/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15791983
Book smart is a subcategory of genuinely intelligent.

>>15791983
Booksmart cant wipe their own asses.

>>15791983
Genuine intelligence = resourcefulness (you can do anything out of any given situation)
Book smart = someone who has no grasp of real world and cannot argue out of their own book reading because they have no experience

>>15791983
Boring people only talk about other people

>>15791983
Usually the "book smart" insult is monkey dung thrown straight from the asshole. That said, the purpose of theory is to perfect your practice. Not more theory. To avoid the book smart title you must be able to put your theory to practice.

it doesn't matter how smart you are if you're rich like Elon musk.
Elon musk can make 2+2=Fish

>>15791983
People who are merely book-smart have the initiative to seek knowledge, which automatically puts them above at least 80% of the population.

>>15791983
Check application of knowledge in ways they aren't familiar with

My problem is that I’m literally abandoned all sort of bookmaxxing.
I don’t know shit. I can learn anything but I don’t know shit in terms of raw knowledge. It sucks. Like right now I’m struggling with wavelet analysis on python because i never had a course on it.

Literally just talk to them for a while. It'll become obvious fairly quickly

Tests are stupid and can't tell anything. You can base people's genuine intelligence on 1) what they write and 2) what they sound like speaking, preferably a combination of the two.

Intelligence is also a very subjective and multi-faceted thing.

>>15791983
They're usually the ones buying manipulation tactics/psychology/how to make friends type books

>>15791986
No it isn't, people who have mere book smarts are incapable of developing their own ideas. They are not intelligent. Memorization isn't intelligence.
People who are too busy creating their own new concepts don't have as much time to invest in memorizing others' work.

>>15792125
>he's trying to learn anything related to image and signal processing without first consulting Fred or Other ImageMagick examples
Here anon, some of these may help you:
>http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/index.php
>https://im.snibgo.com/haar.htm

>>15791983
you ask them this question

>>15792162
ive seen brilliant people that cant speak coherently

genuinely brilliant guys that know how to fix a car just by how its sounds and exactly what to do given any situation. stuff like that.

The hard truth is there really is no way to measure intelligence in any meaningful way. Even IQ tests depend on your conscious awareness of concepts like XOR, exponentiation, etc

>>15792193
In this case, though, the answer can be easily obtained by looking it up in any relevant reference work. But a particular type of dumb person, not unlike Musk actually, will instead insist that the conventionally accepted answer is wrong because probability isn't real life or something.

>>15792193
50 percent chance next ball is gold.

>>15792228
Looking up everything does not practice logical thinking
>>15792230
Correct

>>15791983
They use the tools of physics to figure out problems rather than just parrot what they are.

>>15791986
>Genuinely intelligent
Capable of original ideas, contemplative, skeptical without being kneejerk contrarian
>Book smart
A parrot

>>15791983
There's a problem, it's me.

>>15791986
Not necessarily. Social skills could be thought of as a subcategory of genuine intelligence because they are mental abilities which allow you to appear intelligent AND that are actually useful in navigating situations. But there are many socially skilled tards, and autistic geniuses.

>>15791983
Excessive appeal to authority, lack of original thought or insight, refusal to entertain an idea that is not approved, etc.

>>15792230
I said the same thing when this was first posted, and it's wrong. If you selected a gold ball at random, there's a 2/3 chance it came out of the box with two golds, because 2/3 of the gold balls are there. So there's a 2/3 chance that the next ball will be gold, as that is the box you chose.

>>15792186
I don’t need this I just want to understand how the fuck I plot a wavelet coefs with frequency on yaxis and date time on xaxis. I never used python either so I learn it on the fly lol

>>15791983
Anecdotally, I've found that people who say "booksmart" tend to be fucking retards. It's a cope.

>>15792377

>>15792377
>If you selected a gold ball at random, there's a 2/3 chance it came out of the box with two golds, because 2/3 of the gold balls are there. So there's a 2/3 chance that the next ball will be gold, as that is the box you chose.

But the problem is asking about the box that you already chose. And once you have a box with a golden ball, the next one can be only be gold or silver, 50/50.

If it let you grab a ball from any box, then your 2/3 would be the answer.

>>15791983
"book smart," "logic smart," and "people smart" are the three aspects of overall intelligence. You need both memory, hard logic, and soft logic to do anything meaningful in life

>>15791983
Is it woman? No genuine intelligence.
Is he dressing fashionable? No genuine intelligence.
When you talk and you suddenly switch the topic of the conversation to something entirely different, does he seems lost and conversation slows down? No genuine intelligence.

>>15791986
To even understand many higher-end research texts you need to be very smart.
That is beyond the reality that simply knowing a lot is a key part of useful practical intelligence.
>>15792178
Yeah, if there is one thing cutting edge researchers and inventors are, it is poorly read and poorly informed.
You retard.

>>15791983
There isn't a difference.
You only hear about from 'school of hard knocks' types who think because they can poorly repair a sink's drain pipe after asking the customer service at Ace Hardware how to do it, they're smarter than all those 'ivory tower scientists'.

book smart means you are educated but not bright. Some of the dumbest people I have ever met had PhD's

book smart is memory, intelligence is logical

>>15792388
I can tell that you're emotionally triggered because of your attempt at being insulting
You should learn to control your emotions, instead of trigger reacting so easily

>>15792101
>Elon musk can make 2+2=Fish
Is Elon...Jesus?

>>15791983
>specialist vs generalist

>>15792891
interesting equation

>>15791983
Can you compare used data bandwith of booksmarts and real smarts? Doesn't booksmarts seems stupid to you, because you need shorter information to comprehend it?

>>15791987
You don't belong here. We are civilised world. Book smarts doesn't have to wipe their asses, because their shit is solid.

>>15792394
This solution ignores the possibility of taking out the other ball in the left box.

>>15791986
no, "book smart" just means you have a lot of knowledge due to reading books
completely different from intelligence
if you analogize to computers
CPU speed = intelligence
Harddrive size = "book smartness"/knowledge

>>15792394
true. if you run simulations from the initial position most of the time you will get a box with duplicate colors. if you restart the experiment when you get a silver it is the same. you will more often open the duplicate gold box.

but the way the problem is explained is pretty confusing. and the context seems to imply you arent running some experiment. you didnt reach in to a box with silver, there is no mention of that possibly happening. you already reached in to one of the boxes with a gold ball and got a gold ball, doesnt matter if you had a chance of not getting the gold ball from the silver box from an initial position. the only thing being brought in to account is that you either have a gold ball from one box or the other and there isnt any other factor weighing.

>>15792388
This
>>15792820
I can tell you're very triggered, because nothing that anon said came across as angry.
You have a bone to pick with academia and want to pretend that scholars aren't intelligent. You're coping.

"book smart" = wisdom
"Intelligence" = intelligence

None is better or worse than the other. They are just different skills.

>>15793300
book smarts isn't wisdom. Judgement comes from making decisions with a lack of knowledge. Wisdom comes from good judgement.
It is wise to read some books, but mastery of some shit-tier propaganda center curriculum? Typically not.

>>15793300
The intended meaning of "book smart" doesnt matter because whoever uses "book smart" typically only use it to cope and hide their own deficits.

>>15793190
It doesn't matter, the question asks what colour is the other ball in the box you picked and it can only be gold or silver

>>15793307
It does matter because there are three distinct ways to take out a golden ball first, all of which have to be accounted for. You’ll end up with a second golden ball in two of these cases. Removing the first ball (guaranteed to be golden) means that your second ball will either be
1) the left one from the left box
2) the right one from the left box
3) the right one (gray) from the right box.

>>15793323
You have a box
You pull a gold ball out of the box
What are the odds that the other ball in the box is either a gold or silver one

>>15793330
My choosing a box at random (clearly defined in the original image, this is a crucial step!) means that there are four ways to finish the experiment, not just two, as your interpretation of the problem implies; I can choose one of two boxes and grab one of two balls, respectively. One of those options is eliminated as soon as I know my first ball is a golden one, hence I’m left with three possible ways. It could be either box at this point. My choice being the first box is more likely as two out of three possible attempts could have led me there.
Having only two choices, golden/gray, implies I didn’t choose the box myself.

>>15791983
this is the real intelligence test: let someone have an idea. if they can discern whether everyone else was already aware of it, or whether it is genuinely news, well, therein lies the test

>>15793351
>One of those options is eliminated as soon as I know my first ball is a golden one, hence I’m left with three possible ways
No you're left with two possible ways, either the second ball in your box is golden or it's not, read the fucking question you ESL retard

>>15793359
You keep ignoring the fact that we don’t just start out at that point. The very first step, selecting a box, factors into our considerations.
Surely you’re familiar with the Monty Hall problem: while it’s structured a little differently, it’s counterintuitive in much the same way; it may help you understand why the first step in our problem can’t simply be ignored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

>>15793369
https://www.fredisalearns.com/free-lessons/

>>15793359
You’re left with three options. Imagine the same experiment with three colors instead of three golden balls: one box containing two balls (red, yellow) and one with two different balls (green, *gray*). You pick a ball; the only thing you know is that the ball is not gray. You have no idea what its actual color is - this is equivalent to having one of three possible golden balls. What are the chances that your next ball is not gray? There are obviously two different non-gray colors left.

>>15793375
>imagine a completely different scenario unrelated to the original question that changes the answer so I would be correct

>>15793380
You’re slowly making me feel like a fool for reasons unrelated to the actual problem - well done! Have a valedictory (You).

>>15793382
Don't feel bad, anon, you were already a fool to begin with

>>15793185
They are annoyed that they need to listen to a three hours lecture for what could be explained in a few sentences (if it needs to be explained at all) and it may be nigh impossible to figure out what you need to hear to understand.

>>15793369
I refuse to believe this shit. I don't care how many explanations or simulations you show me. Anyone who provides a mathematical "proof" for an unintuitive solution should be burned as a witch.

>>15793304
That's Intuition, Anon.
>>15793306
I can see myself agreeing with this.

>>15791983
Nerds fail at life, they get rejected by their peer because they're too dumb to figure out how to fit in, too self centered to figure out how to be friendly, too lazy to put out the effort to make themselves attractive and all condemning themselves to being socially ostracized, they give themselves a lot of free time to memorize trivia out of books.

>>15794162
They fail because you are retarded, act retarded, and care about retarded things. It's like Idiocracy, the movie.

>>15794162
They fail because you are retarded, act retarded, and care about retarded things. It's like Idiocracy, the movie.
Meanwhile, you made pseudo nerds out of trannies, because they are even weirder, so they must be even smarter, but they are incredibly dumb.

>>15794162
You used to have the classical nerd, often bad at arithmetic and spelling, but with great abstract thinking, who was an excellent match with a computer. Now you have walking calfularltors with no common sense paired with computers with the exact same drawbacks, trying to male the computers do the abstract thinking for them, and have no way of telling if its answers make sense, and everything is slow compared to how much the chips have advanced.

>>15794162
You used to have the classical nerd, often bad at arithmetic and spelling, but with great abstract thinking, who was an excellent match with a computer. Now you have walking calculators with no common sense paired with computers with the exact same drawbacks, who try to make the computers do the abstract thinking for them, and have no way of telling if the answers make sense, and everything is slow compared to how much the chips have advanced.

You can't be academic if you are just smart and only read the lecture notes. Books just happen to contain the extra information that is needed for professionalism. To have a good academic career, one needs some original thought aswell.

Chad > Billy

>>15794162
Hello, retard.

>>15792254
>Looking up everything does not practice logical thinking
It may not require logical thinking but to see the right answer explained can be practice. Even if you forego thinking about the answer in order to understand it, though, looking up the right answer still yields the same result as working it out through correct application of logic by yourself, being after all the product of the logical thought of those who worked it out before. However, the inveterate "free thinkers" of /sci/ will inevitably produce the wrong answer of 50% out of sheer contrarianism and desire to avoid appearing "book smart" because they believe in a false dichotomy between book smarts and logical thought when in fact the two complement each other. This itself shows a critical failure in logical thinking already.

>>15792394
This isn't actually the stated problem. This is
>remove a gold ball from both boxes and pick again at random
>And also you're holding on to one gold ball for some reason

>>15792410
This is the same flawed type of reasoning that would lead you to conclude that a fair coin and a weighted coin have the same odds.

>>15793375
>>15793380
Try it by numbering the balls: gold balls are 1, 3, and 5; silver balls are 2, 4, and 6. You take out a ball with an odd number (which we can all agree is synonymous with saying you take out a gold ball). What are the odds (ha) that the next one is also odd?

>>15792307
How would you be able to tell the veracity of original ideas, because at the time they would be too wild as to be considered schizobabble by normies and midwits. You'd have to be equally intelligent to gauge them accurately.

>>15791983
They're both useful. You guys manage to be so competitive over this shit despite the fact that none of you have achieved anything.

>>15794753
The people who denigrate book smarts don't seem to realise that it takes intelligence to grasp what you're reading and apply it. Probably because they never have.

>>15791988
classic brainlet cope

I hate Elon Musk so fucking much.

“Book smart” is just a cope by dumbasses, ive met more people that are book smart and end up being successful, even the autistic geniuses. Most “street smart” faggots just end up being niggers on the street who haven’t been stabbed or shot (yet)

>>15795479
successful in what sense?

>>15795479
Have families, live comfortable lives, etc. “Street smart” just means you haven’t been shot by Jamal in the ghetto yet, but are too stupid to actually leave the ghetto, maybe they will have kids but they’ll also be living in fear

>>15795493
Meant for >>15795490

>>15795479
In the sense that the OP uses book smart, it's not as opposed to street smart. It's

Midwit who studied for 9 hours per day in order to become an academic, uncritically swallows and parrots narrative, unable to produce original thought

vs

130+ IQ person, likely autistic/schizoid, produces original ideas, critically examines everything he's told, unpopular among all large groups.

>>15795493
You assume that these people want to leave. There are older dealers that have money, power, influence, a highly active sex life, and many social outlets alongside having the excitement of their dangerous lives. That's what success looks like for a lot of street people, and what many impoverished kids involved in gangs strive to have. They have 0 interest in being surrounded by non-confrontation, passive aggressive types in academia.

>>15791983
curiosity

>>15791983
People who say that others are booksmart are most often implying that they are no lesser in intelligence. They are insecure about it, so probably are pretty dumb themselves.

>>15792178
this person was made up by lazy former gifted kids. they don't actually exist.

>>15794997
why? jealousy and envy?

booksmarts people will seem stupid, genuinely intelligent people will not

>>15791983
common misattribution to intelligence that which is distinct from it and falls under critical thinking; which is an inborn weighing sense, ie bullshit detector or abstract (common) sense check.

>>15794997
does anyone know for a fucking fact if the retard played that druid to level 100, himself? when the fuck

>>15792186
then you can learn nothing, you are not intelligent if you are struggling with learning anything

>>15792125
then you can learn nothing, you are not intelligent if you are struggling with learning anything

>>15792383
you are not even curious enough about what you don't understand, who lied to you that you are intelligent, you have to come on sci and ask basic questions like these?

>>15791983
Fundamentally, it is about connection and memory.
People who are "booksmart", know a lot of things, but are unable to connect them.
People who are intelligent might not even have the same depth or breadth of knowledge, but their associative abilities are much more developed.
The key is taking all the things you know and connecting them and being able to make inferences based on those connections.

>>15792230
you have just taken g1, g2, or g3

next one will be:
g1 --> g2
g2 --> g1
g3 --> s

2/3

>>15792193
2/3

You're in one of three timelines:
Took ball A from 2 golden ball box
Took ball B from 2 golden ball box
Took Golden ball from the mixed box

In 2/3 timelines the next ball is gold

>>15797352
I get the feeling that Elon's management style is to tell people to "come up with a solution" or "make it work" in between tweeting and playing video games

>>15793306
Pretty much. Sure, I can talk about what it's supposed to mean, but what's the point? In reality it's usually just an all-around dumbass trying to cope or an old person who's annoyed that young people don't have decades of experience yet.

>>15797470
yeah and dunno who said it (his ex) or smth that they also play Elden Ring. like when the fuck does he do all that. I mean yeah I get it we all find time for some gaming but bruh level 100 char in diablo that takes SOME time. it's not like one hour every other weekend

>>15792193
1/2, same as everything

>>15792820
Quite wrong, for I am not a woman. I'm simply telling you my personal experience. I recall plenty of failed out STEM majors during and after college saying how they're still superior because book smarts makes one unsociable. Idk jit, my 46+ body count seems to do well with my books marts.

>>15797633
>my 46+ body count
boy you'd think that'd fix your insecurities, yet it didn't. neither will any degree

>>15792410
You can do the experiment yourself and find out you're wrong. The answer is 2/3, confirmed both mathematically and experimentally.

>>15797559
Don't forget he was supposedly running not one but three companies whilst also being terminally online, that should tell you how much effort he puts into managing a company

>>15797706
I think it's suspicious how experiments keep confirming mathematics. It's a little too convenient.

I may be stupid but I love abstract composable ideas that I can put together like Lego blocks but still end up with one big Lego block

>>15792040
/Thread
But this is 4chan. You didn't expect a technical dive into serious topics did you?

>>15792197
you're fucking retarded. I wish I could peel the skin from your face.

>>15798579
Irrational and impulsive anger has been positively correlated with cognitive deficit and decline.

>>15791983
I WAS NEVER BOOK SMART
I'M MONEY SMART

>>15792193
You motherfuckers are actually retarded holy shit. I have only observed this difficulty in solving a word problem with women.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE PROBABILITY OF GETTING A GOLD BALL FIRST IS.

>>15792193
If you change the question to the equivalent "what is the probability that you picked the first box given that the first ball was gold" then it becomes much simpler:
P(B1|G) = P(G|B1)P(B1)/(P(G|B1)P(B1) + P(G|B2)P(B2)) = (1 * 1/3)/(1/3 + (1/2)*1/3) = 2/3
Or simply think that it's more likely that you picked the first box if you drew a gold ball first

>>15791983
>shitcoin investor and inventor of the hyperloop agree book smart =/= intelligent
yeah, I'm thinking that's cope for the unintelligent

>>15799999

>>15798717
Ironic post

>>15791983
use the feynman trick

>>15791983
Opposite of "book smart" is "street smart". I dunno what you're smoking, OP.

>>15797859
>he's totally retarded
sure, that explains his massive success
you are just jealous

>>15791983
If he owns a company or not.
Thats my metric.
Real world is where the rubber meets the road and you have to deliver if you want to survive , academia does not prepare you for that.

>>15791983
what happens when they have to think about something that is not written in the books they've read.
The ability to extrapolate.

>>15796655
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsbS1VNsnsE&t=6s

>>15792394
Machine, solve this midwit problem at once

>>15798586
How is his anger irrational?

knowledge(book smart) -> concepts
intelligence(genuine intelligence) -> ability to connect concepts

>>15792193
Not that bad, but as i think that some people with average intelligence may still solve it if they have been learning or thinking about statistics long enough.

On the other hand there is a chance that some intelligent person might not interested that much in statistics. There is also a chance that intelligent person just haven't slept long enough or something which also may falsify results.

>>15791983
Ask them to apply their knowledge:

Feynman wrote about his teaching experience in Brazil. Students were walking dictionaries. They memorized the lectures word for word. At first they appeared to be geniuses. But they were clueless about what the words meant. They refused to hand in assignments, those being "beneath them"; they just couldn't do them.

>>15791983
A truly intelligent person would know the answer to this without needing to ask is on an autism message board.

>>15792178
Having the motivation and interest in the first place to become ‘book smart’ implies a relative degree of intelligence.

>>15792193
2/3 at least it looks like 50/50 because theirs 2 boxes with gold balls in them and only one has a second gold ball.

But if you think of it in terms of total balls theirs 6 balls and 3 possible balls that you pick that are gold. Two of those gold balls are in the box with another gold ball while one of those gold balls has a silver ball with it. The fact that you got a gold ball on your first try makes it more likely that you reached into the box where they were both gold than the box where you had a 50/50 chance of a gold ball.

So working out probabilities is what you guys use to define intelligence? You all just spent hours arguing over a boring probability problem that has no bearing on real life. Seems pretty stupid to me.

>>15791983
>How do you tell the difference between genuine intelligence and someone who is only "book smart"?
Critical thinking. For example anyone who freely took the covid vaccine can't be intelligent

>>15791983
This person has to be good at math

>>15801092
no it doesn't

>>15794162
Actually being highly intelligent is correlated with substantially higher social intelligence. However, having these standards of behavior lead to a “stuffiness” that others find off putting because it makes them look bad by comparison. There’s a fine balance in friendship where one needs to balance being polite and slowly finding out what boundaries can be pushed or broken entirely. That’s what flirting is too. Nerds can’t do this because socially inept people are terrible at letting others know when to break those boundaries and if you guess incorrectly they’ll make a scene. Also nerds are a lot more careful about everything generally so they’ll be less likely to push a boundary prematurely.

>>15801024
a truly intelligent person would know the answer, but still spam the same question for years

>>15801468
yes it does

Any behaviour that can be mimicked by a dumb person in order to appear smart is obviously not a good test of intelligence. Anyone in this thread who proposed such a test is therefore unintelligent.

>>15801130
>this
the self-doubting stopped during covid

pattern recognition ability outweighs memorization in terms of functional intelligence

>>15791986
Not at all. There are MANY people who have read everything in their field of autism and can quibble endlessly but will then say "what you're saying is just a rehash of Schillervondervander who was soundly disproven by Jewingen in his work Fagalog" but actually Jewingen gave an incomplete argument based partly on either "divine inspiration" or "it is of course ridiculous to even humor the idea of..." (no reason given), and what you said isn't at all what Schillervondervander said it just has some similar points and structures and terminologies which are on their own perfectly sound and many of which Jewingen also uses in his works.

Bookfags can be fucking retarded. See also, Linuxfags and programmers in general. Go on StackOverflow searching up any simple question about how to do something with code or software and you'll find someone has already asked it and usually been met with "but I can't see ANY situation where you would EVER do it THAT way" - t. autistic retard who knows every manual by heart, has never held a job or coded anything non-trivial, and worships UNIX as an abstract

"Smart" people are mostly fucking retarded and should not be trusted or they will immediately start interjecting their bizarre daddy issues and masochism and cringe into culture at large and try to force retard shit like socialism for the sake of braindead intuitively impaired pseudo-utilitarianism, and tranny mutilation for kids (and ONLY that) in the name of free speech and individualism

Don't trust "well-read" people any more than illiterates to be mentally competent.

>>15801109
Since you're reaching into the same box again for the probability, there is 0 chance of getting the box with 2 silver balls, since the precondition was withdrawing a gold ball. So the all silver box must be disregarded as a red herring.

>>15803461
Oh, and I forgot to mention I'm trans by the way.

>>15803461
Real nerds have been expelled from all fields. It's just monkeys aping and parrots parroting things from long time ago.

>>15791983
Ask them to solve a problem they haven't previously experienced. Intelligence is the capacity to solve problems.

>>15791986
High conscientiousness is not necessary a sign of intelligence.

>>15793355
But still, to know if an idea was already discovered you need a PC/books and possibly an education. You can be intelligent (genetically) even without these prerequisites.

I'm at a nuclear fusion conference in Lugano, it has been delayed 30 minutes to show some bullshit about instagram communication and friendship created by female students, I'm annoyed as fuck about this mental retardation.
They're even taking freaking group pictures now!

>>15803741
they are pacifying you. this way you can't be aggressive and you can be easily shut down if need be.
they are specifically making everyone walk on eggshells. stop conforming. take your dick out anon

>>15792410
By the time we pull the first gold ball out the box, we've removed more possibilities than you're accounting for.

We both know we can't be in the reality where we pull a silver ball from the double-silver box. That whole box is gone.

We ALSO can't be in the reality where we first pull a silver ball from the gold-silver box. The reality where that happens is also gone. This means by the time we pull a gold ball first, there are only 3 remaining possibilities for the second ball.

The trick here is that by including the double-silver box, the problem leads us to think of probabilities terms of boxes rather than balls.

does anyone have a gold ball? say a ping pong size one. is it fun to play with? I like small heavy balls, they are nice

>>15803759
what guidebooks are these feminists whatever following?
are there specific marxist books that are being used or something?

>>15794725
And here we have a prime example of what is known as "a coward".

>>15804288
perhaps this will help
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc0684V2ej8

>>15793369
I'm not selecting a box. I'm given a box that has a gold ball in it. This is just stupid semantics and is why I hate probability shit.

>>15791983
meet more cunts who are not book smart and not genuinely smart

i believe you have pic related

>>15803573
Academia is a cargo cult
They're all larpers trying to pose as genuine intellects
But genuine intellects are able to produce genuine intellectual products of legitimate worth and academia is not, so their larp becomes blatantly obvious

>>15800395
ive often wonder if the difference here is one of time compression and sharpening your skills on non-standard problems. guys like feynman have the requisite motivation and intellect to simply cover more ground. its easier to make connections when perhaps one has covered, maybe not even in a rigorous fashion, undergrad physics in 8-12 months vs 4 years. those gains can be cemented and refined by efficient review and solving nonstandard problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo-ctqruwRc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj1gxz5puaQ

>>15804916
this

>>15804391
good video

>>15804508
Per the instructions you did select a box.

>>15806711
thanks

>>15791983
memory is an aspect of intelligence

>>15807798
memory is a cope for unintelligent people

>>15803461
>Not at all. There are MANY people who have read everything in their field of autism and can quibble endlessly but will then say "what you're saying is just a rehash of Schillervondervander who was soundly disproven by Jewingen in his work Fagalog" but actually Jewingen gave an incomplete argument based partly on either "divine inspiration" or "it is of course ridiculous to even humor the idea of..." (no reason given), and what you said isn't at all what Schillervondervander said it just has some similar points and structures and terminologies which are on their own perfectly sound and many of which Jewingen also uses in his works.
lol

>>15803741
In republics, Academia is part of the entertainment industry (always has been really) and entertainment is consumed by women and now created by women too.

>>15791983
Book smart people only understand theory and don't have practical knowledge.

>>15791983
A truly intelligent person has problem solving skills and creativity, someone who is booksmart knows a lot of stuff but that's it.

>>15793186
>anon thinks you don't need to wipe your ass if your shit is solid
found the brainlet

>>15792307
>Memorization isn't intelligence.
so if someone is hyper autistic and coming up with "original" ideas that are not feasible (like a 6 year old's idea to cure global warming) they are smart?

I ahve above average recall memory, I literally can remember events perfectly, but I do not have the upper-level intelligence that some people have like Sharpless that developed click-chemistry.

People call me smart because of my recall, but I know that I am not super smart because of the concept generation part.

>>15800795
?

he shit on hydrogen so what? Hydrogen is super retarded. Someone is jealous.

inb4 elon shill

hes okay, does many dumb things, you cannot deny his intelligence however.

>>15792193
50%, either happens or it doesn't, no mathcel sophistry will ever change that simple fact.

>>15798495
I just had one in /g/ about Er myth

>>15808406
More like people want to teach you things that you have already noticed. You may accuse them of thinking that you stupid, because you don't realize that other kids do need to be taught that.

>>15808406
More like people want to teach you things that you have already noticed. You may accuse them of thinking that you're stupid, because you don't realize that other kids do need to be taught that.

>>15791983
Step One: You find out whether they care.
Sorry, OP.

>>15792178
The truth is that you get good at what you repeatedly do. If you repeatedly digest books, ones with increasingly inaccessible concepts that you take the time to adequately grasp, then you will be good at thinking about complex things.
If you smoke bongs and watch YouTube videos about libertarianism all day, you will get good at thinking you're really smart despite only being good at smoking bongs and failing to understand true causes of inflation.

>>15792371
Social skills are probably a great measure of intelligence, since that's what our brains evolved for.
But, still this: >>15808556
People might be really smart and lack social skills, I'm sure the stereotype exists for a reason, but if you're "street smart" as opposed to "book smart" it probably just means you dedicate more of your time to understanding people socially. Guess what though? It's better to have both. Just like it's better to be able to play an instrument if you also know music theory.

>>15792193
every time I see this post I wonder if the people claiming 2/3rds are actually retarded or just pretending to be retarded
then I remember that no one is actually pretending to be retarded, they just are
just like the probability is 1/2, it either happens or it doesn't

>>15808461
50% chance I'm going to teleport into your room within five seconds and bend you over my cock

>>15808461
>>15808913
Wow, you got lucky twelve times in a row. What are the odds of that?

>>15791983
Define genuine intelligence.

>>15808579
If the probability of someone being retarded is 50-50 then we'd expect half the population to be retarded

>>15807793
lol why lie? you want an upvote?

>>15808939
Empathy and self-awareness

>>15792891
lol

>>15791983
People who are legitimately Intelligent don't devote their lives to cowering between the pages of a book.

>>15791983
you measure the person and the life of the person. measure their stupidity.

are they jew pilled? if not it means all they know is nonsense they have read in books published by jewish publishing companies. if they are it means they actually have enough intelligence to view the world around them and see that what they read in those books doesnt matching reality

>>15810476
You're right, it is a pretty good test, though it indicates the opposite of what you seem to think. Anti-Semitism is for simpletons who need straightforward universal answers and lack the mental capacity to realise the implausibility of such a belief.

>>15791983
I don't know if I am slow or not, but in lab settings I feel like the dumbest retard on the planet.
I do good academically, but I feel like everyone in my undergrad lab exercises know what they are doing intuitively while I have to ask around constantly.
I fucked up a sample yesterday because I missed a crucial step.

Is it an inferiority complex or am I genuinely stupid?

> "book smart"
book smart people can't invent things
or solve new problems

>>15810800
It’s a combination of having a grasp on the theory (giving intention to actions) and having the confidence to act on the intent.

You need to constantly be forming hypotheses and testing them in your every day life; this will give you a foundational base of practice. Once you’re comfortable with that process, moving fluidly and intuitively in the lab will become second nature.

>>15810502
Exactly wrong. Hitler was demonstrably higher IQ than Max Planck

>>15812932
>Hitler was demonstrably higher IQ than Max Planck
Please demonstrate it.

>>15791983
I'm retarded.

>>15791983
Genuinely intelligent people are rich, like, billionaires or at least millionaires (Andrew Tate, Elon Musk etc.) who actually contribute good to the society. "Book smart" people are poor midwits who do nothing but write shitty meaningless "articles" and sometimes go to podcasts like JRE to tell about some stupid shit no one cares about.

>>15813308
No, that just isn't true. Most get bullied and treated as retards.

>>15792307
Plenty of parrots are genuinely intelligent dude. Take chessfags for instance.

>>15813308
>andrew tate
How is creating an underclass of violent, angry men to be sent to a war for a culling benefit "us" in any way?

>>15813308
are you retarded?

>>15792582
fashioncel cope

>>15813308
Said as someone witg neither

>>15813308
>Andrew Tate
>Contributing to society
kek

>>15791986
Unironically, “this”

>>15812932
He was smart enough to manipulate rubes

>>15814204
He was smart enough to turn Europe's worst economy into the best economy on the planet in under 5 years.

>>15814794
sure bud

>>15814794

>>15805709
It's not a matter of time compression. You either learn how to identify patterns and principles and apply them to novel contexts or you're an exam cramming parrot.

>>15814794
Except for 1939 and after because in those years the german economy didn't exist.

>>15792193
Problem tricks you into thinking that the balls being in separate boxes matters. It doesn't matter how many boxes or balls there are, they're all in the same random pool because every position is equally as likely.

>>15809047
>If the probability of someone being retarded is 50-50 then we'd expect half the population to be retarded

bad news friend: it's more like 80-20

>>15807438
Those aren't the instructions, they're the setup to the problem. The backstory, if you will. Selecting a gold ball has already occurred in every iteration.

>>15815678
That's the low IQ mathcel answer. The problem specifies that one outcome has already been excluded.

>>15793380
Okay, imagine it like this:
>Imagine that 10,000 people drew a ball at random from one of two boxes
>Approximately 5,000 picked the first box and about another 5,000 picked the second box
>Of the approximately 5,000 who picked the second box, approximately 2,500 took the silver ball
>We discard those who took the silver ball, as we are only interested in those who took a golden ball
>In the end we were left with around 5,000 people who took a golden ball from the first box and around 2,500 people who took a golden ball from the second box
>Therefore, around 5,000 people will draw a second golden ball and around 2,500 will not
>Therefore, the probability of getting a second golden ball is 2/3

>>15815712
>imagine a completely different scenario unrelated to the original question that changes the answer so I would be correct

>>15815721
It's the same scenario, just repeated a lot.

>>15815722
It's the same scenario, if you fail to follow the instructions.

>>15815723
Can you explain what makes this situation different from the initial one?

>>15815730
The correct scenario takes place after a choice has already been made, which eliminates extraneous choices and leaves the reader to choose between a gold and a silver ball with equal odds.

>>15815742
The only thing that is excluded is the case where you took the silver ball, you are still left with: the case in which you took the first ball from the first box, the case in which you took the second ball from the first box and the case in which you took the golden ball from the second box, all of these cases are equally as likely.

>>15801130
This, critical thinking is the cutoff for intelligence. But yeah, everybody can suspend critical thinking and let emotion take over sometimes without realizing. When people give into fear or zealotry they suspend critical thinking.

>>15808915
50% it either happens or it doesnt

>>15791983
Casually give them more obscure low/mid-level logic puzzles. High fluid IQ chads will float to the top.

>>15791986
There is a assload of people with high to moderate crystallized intelligence but who are otherwise complete midwits and have just aquired narrow specialization and degrees in a field through brute force memorization and grind.
I know multiple people in medicine and the humanities who have gone through triple-digit number of books but can't do retarded shit like handle percentages, understand basic-bitch descriptive statistics, calculate a car's mileage, generally reason like children and often have a very poor popsciesque understanding of the broaded field outside what they've specialized in.

>>15808939
High fluid intelligence.

>>15811718
>You need to constantly be forming hypotheses and testing them in your every day life; this will give you a foundational base of practice
Everyone does this even though most don't notice it. The difference is that intelligent people work with more data at any given time because they notice more detail.

>>15792193
1/3rd because the question is basically asking what is the probability you have picked the box no1.Which is 1/3

>>15792193
Given the problem:

If you've chosen the box with two gold balls, then the probability of drawing another gold ball is 100% or 1.

If you've chosen the box with one gold ball and one silver ball, then the probability of drawing another gold ball is 0%, as you've already drawn the gold ball from it.

Given that you've drawn a gold ball, the possibility of having chosen the box with two silver balls is 0%.

Now, consider the probability of choosing each box initially:
The probability of choosing the box with two gold balls is 1/3.
The probability of choosing the box with one gold and one silver ball is 1/3.

Given that you've drawn a gold ball:

P(choosing the box with 2 gold balls) = (1/3 * 1) / (1/3 * 1 + 1/3 * 1) = 1/2

P(choosing the box with 1 gold and 1 silver ball) = (1/3 * 1) / (1/3 * 1 + 1/3 * 1) = 1/2

Now, compute the overall probability of drawing another gold ball:

= P(choosing the box with 2 gold balls) * P(drawing another gold ball given you've chosen the box with 2 gold balls)

P(choosing the box with 1 gold and 1 silver ball) * P(drawing another gold ball given you've chosen the box with 1 gold and 1 silver ball)
= (1/2 * 1) + (1/2 * 0)
= 1/2 or 50%

Thus, the probability that the next ball you take from the same box will also be gold is 50%.

>>15816299
Never mind, it's wrong.

>>15815701
m8 it literally says "you pick a box" I don't know what more to tell you because you're functionally illiterate so it won't do you any good

>>15815742
You make the same mistake that people who fail to get Monty Hall make: you view the second choice as entirely independent when in fact, it is highly dependent on its outcome for the first choice. Perhaps this is some sort of overcompensation on the part of people who don't have an intuitive grasp of statistics but are trying to avoid the gambler's fallacy. In that case it would indeed be a good test to distinguish between genuine insight and "book-learnedness".

>>15816304
You are calculating the probability of picking a box at random from among the ones that have at least one gold ball in them, not the probability that the gold ball you drew came from a certain box. Thus, having calculated the former in the mistaken belief that you calculated the latter, you falsely conclude that the gold ball is equally likely to have come from either box. Of course, the box with twice the gold balls is actually twice as likely to yield a gold ball.

>>15791983
real smart have pattern recognition
book smart may or may not be idiots, but after large quantity of information you start to recognize patterns better or who is the idiots who categorize smart in two categories

>>15791988
exactly

>>15791986
I don't want to be a pseud but I think being booksmart is a valid point of intelligence as long as the reader is able to understand, internalize, and replicate the concepts in new examples. That's probably what separates thinkers from mimics.

>>15797633
>my 46+ body count
Imagine bragging about being a whore. Damn bro you sure showed them kek

>>15791986
Why is anybody pretending like you're not right? Every "intelligent" person reads in some capacity. This is literally almost a pre-requisite.

>>15817362
>This is literally almost a pre-requisite.
why?

>>15792193
50/50, you either do or you don't, 1/3rd brainlets will never understand you ruled out one box as soon as you knew the color of the ball you picked.

>>15818135
You're not just wrong with 50-50, you're also wrong about what the actual correct answer is (2/3) and how to arrive at it. That's an impressive amount of wrong in such a short span.

Sometimes it does me good to see such threads and see people being so confidently wrong about such trivial things. It explains a lot.

>>15792193
>thinks he's intelligent because he has learned a statistical rule
you just outed yourself as a pseud

>>15818299
It is of course best to be able to work out the correct answer. But if you can't, it is better to know the correct answer even if you can't explain it than to think for yourself and thus get it wrong. The absence of "book smarts" does not imply genuine intelligence; it could just as well entail genuine stupidity.

>>15792193
P(G n G) = P(G) * P(G n G | G)

P(G n G | G) = P(G n G) / P(G)

P(G n G) = 1/3, P(G) = 1/3 * 2/2 + 1/3 * 1/2 + 1/3 * 0/2 = 3/6

>>15818146
please go back

>>15818310
>please go back
This is just sad. I can sort of understand it when people go against the dominant ideology, misguided though it may still be then, but you're just literally objectively wrong about maths and you don't want to hear it. And that really tells you what goes through the minds of people the other times they tell someone to "go back".

>>15792193
if you waste your time calculating the answer for this random test instead of just saying the intuitive thing and moving on with life then that is the opposite of intelligent behavior

>>15818317
get your head out of your asshole you fag

>>15818321
I'm not the one who's so up his own bum that he's trying to justify his intuitive wrong answer with spurious maths

>>15818310
>P(G n G) = 1/3, P(G) = 1/3 * 2/2 + 1/3 * 1/2 + 1/3 * 0/2 = 3/6
Tell us, what have you just calculated? I think you'll find it's not the probability that the next ball will be gold.

>>15818330
>>15818325
>t. iqlets

>>15818337
Plainly, you've demonstrated that the probability of getting a gold ball is 1/2. You do this, in fact, by showing that one box yields a gold ball 100% of the time, one yields a gold ball 50% of the time, and one yields a gold ball 0% of the time.

Now, given that you have a gold ball, which box was more likely to have yielded it?

>>15816728
books only make you the mind slave of their authors

>>15792193
Here's a hint for you fags:
You have 2 boxes, one with 4 gold balls and the other with 1 gold ball and 3 silver balls.
You choose a box and take out a gold ball. Much like this problem, the probability of taking another gold ball is 4/7.
This same pattern works for any combination of boxes and balls, since we already established that all the boxes in your probability pool have at least 1 gold ball.

>>15791987
they can if they've read a book that told them how to

>>15791983
Booksmart:
> "If I read it in a book it is true"
> "if I read 'a study found out' then everything following it is true"
> "if I read 'a study found out' and it contradicts what I read in a book I will accept whatever I read first as truth"

Genuine intelligence:
> "If I read it, I question and investigate the method and path that is presented in which they came up with that conclusion"
> "if I read 'a study found out' then I question and investigate the methods and materials they used to came to that conclusion"
> "if I read 'a study found out' and it contradicts what I read in a book I will question and investigate the methods and materials they used to came to that conclusion, and weigh them against each other and try to find out if it has been replicated, otherwise it is nothing but a Hypothesis that may appear plausible based on the confied study or experiment design and interpretation"

>>15817362
Too many illiterate retards larping as geniuses on /sci/.

>>15819297
Yeah, like you - dumbo

>>15792193
The problem is you're setting the rules. I'm just seeing the balls and pure probability. The box doesnt exist. You either get a gold ball or you don't.

"b-but"

I dont care about your stupid math.

Besides, this whole thing is an obvious psychological ruse. You can tell by how much it's focused on. Nobody mentally masturbates on something so simple so long when there's no real incentive.

Some of you have probably thought about this golden ball thing for hours and days of your lives and none of you will ever be approached with the opportunity to either try it once or flesh out a series of it.

I mean, let's go back to the beginning. It's about winning the golden balls right? You'd be better served by actually trying to make money. There's defintely a higher probability of you making more money doing that then thinking on this one more second, and yet you'll keep choosing wrong won't you?

In the end, you didn't choose any gold balls. You chose to think and waste your opportunities while edifying yourself on some fringe almost non-occuring situation. Good job, guys. You're so smart.

See what it feels like? There's you, the guy you kept laughing at for not understanding it, then theres me, your reality check. You were wrong too. Why is that surprising? You're going on 30 and you're still working as an unskilled laborer at Wal-mart as a stocker.

"How did you know?"

Probability, right?

>>15793258
Without the hard-drive you don't have the OS and files to do things.

>>15818611
>Much like this problem, the probability of taking another gold ball is 4/7.
I don't think that's right but I have a migraine so I can't be arsed to tell you why

>>15793258
>CPU speed = intelligence
>Harddrive size = "book smartness"/knowledge

No the OS is intelligence.
Without a proper operating system memory and cpu mean nothing.

I know some "quick" learners who can memorize a lot.
But they are fucking midwits. Consoomers.
Comic Franchise worshipers.
Which mostly masturbate to tranny anime porn and have no controll over their impulsive habits and even brag about being "a little psycho".
Yet unable to notice patterns.

>>15818611
>>15820203
Actually it's going to bother me if I don't.

If you have one box with 100 gold balls and another with 1 gold ball and 99 silver balls, you would say the probability of getting another gold ball is 100/199. And the more balls we add, the more this probability would approach 1/2. But that is obviously wrong, because if you have one box with a fucking gajillion gold balls, and one box with a teeny tiny gold ball hiding amongst a gajillion-1 silver balls, the odds that you happened to get the gold ball from the mostly silver box are obviously not 50-50.

The reason the original problem works out to 2/3 is not because there are three balls left and two of them are gold. It's because, of the original three balls you could've picked, two of them would lead to another gold. You're thus twice as likely to get another gold than not. With eight balls, you're four times as likely to have the all-gold box, because there are four balls which would lead to picking another gold ball and only one that doesn't. Which means the odds of getting another gold ball are 4/5, not 4/7. And as we add more balls, the probability should approach 1, not 1/2.

>>15819896
and with too much on the drive you have no space for learning new information

>>15820226
Thank you.

>>15820226
>>15821065
Actually, to amend this, I'm thinking the amount of balls in the all-gold is irrelevant (as long as it's at least two). The probability of getting a gold ball from it is always 100%. This becomes apparent if we take one box with 100 gold balls, and another with one gold, one silver. If we pick gold now, it is still very likely to have come from the mixed box, which still produces gold half the time. On the other hand, if we have one box with two gold balls and another with one gold, 99 silver, we are still exceedingly likely to have the all-gold box despite it having only two balls.

>>15821097
>I'm thinking the amount of balls in the all-gold is irrelevant (as long as it's at least two).
Wouldn't that just mean that the odds of getting a gold ball as your next ball would be equivalent to the proportion of silver balls in the mixed box?

>>15816262
>puzzles
Has nothing to do with IQ

>>15791983
You ever come across someone who only has a BEng or even worse and thinks that he's a genius because he comes up with all those 'new and unique' ideas that in reality have been tested and debunked decades ago and are just nowhere being mentioned anymore because no one with a brain wants to touch that schlock?

>>15792193
2/3 because you're twice as likely to draw the gold ball from the first box

>>15792193
Nice job derailing this thread, fuck those nerds.

>>15791983
the downsie can't be either

Bayesian priors is the devils work.

>>15791983
You have to ask me and I'll decide for you

>>15821120
>puzzles
Has everything to do with low IQ and arrested psychological development resulting from a malformed brain. People who are still behaving like children when their bodies have already become adult are very low IQ

>>15791983
idk met a guy in college
very smart guy, knew how to solve basically all problems, had a really good approach and a great understanding of everything we learned
still managed to fail his exams all the time
he ended up dropping out, i think he works in a hedge fund now.

the difference between him and the «booksmart» people of my class was that he was able to understand things his own way, re-explain it to people in a way that they could understand. whereas most «good student» girls would just be grinding books day in day out, learn everything by heart, and forget stuff the day after the exam

>>15797378
Wrong, you take out a ball and it is gold it is either from the box with 2 gold balls or the box with one gold ball or you have b1, b2, or b3
b1 -> gg
b2 -> gs
b3 -> ss
Since you pull a gold ball out there are only two possibilities for the next ball color. It is either gold or it is silver, therefore the chances are 50/50

>>15821907
He made the mistake of presuming that school was for learning when its real purpose is to issue credentials to compliant people are than to produce intelligent graduates

>>15821907
I think this is fairpy typical. Once you reach the point that even those who wrote the books didn't understand it, and it's either nonsense, or at least explained incorrectly, you get stuck at trying to figure it out. The others happily grind the nonsense.

>>15821907
I think this is fairly typical. Once you reach the point where even those who wrote the books didn't understand it, and it's either nonsense, or at least explained incorrectly, you get stuck at trying to figure it out. The others keep grinding the nonsense, being none the wiser.

>>15822697
>>15822710
Agreed.

>>15821976
>It is either gold or it is silver, therefore the chances are 50/50
This is LITERALLY "everything is 50-50 because either it happens or it don't"

>>15821976
>Since you pull a gold ball out there are only two possibilities for the next ball color. It is either gold or it is silver, therefore the chances are 50/50
no.
>>15816304
no
>>15823000
no

b1 -> gg
b2 -> gs
b3 -> ss

> Pull out gold ball
now only two boxes are of interest since b3 is impossible.

since you already pulled one ball:

applied to the relevant boxes:
b1 -> gg - g
b2 -> gs - g

We now define the event Pulling a gold ball as G.
And pulling the as silver ball S.
And pulling a silver ball after a gold ball was pulled as [math] S \mid G [/math].

And since you are forced to pull from the same box again, it i s1/3 now.
And that is why :
The absolute initial chance to pull a gold ball is:

P(G) = [math]\frac {1}{3} + \frac {1}{3} = \frac {2}{3} [/math]

[math] $P(G \land S) = \frac {1}{2} \cdot \frac {1}{3} =\frac {1}{6}[/math]

Now you calculate the overall probability with the values for the event: Silver is pulled after you pulled gold:

[math]P(S \mid G) = \frac {P(G \land S)}{P(G)} = \frac {1}{6} \cdot \frac {1}{2} =\frac {1}{3}[/math]

Which results in the counter probability, defined as the event "pulled a gold ball after you pulled a gold ball" of [math]\frac {2}{3}[/math]

>>15792614
>There isn't a difference.
>You only hear about from 'school of hard knocks' types who think because they can poorly repair a sink's drain pipe after asking the customer service at Ace Hardware how to do it, they're smarter than all those 'ivory tower scientists'.
the right answer.
the rest of you continue to cope and seethe

>>15800395
I don't get the second part.

>>15813308
the only genuine correct answer in this thread

>>15823087

In the Gold Ball problem, the probability of drawing a second gold ball, given that the first ball drawn was gold, depends on the specific box initially selected. The initial calculation assumed that each box was equally likely to be selected (with P(G1G2)=P(S1S2)=P(G1S1)=13P(G1G2)=P(S1S2)=P(G1S1)=31). However, if we have reason to believe that the box selection process is not uniform, we should consider alternative probabilities.

Alternative Assumptions:

If there is any bias or uncertainty in the box selection process, the probability of initially selecting the G1G2 box (P(G1G2)P(G1G2)) might not be 1331. It could be higher or lower depending on the situation.

Similarly, the probability of initially selecting the S1S2 or G1S1 box could deviate from 1331 if external factors influence the selection process.

Bayesian Analysis:

To account for this uncertainty, we can use Bayes' theorem to update our probabilities. For instance, if we want to determine the probability of selecting the G1G2 box after drawing a gold ball (P(G1G2∣G1)P(G1G2∣G1)), we need to consider the new box selection probabilities.

The probability of drawing a second gold ball from the G1G2 box (P(G2∣G1,G1G2)P(G2∣G1,G1G2)) would remain 1, but the overall probability P(G2∣G1)P(G2∣G1) would now depend on the revised box selection probabilities. This probability may or may not be 2/3, depending on the specific values of P(G1G2)P(G1G2), P(S1S2)P(S1S2), and P(G1S1)P(G1S1).

In this context, it's crucial to recalculate the probabilities based on the actual or hypothesized box selection probabilities to obtain a more accurate estimate of the probability of drawing a second gold ball after the first gold ball is drawn. The initially assumed probability of 2/3 might not hold if the box selection process is not truly random or uniform.

i don't know op but i do know

FUCK TWITTER. FUCK ELON. ELON IS ANNOYING. OP IS A FAGGOT.

>>15823339
>fuck fuck fuck fuuuuuuuck fuck fuck fuuuuuuck!!!
you sound like a clucking chicken with a lisp

>>15792193
>you ask them this question
It isn't hard. Trying to figure out why people find it hard is the hard part.
https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter1/1_4_2_total_probability.php

b1 = gg
b2 = gs
b3 = ss

1. You pick a box (partition event)
2. pick 1 is gold (determines sample space, excludes "b3")
3. "What are the odds our next ball is also a gold ball?" = "What are the odds that we picked box 1?"
Reframing the question hands the answer to you on a silver platter.

P(A) = odds we pick a box with at least 1 gold ball = 2/3
P(B) = odds we pick a gold ball in the box picked
P(B|A) = odds of picking a gold ball given we pick a box with "at least 1" = 3/4
Why? Because if the box has "at least 1 gold ball", 3 of 4 possible balls are gold.
Why 4 possible? Because we're only asking about boxes with the golden balls. "B given A happens"
After picking you necessarily are in b1 or b2. Necessarily, there's a 1/2 chance to have picked b1 or b2, and therefore 1/2 chance the ball is gold.

>>15823087
Partition events. See above link. You exclude b3 based on what you know, and you should exclude "sample space of 3" on the same basis. As you do not have access to "3 possible balls" after picking, and only two possible boxes (the same as two possible remaining balls), the answer is 1/2.

Given rampant incredulity on this I suppose getting into a box (a partition event) is every bit as magical as cats make it seem, but this is no different from excluding other impossible events from the sample space (b3).

From the linked example, assume 3 bags with red/blue marbles totaling 100 each.
B1 = 75r, 25b
B2 = 60r, 40b
B3 = 45r, 55b
You've a 1/3rd chance of selecting any particular bag. Afterward, for red marbles, P(R|B1) = 0.75 and so on. It's no different here. What you're basically trying to do is go "but the total marbles in the other bags", which doesn't make sense to do. Do you understand now?

>>15823858
>It isn't hard. Trying to figure out why people find it hard is the hard part.
Indeed.

You got it wrong btw

>>15823339
Musk is currently the reigning king of space, if you find that annoying its only because you're jealous. His organization does more space travel, manned and unmanned, than the rest of the world combined. And he manages all that with the scientists of the EPA doing everything that can legally to harm and tie up his business, something the other spacefaring organizations don't have to deal with.

>>15824492
>Musk is currently the reigning king of space, if you find that annoying its only because you're jealous.
Just as those who are annoyed that Joe Biden is president of the United States are only jealous, right?

>>15824539
>Joe Biden's organization does more space travel, manned and unmanned, than the rest of the world combined.
big nope
nasa hasn't even put a single astronaut into space in over a decade regardless spending nearly a trillion dollars over that period of time. musk spends less a million dollars to put a person in space, all of the astronauts he has launched have survived too, nasa kills about 1 in 25 of their passengers

>>15823858
Are you just trying to be an example of the OP pic or are you genuinely this retarded
>After picking you necessarily are in b1 or b2
Yes
>Necessarily, there's a 1/2 chance to have picked b1 or b2
Why? Let's say you're picking a ball from two bags (b1 and b2). b1 contains 1 million silver balls and exactly one gold ball. b2 contains 1 million gold balls. You pick a ball at random from one of the bags and it's a gold ball. Given all this information, is there still a 50% chance that the next ball picked from the same bag will be silver? Is there a 50% chance that you picked b1?

>>15825797
>Why?
... because those are the only two boxes with "at least one" gold ball and a maximum of two in a box with two.
>Let's say you're picking a ball from two bags (b1 and b2). b1 contains 1 million silver balls and exactly one gold ball. b2 contains 1 million gold balls. You pick a ball at random from one of the bags and it's a gold ball. Given all this information, is there still a 50% chance that the next ball picked from the same bag will be silver? Is there a 50% chance that you picked b1?
As you've changed the sample space, no. In that scenario a single ball is insufficient to determine the odds of which box you're in.

>>15825797
>Why?
Because you have a 1/2 chance of having picked b1, or gg, given what happened. I would say "given what you know" but people may misunderstand this to imply something ridiculous, as if mere knowing changes an objective probability. Rather, what happened set the conditions or determined what can follow. This is just conditional probability. The naive probability will be less accurate of the task "in reality" i.e. given the conditions because it includes options that are not possible (contradictions) or not informative (answers the wrong question).
>Is there a 50% chance that you picked b1?
Had to repost this as I misread your modified question. Yes, in that scenario your next ball is a 1/2 chance because which ball you'll pick was determined by which bag you chose. I am not sure what about "events being determined by preceding events" confuses people when it comes to probability. It's just conditional probability.

If prior events did not determine (constrain) your sample space, then in the original scenario of 3 boxes you'd be effectively declaring your odds to be 2/5 by inappropriately including box 3 (ss) in your sample space after picking the first ball.

So what's more ridiculous? That events determine outcomes, your sample space, or contradictions like including b3 when you shouldn't?

>>15825913
>Yes, in that scenario your next ball is a 1/2 chance because which ball you'll pick was determined by which bag you chose
If this isn't utterly absurd to you then you're an idiot.
>I am not sure what about "events being determined by preceding events" confuses people when it comes to probability.
Me neither. Some people will flatly deny common sense on the basis of some misunderstood Probability 101 lecture.

How about if we assume an arbitrarily large number of silver balls and exactly one gold ball in b1, and an arbitrarily large number of gold balls in b2? Then you pick a bag at random and draw a gold ball. Since it's possible to draw a gold ball from b1, is there a 50% chance that you drew the ball from b1?

>>15823858
>From the linked example, assume 3 bags with red/blue marbles totaling 100 each
So is this just bait? Literally the next section contains an example that shows the exact opposite.
>Also, note that P(B1|R)=5/12>1/3. This makes sense intuitively because bag 1 is the bag with the highest number of red marbles. Thus if the chosen marble is red, it is more likely that bag 1 was chosen.

>>15825957
>If this isn't utterly absurd to you then you're an idiot.
It's absurd to you that your subsequent odds are determined by prior events?
>Me neither. Some people will flatly deny common sense on the basis of some misunderstood Probability 101 lecture.
I'm quite a ways away from probability 101.
>How about if we assume an arbitrarily large number of silver balls and exactly one gold ball in b1, and an arbitrarily large number of gold balls in b2? Then you pick a bag at random and draw a gold ball. Since it's possible to draw a gold ball from b1, is there a 50% chance that you drew the ball from b1?
No. You're asking about first pick where the state of what you're picking from has not been determined by prior events. As your first choice has not been determined by some prior condition there is no conditional.

>>15825973
>So is this just bait? Literally the next section contains an example that shows the exact opposite.
Are you illiterate?
Q1 "What is the probability that the chosen marble is red?"
Q2 "What is the probability that Bag 1 was chosen?"
Do you actually think those are the same question?

I honestly hope you are trolling. I sincerely do.

>>15825997
This is obviously bait at this point, or you're so incorrigibly stupid that engaging with you is functionally equivalent to bait. On the off chance you're just a genuine retard, here's the next section of the website you linked:
>https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter1/1_4_3_bayes_rule.php
>In Example 1.24, suppose we observe that the chosen marble is red. What is the probability that Bag 1 was chosen?
>P(R) was obtained using the law of total probability in Example 1.24, thus we did not have to recompute it here. Also, note that P(B1|R)=5/12>1/3. This makes sense intuitively because bag 1 is the bag with the highest number of red marbles. Thus if the chosen marble is red, it is more likely that bag 1 was chosen.

>>15826006
I'm just going to assume you're trolling at this point. There's just no way this is real.

>>15826009
no u
P(B1|R) in the second example is the same as P(B1|G) in the original question, once you adjust the numbers.

>>15826027
>P(B1|R) in the second example is the same as P(B1|G) in the original question, once you adjust the numbers.
Where did you find the green marble in a bag of only red and blue marbles?

>>15825776
Joe Biden is not the president of NASA m8 he's the president of the United States

>>15825776
>nasa hasn't even put a single astronaut into space in over a decade regardless spending nearly a trillion dollars over that period of time. musk spends less a million dollars to put a person in space, all of the astronauts he has launched have survived too, nasa kills about 1 in 25 of their passengers
but at least they're diverse and feminist

>>15792777
I understand you, most book smart people are just really good at memorization. While intelligence is linked to the ability to take into account hypotheticals and reach a logical conclusion.

In my experience, academic excellence is always associated with superior intelligence, so no is the answer to the question. I never came across someone like that.

I think our current notion of intelligence is pretty retarded because it doesn't account for creativity
Supposedly IQ has no correlation with intelligence, and even some retards are highly creative. But what is creativity other than your brain subconsciously recognizing patterns in the world & synthesizing them without you even fucking aware of it? This is literally the same pattern recognition as IQ, but a much stronger version of it. Intelligence and creativity are synonymous.

test

test te st tts test

>>15797387
>>15798732
>>15801109
>>15821485
You pick a box, not a ball. If it is given that there is a gold ball in there, that means there are only two possibilities, pick box A or B, not three

>>15791983
Booksmart people are like LLMs. Reciting text, and making connections to establish new ideas that didn't exist before aren't the same thing.

>>15791983
Concepts like "book smart", "street smart", "smart but unfulfilled potential", "robotic intelligence" and so on are all just self serving bullshit that mediocrities tell themselves to feel better.
The only thing that matters is results which reflect your intelligence

>>15828034
It was not a given. It was selected randomly.

>>15791983
>>15791987
>>15791988
>>15792178
Cope and probably filtered by a sophomore level class. For 95% of people, booksmart is the bare minimum. Even people in the trades have to be somewhat booksmart.
>Muh original work fantasy
How do you know it's original if you couldn't read the book?
>Jobs that don't require booksmart
>Sales
>E-1 soldier
>Jobs that don't benefit from a little booksmart
>?
Also every communist in existence is a person who read Marx and isn't as booksmart as they think they are

>>15828159
>Also every communist in existence is a person who read Marx
lol

>>15791986
You can confound asking any book smart person by asking them why and they typically go well that's what it says in this book.

>>15813461
the underclass was always there with or without him. Laughable you think one can just "create " this

>>15828865
>Laughable you think one can just "create " this
well entropy and all that so it's a case of neglecting it enough to become what you want it.
making sure of a minimal standard costs extra. if you're making money somehow out of those poor fucks, they never had any chance to begin with.

>>15828883
how come tate triggers you so badly?

>>15829711
Probably not for the right reasons.

>>15827512
The difference btn the genius cutoff of 145 and midwits is creativity, so yes iq very much includes creativity, solving those puzzles requires creativity which is essentially measuring your fluid iq.

>>15791983
Book smart is cope said by idiots. It comes from “I am not book smart, but I am street smart” which means originally they know how to not get themselves killed in the crime streets, but was then adopted by other idiots who make few smarter decisions then smart people and say the same thing. So book smart only is guy who goes studying some niche academic and practically useless subject while “money smart” or whatever becomes truck driver or whatever and makes three times the salary for sleeping behind the steering wheel.

>>15791983
book smart people often don’t think as far ahead and you can tell

those that have genuine intelligence hate how dumb most people are, that’s just because they think way too far ahead of most people

that’s my assumption anyway

>>15829873
Booksmart retard here.
I couldn't play chess worth shit because I was too dumb to think ahead for year and years. Then I read a "how to not suck at chess" book and memorized some strategies and now I'm pretty OK at chess. Still not anywhere near as good a legitimately intelligent people tho, but I don't lose every time like I used to

does "book dumb" exist?
>better smart
>read the wrong books
>get a bunch of dumb ideas in your head
>end up stupider

>>15791983
I'm not smart but I have strong long term memory. I still remember and can derive formulas from vector calculus class that I took 4 years ago. However my problem solving skill is a disaster which is probably an indicative of low iq

>>15832142
>read the wrong books
>get a bunch of dumb ideas in your head
>end up stupider
See sections 2 & 3 of protocol #2 in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The expressed plan is to turn the goyims into idiots by using bad media against them

>>15832142
Yes, this guy is book dumb: >>15833034

>>15833134
Did your street smarts tell you that

>>15832142
It's called 4chan

>>15833527
the street in question? talmud boulevard

>>15834211
That's a book, dingus

>>15832142
Yes, there's a phenomenon where muslim men drop ten or so iq points compared to their peers between their entering and leaving their religious schools.

>>15829873
>those that have genuine intelligence hate how dumb most people are
not really. in my case I get scared. it's weird. it starts a process in which panic ensues, at which point I have the urge of finding someone smarter than me, or else I panic that we are all fucked. whenever I find someone I consider might be smarter than me, I need to prove it, which is the only thing that weirdly calms me down and also is very annoying to accept. but the alternative is general panic that we are all fucked if I am the smartest person alive. not meeting anyone smarter than me in fucking 6 months feels like the start of paranoia or something.
but I don't hate people that are dumber than me, I don't really have a reason to.
hence why I'm here.

>>15834630
Can this be used to our advantage?

>>15834635
>advantage
running from it intuitively would imply it would be even harder. but pulling it off while running from it does sound nice. I'd like to make advantages fucking beg for me

>>15819896
>what's a BIOS or ROM

>>15803760
>by the time we pull a gold ball first, there are only 3 remaining possibilities for the second ball.
I'm only seeing 2 remaining possibilities: gold or silver. What's the third?

"book smart" is a term created by uneducated retards. you can never be smart without being well-read

>>15834820
You're quite right, the only possibilites are gold (2/3 likely) and silver (1/3 likely)