/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15510585
>OP isn't serious gents,
OP is normal in first world countries. Why do you think this movie is so popular?

>Basically IQ, conscientiousness, and Machiavellianism are the three things that will best predispose someone to success. Of those, two are good for society, and one is terrible for society.
All three only apply to people who take part in society. And all three are bad for society, however I'd like to take the opposite argument and say Machiavellianism is best for someones "success" in such society because it does the least damage.
IQ relates to people who are too smart to be wrong so they're "never wrong", the same way a bank becomes too big to fail. They are so smart that they know how to kick the can down the road and blame you for the consequences because they scored higher on a multiple choice test. They are so smart that they could never in a million years be taken advantage of or manipulated, even when they are.
Conscientiousness creates people who are useful idiots. Sheep for the leaders of society who would diligently jump off the bridge when told or actively destroy their own society if told by an authority.
Machiavellianism manipulates both for more selfish means, but unlike the others is dependent and would not destroy the society their dependent on.

>Tbh I think this effect explains literally most corruption in the civilized world.
One tax bill could have explained it much simpler to anyone smart enough to figure out where it goes and why.

>>15482360
>in a vacuum
>Thus negating it in the first place.

>>12092481
>he's not even wrong; the quote

I'm amazed you posted the exact quote with no deriding, first time ever since I haven't had to ask more than once.
"He’s not a war hero(...)"
Is he?
"He was a war hero because he was captured"
And? Can you explain why that is wrong?
>I like people who weren’t captured.
So does every leader, it means they don't spill secrets.

>I'm sure he thinks
Just like those other sources "familiar with his thinking" right? Yes I'm sure you're sure gonna convince everyone with your assumptions of what a billionaire thinks. Well how about I don't assume what you're going to say next and instead ask you to explain how John McCain was a war hero?

>>11943182
>>11942573
>>11940557
>It's a particle and a wave!
>No it's neither a particle nor a wave, but acts as both
>Lets pretend like this means anything at all since we have no clue what light is
>>11942390
>Lists a null result experiment and uses it as a foundation for other experiments.
You suck at science. Back to square one, physishit

>>11878428
>Numbers have a false dimension when they define it using themselves.

Oh okay

>>11205282
It also doesn't accomplish anything related to the discussion.

>>10807810
>>10807817
>>10807822

So basically what I'm getting at is that none of you actually know what "space" is nor can give me an actual property that it has that make it "measurable". So this equation doesn't actually mean anything.

>>10807836

>Also worth noting that the idea of a definable unit is also a human construct in Optimum Theory.
>Universe is infinite in scope, depth and completely singular.

So "space" in this case is something you just made up then. If it is "singular" then where does the fucking "space" come from?

>>10775734
>A theory that underlies all of electrodynamics, I mean that's where lorentz transformations came from.
Which also does not explain what causes magnetism.

>The electric and magnetic fields are just different aspects of the electromagnetic field.
Yes, you once again described a field. Now how does the conjugate actually work?

>>10775839
>light is not an electromagnetic phenomena
>radiation isn't just EMR

So since you're so smart why don't you tell me what a field is?

>>10765793
>>10765845
>>10765916
>>10765954
>>10765995

>Light is only defined by the motion "it" has/medium it travels through
>Except of course it's a "particle"
>measure particle at rest to ensure no margin of error
>it ceases to exist
>What something does is something in and of itself, for some reason...
>This is indicative of a speed/discrete particle.

>>10747244
>In this case, a number.
Counting numbers seems kinda asinine. I thought we were talking about fields. What is the value of a field?
>The electromagnetic field.
how does it have value?
>The strength of the field at a point. You're not particularly smart are you?
You're not either since you still haven't told me what a fucking field is. You may as well replace "field" with "unicorn" at this point.
>Whether or not you believe it exists doesn't matter. You can live ignorantly all you want.
Which is why I'm asking you what a fucking field is you blubbering oaf.

>You'll want to go to a philosopher for that kind of question
>this entire post to give me a runabout still not answer the question and to redirect me elsewhere

Well why didn't you say so in the beginning? Can anyone else not pretending to know something tell me what a field is before I go?