/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16062567
My superior pattern recognition has shown me that people who start threads butthurt over IQ are always midwits who got tested and discovered they were just a bit above average intelligence and not the incredible sage their low intelligence parents and dull public school peers told them they were.

>>16062567
i guess an iq test isnt a good metric for intellectual success but i think its something, just like the numbers of push up arent good to see how good people are in a certain sport but if they cant even do 5 pushups you can be somewhat sure that they are bad in sport, just like having an iq of under 100 shows that its unlikely that they can be successful scientists. i guess there are exceptions but they are rare and it depends on the field.

>>16062567
>I could be a genius in mathematics but absolutely retarded in history or the other away around
IQ has been discovered precisely because we empirically observed that grades in different subjects like math and history were actually correlated instead of being independent, as people like you generally assumed.

>>16062567
No. High IQ stops being beneficial after a certain point mostly due to social constraints (it's better to be popular than smart in almost every situation), but low IQ is very indicative of being unequipped to do intellectual work. Educated low IQ people are a drain on the society.

>>16062579
Of course you're going to be low IQ if you were never taught to read. In the terms of IQ it just means you're smart or stupid but even intelligent people can be retarded at times or really retarded in a specific subject.

>>16062567
Yes, they're stupid. It's rare to hear anyone successful talk about IQ

>>16062600
Dimwit take you don't belong on /sci/

>>16062600
Unless they're intelligence researchers. People who devote time to the study of intelligence still say IQ has a role to play

>>16062567
>I could be a genius in mathematics but absolutely retarded in history
I'm a genius in both and my IQ is higher than yours.

>>16062650
Really? What's the answer to the Riemann hypothesis smartypants

>>16062567
If you had simply read the wiki article about IQ you would see it isn't just "pattern recognition"

>>16062567
>If you get a high score on an IQ test you get an ego boost vur if you get a shit score then you just end up self-limiting yourself
You are limited, everyone is, people just have an issue with grasping that for abstract concepts such as intelligence but there's a concrete material basis to your potential. Chances are extremly slim you're goinig to be a pro NBA player if you're 5'4, same goes for winning a fields medal with an IQ of 95. Part of it is a ceiling on your capabilities, the other is the reality of having to compete with others for positions and resources. Will is a power of it's own, but with certain presets you're asking for near impossible odds.

If you don't score 1 in an IQ test - you retarded. It's bollox, so you try your best to insult the test by reverse-humiliation. Crossing off the test with a 1 and taking this seriously is the only intellectual way.

Quick reminder you won't get charged or get less sentence time if judge deems you retard. Play low int build to make npcs think they are superior

>>16062657
Riemann hypothesis is false. This has been proven by Jonathan Tooker.

>>16062690
>have opinions on IQ tests
>think that the normal distribution has a lower bound at [math]-6.7\overline 3~\sigma[/math]