/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15439862
It's when people start being able to pursue worthless degrees instead of becoming a shop manager.

relevant data

>>15346266
Maybe... just maybe...

>>15345661
It's actually results from the Education Testing service compiled by the brain statistic institute, but the details are behind a paywall. See: https://www.quora.com/What-college-majors-have-on-average-students-with-the-highest-IQ
In any case the results seem to match other studies (https://randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/))

>>15202738
I don't know how high the reversal will be, and whether it will go up above the average, but obviously it's going to exist.

I'm not shilling anything. I'm just taking issue with the idea that you can generalize intelligent people by looking at academia as a whole.

Does this plot mean every physics graduate has an iq of around 130?

>>14552846

Uhhh fellow women respecters, how do we explain this??

>>12602484
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/

I've seen IQ grouped by occupation, race, religion. What other groupings have interesting results?

does /sci/ have other studies related to this?

>>12039646
yes

>>11887934
It has nothing to do w iq, you can pass w 70 if it was your passion

Since Philosophy is in the humanities and therefore there are many women or people who major it for fun without knowing anything about and thus drag down the average IQ very drastically. Bow to us, the Philosophy kings bound to rule the realm pure reasoning and intellectual superiority.

>>11702645
Mensa tests are alright

>>11702708
There's been quite a few studies on this. I personally don't even study physics, so Idk what I would be coping with.

>>11274090
>seat of the immortal soul
lol roastie cope

>>11259160
hehehe

>>11250185
>wahmens
>doing better in academia
nope, wahmens go into the diploma mill majors.

>>11130525
>women graduating from universities is now so disproportional
in dipshit programs, yeah.

>>11129546
>We’ve established that men and women are pretty much identical in abilities and perception.
lol, nope. not even close. all evidence demonstrates otherwise.

>Why then are male and female interests and aspirations so different?
in part differing abilities, people don't like things they aren't good at and vice versa. compound that with women's fickle nature to easily give up when the going gets tough it's no surprise they avoid more intellectually demanding interests. women's strength is emotional manipulation, they will go into things where they can make the most of it. and there is also the differences disposition that come's from evolution of different mating strategies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK6rqm2nCzM

>>11127596
>Can we then finally end the myth that women are bad at logic?
except it's not a myth.

>>11085274
>>11085293
>>11085298
>>11085302
>>11085371
>>11085377
>>11085440
>>11085488
Imagine not one person posting any fucking stats:
>Picture related

>>11081698
yeah say that to field medalists like martin hairer and edward witten with backgrounds in physics. some physical theories gave rise to maths, one of which being erdogic theory (which stem from statistical physics), which im sure youre numb skull smooth brain never heard of, moron.

u probs also wont make it out to becoming a mathematician. i also hardly doubt you took higher math courses too.

>>11076953
(Cont) This graph here shows the correlation between average IQ and field of study with some stats on the gender dominance of a field. Notice the highest IQ fields are all abstract - mathematics, comp sci, physics. These people practice finding patterns in abstract fields of data on the daily. On the lower end of the spectrum we see social work and psychology, fields that do far more emotional interaction than logical divination. People often argue that this is the point of IQ; that intelligence is a measure of forming patterns out of chaos. But I disagree.
Ask yourself: how exactly would you find a pattern in a field of data? Is there a method you pursue to figure out that a triangle goes after the square, or that because the restaurant is full but the wait time is 0, there must be an empty room elsewhere? Really, there is no algorithm. You just take in the data and it pops into your mind. It's weird, weird like how you can't really describe exactly how you move your arm upwards. You just do. Depending on the person, it takes longer for topics to pop into their heads. Angela has trouble figuring out how to take the integral of a two variable function, meanwhile anonymous has trouble figuring out what to say to the others at a party since he has never left his room for the past 3 years.
So, I feel IQ is a poor measure. It's based on your ability to pop abstract shape patterns into your mind, and it just so happens that engineers and computer scientists are those in high demand. But so what if your talents lie elsewhere? Figuring out the way to appear glamorous at a press conference. Knowing how to relate with a PTSD victim. Being able to identify abstract patterns in equations and shapes. They're all just schemas, applicable to different areas. IQ measures the brain popping ability for abstract patterns, and would be better labeled as such.