/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14621502
I found this which seems to suggest otherwise. Interesting, I'll look into it
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0803396105
>https://www.livescience.com/36143-iq-change-time.html (inb4 articles are invalid; its an interview with multiple profs)

I don't think you understand what I was saying though, I was saying hypothetically one has a baseline IQ of 100, having good habits, environment, and conscientiousness, all those could boost your cognitive performance smarter than the average person, say around 110-115 above average level. Although, that average person would despite a lot of cognitive training, never be able to perform at the level that someone in the 130+ range would in innovation, creativity, general intelligence. There's like a range, say, of one deviation, that we could improve our fluid intelligence and IQ with the optimal brain healthy life, or, we could possibly decrease it a bit. I am not claiming that IQ is a static thing. Hmm, the more I read, maybe IQ isn't such a good way to measure intelligence, I dunno, just a bit too volatile for my liking. But by your logic, couldn't we make a retarded person average? I don't think training is that powerful in that circumstance. A below average intelligence person, someone you could easily say is pretty dumb, definitely on the dull side (even with an optimal brain healthy lifestyle, happens a lot with rich people) wouldn't ever be able to hit "genius" levels of cognition either. I am extremely skeptical that lifestyle and training could make remarkable changes if they were just born mentally dull, though I won't deny that they could be a whole lot worse if not for the training and lifestyle.

I guess you're right and I don't have any MUH PEER REVIEWED STUDIES to support my claim (which is based off of anecdotes and my personal observations), so I'll concede. I have a lot to learn on this, thanks.

>>10416870
This isn't 4chan.

no, /sci/ in a picture

you're not an oldfag unless you remember when the board used to be called:
/sci/ - Religion & Homework

>>8137651
I'm a paleofag, not a geophysicist, but...
depends on what you want to do. geology is more hands-on. if you like field science, go for geology. if you prefer modeling of tectonics or reservoir characterization, geophysics may be more up your alley. when in doubt, go geology.
the picture is a joke about how geophysicists don't deal with actual rocks that much, how they focus more on simulations.

6/n

your problem is that you're afraid to be wrong. this is probably a manifestation of pathological anxiety of some sort. I advise you to do what I did about my anxiety: see a therapist about it so you can learn to manage it.

The line about "take chances! make mistakes! get messy!" still holds true.

>>7966968

>>7945344
>This

>>7906158
>Why do you retarded liberals keep insisting blacks are the same species as whites?
Biology already has enough trouble trying to distinguish species so attempting to categorize subspecies would be even harder.
Also, chances are you went to a shitty school if your biology class was literally "hurr all humans are teh same XDDD what are genes?! what are phenotypes?!"

>Even morons can see that they're not.
[citation needed]

>Are you even more retarded than a moron?
pic related, you already know who you are

>This whole thread

Come here, shit posters and serious adults. You are all welcome to tonight's discussion.

Everyone here likes to shit on the career choices of others but this usually happens in unrelated threads, derailing the discussion.

Not here!
This is all about arguing ones importance to society.

Post your degree(s) and defend their importance to society. You can use anything, from actual data, to anecdotal evidence, to complete bullshit.

To keep the discussion unbiased (to not make people of my career immediately feel at home) I will not post my defense here, but instead I will eventually post it below so that everyone can feel included.

In this millenium, when should you start calling yourself a mathematician?

Is an undergrad in pure grad enough to present yourself as a mathematician?

While this is technically true because someone who graduated undergrad in engineering is good enough to call himself an engineer, I feel that the term 'mathematician' holds some extra value and prestige.

It just sounds so... elegant. Say it aloud:
"I am a mathematician."

/g/ coming in.
For the past three years I was completely secure in the idea that I would study CS and become the best at it but recently I had a complete change of mind.

I am now going to get a Mathematics degree because it looks like something that will actually serve me, even if I end up getting into the technology industry.

If I wish to become a full-time programmer I am sure that I will be better at it than any CS graduate just because I will have a better understanding of everything he knows and more.

I am now reading a Geometry book that seems pretty basic. When my high school math class was geometry that was when I failed all the tests, but now that it is all calculus and strong algebra I get perfect scores. However, one of the classes that I will have literally all four years is Geometry so I decided to git gud at it beforehand so I don't have to suffer. I am really enjoying it. It is an easy read that covers stuff that I already knew to some degree but now I'm learning how to express those ideas in a formal way and I'm sure that in the last few chapters it will get interesting.

So, after I am done with that (I give myself 1 - 2 more weeks at the pace I'm at) what other books (or topics ) should a senior high school student going into a mathematics course read to be ahead of the curve from the start?

TLDR What books should a someone that will be studying math in college next year read to be ahead of the curve?