/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10164401
Lol of course.
IQ is just part of the equation the other three parts are:
(1) outsider experiences (things that you've lived that make you unique whether within the field or outside the field)
(2) metacognitive ingenuity (reflecting about what you're doing and what you're thinking, generalizing from it, and finding ways out of the flaws in your understanding or in the practice) (to improve yourself, to find tricks that no one else knows)
(3) imagination (the ability to see how things are linked, for that it's useful to pay attention to things that seem irrelevant (though not too much to fall into the realm of mental illness) and to have a connected mental structure)

In conclusion, find your individuality, some sort of engine of ideas that can give you the capacity to actually become a successful researcher

>>10164417
Thank you, your post is inspiring

>>10164401
absolutely, think how many fields there are that aren't phy,math,ee. Literally hundreds of fields that are as simple as collecting stamps

>>10164401
There's always CS

>>10164468
>>10164483
I actually am an undergraduate CS student right now. While I'm doing fine in my classes, I worry that I wouldn't be able to come up with something new on my own.

>>10164417
Why isn't all of that included in IQ?

>>10164484
cs research is math so i don't think there's low hanging stamps unless you consider DaTaSciEnce and DePe LeRniNg practice as research

>>10164497
I am more interested in the low-level systems side of CS. My dream is to eventually get into research with operating systems and find new techniques to improve security in modern operating systems

>>10164503
is that part of cs research or rather /g/

>>10164508
Well there are very many papers published on the topic in respectable journals, so I'd think so

From my limited experience, it seems that the systems side of CS research is less math-heavy and more focused on practical results and benchmarks

>>10164417
Imagination should be #1 imo, anon.

>>10164496
because someone with high IQ can be a souless robot with perfect grades but zero creativity (which is the previously outlined points in >>10164417)

>>10164401
Yes.

You thought you could become a great scientist? It’s absurd, never. Open your eyes. Out of all the people in all the world, think how few EVER become great scientists. It’s not something you can become by trying or wanting to become it. They were chosen by destiny. Each person is given his own path to follow. And they must follow that path, OBEDIENTLY to the end.

>>10164551

>Imagination should be #1 imo, anon.
They are not ordered


>high IQ [...] but zero creativity
All of the four factors contribute to creativity, in their ways.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/
Like in 8. of the link ^, methodologies of discovery do exist, and one can come up with them: using (2), and follow them using intelligence.

One can develop mental models as in the 9th point of the linked article, using intelligence again. However the analogy factor involves the use of imagination. (There's a difference between visualization and imagination) (one is more syntactic, the other is more semantic)

And of course intelligence matters to creativity because one has to search the spaces of thought for ideas through the use of the executive functions. Moreover having a lot of conscious information at the same time makes it easier to see how the information is related.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000798
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4084861/

Intelligence is evaluative (backlinks the information), while Imagination comes up with things that are irrelevant to the "brainstorming session" (both of these are useful in new designs)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X18300395

Also (2) should be approximately something like a mindful personality. (and sure it uses some amount of intelligence to be able to think about thinking, and it's of course also a practice that most people don't engage in [to not reflect is the norm, since it takes the least apparent effort <== though in the long term it might be best to use metacognition])

Why did you do it?

>>10164619
RIP anon>>10164551
.
.
.
F
Absolutely murdered. Nothing left.

>>10164417
Wow a decent post unfuckingbelievable

>>10164401
IQ doesn't mean shit.

By the way, I've never in my life met anyone who has said their IQ is below 115, even though the average is 100. Average IQ from most people I know is like 135 by the way. That one 115 IQ guy took the online Mensa test though.

I refuse to believe 100 is the average IQ when it's so easy to get a 115 on an IQ test.

Recognizing shapes and patterns =/= intelligence. Never forget that OP.

>>10164665
>Recognizing shapes and patterns
This a good standard. They also say higher IQ people often have larger vocabularies.

>>10164680
Or is it though? Sure, most successful scientists and CEOs have high IQs, but there are also countless worthless neets with high IQs too. Not a guarantee of success at all.

I'm the son of two high school drop outs yet still go to the most prestigious university of my country with top grades in EE undergrad so far. I made it this far not because of natural intelligence, but rather hard work. Wish others who are demoralized by IQ see it this way too.

>>10164691
>Not a guarantee of success at all.
Low IQ people are more properly suited to the wage slavery conditions of the modern economic paradigm.

>>10164401
>Possible
Sure.

>Likely
Lol, no.

No

>>10164484
>I actually am an undergraduate CS student right now.
Then why do you worry?

>>10164484
You will be surprised. With great willingness to suffer you can accomplish great things probably.

>>10164401
No, you just need to know what you're doing, IQ essentially just means your brain is better at recognizing patterns, but even with a low IQ, if you know the shit you're doing then you could be successful.