't just progressive matrices, they also test things like vocabulary. Vocabulary requires memorization.
...which involves short term memorization, not long-term. IQ does not test for long-term memory.

>>715843293
>vocabulary is short term memory
The only way that would be short term memory is if they literally tell you the word and its definition, wait 1 minute, then ask you to recall. As far as I'm aware, that's not how it works, you need to show up knowing everything in advance which is long term memory.

>>715843546
Anon, you are not given information at a specific time and then tested at long term. What you are describing is simply basic knowledge. Scoring high in a vocabulary section does not indicate you have a strong long-term memory.

>>715843835
>basic knowledge
What do you think knowledge is? Could it be, I dunno, information stored in your memory? IQ tests are not perfect. There are confounding factors like if you went to a better school you might have learned more words from that, not necessarily because you have a better memory. But on average, people with better memory will know more words. Thus it's not a bad proxy for memory. Giving people information, then testing them on that 1 year later for IQ testing sound ridiculously impractical.

>>715843835
the reason IQ is a thing is because virtually all little tests of aspects of intellect like memory or spatial processing are positively correllated. As in people good at one of them are usually good at the others.

>>715844339
*if I had to make a bet on which guy would learn to make a rope bridge to cross a gap faster, I should bet on the guy that did better on SAT word analogies.

>>715844339
This is also why the idea that "everybody has something they're good at" is complete cope
Either you are intelligent or you aren't, and general intelligence dictates overall competence in like 99% of activities that aren't purely physical

>>715844601
>This is also why the idea that "everybody has something they're good at" is complete cope
To what end? Someone who's good at being a lawyer, isn't necessarily good at being a doctor. Someone who's a good doctor, isn't necessarily going to be a good chef. Etc, etc.

>>715844916
No, but they could've been good at any of those things if they dedicated their life to it
But someone who wouldn't have made a good lawyer, wouldn't have been any good as a doctor or a chef either

>>715844601
>"everybody has something they're good at" is complete cope
This isn't cope. Mastery of a skill takes time. A high IQ person isn't born with mastery over all skills. They can simply acquire that mastery faster. A person of sufficient IQ can also achieve mastery as long as they keep at it. There are also skills which are so simple that your excess IQ is wasted. Just as an extreme example, say your job at the factory is twisting on the caps on bottles that come down the assembly belt. An 80 IQ retard could manage that and learn it in a day. Any IQ over that is wasted and possibly even detrimental since a higher IQ person will get bored and restless. None of this is to say that we're all equal. Just that there is still value in keeping the idiots around until we achieve perfect full automation.

>>715844309
Yes, it does sound impractical. Which is why it is not measured in IQ. I know you are trying to be cheeky here but vocabulary has nothing to do with long-term memory, they aren't stored in the same area.

>>715844339
IQ does not test long-term memory. At all.

>>715845442
vocabulary?

>>715845597
Does not test long-term memory

>>715838302 (OP)
Okay but how would you know a game isn't worth replaying if you haven't played it once?

>>715838607
Absorbing information and enjoying art are two different things.
I think what he describe in here is enjoying a book in a form of literature (art) and not just a mere story, genre fiction novel, and/or whatever aspect that the author tried to put in between texts. You can learn the entire theme and premise of the iliad, but people come back to that epic again and again simply because its an art in a form of epic, and art is something delicate to this life, it is that simple

>>715838302 (OP)
Nah, the older I get the more I value short, to the point games with strong replayability. I have 60+ hours in Zeroranger and that game is less than an hour long, and I still haven't even A ranked it.
When I play a new game these days I find myself wondering in the back of my head the entire time "is this something I'm going to want to replay in the future", because really I play new games to add to my replay collection

>>715839165
The same could be said of OP's quote

>>715846083
Your words are as empty as your soul. This thread ill needs a poster such as you

>>715846025
>Absorbing information and enjoying art are two different things.
Wrong. Art IS information. The same way you can have a PDF of a book stored in its entirety on your hard drive you could hypothetically have a perfect copy of the book stored in your brain. Very very few humans are at that level, but I believe they do exist.

>>715846449
Here's the thing. If you remember a piece of literature, (let's say just a poem since it's much more feasible to know one by heart than a novel) you can basically engage with it fully. Same theoretically might also apply to a classical score. Video games or even paintings are different though, because there's an unquantifiable amount of information presented to the viewer. You might "know" a work of art, you won't ever be able to FULLY recreate it in your head

>>715846449
One can be an illiterate retard and still capable in enjoying art even if its only on superficial level, because art by nature is communicative

>>715847718
A videogame is more like a machine. If you truly wanted to delve into its depths it would probably be because you're an engineer (of videogames) and want to be able to reverse engineer it. Or just autism.
>unquantifiable amount of information
Videogames, by their nature as digital creations, are EXTREMELY quantifiable.

>>715848226
>EXTREMELY quantifiable
Not when compared to a book.

You have to realise that when we interact with a game what we perceive is not just the code, but its graphical representation that can change from the slightest tweaks.
We might fully understand how a koopa moves around in Mario 64, but it won't mean that we could account for every pixel representing one at all possible locations.

I think it's might be more useful to imagine a simple game like pong, where we could fully know how much faster the ball gets after every hit and so on. BUT us understandanding how to play pong, or at what point the ball becomes too fast to hit or at what point the game can break and so on won't actually make us good at pong. The motor reflexes needed are somewhat independent from our knowledge, and thus even pong can't just be played in our head

that's why I primarily play roguelikes, a game should be learned over time, a win should be memorable and take a long time to achieve.

I've replayed Luigi's Mansion dozens of times, it's perfect.

>>715838607
Always felt the same. Some of my friends say shit like "oh I enjoyed that movie more on the second watch but in the third not so much" like nigga the fuck are you doing watching it episodically or looking for bloopers in the meantime? are you writing an essay?

I was replaying Bloodborne a few days ago and I still think an easy top 5 game for me.

But like, yeah, it's never gonna hit the same as the first time I played it and everything was shiny new.