/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16079815
Easy. If they're a poopskin, you can assume low IQ and a focused materialistic life-style.

>>16079886
>le race

>>16079815
is this a troll? look at his fucking hair-cut.

>>16080067
He looks above average

>>16080071
you look above average

>>16080074
Thanks babe

>>16080104
do you sport the same idiot-haircut as him, anon?

In practice: their command of language. If they can easily communicate a complex thought or topic discourse while using an advanced vocabulary then they’re very probably high-IQ. For example: https://youtu.be/861coSFLOvk?si=7FfJISkNT3RwKdXJ
I want you to pay attention NOT to what she’s saying, but rather the manner of how she’s saying it: cool, organized, succinct and communicative. Her high IQ allows her organize her thoughts and communicate them smoothly and effectively, interjecting extensions where desired to add emphasis to what she wants to emphasis without breaking her train of thought or structure of her statement. The slides are just talking points which her mind organizes full thoughts around and plans out their communication to the audience. It seems very natural for her, ie, un-rehearsed, because it IS natural for the high-IQ brain to operate that way; she doesn’t understand what it’s like NOT to operate that way.

>>16080148
that's retarded, have a few extremely well read friends but they are literal brainlet midwits, they constantly misunderstand shit.

>>16080148
I think she's just used to speaking publicly. I can easily imagine some autistic troglodyte standing there and spilling the s'ghetti despite having an equal or superior intellect.
(very similar to the idiots who demand of high-iq individuals to flawlessly explain the most complex topics to five year olds: yes, some people are able to do this - but not everyone. it's a skill. it's like demanding of someone to be a perfect architect because he was born smart)

>>16080148
That's not a good example. This is a prepared and rehearsed speech.
Who knows how long she had to prepare it and who helped her write it ?

>>16079815

>>16080227
That's terrible. Is half of the population filtered by written resources?

>>16080183
>>16080168
Not that guy, but I think the basic idea he's trying to say is, intelligence is highly correlated with ability to abstract and reason on the abstraction.

This makes sense. For example, if you take a look at theoretical computer science, it takes at least above average IQ to really *understand* and *reason* theoretical constructs (as to why some idea is better than others, for example). This is because we are working on a level of abstraction (bird's eye view) and at the same time, implement a concrete "thing" using those abstract concepts. This pretty much applies to everything (information theory and its vast applications/implementations).

Whereas if you look at web-dev for example, you can even be a low IQ code monkey and still get into web-dev (which is why lot of people are doing it -- if something is easy, it means that doesn't require high intelligence).

In this same case, if you to implement a browser or contribute to Chromium for example, it takes high IQ (high IQ individuals "provide" for low IQ individuals -- most tools, (good) frameworks, etc. are usually written by high IQ individuals because they can abstract away and implement something that is concrete whereas low IQs use those tools, frameworks, etc. to build something that doesn't require high intelligence).

>>16080244
I tried finding some stats on the topic but failed - so here is some unsourced list that somewhere in the middle randomly repeats itself (stressing how it was probably written by some illiterate americlap)

>>16080255
>he's trying to say is, intelligence is highly correlated with ability to abstract and reason on the abstraction.
I think not. He literally said "their command of language". That's about speaking skills - and for better or for worse he's not alone with that as it is a very common heuristic for smarts.

>>16080262
>speaking skills
No it's not speaking skills, it's language skills. They can manifest in writing too if a person has speaking issues unrelated to intelligence.

>>16080262
My point is in >>16080255 is, ability to abstract = intelligence

>>16080263
m8, I'm batshit drunk and communicating in a language I am yet to use in my life outside of the internet. Speaking skills and language skills are for all I care the same thing.

>>16080264
>ability to abstract = intelligence
yes, that is part of reasoning but as far as your interpretation of the post you were explaining goes: I think you are most likely wrong about that.
That poster was raving about the orating skills of the woman he was posting.
like literarily he was saying "If they can easily communicate a complex thought or topic discourse while using an advanced vocabulary then they’re very probably high-IQ." <- you see that word 'communicate'? you see 'advanced vocabulary'? the focus is on the use of language, not on the reasoning part.

Analyze what they're saying logically, and you can get a general grasp of how logically exact they are, and thereby high IQ (do not appeal to information known by you but not them, or to your own arguments which refute the premise; just analyze the logical structure of their arguments).

Usually only works with people lower IQ than you.

>>16080282
the person in OP's video is quite logical yet very low IQ

>>16079886
you just described the average american, irrespective of skin color

>>16080262
>>16080263
And this is a great illustration of the contrast between low-IQ and high-IQ. When I tried to explain how someone communicates ideas illustrates their intelligence, a high IQ person can successfully identify the abstract concepts being conveyed without being told explicitly, just by making inferences based on the abstract concepts I was describing. What is "meant" vs what is "said". To a low IQ it doesn’t go past "she’s smart because she speaks well"; a low IQ is unable to grasp the abstract concept. Furthermore when the high IQ tries to break down his reasoning into concrete details, the low IQ can’t make sense of it and remains stuck on "she’s smart because she speaks well". To the low IQ it may seem like the high IQ is trying bamboozle him with confusing contradictions.

>>16079815
I gave it a few thoughts and this is my answer:
Adaptability. Intelligent people are good at adapting to their environment - and the smarter they are, the better they adapt. Thus - and this is more heuristic than real classification: If you find someone absolutely excelling at what they are trying to portrait chances are they are smarter than the rest.
That does not only apply to mathematicians and physicists but also to super market employees and bullies.
Reason is I know a few people who are by all account very intelligent and through and though able to hold their ground in topics usually deemed an exclusive metier of 'intellectuals' despite lacking any formal education - but who for the very reason of no formal education try portraying themselves as 'working-class-blokes' in an attempt to fit in - and when they do so they dominate the idiots in their automobile-obsessed idiocy (and all other fields of stupid working-class-obsession).
(and yes, language can be a give-away, but doesn't have to be ... but excelling at shit almost always indicates some kind of intelligence. even if it's excelling at idiocy. )

Here’s a fun IQ test in disguise I’ve come up with by accident. Watch this clip: https://youtu.be/s6aCpS0-yls?si=FPxB5bgcsxC0zo_o
What do you think?

>>16079815
they're knowledgeable

>>16079886
This is how I know for sure you are a complete moron.

>>16080346
>Adaptability. Intelligent people are good at adapting to their environment - and the smarter they are, the better they adapt.
that's pretty fucking retarded anon. it's equating having many children with high iq. which isn't the case at all. plus most geniuses are maladjusted autists

>>16080342
dial down on the elitism, mate., you're not living up to your words yourself.

>>16080367
>it's equating having many children with high iq.
imagine you're having a bully. if you add extreme intelligence to him being a bully is he better at being a bully or not? obviously he's going to be better. now do the same thought experiment for every profession and or social role you can think of. you will find that as a rule of thumb intelligence increases your ability at excelling in the role you choose.
now consider the problem that not all intelligent people end up in academia. according to mensa (who very well may lie about it, but ... well let's just go with it) there are extremely intelligent people in every walk of life. from post-man to pimp or whore to something your elitist ass considers smart.
you will not be able to identify them as being smarties from everyday interactions since these are usually limited to a few formalities like saying 'good morning', which I am quite sure even idiots manage to do.
so as a heuristic: you look at the mean of post-men and those who excel at it will be more likely to be smarter than the rest as that is a common observation with all things intelligence. right?
so now that I explained to you my reasoning, please explain yours as simply saying 'it's equating having many children with high iq' is not only much of a counter argument but also grammatically incorrect. (and I say that as this guy: >>16080266 )

> plus most geniuses are maladjusted autists
just no. autism is correlated with diminished intelligence. you're mistaking a meme for reality.

>>16080376
who fucking reads all that shit

>>16080367
>it's equating having many children with high iq
Not that guy, but I don't think that's what he was trying to say. Your definition applies to someone who is hypersexual but have low prefrontal cortex activation aka having more children despite not being able to afford to raise them all. Having more children isn't an adaptability trait, so your point doesn't make sense. Also, intelligence and "adaptable behaviours" doesn't really go hand in hand. You can be highly intelligent in one thing but absolutely retarded in another. For example, you can be highly intelligent but have very mental ability to regular yourself (there are many high IQ inventors that committed suicide or died by most fucked up shit). Few example that comes to mind is Hans Berger (who killed himself), Erwin Schrödinger (a literal pedophile who documented his pedophelia in diary), Ludwig Boltzmann (killed himself), etc. etc.

>>16080382
I think you'd better off at /pol/, anon. They';re not as demanding + more funny pictures to look at.

>>16080367
LMAO, you are confusing not giving a shit with not being able to pretend to give a shit.

>>16079815
The typical IQ test measures how fast you can learn new things. The faster you can learn the less chances you will get frustrated and give up. That guy must have high enough conscientiousness that let him learn all that working hard for longer time.

>>16080255
LMAO, smooth as butter.

>>16080407
>>16080394

>high IQ is what I can do better than others
every post here.

>>16080417
thank you for saying I am right.

>>16079815
IQ is a scam ain't it? Seriously how do you honestly quantify intelligence? It's one of those things that can't be done, just like you can't quantify combat ability. What you gonna say? This dude has 26 in boxing? Seems as illogical as saying this dude has an intelligence of 106 or whatever.

>>16080422
but you can say 'this dude is better than the other dude' and then you can create a ranking and compare dudes and when you have enough you have a relative measurement of combat ability.
or you can hand our coloured belts, or just measure how many enemies one dude has killed compared to the average of all dudes.

>>16080427
>'this dude is better than the other dude'
Feynman had a midwit IQ

>>16080441
feynman was intelligent enough to know not to frighten the midwits with his real IQ.
that aside who ever said having a higher IQ makes you better? (I mean it does, but I nobody said it out loud until now.)

>>16080427
>but you can say 'this dude is better than the other dude
Wouldn't really work unless you ranked everyone, and even then we all have our strengths and weaknesses. And rankings like that would be super close, completely unlike IQ differences of 100 or whatever.

>>16080449
>>16080441
nevermind, I just realised we had different ideas of 'better' in our mind: What I meant was 'better at fighting'... not generally better as a human being.
(I don't know if you understood it the same way ... but I certainly took your reply as a 'better as human being')

>>16080449
>enough to know not to frighten the midwits with his real IQ.
he was more intelligent than me for sure. I just don't have that level of control. biologically speaking. not even joking. normies are always seething for reasons I cannot understand. it is scary and scarred me fr

>>16080452
no I meant as IQ application. plenty of 140 IQ people managing to accomplish jack shit as compared to Feynman. as in it's not a good predictor for much. IQ.

>>16080450
I don't know martial arts enough, but given that I spent the whole day playing around with different classification algorithms: if you accept a certain amount of uncertainty I am sure it works. I mean in the end you decide on a distance-metric and measure the distance to your closest ranking and than either go with that or you interpolate ... )

either way I am sure you can come up with a measure of combat-ability based on some arbitrary metric you deem determining for combat ability - just like with IQ.

>>16080456
I don't think so. You're right that high-IQ individuals can underachieve even compared to inferiors, but is it the rule? I think not. Of course you are going to have a certain spread - especially since IQ isn't the only determining factor for life outcome, but I honestly belief you will find that in the mean a higher IQ will correspond with more achievement (as determined by the oppressive beliefs of society).
Just like with boxing probably measures like amount of Fast-twitch muscle fibers, or training, or strength (I honestly do not know much about martial arts) might have a predictive edge in determining the possible career of a boxer.

>>16080441
> Gleick's bio actually puts it at 125. There are a couple reasons to not care about this factoid:
> - Feynman was younger than 15 when he took it, and very near this factoid in Gleick's bio, he recounts Feynman asking about very basic algebra (2^x=4) and wondering why anything found it hard - the IQ is mentioned immediately before the section on 'grammar school', or middle school, implying that the 'school IQ test' was done well before he entered high school, putting him at much younger than 15. (15 is important because Feynman had mastered calculus by age 15, Gleick says, so he wouldn't be asking his father why algebra is useful at age >15.) - Given that Feynman was born in 1918, this implies the IQ test was done around 1930 or earlier. Given that it was done by the New York City school district, this implies also that it was one of the 'ratio' based IQ tests - utterly outdated and incorrect by modern standards. - Finally, it's well known that IQ tests are very unreliable in childhood; kids can easily bounce around compared to their stable adult scores.
> So, it was a bad test, which even under ideal circumstances is unreliable & prone to error, and administered in a mass fashion and likely not by a genuine psychometrician.
> As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data, and this isn't even a very good anecdote. (I charitably assume that Feynman isn't joking here about the score; Gleick gives no source.)

>>16080148
But how about I'm seeing ESL.

So far it seems intelligence is about abstraction. The guy in OP's video is logical but there's no abstraction, it's very hands-on thinking, so good for him for staying to what he can manage, but he wouldn't fare well in a subject that involves heavy abstraction. IQ tests are also about abstraction (patterns are abstracted from the images shown), this image (>>16080227) also hints at abstraction (hands-on vs reading), the language post (>>16080148) although focuses on language is in fact about abstraction.

Long story short, you can't necessarily distinguish high IQ vs low IQ unless the topic turns to something that involves some amount of abstraction.

Lord Miles is 89 IQ and an over-achiever

>>16081416
What did he achieve?

IQ is a naturally occuring phenomenon. Doing online tests doesn't actually score you IQ. Dumbasses - it's just some nerds game. Now go out there and be tested against your will.

>>16082047
>t. low iq

>>16079815
I've identified a number of small defects that add up to some fairly clear "signatures" in their internal constellations, which resist being rearrange. A good example is this post >>16080148
He's operating on the ancient notion that logic and language are two sides of the same coin, that they're connected. There's also an embedded presupposition that the universe is rational and logical, which implies he doesn't understand cognitive sinks and basically doesn't know how to think, he just hears and recites. Which is why he thinks language is thought.

I'm just going to go with capacity for abstraction and mutability. Intelligent people are able to divide the mind and aren't slaves to language or a superficial and immmediate sensation of cognitive dissonance (ie deconstruction and gradual recombination), unintelligent people are not and can't do any of those things because they only have one internal "box" to work in. Once that working memory is tapped out that's it for them, they have to dump it all. They don't like loose ends, they have a default anchor reality which they need to be solid and singular, therefore they're prone to highly linear thought and thinking in binary absolutes, because it's the mentality a domesticated animal needs to think quickly and "good enough".

Meh. You just know.

>>16083157
See >>16083138

>>16083160
See >>16083138 in regards to >>16083160

>>16079815
If they agree with my political opinions they are high IQ
If they disagree, low IQ

>>16079815
Low IQ is just as viable as High IQ. Water defeats fire.

>>16083170
You hella mad

>>16083173
Spirit defeats matter.

>>16083185
No.

>>16083185
It is equal to. Low IQ tardlet

>>16083196
Sinking spirit into matter makes you a low IQ materialist, that would be represented by the inverted pentagram. You likely cannot even use magic.

You'd be surprised as to how many things correlate with IQ. Even something like performance in a minimum wagie task like a McDonald cashier or cook is correlated with IQ. Credit scores are correlate with IQ, Income is correlated with IQ, educational attainment, vocab count (especially this apparently), etc. Any one thing may be a bad indicator of IQ as the correlation may be low but taken altogether you can get a good estimate, so you perform what basically is a rough bayesian estimator in your head and you could probably figure out someone's IQ well within ±10.

Another way to do this is that actually smart people will be perceived as smart on average. Some people might think they're dumb even though they're smart and vice versa so you have to take the aggregate and you can even get a rough estimation using that as well.

>>16083254
One step ahead, you're a genius. One step apart, you're eccentric. Two or more, you're insane.

>>16083254
>life is just matter
yikes

>>16080148
get landoned mate, u propa bellend geezer twat cretin, that's a propa posh bird, yeah? someone who grew out and about being propa and speaking propa, maybe getting lairy here and there but stilll she's a posh geezer cunt, yeah? mate, why won't u go back to the dirty dank little hole u came from and try not to base ur arugment on someone who speaks propa, it's a well known fact, yeah, that even the most daft british cunts sound like brainiac spac geezer cunts to an america, yeah. ur a mug and a cretin, mate.... and england is the most faggest country in a lord of the rings type way and they all talk like fags.

>So a bottle of water costs you 50 cents at the supermarket, $2.00 at the gym, $3.00 at the fuckin movies, or $6.00 on a fuckin plane... cunts. It's the same fuckin bottle of water. Same fuckin water, nothings changed. The only thing that changed its value is its fucking location... cunts. So next time you're feeling like you've got no fuckin self-worth, maybe you need to change your location, cunts.

>>16083646
>>16083661
kek'd

>>16083667
that's evil

>>16083672
The frog deity Kek, or gaslighting and maiming children with mind altering drugs?

>>16083677
the comics are made by a deranged mind

>>16083681
Here's why that's a good thing.

>>16083683
Is there a link with all of them?

>>16083683
>must of

>>16083689
I deleted the ones I didn't care about.
https://files.catbox.moe/y3q54k.7z

>>16083733
Where do you have them from?

>>16083677
>>16083683
dogisaga, aka dog cunt, is an ugly fat bitch who has been arrested for child molestation on more than one occasion. you can find her disgusting nudes on 4chon.me if you're interested

>>16083733
Ok read about 30 and none were as interesting as the ones already posted, just stuff about being fat or racism (both trite)

>>16083740
Someone uploaded an archive way back. Don't recall where.

>>16083764
Yep.

>>16083742
Didn't know that.

>>16083702
must of is correct based on the new dictionary

>>16085298
I must've missed the memo.

>>16085304
>must've
ok boomer

>>16085306
ok zoomer

>>16085317
zoomers are cool dynamic and fun!
boomers are lame old and sucky

>>16085326
Zoomers zre czinge
Boomerz are cringe.
I am me.
I am based.
The others are cringe.
And I am based.