/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10902928
Race bait aside I find that this is something that all IQlets cling to. Against all evidence to the contrary people always assume they're just as intelligent if not more so than other people. If they're shit academically they are just "smart but lazy". If they know fuckall about anything important they are just "street smart". If they're dumb upper middle class thots they have "social intelligence" (while not actually being charismatic or popular at all).

Obviously it's because they can try bullshit something that is physically hidden while you can't bullshit with physical characteristic like height, muscle, facial aesthetics etc. If some brownskin tries to tell you he's attractive everyone in the room will immediately laugh at his poop coloured eyes and hair. However, this loser will still claim to be intelligent.

IQlets see people with good physical traits and they assume they must be lacking in some other domain. Since the majority of people are just average or below average by definition this is obviously a sensitive topic and the reason why we try to suppress so many studies on true genetic potential for intelligence.

Pic related.

Obligatory comic

>>8025186
No amount of bullshit feel good millennial propoganda will change your genetic makeup.

Any other questions?

Having good genes in terms of intelligence is certainly a good head start. You can't expect someone with below average intelligence to excel in and massively contribute to any scientific field. So being born with good genes is certainly a precursor for success. It is however not a guarantee for success. If you don't work hard or live in poor conditions you will still just be a burger flipper with good genes. So both nature and nurture play a role in this, not the one or the other, but both.

>>7614120
>Take a look at PhD students ...
Most of them aren't intelligent, but go on. (For intelligent ones see Richard Feynman et. al.)
>Being intelligent and having confidence that you're intelligent are different things,
It is absolutely not. If a person has no confidence in your abilities it's probably because they don't really have them. This is especially true for intelligence having no emotional intelligence by tautology means you are not intelligent.
> the latter is what leads to charm and what mediocre party-guys have.
More holy wood stereotypes. If you've ever been to parties with academics, industry leaders and other high class members of society you'd know this is not true.
>b- but normalfag parties
Intelligent people don't hang out at those.
>Also, what is intelligence - being able to reason with a logical thought process, usually objectively, right?
Fluid intelligence as per the google definition is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." The faster and more efficient you can do this the more intelligent you are. IQ one possible measurement of this if flawed.
Crystallized intelligence is knowledge, most people genetically gifted with fluid intelligence will obviously have more of this on average.
> It is opposite to being an emotionally influenced person.
Stop watching Star Trek. Emotion and rationality are not contradictory concepts AT ALL. They are different, not contradictory. Emotion can be objective, empathy is an example of objective emotional thinking.
[cont.]

>>7218542

The last bit is even better.

This needs to be cuntpasted everywhere. Especially reddit-esque shitholes.

>>5898757
Nope

>>2144909
oh you poor, poor ugly retard