/lit/ - Literature

No.

nope

What do you mean by "math"?

The empty memorization and regurgitation of rules and symbols they teach you in lower education, or real math?

do you have a job
do you have a gf
do you write shit that everyone in your immediate circle thinks is hilarious and witty

if you got 3/3 you're fine, son.

>>4962268
>The empty memorization and regurgitation of rules and symbols they teach you in lower education
If you were smart you would have realized why it made sense even in lower education.

Just practice your maths, the only reason you suck is most likely a lack of interest in school and you never picked it up again.

>>4962257
A lot of math is just addition, but you do it in a single step rather than 10 for the sake of speed, if you can do addition I could break a problem down enough for you to do a lot of it.

It's like a language, you do it a lot and you can speak it confidently and quickly, but if you're learning you do it a bit awkwardly.

Mathematical proficiency correlates strongly with IQ. I dismiss them immediately.

>>4962296
>INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT

>conan o'brien nerd noise

>>4962274
No, if you were smart you would be in higher education already at a lower age.

>>4962297
IQ correlates positively with a lot of things like school performance and grades, and also things like income levels and work.

People who say IQ doesn't matter because it's not a direct measure of intelligence are missing the point.

>>4962257
There are actually many different types of intelligence, like liquid intelligence which is basically being able to solve complex puzzles or matching things off the bat. Many psychologists have come up with different intelligence theories and one thing that is consistent is that there are multiple types: academic intelligence which is like math or book smarts, emotional intelligence which is dealing with people and social interaction, and practical intelligence which is being self sufficient and street smart. Those are three overarching things that are generally consistent. I've studied psychology and the different ways of intelligence in the brain. Most of these fucks don't know what they're saying.

>>4962315
>emotional intelligence which is dealing with people and social interaction, and practical intelligence which is being self sufficient and street smart.

>>4962315
So you can lack in some ways while excelling in others.

>>4962274
It only makes sense for monkeys and computers.

Possibly, but if you like chinese cartoons then no.

>>4962315
>There are actually many different types of intelligence,

>>4962257
> Is it acceptable for a person who self-admittedly sucks at math" to consider themselves intelligent?
No.

>>4962257
I got better at math by reading philosophy, especially the pre-socratics and I fucking hate math.

>>4962268
>The empty memorization and regurgitation of rules and symbols they teach you in lower education, or real math?
Jesus Christ, this is worse than the STEMfags who pretend they know shit about literature.

I suck at math (dyscalculia) but have two degrees, know more than a dozen (dead) languages, have a good job and am working on my PhD at a prestigious university.

what is it with maths and people thinking you're only intelligent if you do maths?

>>4962516
dyscalculia is another word for retarded

>>4962516
>sucking at math
>a disability

liberals have done it again

>>4962518
why, because you think that thinking has something to do with numbers?

Intelligence is a meaningless term outside of cultural context. So I'd say it depends on which (sub)culture you subscribe to.

>>4962315
>There are actually many different types of intelligence,
>>4962516
>dyscalculia
>>4962529
>Intelligence is a meaningless term outside of cultural context.

>>4962534
Conscientiousness (psychology), spatial cognition, and theory of mind, are hardly synonymous are hardly synonymous, and all tend to a take a backseat to cultural capital because it can tremendously warp social perception of them.

>get B Maths GCSE
>don't take subject anymore
>study film at university
>read novels in spare time
>begin reading basic philosophy
>learn german
>regularly get complimented as being "interesting" and "intelligent"
>work for film production company
>producer always consults my opinion on upcoming projects because I have a wide range of knowledge
>don't care if people are intelligent or not, just fun to be around

>friend got A* Maths GCSE
>got A Maths A-Level
>got a 2:1 Maths degree
>no hobbies outside of video games
>works at local IT firm
>I had to write his CV
>always talks about how intelligent he is (muh degree)
>always talks about how much he could earn
>still lives at home
>says he would only be friends with intelligent people
>has me as his only friend outside of his job

Based on my experience with this childhood friend and the people who I met from his course, people who consider themselves intelligent and use that as the main aspect of their personality, particularly maths based, are weird.

People that are intelligent don't talk about their intelligence.

>>4962516
I'll try to keep it simple so a dum-dum like you can understand:

Math is pure logic. Intelligence is essentially how logical you are. Being bad at math is indicative of lacking the ability to process logic, i.e. lack of intelligence. Hope I didn't use any words that were too complex here.

>>4962537
This is gold.
I almost regret filtering you if it means I'm going to miss out on future retardation like this.

>>4962548
That is quite a bit opinion you have there.

>>4962546
>Intelligence is essentially how logical you are

>>4962516
>what is it with maths and people thinking you're only intelligent if you do maths?

Math nerds with superiority complex trying to compensate for their social ineptness, boring personality and lack of physical strength/stamina.

>>4962546
>abstracting logic into some sort of trait of universal application
What if it's logical to be illogical?

>>4962557
>it's logical to be illogical
Tripfags, ladies and gentlemen.

>>4962563
Logic can be used to serve an illogical end, and vice versa

Is there a polymath bad at math?

Yes, math correlates with some functions of the brain, not all. You can have dyscalculia but otherwise be a genius. The people saying otherwise are ironically displaying their own unintelligence.

Being good at math requires the ability to express ideas in a concise way, much like writing. If you're able to express complex ideas to other people and have them understand these ideas, then you're probably just as intelligent as someone who's good at math.

>>4962603
> ...... have them understand these ideas, then you're probably just as intelligent as someone who's good at math.


this is what people in the humanities actually believe

>>4962606
bait / log(0)

>>4962611
>uncomfortable truth
>bait

laughing_whores.png

I'll have a latte to go, faggot.

>>4962617
I don't know if I'm worthy to serve you, It sounds like you're way beyond my income bracket.

>>4962617
this guy is case in point, he wants to dispute that communicating in a functional way is a measure of intelligence, yet disputes this by communicating like a 5 year old

stemfags, ladies and gentleman

I wonder what kind of person a Math+Philosophy person is.

I mean that person has both extremely high verbal high Quant IQ as well as Verbal IQ

>>4962653
they become suicides because they've worked out the math

>>4962653
Bertrand Russell

>>4962653
His dad was a philosophy professor so he 'rebelled' by studying maths and science in his youth. He got the best of both worlds.

>>4962674
DFW wasn't a math major. I heard he was scared it would affect his GPA and even got some math guys to check his math notations for courses that required it.

>>4962653
analytics. pure fucking autism - very smart people
physics and philosophy however breeds the most impressive people you'll ever meet. unbelievable genius and for some reason humble
anecdotal of course

>>4962692
cont:
actually no, it really depends on the person. just remembered a completely non-autistic math and philobro...

>pompous math nerds with something to prove vs. vague philosophical bullshit about how intelligence is subjective

Does one of these points of view really have to be wrong? Why do you have to turn something as complex as human intellect and boil it down to a handful of specific skills?

>>4962714
/thread

>>4962714
if you cant into math, you cannot into the complex

though I'm sure if you try you could FEEL us into outerspace, Herr I'mwillingtoadmitI'mstupid

>>4962748

See, this is what I'm talking about. What do you have to prove, exactly? Let's assume for the sake of argument that math skill and intelligence are directly proportional and that those who lack one will surely lack the other. If you're good at math, who are you helping by being needlessly hostile and simple-minded? How can you substantiate a claim about the nature of human intelligence when you refuse to stop being condescending and obtuse about said claim?

>>4962770
>What do you have to prove, exactly?
I don't know about that guy, but I have an urge to prove that philosophers are pseudointellectuals that like to think they are smart.

>>4962779

Can you define the difference between thinking you are smart and actually being smart? How can I tell which one I am doing right now?

One of the smartest people I've ever known sucked at math. He was simply uninterested.

>>4962788
Smart people solve problems
People who think they are smart create problems only to leave them unsolved

>>4962794

I'll give you credit, that's more logical than definition of intelligence most people come up with. But it's still a little vague though, isn't it? I would argue that philosophers have never created problems, they merely call attention to problems that have always existed and we have simply been oblivious to. I mean, could you really say that Epicurus "created" the problem of evil? And what parameters do we use for solving a problem in the first place? If I find a solution to a problem but cause massive collateral damage in the process and lose valuable resources that could be used in the future, wouldn't the better option be to leave the problem unsolved until a better alternative can be posed?

>>4962257

This is actually one of the central problems of my interior life. If there is a treat to my ego is my mathematic ability’s: they are simply nonexistent.

I always had talent for the arts. I was constantly drawing, painting and sculpting from an early age, and managed to astonish my professors. When I started reading and writing I soon make great progress, especially in poetry (I won awards in school and even nationwide). I always loved and had extreme facility with metaphors and metaphorical thinking, and also with the creation of characters (stories not so much – I generally steal plots). I fused these two passions (metaphors and characters) together in the realm of dramatic production, although I work mostly for my own pleasure.

However I really can’t consider myself a bright man, not even an intelligent one. I can’t understand why I have so much joy in reading and writing (and a kind of minor innate talent for it) but not a single spark of understanding of logic and mathematic. I was a terrible student in math, and a disappointment for my professors and my family.

This is good by one side: I don’t let any vain thought of inner genius destroy me: I am constantly working and working on my goals (I sit down to write five days a week), for I know that my natural cognitive power alone is not enough – I am not a bright person. There is, however, a bad side: I can’t really like myself, and I see any student of sciences as greatly superior to me.

>>4962837
>I see any student of sciences as greatly superior to me

Why?

Let's leave the word "intelligence" aside just for a second.

You can be great at calculating probabilities and solving equations but terrible at spatial geometry.
You can be incredibly skilled with languages, good at physics but not know your way around town even with a map.
You can be great with rhetorics but suck at calculus, and vice-versa.

I'm not going to claim that "everybody is equally intelligent in different ways" because that would be bullshit, but different people have different skills. Of course, some people do great in most domains and others are mentally challenged in every domain, but intelligence is not simply a quantity you could measure with math.

If you can solve problems quickly and efficiently, or if you can present your arguments in a particularly clear and convincing way, I will call you intelligent, even if you're bad at math.

>>4962315 has a point; even though you could argue that "emotional intelligence" should not be called intelligence, it's nevertheless a valuable skill.

>>4962714
This.

>>4962868

It’s not a very rational thought. But to me it seems that them (people with mathematic skills and talent for logic thinking) can do whatever I can do if they set down and put some time and effort on it, but that I could never do what they do.

>>4962257
It's not acceptable for anyone to consider themselves intelligent.

I can learn three languages intensively simultaneously, two of them classical, I'm a postgrad fag, and I have like a 4.0 or some shit. I consider myself to have a pretty damn reliable facility for memorisation and understanding things systematically. I can't even do basic algebra.

>>4962893
Actually, learning math is not impossible either, and if you sit down and put some time and effort you will be at the same level all those STEMs are in a couple of years. As someone who has studied both a STEM career and a couple of years of philosophy so far, neither is impossible, and if you're smart enough for one, you're smart enough for the other. Maybe you have better natural tendencies to one or the other, but they're certainly not impossible if you're capable of any kind of rational thought.

Have in mind most of what we do in sciences careers is just memorize patterns and equations, and we just solve problem after problem applying them until we grasp what the fuck it is we're doing, and I can honestly tell you about 90% of the people never really do get what they're doing past that memorization. In some cases, I don't either, but just trust the numbers.

I highly doubt any of the people actually furthering the field is on /lit/ talking down on others for no reason. What you get here is usually the nerdy math monkeys that feel superior because after many many tries, they've managed to learn something most other people haven't taken the time to learn and as such they for the first time have something to lord over others.

>>4962257
With common core it sure as hell is.

Intelligence is the capacity to learn those things, not actually knowing them.

A person could be highly intelligent and know next to nothing of geology, math, philosophy, astronomy, but if he puts his mind into it, he'll learn it quickly.

Intelligence is the capacity for learning, not actual knowledge of things.

>>4962964
Then what do you call a person who actually knows things, but could never learn anything about..."programming", or "french"?

>>4962617
>drinking lattes

Wouldn't you rather have your attendant pour it directly onto your neckebard for storage?

>>4962977
>ye olde necke bard

>>4962975
If he actually knows about many fields, etc., the word is polymath.

If not, you don't "call" him anything, he's just a person who knows things.

>>4962309
>No, if you were smart you would be in higher education already at a lower age.
this is what retards actually believe
people dont really jump grades like in anime kiddo

>>4962537

>>4962537

>>4962257

Stravinsky's abilities to do calculus is totally irrelevant to his incredible musical intellect. The neurological processes involved in math can be found in many other activities

>>4963140
>calculus

That's about as meaningless a term as calling someone a communist, it conveys almost no substance. Calculus could be anything from single variable derivatives to partial differentials.

>>4963188

I know I know, sometimes I rely too much on common sense

Oh, the usual /sci/ invasion? It's more fitting to be called a skirmish, though. Who wins?

You can certainly be intelligent even though you aren't good at math, but you can't be intelligent if you like anime.

>>4963236

Why the L not?

I think proficiency at Philosophy correlates at least as much with intelligence as proficiency at Math.

What does it matter whether you consider yourself intelligent? It's a relative term anyway and if you don't think you are a stupid piece of shit then you need to stop hanging around morons.

>>4963251
How exactly does one measure proficiency at philosophy? Ability to understand and interpret texts?

>>4962975

A liberal arts student

>>4963258

It's more important to be able to engage in debate about those texts.

>>4962315
It does not matter whether you have studied psychology. All that means is that you have memorised this particular model.

Intelligence means whatever you wish it to. Aptitude for specific tasks is the best thing to measure.

>>4962268
Regardless of your opinion over the manner it which math is taught in public schools, if a student fails their math classes, it means they're stupid.

>Eng/Geology double major
>work part-time in department's writer's studio
>mfw STEM majors bring in papers for proofreading and to be looked over

I have truly seen some shit.

>>4962257
I think too much value is placed on intelligence. Anyone can meditate on a subject a long time and produce good work. Intelligence is really just wit; It isn't that important unless you have to be spontaneous.

>>4963720
elaborate nigga

>>4963720
I was a geo for 4 years as well but left once my department fell apart and lost its accreditation.

STEM majors are so awful at writing that I would turn in half-assed 10 page research papers that I did overnight and get the best grade in the class.

>>4963758
how the fuck can you write 10 pages in one night?

>>4963763
I can pump out a 6 page paper complete with citations in two hours, anon.

It's easy if you know what the fuck you're talking about because all you have to do is frame it as if you're arguing with some asshole on the internet whom you absolutely /have/ to prove wrong.

>>4963736
Intelligence isn't just for producing good works. It helps a lot in daily life situations as well, from finding optimal ways in doing things to saving yourself in life-threatening situations.

>>4962529
Please learn some cognitive science.

>>4963831
>>4962537

>>4963831

Please understand is more right than you think

>>4963833
>>/sci/thread/S6396762

>>4963640
Nah. I was bad at math in school because of how it was taught. I only paid attentions/worked on things I cared about in school and math seemed dumb so I didn't pay any attention at all and did very poorly. After high school I felt like trying to study it on my own and got interested in it. Taught myself up through calculus and in college took a number of higher level, abstract math courses and generally god As -- did better than most of my classmates who were the type who took AP calculus in high school etc.

I mean, if you TRIED and were still bad at math in high school then you're probably bad at math naturally.

>>4963831
you're that retard from /sci/ who's never taken any actual neurosci course yet keeps prattling about "cognitive science" and how "intelligence is defined by IQ"? get out

>>4963883
Nice projection, dumbfuck. Learn some cognitive science. Do it.

>>4963894
yeah, you're definitely him
how about you learn some actual neuroscience

>>4963898
⇒him
nope

⇒neuroscience
Intelligence is defined in terms of observable skills and not in terms of composition of brain tissues. Your ignorance is repulsive.