/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11056206
How do I get gud at safecracking? My ears are completely shot.

>>11056206
Lmao, nice try LARPer.
Feynman's "IQ" score of 120 (or so) was actually on a test that largely tested VIQ. Therefore, it isn't sufficient to calculate this FSIQ.
Nice try though.
Also:
>Picture related

>>11056218
You will never amount to anything, IQ poster

>>11056225
I'm a BSc in double major biology and biochemistry, I'm also a grad student in neurology. Bet I've done more than you, LARPer.

>>11056218
What's his estimate real IQ then?

>>11056239
Can you not read?
>... it isn't sufficient to calculate this FSIQ.

>>11056235
>biology
please take your clown mask on the way out

>>11056239
>>11056242
That said, considering the complexity of his work and the average IQ of students training in fields such as physics and mathematics. There is a high likeihood that it was above 130.

>>11056251
Biology is the transhumanist science of this early part of the century. If you want negligible senescence (a much longer lifespan), biology is the thing that'll be delivering it. Thanks.

Can you explain me how and why do magnets work?

>>11056206
dear Dick, what are your most up-to-date opinions on string theory and other topics in high-energy theory?

>>11056525
It's wrong.

>>11056630
dear Dick, please explain why you believe that, as if you were explaining it to a toddler.

last i remember you said that string theorists are just making excuses for why it isn’t making predictions, but you never claimed it was downright wrong—why the change of heart?

What's the single best selling model tire being sold in the United States today?

>>11056206
how many girls did you fug? What's the most you fugged at one time? Also which 2hu would you fug?

>>11056206
How do I have success with women and also not be a mouthbreathing retard?
>muh sports!

>>11056773
just be a successful physicist; then girls will like you despite your looks or whatever, since success means babies will get fed

>>11056785
I've gone into industry and become a successful data scientist. It's not working though.

>>11056799
yeah because data "scientists" are basically programmers who help the tech industry to figure out psychological hacks to make people buy more shit. i think women are pretty aware of how they get targeted ads, but if you tell a woman "i mastered the properties of neutral kaons" then you'll do better

>>11056814
I move $20B in inventory for a large US retailer using advanced math. There's a team of MBAs twice my age who are basically my bitch.

>>11056844
sure, but your job is figuring out clickbait. no women respects that despite however much money that you can't actually use that you can assign from one corporate entity to another without actually using any.

and bossing around MBAs is like bossing around the hot chads at frat parties, except in this case they won't hook you up with any girls

i respect you, for being that behind-the-scenes dude who expertly manipulates the poor citizens of the world into handing their money over to the corporate machine. sure. but you probably get no props for any of it, and your "accomplishments" are probably completely unimpressive to any and all females

>>11056239
>What's his estimate real IQ then?

>>11056218
...Which Verbal IQ strongly correlates to real IQ, try again. He's not profoundly intelligent and his Nobel was awarded only because the Feynman charts went against popular consensus at the time. Fuck Rich "Dick" Feynman and fuck the swarthes of low-IQ plebbitors who fell for the physics meme.

>t. Math major who is smarter than Richard Feynman

>>11056206
I like how /sci/ likes to shit on psychology yet makes a fetish of IQ. IQ is just a product of psychology.

I swear, autism knows no bounds.

>>11057401
no, /pol/ makes a fetish of IQ and they make all the IQ threads; /sci/bros always say "another IQ thread" and "IQ is a psychologist meme" -- /sci/bros only mention IQ in the context of ironic insults or jokes

i think nassim once argued how low iq is a good predictor for failure whereas high iq is not a good predictor for success. the upshot is that iq measures both intelligence and autism (which is ofc related to intelligence, but not quite the same), with the measure for intelligence becoming increasingly worse in the higher regions and the measure for autism becoming increasingly better.

this makes perfect sense when you consider what iq tests and how it scores.
>first they have a bunch of pretty much easy questions only a brainlet could fail
>then they slowly increase the difficulty so that you actually need to think about them
>the patterns you encounter and the reasoning you need to employ is still natural
>npcs will start to fail here
>then they turn into artificially difficult problems
>autists will excel here
if you meet an intelligent person, there's a save bet that he's iq 120+. on the other hand, if you meet a non-autistic retard, there's a safe bet that he's iq 100-. most normal people score 100-120. everyone knows that. thinking iq doesn't measure anything is retarded. however, it's even more retarded to give much weight to single iq points.

>>11056921
Lmao, you're showing your retard off again. You mean the g-loading of VIQ?

>>11056445
heres you're (you)

>>11056900
>over 9000
thats impossible

>this thread could have been about safecracking, samba, and QED rather than just another IQ thread

>>11058948
>tfw not even his final form

>>11056218
>>11056235
Cool, but Luis Alvarez, William Shockley, Francis Crick, and another nobel prize winning phycicist (whose name I can't remember, but he was also not allowed into the Terman school along with Alvarez) all had an an IQ >124 but <135. In his biography Shockley states he took an IQ test 2 times, scoring 129 and 124 respectively.

I apologize for the latency, I'll soon answer all of your questions, it's hard to type in the afterlife.
>>11056676
420, coincidentally
>>11056773
try acting natural with them, they're human too.
>>11056900
my real IQ is 160, I don't like talking about IQ.
>>11057401
haha

>>11056218
>that pic related
>the only quantitative observation about the margin of author has no citation
Sounds like peak statistical reliability alright.