Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Is it possible for a human to have 300+ iQ
autist | 
Albania SquirtDemon 
The highest iQ a person had was William James Sidis with an iQ of 250+ Why there no more people with an IQ higher than 160 ? Another Question Is it possible for a human to use his brain more than 10% of brain capacity ?
2020-02-27 22:37
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
Yes source: me
2020-02-27 22:38
#3
2020-02-27 22:41
#2
ScreaM | 
Poland granv 
Yes, by taking LSD
2020-02-27 22:38
Without drugs
2020-02-27 22:41
#16
ScreaM | 
Poland granv 
Without drugs its impossible. But it's actually not good for you anyway.
2020-02-29 00:30
So you're telling me there will be no one with an iQ higher than's William James Sidis ?
2020-02-29 01:56
there might be one person, but surely not you
2020-02-29 02:07
Who said anything about me ?
2020-02-29 14:14
#30
ScreaM | 
Poland granv 
No, I'm saying that you cannot use more brain capacity % without taking drugs. IQ is a different story. Ofc there might be second dude like him
2020-02-29 13:12
I just wanted to know if there will be anyone smarter than him . I think yes . In the future people will be much much smarter than him.
2020-02-29 14:17
#3
 | 
Netherlands meneertjesem 
me very funy so i say yes; me
2020-02-27 22:38
Yeah the #1 guy tried to be funny
2020-02-27 22:41
me
2020-02-27 22:39
#3
2020-02-27 22:41
if u killed all of 18+ yo ppl excluding u u could easily have 300iq
2020-02-27 22:44
#10
 | 
Poland humen)))) 
I have 200 iq like some hltv users
2020-02-27 22:44
#11
2020-02-27 22:46
#14
 | 
Poland humen)))) 
look at your flair and "stay serious"
2020-02-27 22:47
#19
 | 
United Kingdom whatacliche 
+1 He is the type who watches Rick and Morty, his intellect it unmatched by any mortal man.
2020-02-29 02:00
I will never make a serious thread anymore on HLTV . Just look at these kids trying to be funny I asked a serious Question and they're like Yes me smart yes me 200 iQ .
2020-02-27 22:46
#59
 | 
Bulgaria goshyy 
+1 that's what happened with most of my threads buddy.
2020-02-29 17:34
#60
device | 
Czech Republic Flappyb 
Bro u created thread on HLTV, what did you expect?
2020-02-29 17:38
there are threads for joking and jerking off and there are serious threads. Which anyone can tell . I'm not mad I just will not make serious threads anymore.
2020-02-29 18:58
#64
 | 
Finland Bill_Baitman 
none take albanians seriously
2020-02-29 19:06
#13
mika | 
Spain VIKTORAL 
we use 100% of our brain all the time, many scientists have confirmed it. its just a myth that we use only 7%
2020-02-27 22:47
+1
2020-02-29 14:19
would you share articles that proves this claim? Or did you just made out this?
2020-02-29 14:20
#46
mika | 
Spain VIKTORAL 
Even in 2004 they already knew it scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-rea.. "The 10-percent myth has undoubtedly motivated many people to strive for greater creativity and productivity in their lives--hardly a bad thing. The comfort, encouragement and hope that it has engendered helps explain its longevity. But, like so many uplifting myths that are too good to be true, the truth of the matter seems to be its least important aspect." if u do not trust american sources en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the.. "In debunking the ten percent myth, Knowing Neurons editor Gabrielle-Ann Torre writes that using one hundred percent of one's brain would not be desirable either. Such unfettered activity would almost certainly trigger an epileptic seizure.[19] Torre writes that, even at rest, a person likely uses as much of his or her brain as reasonably possible through the default mode network, a widespread brain network that is active and synchronized even in the absence of any cognitive task. Thus, "large portions of the brain are never truly dormant, as the 10% myth might otherwise suggest."" we use around 90% of our brain when we dont even use it, even when speaking on the phone we use over 95%
2020-02-29 14:30
so i see you made it up, we don't use 100% of brain all the times, like your articles proves..
2020-02-29 14:33
#50
mika | 
Spain VIKTORAL 
we use a percentage really close to 100%, since 100 would actually be represented as having a stroke or a brain seizure
2020-02-29 14:34
yes so you lied when you said we use 100 % of the brain all the time and that many scientists confirmed it. No scientist did ever confirm that. Next time don't make out stupid things like this please.
2020-02-29 16:23
#56
 | 
Sweden Majlo_ 
Saying we use 100% of the brain is closer to the truth than saying we use only 10%.
2020-02-29 16:26
I was asking if he could provide me any research where i can see if his claim is true. I only wanted to know how humans are using 100% of the brain all the time, 7% is irrelevant here because i already knew humans use more brain than that, but i wanted to learn about 100 % because i have never heard for it and learning new things is always nice and when he said many scientists have proven it i though well maybe there is a way... it turns out he was just lying and making up things...
2020-02-29 17:33
I bet you're fun at parties, he still proved his point yet you're so persistent to prove him wrong that you just come off as arrogant. Wow, he said 100% and it turns out its only 95, who cares it's way more accurate than the "10%". You can hardly say "it turns out he was just lying and making up things" when he probably quoted the original number off the top of his head so no wonder it didn't have 100% accuracy.
2020-02-29 19:11
I see you are not in scientific field or you will never be either, i was tought the data and experiments need to be precise, if you are not 100% sure that your results and findings are not precise you better don't publish that, because you will soon lose your credibility. In that case let me explain you the difference if you are not smart enough to get it. If your brain would work with 100 % you would die, because it would be to much for your brain to handle it, but if it operates on 95% then you are still alive, correct me if I'm wrong but difference between your brain being alive or being dead is quiet significantly. And yes % do matter indeed so you need to be precise about it.
2020-03-01 03:28
I am in the science faculty, but I know when to take data seriously and when to not. This is HLTV forums and the guy was literally just trying to prove the point that we use much more than 10% of our brain. If you're going to criticize me because I know how to relax on a video games forum, then at least give me some evidence of what you've stated above
2020-03-01 12:49
What would happen if we could use 100% of our brain? What are some simple steps I can take to protect my privacy online? Many people believe that they can't do anything to protect their privacy online, but that's not true. There actually are simple steps to dramatically reduce online tracking. Step 1. Download DuckDuckGo on all your devices With just one download you'll get tracker blocking, private searching If we force to use 100% of our brain, It would look like this: Seriously, the only situation that I know in which a person can “use” 100% brain utility (using every neuron connection at the same time) is during seizures. If someone know any other scenario, please tell me in the comments. It comes down to how our brain proccesses information. Our brain doesn’t work like most computer CPUs. Most current generation CPUs have cores that can do almost any task at a fix clock speed, basically every CPU cores is the same. Because of this universal versatility, you can utilize it to 100% CPU time utilization, in which every core is doing everything as fast as it can, to do the set of tasks you give to it. Because the RAM channel bandwidth is very high, you have relatively little problem in task scheduling. For the brain, you can replace “cores” with a “nuclei” which is a cluster of neurons that does a specific task. Our brain processes different kind of task/information in different part of the brain (cores), and there’s so many of them. Even every muscle that controls your fingers has its own “motor core” (a network of neuron dedicated to control that finger). If a core is not receiving enough information, it will not utilize every neuron on that core. But if it receives more information than it can handle, it will run at 100% utility, and ignore what it can’t process at the time (the data is lost). Now, there's a special bundle of cores, called the prefrontal cortex. That's where you make conscious decisions based on the information coming from other brain area, although this part is physically relatively big compared to other cores, this core is easily overloaded because the task is so complex. Your standard IQ test mostly measures this core's performance. Edit: Some say that this brain region is where your consciousness resides, but it hasn’t been proven to be true or not. It is still an interesting controversial topic (thanks to for the edit). For example, if you’re playing basketball and you have the ball while dribling towards your opponents ring. This is what happens in your brain: Your balance cores are busy determining where your center of mass is, your speed, your orientation, angle of attack while running, accelerations, tracking where your legs are (this information is fetched from “proprioception cores”), knowing the ground textures (fetched from the visual cores), and a bunch of other stuff. Your visual cores are busy tracking the movements of the ball, separating the player from the background, judging distances, recognizing your team mates, knowing where the line is, judging the speed/acceleration of other players, and much more. Your motor cores are busy determining which muscle strands to contract at what time to move a limb, how much power that goes in a movement, etc. This core’s relationship with the proprioception cores is vital. Proprioception cores “remember” where your limbs are so you don’t get trampled by your own legs. (Yes, stumbling for no reason is your proprioception failing to do its job) Your thalamus filters out unnecesary information that will otherwise make your brain utterly ineficient and slow because of overloading (I have experienced it, its not very pleasant, theres a wikipedia page about it: “sensory overload”) Your audio cores are not so busy, they are waiting for a command or audio communications from other players. By constantly analyzing every vibration in the air that sounds like a human voice, and half-ass processing other sounds. If it finds a human voice, it will conveniently articulate it back into words for you. Your olfactory (chemical sensor) cores aren’t doing much. There’s not enough relevant information from the environment. It's beneficial to actually do this, since your thalamus and your prefrontal cortex bandwidth are easily overloaded. Your somatosensory cores (skin sensors) are mainly analyzing pressure points all over your body, and relaying this information to the prefrontal cortex and the others. The prefrontal cortex (your consciousness) is very busy doing a lot of analyzing, strategy, predictions, risk managing, decision making, etc. by processing the information from all of the cores above. And then it tells the motor cores what to do. All of the cores above are intricately interconnected, and constantly interchanging information, which results in massively pararel processing. So, because not all information is relevant to the situation, there’re always some cores that have nothing to do, for there is simply not enough useful information to process. But there’s more… The brain stores information in its structure of neural connections. If you fire a random neuron without a relevant stimulus, it will trigger memories/muscle memories that aren’t even related to the situation. Imagine you fire a neuron that triggers your bladder/urethra muscle memory to pee. Or your muscle memory to play a piano while you’re holding a guitar. Your finger will press the guitar strings like a piano key. Or some random sensation memory, like smelling an apple juice, or something. And then, imagine all… every muscle memory and mental/sensation memory that you have up until now being triggered. Now you are remembering and doing everything you know how to do. At the same time. Can you guess what would be the result? Yes, a realy bad total seizure… And no, you will not even be conscious if that happens. So, the reason the brain cannot functionally operate at 100% utility is: not every piece of information is relevant to the situation, and there’s simply not enough useful information to process. (Non-useful information will only cloud your judgment, you don’t want that) There’re always some specialized cores that have nothing to do, because there’s not enough specialized kind of information for it to process. bottlenecks in some part of the brain. and it will make you do and feel everything you know at once. In other word, a very bad seizure. Sensory overload sucks. TLDR , if you would use 100% you would have a seizure that would instantly make you unconscious and stop your heart.
2020-03-01 14:38
holy shit, this is some severe waste of oxygen. are you aware what place HLTV is? damn son, go to reddit or somewhere else where such thorough posts are at least somewhat appreciated.
2020-03-01 17:27
that's not the point, the point here is when you said that we would not die we would get just tired and fall asleep that is false and i just proved you why your claim was false.
2020-03-01 22:27
ah ok nevermind, we meant the same I wasn't very precise I must admit.
2020-03-02 01:17
bruh I just needed a link holy fuck this is too much
2020-03-01 21:55
you will find it, do some research what happens if we would use 100% of our brain...
2020-03-01 22:25
I'm not gonna lie, I'm hardly interested in it, I was more so saying that even if he was 5% off it was more to do with the "we only use 10% of our brains" because false, rather than 100% accuracy of how much and what would happen. But I'm glad you're a reasonable person, even if I think you somewhat overreacted given that it's a video game forum
2020-03-02 12:36
+1. @#68. precision my ass. stick to reality: your brain is a muscle, an organ. if you use it non stop at 100% u will fall asleep after some time, due to exhaustion. just saying: u cannot lift 100kg with your body/muscles 24/7 as well.
2020-03-01 03:42
you would have a seizure that would instantly make you unconscious and stop your heart. So either you would get brain damage or you would die
2020-03-01 14:39
+1
2020-03-01 14:58
#15
 | 
United States xiquo 
yes they are all politicians. I have friends in it and it makes me sad to see them waste their brain on such trife when i know they will become corrupted by the people who really run this world.
2020-02-27 22:53
#18
 | 
United Kingdom whatacliche 
Yes, me. I took an internet IQ test, I got 420 IQ. The mere fact I had the intellectual capacity to take this test on a random website is enough proof of my superior intelligence.
2020-02-29 01:58
only 420? lol peasant....
2020-02-29 02:10
#20
OK | 
Peru TheJuan 
Speak for yourself
2020-02-29 02:02
#21
NiKo | 
Morocco royflord 
sidis didn't have 254 IQ
2020-02-29 02:04
Yes he did 250+
2020-02-29 14:24
#53
NiKo | 
Morocco royflord 
sure he's probably one of the smartest people ever to exist, but both his sister and mother were proven to exaggerate their claims about him many times so you never know
2020-02-29 14:58
Is it possible for a human to use his brain more than 10% of brain capacity ? hahahahahha
2020-02-29 02:09
Yeah I just search it and I was wrong . I was wrong. It's just a myth. I am so embarrased now .
2020-02-29 14:25
thats nice that you figured it =)
2020-02-29 14:38
#24
 | 
Finland 0lter 
I have 304 so.... yes.
2020-02-29 02:10
#26
 | 
Canada The_HD_Is_Now 
Is it possible for a human to use his brain more than 10% of brain capacity everyone does. better question: Is it possible for a human to use his brain more than 10% of brain capacity at ONCE?
2020-02-29 02:11
+1
2020-02-29 14:27
Different parts of our brains are used for different things so of course we dont use all of it at the same time
2020-02-29 02:12
+1
2020-02-29 14:26
#28
 | 
Russia NikSmoK 
Imagine considering IQ as abdolute intellect number. You can abuse this test and give as high as 200 every time and you'll spend a week or so. Stop hyping and start grinding. Average iq doesn't make you be worthless dog
2020-02-29 02:19
+1
2020-02-29 14:27
+1
2020-03-01 12:55
#29
 | 
Latvia Jancho33 
depends in which IQ measurement system, as for most commonly used 200 is maximum.. And even the best guy as Einstein scored 188. I have scored at 130 +/- 5 points and I am Fine! I don't give a shit if someone is smarter than me or dumber than me, I have found ways to have fun with all of them -> Alcohol!!
2020-02-29 02:31
No Einstein's iQ was 160 same as Stephen Hawking. Isac Newton had 190. Today there is a person his name is Terence Tao he's a proffesor in Harvard who has an iQ of 230. And the highest of all time belongs to William James Sidis 250+ IQ.
2020-02-29 14:21
#79
 | 
Switzerland BottomFragger 
Really curious about that 250 IQ number. Honestly having a hard time believing it because it is so radically above anything else. What if IQ tests just aren't really accurate anymore once we get to 160+? I think it's an efficient way of calculating a person's approximate limit of intellectual capacity to see what their prospects are but not sure if it still makes sense there.
2020-03-01 13:02
#34
 | 
Poland Hanse 
"Is it possible for a human to use his brain more than 10% of brain capacity ?" single digit IQ spotted
2020-02-29 14:20
#39
2020-02-29 14:27
haha he watched the movie lucy. embarrassing..
2020-02-29 14:32
probably if he'S raised like mowgli
2020-02-29 14:22
#44
NiKo | 
United Kingdom p0mpouS 
Humans will continue to have a larger pool of information but there obviously is a limit to what we can retain, the real Important thing is liquid knowledge, that's your ability to quickly pick things up and apply them, crystallised knowledge is what you already know, for instance people in their teens and 20s have amazing liquid knowledge but their crystallised knowledge isnt that good, the reverse is true for older people.
2020-02-29 14:29
problem is 90% of the information we gain in this world is utter useless and just causes our brain/mind fog.
2020-03-01 12:50
#87
NiKo | 
United Kingdom p0mpouS 
It's not, it's just what most people look at.
2020-03-01 15:28
yes and no, IQ tests arent designed to capture the intelligence of people with over 160~iq
2020-02-29 14:30
#47
chrisJ | 
United Kingdom snekky 
IQ isn't a thing like red blood cell count. It's a score on a test so each test will have a maximum score it will read.
2020-02-29 14:32
Humans use 100% of their brain. It's a myth that we don't.
2020-02-29 14:37
#39
2020-02-29 15:12
its not possible because iq bases on comparision with the average
2020-02-29 17:32
i have 300.
2020-02-29 17:38
first of all we use 100% of our brain, this conversation of 10% is a lie. and a think the world is going stupid like in "Idiocracy"
2020-02-29 19:02
#66
 | 
World breezy0 
Who cares about IQ tests? They are just an artificial design so IQ numbers aren't set in stone. I dont think we can currently understand and capture what intelligence really is, at least not with current forms of IQ tests, they are lacking in many departments. Btw it's retarded to give people from the past scores of IQ tests and believe they are correct when they never really did them themselves.
2020-02-29 19:20
Intelligence is the number of contacts between neurons. The higher the number, the better your ability to acquire and generate information is. But yes, we can not count it at this moment
2020-03-01 13:14
#82
 | 
Switzerland BottomFragger 
Absolutely agree on the second part, not sure about the first one. It's definitely not an absolute indicator of all your strengths and weaknesses but it's a good estimate of someone's maximum potential. A person with 100 IQ will most likely never lead a successful company and that's perfectly fine but it's good to know. A person with 134 (like me) has a lot of options but would probably fail getting into or staying at Harvard. We shouldn't let it intimidate us but it's something to consider. EDIT: Maybe it's comparable to rating 2.0 or ADR in CSGO. It's a good measurement but very misleading if you don't look at the context as well.
2020-03-01 13:17
Because low-IQ people produce most offspring.
2020-02-29 19:20
Why there no more people with an IQ higher than 160 ? That's where you're wrong
2020-03-01 03:30
#71
 | 
Finland eXampL 
it is not possible to have 300iq anymore because now days every one is born stupid
2020-03-01 05:28
u want to use 100% brain like in that lucy film? nah u don't want that, u gonna shit yourself without knowing it...
2020-03-01 05:34
Yes I have
2020-03-01 12:51
yes but you will never find them on hltv
2020-03-01 12:51
Yes men the peoples who throw ak in eco round to not gib the opposition have 50500505050500+ iq
2020-03-01 12:52
Bullshit. IQ is not the actual IQ, but method of measuring intellectual capacity of a person in comparison to average, which is 100. It can't go above 160(4 standard deviations from average), because if it does then it just proves that the IQ test is flawed. Using "more than 10% at time" is called a seizure. The reason you're not using all brain at once is because different parts of brains does different things/are different resources.
2020-03-01 13:08
You always use more than 10% of your brain
2020-03-01 15:00
Brazilian president has 500 IQ
2020-03-01 15:32
#91
 | 
Brazil jacksfurions 
when you can examine the qi of all the people in the world you are sure to discover much more intelligent people.
2020-03-01 22:00
#96
 | 
World MattAaA 
Because IQ is irrelevant.
2020-03-02 12:37
Yes. I have 399 IQ
2020-03-02 13:30
#98
 | 
Russia nobody_cars 
yes North fans very smart mens))
2020-03-02 13:31
yes mens))))
2020-03-02 13:52
it's already average IQ on HLTV mens)
2020-03-02 13:38
With selective breeding or crispr yes. Otherwise most likely no.
2020-03-02 13:42
I have an IQ of 140 i'm just here to flex my virgin brain on all of u
2020-03-02 13:54
FaZe
1.19
Virtus.pro
4.82
timbermen
2.35
Big Chillin
1.58
Evil Geniuses
1.44
FURIA
2.85
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.