/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes.

t. 180+ IQ poorfag loser who spends all day jerking off and posting on 4chan

>>14555282
Didn't Tesla die penniless?

>>14555282
IQ is a meaningless score that you even train for. There's coping that no you're not improving your intelligence by scoring higher because of training but you just learned some tricks and abused memory but who cares, it's coping. Some people put all their personality and self worth in this score.

>>14555311
>be me
>my job is administering IQ tests
>overtime become adept at taking IQ tests
>eventually have to quit
>find new job
>company wants me to take an IQ test
>explain that I can't ethically take an IQ test
>don't care take the test wagie
>take the test
>score an 190IQ
>company is shocked and offers me a high level position
>other employers are calling me left and right to hire the guy with 190IQ

I guess am smart now.

>>14555282
discordo

>>14555365
based

>>14555311
>Some people put all their personality and self worth in this score
I do, and therefore I feel worthless. How do you avoid falling into this trap? I no longer feel motivated every time I get mogged in real life, I just see it as a necessary conclusion of not having a high enough IQ. How do you cope with not scoring high enough? Or are you another hypocrite with a genius tier IQ? It's killing me inside. I wish I could just go back to being curious and motivated instead of worrying about my relative performance all the time.

diogenes

>>14555365
How would the test even presume to measure a 190IQ? If you look at a normal distribution that's like one out of a billion.

>>14555879
Don't bother replying to this faggot, you can already tell he's the kind of idiot who hired you because they don't understand what "ethical" means.

>>14555895
I'm asking about a likely hole in the logic of his story, not praising him dumbass

>>14555904
We already know why you're a faggot, I just wanted to help improve board quality by shunting the bait.

>>14555788
Download a textbook for logic and general philosophy introduction.
Read a few papers on the issues of mind, what is intelligence and think about it.

It'll cure you of all this autism.

IQ > 130 is basically a disability. The most successful are upper midwits at ~115. Any further and you unironically become to intelligent to be successful, or at least your intelligence begins to work against you, as the game is in networking and social connection. Just being 15 points away from a person poses a difficulty in communication
>source?
You should have experience this but doi:10.1037/0033-295x.92.4.532
Being 115 is still "smart" but it also isn't impossible to communicate the half of the population that matters.

>>14555282
Of course. What does IQ have to do with wealth?

>>14555282
there are unlimited interesting things you can do for next to no monetary cost.
however, there are also tons of interesting things to do if you're loaded.
if you are smart, and you have an interest that you want to pursue that requires money, and you can't figure out how to secure those resources, then you probably aren't actually smart

>>14556785
>IQ > 130 is basically a disability.

I would not necesasrily go that far, it's just that a lot of institutions are not selecting for "the smartest."

I have a carpenter I've used to work on the house. he tried to do a physics program at the local University of Science and he was constantly getting in trouble w/ the Dean for arguing with his teachers. He scored fine on the tests, very well, but they still wanted him to "shut up and act like the professor is the smartest one in the room," basically.

He eventually dropped out because he found as he went from second to third year, and classes got smaller, this became EVEN WORSE!

His son ended up being given an IQ test in school, and he ended up being one of those > 130 IQ ppl who does their bachelors degree before most graduate highschool---tho his mom said "i don't know if we should tell him."

But even with this carpenter guy, I had one experience where I said something to him, and he got aggressive and acted just like a silly person. He went to work on the house, and two hours later he apologized and said he was wrong, and he'd thought about it, but, still, exact same experience we had just been talking about, that he had at University.

I was also a "gifted" child and I had the exact same experience with him at University. I had a few supportive faculty, most of whom had also been "gifted" (that is, high IQ) children, but the vast majority of faculty are not especially smart, they just do really well in Grade 12, then really well in Year 1, Year 2, year 3, Year 4, then grad school, then get hired, etc. etc.

Another analogy is like this: if your IQ is 115, you can probably just "floor the mental gas pedal" and go as fast as possible. If your IQ is 130, 145, or higher, you're having to constantly apply a "braking" force because you are going 'well, hang on, this doesnt make sense,' instead of just going 'yeah, this makes sense, im glad I can understand it!'

Sure. It's easy
>be 180 IQ
>be poor
>jerk off all day
>still poor
>repeat

>>14556832
>I have a carpenter I've used to work on the house. he tried to do a physics program at the local University of Science
I don't know man, I wouldn't trust one of those queers working with my wood all day, you know?

>>14555282
Well duh. If everything is boring because it makes you do drudgery to get to do anything remotely close to your level of ability, you can see how many decades it would take to achieve and just not fucking bother.

The world is not made for people with innately exceptional ability, it's made for the averages of a given field. If you just lack the right personality or interests, what is left to you is pure drudgery. Only way to get through that is luck, such as finding people who actually reward skill or ability. The biggest problem is that being completely unchallenged in life, and bored of it, can render one in a kind of learned helplessness.

That learned helplessness, and lack of challenge, is also why people with exceptionally high IQ's develop over-inflated senses of their own ability. Tend to fail to use or learn the basics of things like logic or epistemology, because by all evidence they have they always come out on top anyway. Hence "failing upward". While virtually no research is done on this, at least one paper has noted that more than expected people with gifted IQ's just don't bother with the rat race or "fail out". Because it's boring.

>>14557791
>While virtually no research is done on this, at least one paper has noted that more than expected people with gifted IQ's just don't bother with the rat race or "fail out". Because it's boring.

It's not so much that it is boring per se, it is that you are constantly running into aggressive, stupid people who are very proud that they have memorized something, and they dont want to really think about whether or not it is actually correct.

It's not an over-inflated sense of ability, it is literally that people don't want you around because you will just, as a matter of course, be judging what's going on against a gradient that only you understand. Half the time these idiots think they're smarter than you. Then they have a problem that to you is trivial, and they had literally been incapable of solving it.

Add in HR rules designed to filter out any independent thought that shows itself through deviant language use, and now any independent thought that shows itself via unvaccinated status, it is a lot more than just things being boring.

A good example is digitization of things: does the average paper-pusher WANT his job, perhaps every job like his digitized and automated? Of course not. So they dont even want someone around who might go 'hey, we could automate this...I love automating things..."

>>14555282
Yes.

>>14558353
Well, what is boring for one person is not for another. For some, the aggressive stupidity is the most grating part, of course. Where I think you may want to take pause is the belief none of us have an over-inflated sense of ability. I think that problem is easily seen with crazy ideas or political ideologies adopted among geniuses. In my discussions with the ones I've known, it always stems from the simple fact the "ground work" was not done. That the conclusions drawn follow from many flawed premises, and whose flaws are overlooked because the inherent adaptability of them allows their flaws to go unnoticed.

The greatest danger of having a high degree of intelligence is the danger in falling for your own bullshit. Because almost nobody is ever going to be smart enough to be able to challenge you or explain why it is bullshit. By the time someone comes around who is smart enough, who can explain it, let's just say in my experience I find my fellow geniuses are no different from anyone else on refusing correction. That includes sheer stubbornness or innate desire to buck trends (as noted by your lack of vaccination comment), and to be clear that is irrespective of the validity of reasons behind it.

>So they dont even want someone around who might go 'hey, we could automate this...I love automating things..."

While I do agree, mostly, a thought strikes. Keep in mind automation also requires maintenance, and as unbelievable as it seems the manner in which corporate accounting quarterlies work it can be superficially "cheaper" in a cost-benefit analysis to be inefficient. Especially if that allows your company to fill diversity quotas, file certain added claims on taxes, on and on it goes. The spirit of your gripe I totally agree with, of course. It is just aggravatingly more complicated. Still stupid, yes, just a fuckload more dominos than merely that. Not always, of course.

>>14555291
many such cases

>>14555311
Seething.

>>14558408
>The greatest danger of having a high degree of intelligence is the danger in falling for your own bullshit.

I agree, we see this a lot on /sci/ with the discussion of materialism/consciousness where someone who (as far as I can tell) is bright enough to do Quantum Physics, etc. but then they develop this weird "Scientific Theory T implies consciousness is not merely a physiological process!" where T is sometimes something related to wave collapses, sometimes, something else, whatever it is.

I am reading a book by one of my first year profs, he had dual PhDs in set theory and philoosphy of math, and his view was that intellectual inquiry that proposes to find some foundational truth, that foundation will be an "illusion." He has very impressive metalogical/metamathematical reasons for this, tho reading it, it reminds me of Richard Rorty's critique of mind body problems.

AT the end of the day, the goal isnt to settl eon the mind or the body, it is to find some sort of dignity among people, regardless of which side of that sort of "mind body problem" they come down on, and then you also have a "third position" which is to refrain from caring about the discourse, either for metalogical reasons, or for more history of philosophy reasons.

"As for a first installment in this effort, I will ask the reader to consider in what follows two dialectically opposed and tacitly metatheoretic conceptions of "inquiry"--"metatheoretic" in the sense that they bear implicitly or explicitly on semantic aspects of inquiry's "courses": that

10 inquiry eventuates in a unique ultimate "truth" (or interpretation); and that
11 unicity of such interpretation is a transcendental illusion, and inquiry is a programmatic form of rational refinement which ramifies forever." (Boos, William. Metamathematics and the Philosophical Tradition, p. 2)

>>14558476
I just got it today in the mail, and it is like being back in first year, listening to him---I had already read some pop-sci stuff about formal limits on computation, e.g. Godel Escher Bach, so what he said was not new to me per se.

One disturbing thought, tho, is that the mentality he cites in 11 is actually less optimal for economic survival in society than the mentality in 10. That is, if you are smart enough to prove, formally, to yourseslf that "inquiry is a programmatic form of rational refinement which ramifies [branches] forever," then you may be in a suboptimal ECONOMIC position vis a vis those who adopt the foundational approach in 10, e.g. "the ultimate truth is that I want a big bank balance."

Our society seems optimized to allow people who "max out" at some sort of 10 to do better than people who are capable of understanding the (IMO, anyway) formal consensus that 11 is more likely the case, that is, there are metalogical problems with finitary limitations on experience/inqiuiry, and it is a MISTAKE to think that the ultimate goal of inquiry is some sort of "ultimate truth/interpretation."

Like, I have no doubt that if someone wrote what Boos wrote (the book was prepared by essays he left, by his wife, he died suddenly) in some '/sci/ thread, at least one shitbabbler would call it "schizoposting."

But it's not. His style is a bit...well, he was an interesting guy, but I get what he is saying, and he seems not only intuitively true to me, but provably as well.

So, at a certain point, you prove to yourself that you cannot prove everything, a sort of meta-dunning-krieger, tho I hate that paper. It's not merely that people who "lack training" over-estimate their abilities, it is that people who lack a grounding in metalogic and metamathematics will over-estimate the ability of logic/mathematics to provide a "foundational" or "unique" truth/interpretation.

>>14558489
But at the end of the day, if you want to make, say, money your foundation, and you are good at math, you are going to make a lot more money studying finance than studying metalogic.

>>14558489
I think it is simpler as grounding in epistemology. Though one can put it as "metalogic". The biggest problem is always a failure to adhere to testing ones ideas by attempting to make predictions. Since reality does not care about somebody's bullshit, well, best to find out one is a fool privately if at all possible.

>>14558539
>Since reality does not care about somebody's bullshit, well, best to find out one is a fool privately if at all possible.

Well, the economic world is "reality" in one sense, but the idea that, for example, you have to lie about the existence of, say, debts, which exist as smuch as Gods or Demons, in order to survive, does not say much for the value of "being" unless you define being in a way that suggests things like the empty set "are" even tho they are probably just a formalism in a particular axiomatization of mathematics.

The problem in ground epistemology is that you will always have the problem of the "ground of ground" which you either stipulate, that is 10 from Boos, or you recognize that such stipulation is a transcendental illusion---illusions are very useful, esp. for regimenting primates.

>>14558804
I don't think anybody ever went awry by limiting their epistemology to that which could be demonstrated to predict the future. That tosses out "gods or demons" and all the other problems, too. Seems to be doing great for mankind so far, and any attempt to the contrary... go look at /x/

>>14558849
>I don't think anybody ever went awry by limiting their epistemology to that which could be demonstrated to predict the future

I mean that contemporary epistemology, for analytic philosophers, is basically philosophy of science, and the rigorous grounding of mathematics is based on set theory/first order logic, which is not an experimental science.

Chemists dont give a fuck about this sort of stuff, but if you were to argue in your Epistemology Class at Uni that 'we dont need some theory of truth, we just need to do experiment' they would prob. fail you out of the program. The analytic obsession (which Rorty critiques) is providing some sort of "justification" in "clear and distinct" (ala Descartes) terms that allows for mathematics, thence physics, chemistry, etc. But they put logic first, more or less.

This then goes out the window whent hey do sanctimonious things like ethics. So that is another issue, value theory, aesthetics, and how philosophers trained in analytic epistemology generally adopt position "10" and argue about the "reality" of ethics, aesthetics, rather than position "11", treating foundational ethical/aesthetic interpretations as "illusions."

is an IQ of 110 too low to become a neuroscientist?

>>14558858
>Chemists dont give a fuck about this sort of stuff, but if you were to argue in your Epistemology Class at Uni that 'we dont need some theory of truth, we just need to do experiment' they would prob. fail you out of the program

You did not ask. Truth is that which corresponds to reality, whatever reality is. A justification a belief is true is induction. Following hume, not descartes, and accepting things like applied evidentialism. These are fully fleshed out in philosophy and rather contemporary and modern things. Including branches such as epistemic fallibilism.

If you thought I did not have a theory of truth you may want to expand your reading to include things like I mentioned. There is plenty more, and I'm not sure why none of it ever crossed your radar. Or so I assume, if you assumed I had no theory of epistemology.

Sidis had the highest IQ in history, graduated Harvard as a kid, and wound up living in a room fixing typewriters and collecting streetcar transfers.

>>14558863
>There is plenty more, and I'm not sure why none of it ever crossed your radar.

No one ever reads everything. The Chem Prof I had who gave the most scathing criticism of philosophical "epistemology" was a fan of Democritus, so you go back further, IMO, if you really want to just avoid Plato, Aristotle and all of the subsequent metaphysical nonsense about "substances."

I wasn't saying anything about you, I just know that many philosophers are hostile to "experimental philosophy" even if it is justified using a typical philosophy of science methodology. I attended a talk where Saul Kripke was asked about this, and he pretty much made a farting noise when asked about xphi.

So a lot of these things are departmental. As I said, my first epistemology course was run by Bill Boos, and he never made tenure because no one wanted him around, because he would just argue incessantly, and not in a sort of jovial "ironic" way like Rorty, but he would literally attack every foundational claim anyone made at a colloquium, etc. as though it violated rules of metalogic to even talk that way, because you would never be able, as a function of the inherent nature of logic, to make such categorical statements. He also knew German, so he pronounced Kant properly, which pissess off some anglo-american philosophers.

"Actually, Mr. Anglo-American, it's Kohnt, not CANT, and here is why I think you are wrong..."

And once you get into grad school it becomes even narrower, your advisors basically give you a small section of "the literature" to read and that's that. Nobody reads everything.

If you have any articles to suggest, I'd be grateful!

>>14558942
>he would literally attack every foundational claim anyone made at a colloquium, etc. as though it violated rules of metalogic to even talk that way

And I got the sense that he did this for almost moral reasons, because he realized that these "little professors" would simply turn people off of thought/philosophy by convincing them of the irrefutable truth of their favorite foundationalism. Tho I think Rorty has softer edges.

>>14558942
Preaching to the choir unfortunately. I lump "philosophers", the people who think they're too good to DEMONSTRATE their claims, in the trash bin. They give a bad name to philosophy and destroyed whatever reputation it might've had.

Sadly, I have nothing special to give you as a resource you could not readily find on google for things like epistemic fallibilism or the applied evidentialism approach to the problem of criterion. Things like that. Not for lack of attempted reading, or trying over the years, but I never read anything I can recall as exceptional on the subject. It always seemed "braindead obvious" to me, so aside from a working proficiency and reading a bunch of papers eons ago, I never felt the need to go digging through an entire history of authors. Plus the infuriatingly crazy paywalled articles. Often annoyingly paywalled in a way I'd need to use the university special request access for.

If you want characters, there's always people like Daniel Dennett, or the late James Randi, people who seem to embody the spirit of "it is nowhere near enough to imagine stuff, however fancy your notation, you have to show it". I tend to mention the more public facing characters because it is more easily accessible to people who ordinarily don't care. That's sort of "reason #2" I've nothing special to give you, I fear, nobody ever asked. You are quite literally, in over 30 years, the first. Which made me realize I can't think of anyone to name anymore. Heh. Sorry about that.

>>14558942
>He also knew German, so he pronounced Kant properly, which pissess off some anglo-american philosophers.

Oh, and it's a shame I never met that man, because I'd have been first to point out they were pronouncing it correctly in their own language. Would've been fun to have that war. Also fuckin funny.

>>14555879
>How would the test even presume to measure a 190IQ?
Extrapolation?

>>14556832
>he was constantly getting in trouble w/ the Dean for arguing with his teachers
I knew a guy like that at Uni. Smart, but could not keep his fckn mouth shut.
When I asked him about it, he said he was compelled to speak up.

>>14555282
For one thing, it's not so easy to make money with high IQ because in our system you have to impress somebody to sell him your services/products and it's impossible to impress 100 IQ midwits - whenever you say something they don't understand/don't agree with they think that YOU are the moron kek.
High IQ guys can only circle-jerk themselves but it's a zero-sum game..

>>14555282
Yes because you recognise that money is just a means to an end, and mo money equals mo problems. 145 here, mo money made my friends jealous, I had to hang around with my economic peers, and they’re all sadistic joneses.
When I run low on cash, I contract for a few years then coast for a few years. Poorer people are nicer, they share food and drink. Richers expect favours in return and ostracise you if you don’t deliver.
I live a quiet life, keep to myself, I’m happy.

>>14558861
It’s fine, you just have to study harder and longer than your more gifted colleagues. Don’t let it hold you back though, but you absolutely must ensure you know your groundwork before levelling up.

>>14558886
Yup. It’s difficult for some. Learning how to play the lowest-common denomination game is tiresome.
I’m the smartest person I know, and I prefer to do my own thing quietly because I make people around me unhappy when I warn them the outcome of their actions will be X, and it happens.
People don’t like to be reminded (inadvertently or by interaction) that they’re not smart.

>>14558429

>>14555282
Yes, very easily, you have to understand, the difference between such a person and the average 100IQ normie is greater than the difference between the normie and a cat or parrot, their motives are quite literally beyond your understanding and the value system of monkeys making each other miserable over scraps of paper isn't exactly for smart people

>>14559562
>my only redeeming quality is the scorei got on this one iq test
Found your problem