/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14515168

Have you ever met someone in real life who was extremely smart? What were they like?

Doesn't matter how far fetched
>Reduce the stimulation in your environment to the point where the only interesting thing your brain can do is learn and think about novel ideas, think a study room before electricity, nothing but your thoughts and the works of geniuses before you, eventually you would become acclimated to enjoying reading and thinking about their ideas
>Find out a method to internalise ideas by way of associating them with similar ideas in a vivid and meaningful mental image, think reading the word 'space' and having a mental theatre of its associated concepts, eg a mind map that you can actively engage with in your mind
>Construct a better language for thoughts/thinking - maybe English isn't conducive to revolutionary thoughts, and the languages of antiquity are more so, or maybe you could construct a language to think in specifically for increased creativity/intelligence
All i've got, share yours if you have any, its fun to come up with these if nothing else

Fact: if you're not balding by 20-25, you will never be an exceptional scientist

Can someone explain this for me please?

I am doing a factorial anova analysis,
and I have this factor A with two levels: off/on.

Now in the response, I know A should explain a lot.

However I can also measure some other properties, covariates, which I know are related to A. So these covariates are high when A is OFF and low when A is ON.

If I include these in the model as covariates,
A barely explains shit.

If I dont have them, A explains at least half of the data.

So how does this work?

Does this mean the covariates are just as good / better at explaining the difference in the response as A?