/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12074327
WHY DID I TAKE IMMUNOLOGY THIS SEMESTER
WHY WHY WHY
I'M A PLANT PHYSIOLOGY MAJOR
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

People stratify into bands of intelligence across their life. Labourers associate with labourers, clerks associate with clerks, academics associate with other academics, etc. Most people's lives revolve around work, which is broadly determined by their educational level and so intelligence. Given the above is the case, IQ distribution can be considered discrete based on the intelligence of the people sampled. The range of intelligence that is used in the reflexive estimations of personal intelligence is the smartest and stupidest people we know.. remember that this excludes "freaks" so that the labourer simply doesn't compare himself to Newton or Einstein, and just assumes these people exist as semi-fictional.

Let's break IQ into 1/3 bands which begin from the labourer band, then progress into the middle-ranged clerk band, and then further into the academic band. It is perfectly rational for the labourer to consider himself above average and the academic to consider himself below average, because their estimations are not based on the global distribution. If you ask someone in the labourer band whether they are above or below average he will consider his associates (0-66 points) and generally he will correctly identify that he above the local average of 33 points. The clerk will identify that he is average locally, but just happens to be average globally, while the academic will identify that his IQ most likely falls below 167 in his local distribution (134-200 points).

So from the above, it is very clear that once locality is assumed the popular smear of "Dunning-Kruger effect" and the corresponding humble-brag of "the Impostor Syndrome" are both consequences of mistaken inference. The judgements of these people are not "irrational" because they are not thinking in terms of a global distribution unrelated to their experience, and they are not consequences of either arrogance or humility.

>>9983673
why cant you just recycle every automobile on the planet and build a million trains to solve the sustainability of traffic flow?

name one flaw of this strategy

>>9745191

You mean because of what I said here: >>9744001 ?

How would /sci/ rank these IQ levels?
>130
>120
>110
>100
>90
>80
>70

It seems like IQ being mostly genetic is a fact set in stone, with tones of research supporting it. Is there anything that goes against it? is there any support behind IQ not being almost entirely set in genetics?

OP here. Update:
I'm officially withdrawing from uni and looking to see what I should do next. Trade school does in fact seem like a good option. Being a welder doesn't sound too bad.

>>9651881
I did
and I'm filling out the paperwork for withdrawing from the university since I'd be a year behind in my studies since some of the classes I dropped were only offered once a year

I don't regret it, yet.

>>9615359
>IQ is supposed to be a measure of intelligence
>IQ problems only test abstract pattern recognition.

i have 4 hours to learn a whole semester of Ochem 1
I don't even know what a nucleophile is

How fucked am I?

>>9535996
>It is A though. Its just B.

Prove that [math]\lim a_{n} =0 [/math], given that [math]\sum a_{n}[/math] converges.

The series converges, so the sequence of partial sums converge. Thus, the sequence of partial sums are Cauchy. For all [math]\epsilon >0[/math] there exists [math]N\in \mathbb{N}[/math] such that for all [math]n\geq m\geq N[/math], [math]|a_{m}+a_{m+1}+\dots a_{n}| < \epsilon[/math]. From this, [math]|a_{m}+a_{m+1}+\dots a_{n}| \leq |a_{m}|+\dots + |a_{n}| \leq |a_{n}| < \epsilon \implies \lim a_{n} = 0[/math]

good, or nah?

something recently has inspired me to attempt grad school but I am a junior with no research at all (EE). I guess I will try applications in the fall, but should I try my best to get into undergrad research at my uni even though we are 2/5 of the way through the semester? I was thinking of asking but not sure if it is strange to do so this far in.

Also is experience even necessary for MS applications?

>Nuclear engineering isn't hard

>have a legitimate IQ of 91
>solved Bernard's box problem correctly the first time

I guess /sci/ really is filled with LARPing brainlets.

>>9442345
>YOOKLID

>>9419943
>complains about Jews in physics
>says Einstein is correct

>>9409259
>global warming is good

>showing up on time to exams

>>9403749
>data science
actually

>>9399144

>Math and equations cannot explain ANYTHING as the universe does not understand the concept of either.

Use snell's law to determine the refractions

>>9362226
>>9362242