/sci/ - Science & Math

What political party do you align yourself with?

Sylvester Stallone has a similar IQ. He also has bigger muscles. Kill yourself for not being rambo.

Why do you think IQs aren't just an arbitrary, meaningless number used as pseudo-intellectual masturbation?

So what are you doing with your super powers?

>>3319613
We are on /sci/, everything here is pseudo-intellectual masturbation.

>>3319607

>>3319609
Democrat, but I can't be bothered to vote

>>3319607
Love the assumptions. My muscles are actually quite big naturally, cunt.

>>3319612
In undergrad and about to mop the floor in med school admissions.

>>3319624
Why do you align yourself with the democrats?

What the fuck are you doing on this thread, smart guy? Shouldn't you be solving all the world's problems?

Go discover an unobtainium tampon and shove it into your blood-belching vagina instead of bragging about a meaningless and arbitrary number.

>>3319613
>>3319634
samefag detected

>>3319624

>thinks he has a 154 iq
>is going to med school

confirmed not samefag.

it is a fact that IQ's do not reflect intelligence.

"arbitrary" and "meaningless" are synonymous with IQ numbers

its good that op is arrogant and over confident

i wouldn't want some real 154 iq aspergers fag operating me second guessing every decision

interesting how society has tricked OP into going into one of the worse careers. enjoy your slightly different shaped car and whatever dumb shit you spend the extra money on during your free 1 hour a week. fagfag.

>>3319639
I don't "think" I have a 154 IQ. And in the real world, medfags are more respected than "durr Ph.D. in physics," even if it is less rigorous.

>>3319656
Which brings me to another question, why aren't you majoring in physics?

>>3319653
>thinks all doctors are surgeons

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

I'm going to be an endocrinologist, punk. Just sit on my ass, regurgitate bullshit I memorized, and write prescriptions all day err'day. Probably browse newt gingrich while I'm "looking up patient files." I'm about to live the dream, buddy.

enjoy spending half your money on lawyers. you'll need them for the inevitable malpractice lawsuits every doctor has to face.

By the way: Ph.D. in Physics << much more respectable profession and enjoys better job satisfaction.

You don't sound like you will be a good doctor yet. Maybe in time.

>>3319663
Well, I liked physics when I was younger. I read all of Stephen Hawking's "Brief History..." and at one point wanted to be a physicist. But my parents wouldn't pay for anything besides medicine, engineering, or finance, so I just went with medicine.

List some achievements worthy of that IQ. I haven't seen any posted yet.

>>3319689

I concur. Teach us, you all knowing douche-bag

How does it feel knowing that IQ tests are inaccurate past the 125~130+ range, so the extra 20 IQ points on your test are meaningless.

>>3319604
I want to do an (real) IQ test, any suggestions on which?
Also, can i ask you if you think that an IQ test is enough(or reliable) to define someone's intelligence? I mean, for me, intelligence is an umbrella term.

>>3319689
rustledmyjimmies.jpg

>implying intelligence magically changes if you don't accomplish anything

I'm quite sure I'm as intelligent as Newton and could do things on the same magnitude of his discoveries--but I can't be bothered to waste my energy on such things. I'd rather just browse newt gingrich and fap than work on some hardcore science/math shit in my free time.

>>3319711
WAIS, that's what I took

>>3319715

>claims he is intelligent as Newton
>claims a discovery akin to calculus that can change the world as we know it is a waste of time.

Conclusions: you are retarded. Go back to hitting the books retard.
>

>>3319722
lrn2read

I said I didn't _want_ to make such discoveries. Not that it was a waste of time.

>also protip: Newton didn't invent calculus.

>>3319715

You have a high IQ too!?!? You should join my club of cock-worshipping arrogant faggots called MENSA!

>>3319729
I actually considered joining, but then realized that there were dues. I don't want to pay dues for some autist circlejerk club. I have the interwebs for that.

>>3319604

>Newton didn't invent calculus

er...yeah he pretty much did. Him and Liebniz (independently), Newton being the first to apply it in a physical sense

>>3319727

learn to read

To argue who actually discovered calculus, whether it was Newton or Leibniz, is not the point. The point is that you're capable of such ability and choose not to use it. You're retarded.

also protip: Calculus was discovered, not invented.

I would've asked but its pretty obvious now.

You're a raging homosexual.

>>3319768
>2011
>calling people homosexual as an insult

Sure is 1800s in here.

/sci/ is still the easiest board to troll

I'm pretty sure most of /sci/ could sub in for collegeconfidential

>>3319772

Yeah, a little after the time Newton was around.

How to tell if someone is not a genius:

1) They mention anything about an IQ.

>>3319715
>I'm quite sure I'm as intelligent as Newton and could do things on the same magnitude of his discoveries
6/10.

>>3319750

protip: Calculus isn't a law of nature and thus was invented, not discovered

154 IQ? Bullshit

I have an IQ!

Why isn't this sad troll thread saged to hell already?

>>3319792
>implying geniuses don't know their IQs

>implying no geniuses are pompous and/or need validation

pick one

>>3319794
>mfw I'm OP
>mfw I didn't write the post you referenced
>mfw I actually agree with you that calculus is an invention

>>3319794

protip: Calculus is observed in nature, hence it is discovered. Techniques for applying calculus were invented, such as derivatives and integrals. Newton did both.

>>3319823
>mfw I'm OP
>other people pretend to be me
>everyone disregards it because I SUCK COCKS

>in after buttmad dumbfags

Calculus is a branch of mathematics.

To say it was invented implies man invented mathematics.

There are mathematical laws that govern the universe, such as permittivity, and the gravitational constant. Man did not dictate that the circumference of a circle is always a factor of pi. Mathematics and therefore calculus is discovered. Their applications are invented.

thisthreadlookslegit.jpg

>>3319624
>>3319656
>>3319672
>>3319680
>>3319715
>>3319721
>>3319727
>>3319735
>>3319604

>>3319841

>>3319841

>knows his shit

zero wasn't invented. It is a mathematical concept discovered to occur naturally in physics and chemistry. same goes for calc

>>3319841
Fool.
For one.. find me a perfect circle in nature.
You have it backwards. Nature exists without mathematics, mathematics is only a manmade tool used to describe nature.

Moving along.. do you think that we will one day find a mechanism by which the universe itself actually performs mathematical calculations?
Even if we do, this would then become a physical thing, from which the mathematical structure would be derived from the physical properties it possesses.
Sure, physics uses math as a tool.. but who is to say that isn't just due to our ignorance of how the universe really operates? The point being, if we were to find an alternative to mathematics (which is more than likely impossible) physics would still exist.. and it would still describe nature. Just because it uses math doesn't make math more fundamental.

You may have a large IQ but what is your EQ like?

>Claim 99th percentile IQ
>My muscles are actually quite big naturally

>>3320792

The universe is governed by the laws of physics, and until the day those laws change, there is are still fundamental mathematical quantities that describe nature. Unless the laws of physics change, the circumference of a circle is still a factor of pi, whether an ideal circle exists or not; it will always be a factor of pi. Can't find an example in nature? Euler's number and population growth. Electromagnetic rad? A second-order homogeneous differential equation. Calculus is found in nature whether you like it or not. The way we defined things was invented sure; the appearance of integers of arbitrary. What isn't arbitrary is that these values exist and the concept that drives them occurs naturally. You can't separate nature and mathematics.

>>3320835
It's hard to argue because I do agree with you more or less.

I'm just being very picky when I say that I just don't think that the universe DOES math the way we do.
So the way I see it is that math is just our translation of the way things are really done. So in this sense.. mathematics is something invented to closely mimic something real.

Nobody fucking cares.

>>3320874

It is without a doubt a tough philosophical question to wrap your head around, but whether we call 2 a 3 or a 6 an 9 is arbitrary. That is the language of mathematics; that was invented. The processes of mathematics (derivatives, integrals, multiplication, etc.) all occur within the universe naturally. Mathematics occurs within the universe as the laws of physics grant. Its true that the human translation of mathematics, which we invented, is far from perfect. A great example is pi. Why isn't pi 6.4848...? It is 3.14159... always. It is fundamental to our universe, until the laws of physics change.

>>3320874
If the universe doesn't have perfect circles or perfectly straight lines to draw across their diameters then it also can't have a pi, or get a different value for it than we do. Pi means a specific thing, and if the universe isn't using those things then it's not finding pi.