/sci/ - Science & Math

You really had to create another IQ thread?

This is why you'll never get laid, fag.

On my first day, I posed a problem (it's a well known problem and every CS grad should know how to solve it; won't bore you with details) and showed them few ways of solving it. When it came time to implementation, everyone was busily typing and just doing what I wrote in pseudocde… except for one guy. He just looked at blank wall, thinking, and was gesturing something with his hands… as if he's doing rotation. After few minutes, I approached him and asked him if he needed help or if he's stuck on something. He said no and preceded to type some stuff out and said he was done. He showed me his solution. It was nothing like I've seen before and I had no idea how it worked but it gave out correct answers. I looked at it for a minute and couldnt figure out how or why it worked. I just said "oh, that's cool" and pretended I got it, and went and checked out other people's solutions. I'm not a dumb guy (took certified MENSA test, got 145) but I couldn’t figure out how his solution worked the first time I looked at it. Took me around 15 min to trace it thrugh and figure out how & why it worked. I showed it around to other people, including my prof, and no one has seen a solution like this before. Over the next few weeks I got to know this guy and was in awe most of the time when he'd start working on a problem. His solutions were correct, elegant, and simply beautiful.

(final)

The point of this story is that genius is not something you can "work hard" on. IQ is not something you can improve through games or drugs or fad drinks or "magick". If you asked a person with 120 IQ to work hard on some problem and gave him unlimited time, there is no guarantee that he would come up with a brilliant solution. If you had a room of 10 people with 120 IQ, they would not produce work that's equivalent to the work of someone with a theoretical IQ of 1,200. I doubt they could come up with better soltions than someone with 140 IQ. This genius that I came across can come up with solutions to problems, not only quickly, but solutions that someone of a lower IQ couldn’t come up in 100 years!

>>6166084
Tell us the problem and the sketched solution. I am a CS student too and I am very curious.

>>6166089
>The point of this story is that genius is not something you can "work hard" on.

yeah, this is something that most people can't come to grips with. we live in a politically correct society where everyone's suppose to be equal so when cases like this arise, people tend to think they're just as good. it’s a shame really

>>6166084
O jesus more IQ circlejerking?

>took certified MENSA test, got 145
Confirmed for 17 year old highschool student, no one in university or higher gives a fuck about IQ, I don't think Ive heard it in a serious way for over 5 years except on this board.

Also make your faggot lies less obvious

>>6166110

uh oh, someone's severely jealous

>>6166089
>>6166084
>>6166078

Holy shit this is cringe

>>6166089
>>6166084
>>6166078

I love this, excellent troll.

I'd love to know his elegant and mind-blowing solution to the mysterious problem, to be honest.

If someone wants to achieve something then they will do it regardless of their IQ.

Once you become a big boy and get out into the real world you'll realize this.

Hard work has always been more important than IQ deal with it nerdlord.

>>6166121
>If someone wants to achieve something then they will do it regardless of their IQ.

Nonsense. Look at the history of the world. Great things were not done by large groups of people who contributed equally. At the core of great achievements, you can always find some genius with vision who "figured it out". From computers to math, it's always the achievement of a lone genius who makes a breakthrough.

Like OP said, just 'working hard' doesn't really do shit most of the time.

>>6166084
>won't bore you with details

8/10 if not 9/10, by far the best IQ troll in the past few weeks

I believe IQ does correlate with intelligence., to a point. However, I feel you're also overestimating the effect it has on ability.
A genius who does nothing is usually not going to do as well as the average person who works hard.

>>6166114
>Jealous
Of what exactly?

I have a degree and a job in research

IQ is that thing high school kids sit around and brag about when they get bad grades because they want to let everyone know they are actually "smart"

>>6166129
>Great things were not done by large groups of people who contributed equally, the core of great achievements, you can always find some genius with vision who "figured it out"

>Moon landing

interesting… can anyone come up with a list of some achievements made by GROUPS of AVERAGE ppl? no geniuses?

and pls don't say pyramids since the engineer who drafted them and conceived them was clearly a very smart man.

i'm really curious to see if this theory that 'you need a genius to make a breakthrough' is really true.

just thinking about it, i can't think of anything that was not imagined or created by someone extremely smart.

Guys the problem was probobly the 'Hello World' program.

>>6166129
>Like OP said
>Implying you're not samefagging

Anyway, i agree with you, great things were not done by large groups of people in the past. Yeah, in the past. That's not how science works nowadays. Things like that can obviously still happen, but the large part of the modern scientific advancement is made by...large groups of people. The romantic idea of the lonely genious is no more appliable in the current world. I'm sorry man, now you can go back to Assassin's Creed and be a lonely hero if you want.

>>6166134
>>Moon landing

i'll bet you anything that there was some really smart guy behind it all.

>>6166129
>Nonsense.
First off lets get some actual objective definitions in here rather than your retarded arbitrary words.

Then go ahead and prove your case empirically then i might be more inclined to believe you, turbonerd.

>>6166141
Really? I thought that it was planned by a group of kids with Down Syndrome.

>>6166141
>i'll bet you anything that there was some really smart guy behind it all.

What a great argument

My iq range is 121-32, my personality type is INTP. This means I can become astronaut right?

>>6166144
>>6166134

Wernher von Braun.

He conceived Moon Landing. And by all accounts, he was a genius.

When you dig deep enough, you always find a genius behind some great accomplishment.

>>6166136
I cant get paste "print"

Hello everyone,

Ask a guy with a 196 IQ anything.

OP's assessment is absolutely correct.

Thanks

>>6166138
Smart in relation to WHAT? IQ? How the fuck would you get evidence of someones IQ who lived in ancient fucking Egypt?

>>6166146
>my personality type is INTP. This means I can become astronaut right?

sorry you gotta be INTJ

>>6166152
>How the fuck would you get evidence of someones IQ who lived in ancient fucking Egypt?

ugh...

>Ye shall know them by their fruits.

>>6166129

>Great things were not done by large groups of people who contributed equally.

Bullshit. Virtually everything ever was done by whole informal teams of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc.

That's precisely why having one guy working alone and discovering something groundbreaking is seen as so exceptional. Science doesn't come to a standstill just because there isn't a Newton or an Einstein to push it forward.

>>6166138
Aliens designed the pyramids you slut.

>>6166136
I bet his "never-before-seen" solution was something obvious that his teachers just hadn't seen before.

That's what I did for a couple projects in my CS class back in high-school.
"OK class, this next project is going to be hard. It is due in three weeks, etc etc etc"
>mfw I finish it in 20 minutes, and have it turned in
>mfw teacher says she had "never seen anything like that before" in all her years of teaching, but my solution still worked
>mfw I played halo in class for three weeks

And it wasn't even hard, or difficult to understand.

>>6166154
Yeahs!!!!!! Sorre Mr. INTP, but INTJ's in da haus, and about to ride sum rockits

>>6166149
>dig deep enough
>5 minutes from the last post

Nice wikipedia raid, kid

All these IQ threads are persistent troll topics like the cum on face threads in r9k.

>>6166160
Shut up you fucking moron. Push something without evidence and its dismissed. End of story.

>>6166162
>I bet his "never-before-seen" solution was something obvious that his teachers just hadn't s

Or you know, hes some lieing kid

If he was so smart, then why was he studying CS?

How many average people equal a genius?

Seriously… can anyone come up with a metric?

Is this equivalent to: how many chimps equal an average human?

How many chimps would you need to 'work hard' on something for them to come up with something intelligent?

How big is the intelligence gap between someone like Newton and an average math/physics person and between dumbest human and a gorilla like Koko?

Hello!

Everyone at the Mathematics department here in Cambridge knows that if your IQ isn't high enough then there really is no point in letting you work here. It would be a waste of everyone's time!

Best!

>>6166175
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Many chimps.

>>6166164
INTJ are annoying, very full of themselves I've noticed.

>>6166166
>Science doesn't come to a standstill just because there isn't a Newton or an Einstein to push it forward.

I'd argue against that. Look at the great technological paradigm shifts. They were all done by a single man. Yes, others contributed but the initial idea and work came from some genius.

PSYCHOLOGY ISN'T SCIENCE, FUCK OFF.

>>6166092
same here

>>6166204

>>>/pol/

>>6166203
OP is still looking for his made up problem.

>>6166204
this thread is not about psychology, kid.

>>6166223
IQ is psychology.

>>6166229
Therefore it is scientific.

>>6166229
Psychology is guesswork.

>>6166240
Just like every other science.

>>6166251
The difference is that in science, guesswork and hypotheses can lead to a definitive result, through rigorous testing and getting repeatable results.

Can't say the same about psychology.

>>6166238
No, its pseudoscience that tries to understand something that is far too complex for it to understand. The entire field uses mostly guesswork and retarded X=Y diagnostics. There are too many variables.

Its all a set of ridiculous guessing of unobservable traits. NOT SCIENCE.

Belongs on >>>/x/ or >>>/lit/

>>6166260
>Can't say the same about psychology.

Well that's because you're ignorant of the subject.

>>6166262
>that is far too complex for it to understand

We shouldn't do science because the world is too complex and God doesn't want us to understandit? Is this what religitards actually believe?

>>6166264
Wow, such a detailed and thoughtful response.

Are their any numbers or calculations in psychology beyond generalized "formulas" that don't really prove anything?

Can you repeat your results with 100% accuracy? Can this information be held true for a vast amount of people?

>>6166272
>can't into psychophysics
>can't into mathematical psychology

Low IQ retard confirmed.

>>6166267
I didnt say they couldn't keep trying, im saying its not a science.

>>6166131
Agreed.. but, Andrew Wiles only had a 170 iq... Fermat had *supposedly* the second highest in known history. Did this have anything to do with the reason it took him so long to solve Fermat's last theorem? Maybe. Who the hell knows. Who the hell cares.

>>6166285
Why? Because it hurts your religious feelings? Perhaps /sci/ is not the right board for you.

>>6166277
>psychophysics and mathpsych are anywhere near rigorous or scientifically valid

Low IQ retard confirmed.

>>6166078
I got a high IQ score when I was 13, but I'm fucking retarded.

Check mate.

>>6166296
>if it hurts muh feelings it can't be science

Back to /pol/ please.

>>6166301
It doesn't "hurt my feelings", and I don't know what you are trying to argue.

You are saying psychology is a real science, and I'm trying to explain to you that it's not.

What does /pol/ have to do with any of this?

>>6166311
>and I'm trying to explain to you that it's not.

"Muh feelings" is not an argument. How old are you?

>>6166301
>unwilling to accept that muh degree is worthless.

>>6166316
>implying I care about your degree
>implying you have a degree

OP here!

Sorry for a delay, had to take care of some stuff for work.

>>6166092
>Tell us the problem and the sketched solution. I am a CS student too and I am very curious.

I don't remember the exact wording but it was from a Machine Learning 2 (aka advanced ML) course. It was a frequency counting problem. I can probably dig it out when I get home.

>>6166110
nope. I'm 27.

>>6166121
>If someone wants to achieve something then they will do it regardless of their IQ.

I've come across people like this. They usually don't know how little they know.

>>6166123
>I love this, excellent troll.

Not a troll. Scout's honor.

>I'd love to know his elegant and mind-blowing solution to the mysterious problem, to be honest.

It was an elegant, non-obvious solution that worked better than the published result. That's all. It was just an example of guy's genius.

>>6166138
>just thinking about it, i can't think of anything that was not imagined or created by someone extremely smart.

Exactly.

>>6166139
>Things like that can obviously still happen, but the large part of the modern scientific advancement is made by...large groups of people. The romantic idea of the lonely genious is no more appliable in the current world.

First of all, you should invest into a spellcheck because people think less of you when you can't even spell right. Secondly, this is not a romantic idea at all. Science is still pushed ahead usually by extremely smart people.

>>6166166
>Science doesn't come to a standstill just because there isn't a Newton or an Einstein to push it forward.

I don't agree with that at all since it's not true. This book proves you wrong (see pic).

>>6166175
>How many average people equal a genius?

I don't know you can put a measure to the. When it comes to big ideas, I'd say none.

My Philosophy prof has an IQ of 92 and he speaks 4 languages, specializes in medieval metaphysics and also logic (Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein etc). If you check out his CV it's pretty impressive how many awards he got and the positions he's held.

He had some learning disabilities growing up and everyone thought he was retarded and wouldn't amount to anything.
He got over his disabilities but his IQ was always on the low end.

His colleagues from the psych department give him IQ tests now and then and he consistently scores between 91-95.

If you hear his lectures he sounds like he's 150 IQ.

http://web.uvic.ca/philosophy/people/kluge/

>>6166336
>My Philosophy prof has an IQ of 92
That doesn't surprise me. It explains pretty well why he chose philosophy.

>metaphysics
top lel

>He had some learning disabilities growing up and everyone thought he was retarded and wouldn't amount to anything.
As a philosotard he does in fact not amount to anything.

>>6166336
>speaks 4 languages
>92
To speak even 10 or little more languages high IQ is not needed also logic is very easy for this level of intelligence, specializes in medieval metaphysics is just a big amount of BS so he will be ok with it

>>6166345
I take Philosohy and Psycology. The majority of people in both subjects are way smarter than any "real scientist". True geniuses take Philosophy.

>>6166336
Ok but he cant into actual math or anything related, he is unable to produce breakthrough knowledge or really worthwhile academic work,he can just repeat BS like a parrot does, in truth he is just oversized parrot.

>>6166365
0/10

>>6166365
>philosotard
>intelligent
Sorry philosotards are all low IQ retards

>>6166375
Philosophers INVENTED the IQ test.

>>6166365

IQ is accurate ±10 points

>>6166383
Nope. IQ was developed by scientists.

Just a quick point about collaboration of groups of people… yes, groups of people can come up with interesting things but only when they're composed of geniuses!

Picture related.

If these people in the pic were all of average intelligence, they wouldn't have come up with quantum mechanics. If you had 1000 average physicists, they still wouldn't have come up with it.

>>6166347
>logic is very easy for this level of intelligence

If his intelligence level is good enough for Phd work on logic that includes theories by Frege, Dedekind, Russel, set theory and geometry, it's good enough for anything.

>>6166345
>hurr philosophy doesn't count

It's difficult to do good work in any subject, from history to statistics.

>>6166409
>It's difficult to do good work in any subject, from history to statistics.

But it's easy to publish infantile babble and call it "metaphysics".

You guys can think only in a competitive way. IQ accuracy apart, that's a shame. If you want to live in peace, you have to measure only with yourself, and keep improving not because you have to "demonstrate" something to others, but just because, at the end of the race, you could say that you have done it. Remember, YOU ARE THE ONLY JUDGE FOR YOURSELF.

Don't focus on "being a genius" because, trust me, no one of the true geniuses of history ever done that.

>>6166418
But the only reason I'm studying science and math is to impress and ridicule the less educated.

>>6166418
>you have to measure only with yourself

so you recommend the ostrich strategy. how old are you? 10? come on.

>>6166375
>>6166390
The sooner you realise that your pathetic equations count for nothing, the better. Philosophy and Psycology are the only subjects that will shape the minds of children and ove the world forward

>>6166428
Psychology is a hard science and very important. Philosophy on the other hand is bullshit for children.

>>6166418
only people who can't take criticism need to keep telling themselves empty platitudes like that

the mark of true intellect is the ability to judge criticism for yourself, if someone goes "hurr you're a nerdy virgin" that is obviously an insult, if someone says "no that's wrong, retard, you are placing too much emphasis on this factor" it is legitimate criticism, you accept it and move on

>>6166421
That just shows you're an insecure child who needs to put others down to make yourself seem superior.

>>6166421
not him, but it is a myth that this is a goal, by seeking power over others you will have to embrace the real world to succeed and in doing so you will come to understand science and develop skills needed to actually get shit done, rather than just what makes you feel better for the rest of the day

>"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." - William Blake

>>6166428
>predictive power
>count for nothing

>>6166414

>knee-jerk reaction to the word metaphysics

His main work is in ethics and logic, which are well established disciplines.

He teaches metaphysics like a historian would teach world war 2. He breaks down the development of ideas over time and analyzes them logically, which usually amounted to him refuting and poking holes in their theories, but appreciating them for their ingenuity and cunning.

You probably think he's coming up with pseudo-science or astrology and publishing things that don't make any sense.

>>6166434

Agreed. A man is a social animal and to claim that you don't need to be judged by anyone or that you should only judge yourself is nonsense. Everything we do in life involves some sort of judging: when you look for a job, when you look for a mate, when you buy a car and need credit etc. You're being judged all the time.


To tell people how you don't have to be judged is quite stupid.

>>6166449
>You probably think he's coming up with pseudo-science or astrology and publishing things that don't make any sense.

You said he was a philosopher.

>>6166442
Predictive power doesnt make empirical explanations for anything so it might as well count for nothing.

>>6166449
Logic? So he's a mathematician and not a philosopher? That contradicts what you said about his IQ. IQ tests are all about logic.

>>6166453
You're judged all the time but that doesnt mean you have to give a shit about any of it.


Have you ever sat and thought about what you actually gain from little mundane thoughts of the random fuckers surrounding you?

What do you gain?

>>6166426
I didn't say that you have to close yourself to others. I neither said this >>6166434
cause the ability to accept criticism is basic for a rational person. I just pointed out that, IF you wanted to live in peace, you should stop to regulate all your actions to "demonstrate" something.

My IQ is 152 but I have autism. Even if you tell me pure mathematics is better for someone like me, I will always stay in chemistry because I have an unhealthy unexplained obsession with physical chemistry. I've spent hours on /sci/ archive and archive foolz searching for specific terms because of how obsessed I was.

>>6166485
I know exactly how you feel.Im autistic too and I love Philosophy and Pschology!

>>6166493
But have you spent hours on archives to see what posters from past have said?

>>6166470
>IF you wanted to live in peace, you should stop to regulate all your actions to "demonstrate" something

that kind of peace is realistically possible only when you're in a cabin in woods somewhere or 6 feet underground.

Some retards dropped by my university and said IQ was obsolete and talked some shit about multiple intelligence, I just stand up and walked out of the class.

>>6166435
>Psychology is a hard science and very important
Awww, he thinks pseudoscience is real science!

>>6166466

>Logic? So he's a mathematician and not a philosopher?

Philosophy of math, logic, set theory.
Were Russell and Frege mathematicians or philosophers?

>That contradicts what you said about his IQ. IQ tests are all about logic.

He's very good at logic. He's very good at abstract thought. He has a very good memory. He's terrible at IQ tests.

He said the profs in the psych department are baffled by him.

>>6166502
I spend my all of my waking moments dedicated to these subjects. So Yeah!

>>6166512
Which terms did you search for?

>>6166518
>>6166512

yeah, what did you search for? and why 4chan archives and not the general internet?

>>6166449
lel, there is no point trying to explain ethics and logic to someone with asperger's syndrome, they are practically sociopaths and the only thing keeping them from doing any harm is their mental feebleness

>>6166506
>Were Russell and Frege mathematicians or philosophers?
They both studied mathematics. You could have easily googled that on wikipedia.

>He's very good at logic. He's very good at abstract thought. He has a very good memory. He's terrible at IQ tests.
This is a contradiction.

>>6166522
>>6166518
Anything related to the subjects obviously.

>iq shitposting
I wonder does it ever stop?

God this thread is a testament to how fucking dumb /sci/ and 4chan in general is.

This guy has given most basic overview and hasent even described the problem or the proposed solution this apparent genius came up with

My favorite is how he described this guy like its from a beautiful mind or some shit staring off into the distance like the genius he is.

Atleast on reddit a retarded thread like this would be buried

>>6166084
>He just looked at blank wall
lost you there buddy. 5/10

>>6166563
>Atleast on reddit a retarded thread like this would be buried

so whey don't you go back to that shithole? why are you here and why are you bothering us?

>>6166589
he's right, though

>>6166589
>so whey don't you go back to that shithole?
>Implying I dont have 2 tabs open

>mfw the guy was a just maths student and his solution was a simple application of babby's first linear algebra

That's why OP as a CS student didn't understand any of it and deemed him a genius.

>>6166615
You're fucking pathetic, nigger faggot.

>>6166630
>being 13

>>6166468
A car, a job, and a girlfriend.

>>6166638
Actually, by being on Reddit it assumed you're the child here, moron.

Keep being a massive cock-garbling homo though, you do it so well.

>>6166644
>Keep being a massive cock-garbling homo though, you do it so well.

>being this edgy

>>6166615
are you a retarded fat tranny hipster atheist like the rest of that shithole? i bet you are. plz go there and stay there. leave /sci/ to smart people.

>>6166453
Another thing is people seem to underestimate or maybe reject how much they depend on information from the rest of society, not all of it is good of course and people should try to be original and come up with their own ideas, that's just the way it is.

>>6166470
Well you kind of capitalized this.
>YOU ARE THE ONLY JUDGE FOR YOURSELF
Though I suppose it could mean you are the judge of other people's criticism.

I think generally people should try to keep quibbles and squabbles to a minimum and try to nip this kind of behavior in the bud. People have different levels of knowledge, people can get defensive and take things personally when told by others how to feel and think though often someone else does know what is better for you, likewise people have different motivations and may use an argument from authority logical fallacy to manipulate you.

>>6166525
>This is a contradiction.

No.
IQ tests are a poor measure of his intelligence.

>>6166110
MENSA. It's like being subscribed to a magazine that no one reads.

>>6166336
How do you know his IQ is 92?

work smarter not harder

unless you're dumb, then you best get to work

The reason IQ is being downplayed is because of liberal political correctness + multiculturalism.

It's a perfectly legit test and a good indicator of success. Tons of studies have shown this. Go compare the success of people with 110-120 IQ with those who have 90-100. Enjoy the results.

But once we realized that black people on average have an IQ of 70-80 the test became toxic and racist, like Voldemort. We must never speak of IQ tests anymore.

>>6166686
IQ tests are the only academically accepted definition of intelligence. If he failed the test, then he isn't intelligent by the standards of cognitive science and clinical psychiatry.

>>6166708
>How do you know his IQ is 92?

He told the class.
Also confirmed it with a psych prof who tested him once.
They might both be lying but that would be pretty weird.

>>6166713
>IQ
>academically accepted

>>6166506
>He's very good at logic. He's very good at abstract thought. He has a very good memory. He's terrible at IQ tests.
>
>He said the profs in the psych department are baffled by him.

It's not a blood sample. Voluntarily scoring low is always an option.

>>6166407

nobody's questioning that people with unique skill sets / extraordinary in some capacity are necessary for solving the most challenging problems.

but it's questionable whether IQ can test for such competence.

you certainly need much, much more than a high IQ to invent quantum mechanics.

>>6166710
>The reason IQ is being downplayed is because of liberal political correctness + multiculturalism.

^^^ this.

and this will be our downfall.

>>6166710
Stop using arbitrary words like success.

>>6166729

I disagree although I do support multiculturalism, which intelligent person wouldn't?

iq means nothing in a nanny state like western countries because no matter how terrible your genes are, theyll still pay for all your kids and give you opportunities you didnt earn for "equality"

>>6166710
>It's a perfectly legit test and a good indicator of success

Id only agree if you factor in motivation. I dont have a high IQ, but ive met many people who do particularly in my field of study (graduated with degree in physics last year) and the high IQ people that coast would not be deemed sucessful by most peoples standards at all

>>6166710
Its being downplayed because it doesn't matter and has no bearing on real life.

Although if you can prove empirically that IQ matters more than every other variable in life then id might be more inclined

>>6166736

Even if one's IQ was influenced by genetics, how would one earn it in that case?

I'm not interested in punishing you just because you can't help that you're not the brightest in the bunch.

>>6166710

If IQ were significant then a market economy would have recognized it as such and selected for it.

Assuming your IQ is above average for your profession, put it on your resume and see how many more employers laugh at you.

I guarantee they're not laughing because of any political affiliation.

>>6166734
>I disagree although I do support multiculturalism, which intelligent person wouldn't?

I don't. Multiculturalism is the cancer of a society. Multicult societies have higher crime rates and end up in social turmoil. EVERY multicult society throughout history has fallen apart. And usually in a violent way.

Multicult will destroy the west.

>>6166744
because no one gives you a million dollars for having a high iq test, faggot. how dull is your brain?

>>6166748
>EVERY multicult society throughout history has fallen apart.
So has every other society, exepct those that exist today, some of whitch are multicultural like america

>>6166738
>Its being downplayed because it doesn't matter and has no bearing on real life.

bullshit. dumb fucks who can't even do well on an IQ test are giant failures in life. it's like expecting a chimp to become smart if you train it enough. it ain't gonna happen, pal.

>>6166756
Except that multicult societies have a much shorter lifespan. US has been strong & powerful when it was mostly white (95% white). Now that whites are gonna be minority fairly soon, we'll end up in an ethnic conflict like Balkans… but it will be a lot bloodier because there's several times more guns in the US per capita.

>>6166738
>if you can prove empirically that IQ matters

Such empirical studies are racist, evil, and can only lead to genocide.

No but seriously, how many 75-85 IQ scientists, engineers, doctors, bankers, lawyers are there?

How many have probably have 105+ IQ?

Guess what the average IQ of black people is. It's 85.

>>6166763
>Guess what the average IQ of black people is. It's 85.

BS

>>6166759
Unless you can objectively define words like "failure" and "success" and support your claims you're just some faggot on 4chan flinging his opinion at people.

>>6166768

black IQs are actually naturally lower, they simply benefit in the west from race mixing, social programs, education, osmosis, etc. which causes a small rise in IQ (but it is genetic, for the most part)

>>6166748
Did you not just say:
> no matter how terrible your genes are, theyll still pay for all your kids and give you opportunities you didnt earn

Again, even if IQ was genetic, how does one earn genes?

You can rest assured that I'm not going to punish you even though you're not the brightest person if you've no control over that.

> Multiculturalism is the cancer of a society.

Multiculturalism is the strength of society.

>Multicult societies have higher crime rates and end up in social turmoil.

I don't see your point here. Some cultural traits are beneficial and some are harmful. Just because we coexist with more than one culture doesn't mean we have to tolerate destructive traits.

>EVERY multicult society throughout history has fallen apart. And usually in a violent way.

Sounds more like every society ever has at some point fallen apart with violence.
Regardless, most societies in today's world are multicultural. Unless you're Andamanese, then you can claim to be pure.

>>6166774
>Multiculturalism is the strength of society.
multiculturalism has been a failure across the Europe. even Merkel said so. hard data shows you're completely wrong.

>Sounds more like every society ever has at some point fallen apart with violence.


except that in the case of multicult societies, differences become more and more pronounced and they contribute to the violence.

>>6166765
>US has been strong & powerful when it was mostly white (95% white).

White is not a culture.

Before industrialization it was believed by many in the US that immgration of not only southern europeans, but Germans would DESTROY US society.

tl;dr the US, like every other society, is a conglomerate of cultural influences.

>Now that whites are gonna be minority fairly soon, we'll end up in an ethnic conflict like Balkans… but it will be a lot bloodier because there's several times more guns in the US per capita.

But there's no helping that some people are criminals. You can't blame the whole bunch for people like you.

No doubt, OP. A million people aren't necessarily smarter than one. I imagine a monarchy, with the most intelligent person at the top would be able to lead us to greatness. It obviously wouldn't represent everyone's interests. People that aren't suited for a more intellectual pursuit would be upset when they're told their best place is in the fields or quarries.

Tell me, does anyone in here have any idea what limits the growth of the mind? Nature has imposed upward limits on the size of animals. You cannot scale a human being up one hundred fold because they would crush themselves under their own weight. Likewise, I imagine someone like Einstein or OP's example represents the upward limit of intelligence. Don't give me "genetics", I imagine there is a limit that nature imposes on the mind.

>>6166780
>multiculturalism has been a failure across the Europe.

Depends on the community we're talking about.
Regardless, cost-benefit is not even the same for diaspora communities within races.

>even Merkel said so. hard data shows you're completely wrong.

Completely wrong about what?

>>6166780
>except that in the case of multicult societies, differences become more and more pronounced and they contribute to the violence.

Sounds like every monocult society too. The Chinese cultural revolution was the bloodiest event in the last century.

>>6166768
>black people 85 IQ.
>Bullshit

I said 85 because I was being generous and using a 1st world example, the real number is closer to 70. Sorry for not being completely honest.

>>6166774
>Multiculturalism is the strength of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism

Read up on crime statistics and welfare abuse by ethnic immigrant minorities. You'll be surprised at how awful it is in some countries.

70% of inmates in Switzerland are immigrants.
In japan blacks are outnumbered by 4551% by native japanese, yet blacks commit 351% more crime than the japenese do.

>>6166774
>Multiculturalism is the strength of society.
is that supposed to be a parody? every government study has shown it to be massively destructive economically and in safety, health, etc.

those are government sources in the image

>>6166774
>Multiculturalism is the strength of society.

But the Data contradicts this wish.


>denmark implements very strict immigration laws
>saves $9 Billion dollars in revenue, welfare benefits, etc

>Some immigrants have already turned their back on Denmark voluntarily. Increasing numbers of Somalis are moving away, especially to the UK, because of discrimination.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/putting-a-price-on-foreigners-strict-immigration-laws-save-denmark-billions-a-759716.html

>>6166817
>Every government study

Try the census? Jews, Indians, and Chinese contribute disproportionately more than even indigenous Brits in the UK to the economy.

>>6166786
>White is not a culture.

But they share common values, religion, traditions and goals. Similar IQ and genetics also help.

It was relatively easy for a German or Brit to integrate into America. It's much harder for an African or Muslim to do so.

>>6166831
>Try the census? Jews, Indians, and Chinese contribute disproportionately more than even indigenous Brits in the UK to the economy.
the studies are clear, its a net loss. i dont think most people would be against inviting geniuses from other countries over, but leftists claim thats racist and unfair and instead invite "opressed" blacks and muslims over for the most part

>In japan blacks are outnumbered by 4551% by native japanese, yet blacks commit 351% more crime than the japenese do.

Are we talking about multiracialsim or multiculturalism?

Cultures aren't races. Modern Japan is very culturally mixed society.

Reardless, one would have to be retarded not to realize there are damaging cultural traits and beneficial ones. Because there are some instances of issues with multiculturalism doesn't mean it isn't beneficial on the whole.

>>6166831
we’ll need a citation on that. lemme guess, you're an indian immigrant. no need to deny.

>>6166832

Again, I don't see what this has to do with race.
You can be non-white and follow European culture for example
You can be white and follow African American culture.

>>6166835
stop pretending like you dont know what multiculturalism alludes to. tired of all you libtards always playing these word games.

>>6166838

>the census?
Didn't I just cite that?
If you want, I'll dig the census data out for you again, but a simple google search is all that is necessary.

I don't mention my race because it's easy for intellectually dishonest (or incompetent) to say I'm lying because I'm foreign or because I'm lying about being indigenous.

>>6166847
Why should I let one political faction control rhetoric?
Words have meaning. I use them according to this.

>>6166838
I don't get it, what's wrong with Indians?
We do well in academia, we integrate, we have low incarceration rates, we get decent jobs.
I always took it as a point of pride.
Why do white supremacists dislike us more than others?

>>6166177
>posing as the helpful math guy
shame on you

>>6166856
>muh rhetoric
no one is obsessed with word games and definitions and redifining terms like you libtards are. but thats not surprising because thats all you have under your belt because the facts nor the logic ever support you

>>6166864
dey took errrr jerbssssssss

>>6166870

no one is obsessed with word games and definitions and redifining terms like you supremacists are. but thats not surprising because thats all you have under your belt because the facts nor the logic ever support you

>>6166843
>Again, I don't see what this has to do with race.

Race has a lot to do with it. They blend in with the native population physically, they share blood so there is a common tie there. They have similar behaviors, psychology, disposition to crime and violence and IQ.

>You can be non-white and follow European culture for example

Yes but those are outliers. The majority of Germans or Brits who immigrated to America were white europeans. And lets not forget that the first guys in America were British...so you can see why its so easy for them to integrate as opposed to some Black from Ghana

>>6166864
>Why do white supremacists dislike us more than others?
are you retarded? indians are the least of peoples worries. he merely asked you for some data. its not a personal attack. that said, indians are still dumb and criminal in their own land, for some reason the smart hard working ones get to migrate to the west (my own belief is because they dont have government programs actively shipping them in under the lie of "asylum" like they do with blacks and muslims)

>>6166876
If economics were a zero sum game, the average life expectancy would still be ~25 years.

>>6166864
>Indians did nothing wrong
>Let us into your country

As long as you remain a very small minority that assimilates and contributes its fine.

The problem arises when the minority increases and enclaves appear like China Towns and China neighborhoods with Chinese writing everywhere. The bigger these communities get the less the Chinese feel the need to assimilate or learn the language.

The presence of other races/cultures undermines the integrity of the native culture.

>>6166864
Heh, anon guessed it right. Damn /sci/, some of you have amazingly high IQs and you can cut through lies and identify anon easily. DAMN!

>>6166078

This is nature vs nurture yet again. Why do so many people try to deny the role of nature and genetics? IQ is highly heritable (p=0.8) and no amount of learning and teaching can turn a low-IQ person into an intelligent one. You cannot teach a genius.

It's 2013, almost 2014, dammit!

Why is this still debated?!?!!?!?

>>6166957
>Why is this still debated?!?!!?!?
because of liberalism

>>6166957
>>6166969

would you stormies stop turning our board into shit pls and thx.

>>6166957
Its being debated because the terminology and the because the subject of intelligence itself is subjective.

>>6166980
>terminology and the

shit i meant the terminology itself and because the subject of intelligence itself is subjective.

>Don't worry kid, if you train and work hard you can become a basketball pro and can become the best player ever!!!

you'd never hear that said to a short guy trying to become a bb pro. and yet people in here are saying the same lies all because IQ is not blatantly obvious.

some people in this thread are truly dumb.

>>6166980
>subject of intelligence itself is subjective

Subjective? IQ tests aren't subjective, they're objective.

>>6166983
Theres a clear asymmetry between physical limitations and mental ones.

One is unobservable and therefore not capable of being empirically verified.

Its not even close to being the same thing so stop trying to pretend it is.

>>6166985
Cognition testing very well might have an objective process, but what it claims to test is subjective.

>>6166988
>Theres a clear asymmetry between physical limitations and mental ones.

no there isn't. a low IQ person will never become a great mathematician or physicist. no matter how much posturing you do. just like a midget will never become an NBA pro.

>>6166994
Theres just no empirical proof for your claims, until you actually have the data then you're just some guy spouting opinion.

Grad in CS here, too. I'm focusing on intelligent systems in my masters.

Post the solution. Your anecdote means nothing.

>>6166980
>>6166982
>terminology
stop the bullshit. no one is obsessed with "terminology" or "rhetoric" or any of that crap that you do-gooders always seem to revolve around.

>>6166998
What the fuck are you blithering about?

If science didnt have CLEAR OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS THEN IT WOULDNT BE SCIENCE.

>>6166988
>physical limitations and mental ones

Sure, mental ones are even HARDER TO OVERCOME! You can always put lifts into your shoes or break your bones and stretch your legs few inches but you can NEVER increase your IQ.

>>6166999
i can't prove a negative, 'tard. it's up to you to show me a 100 IQ math genius.

I'll wait and will check this thread occasionally. please do post your proof. I'm dying to see it.

>>6167005
the definitions are clear, its merely cry babies who try to use marxist tactics to redefine everything so it better suits their position. example: gender.

>>6167007
>i can't prove a negative

Welp there ya fucking go psychology (IE IQ) is pseudoscience.

>>6167013
>the definitions are clear

Wrong the definitions are entirely subjective..

>>6167014
so does that mean that you won't provide the proof of your claim that an average person can get a Nobel or Fields medal if they work hard?

<<< mainstream scientists on intelligence and libtard lies.

wikipedia page with bullet points:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

stay butthurt, low IQ PC people.

>>6167021

thank you anon

>>6167017
> implying that's the goal

>>6167031

I have a hard time imagining a person with 85 IQ doing complex math, science or engineering.

Do you have any examples?

>>6167039
not solid ones because no one reports their IQ.
Just the IQ 97 guy who posted a couple weeks back

>>6166078
>>"IQ means nothing"
>The first quote comes from the physics guy who's doing a Q&A on here right now

Finally found it: >>6164645

>>6167021
In cognitive science the term "intelligence" is interchangeable with cognition.

The fact is the concept of intelligence is subjective.

If you were to replace all of those points listed with "cognitive ability" then they might be accurate.

Intellect serves yourself, it allows you to achieve your goals and your goals only, which makes the entire concept subjective. Whether you group cognitive ability in with intelligence is up to you.

>>6167039

people can score lower on IQ tests for many reasons, not just inability to comprehend complexity.

they may not be focused, they may not be motivated to try, they may simply be inexperienced with testing format, or perhaps they're forgetful or they have trouble thinking on their feet.

the ultimate effect may be poor problem solving, but IQ tests don't always differentiate with the above. There are multiple steps between seeing the question and writing the answer.

For a CS grad student you don't know much about CS.
Rule 1, class 1. "smart" solutions that nobody can understand except you are garbage

>>6167047
>hey may not be focused, they may not be motivated to try, they may simply be inexperienced with testing format,

None of those mean that their ACTUAL IQ is low. You're just bring up bullshit arguments about how someone can have a bad day. We're talking about ACTALY low IQ people.

Why are you building these easily-observed straw men? Does this steep of arguing work on your low IQ friends? Do you think we're all dumb here to fall for it?

>>6167046

have you even read the link I posted?

>"Intelligence is a very general mental capability ... it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings ..."
"Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments."
"While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence."
"The spread of people along the IQ continuum ... can be represented well by the ... ‘normal curve'."
"Intelligence tests are not culturally biased"
"The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood"
"Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level"
"The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered"
"IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance"

>>6167055
>We're talking about ACTALY low IQ people.
Thanks for the laugh.

Just because you're a loser who's never dedicated time to working on programming puzzles doesn't mean everybody else is an unmotivated loser like you.
A lot of people do it, and those are what you call "geniuses" because they're more experienced then you

>>6167055

>None of those mean that their ACTUAL IQ is low.

It introduces confounding variables in their IQ score.

>You're just bring up bullshit arguments about how someone can have a bad day.

you would posit that ability to understand abstractions and complexity is to some degree innate, but that traits like focus, speed, memory, creativity, even personality traits like motivation must be chalked up to a 'bad day?'

>>6167063
>ACTALY
you gotta be dumb when a typo made on a smartphone can entertain you. does looking at a kitchen sink also make you laugh?

>>6167058
There is no way to accurately quantify intelligence and if there was, there would be no way to accurately measure it due to the dynamic nature of brain chemistry. A subject could provide erroneous data for many millions of reasons that it would be virtually impossible to account for.

nothing scientific, pseudoscience and magical thinking, nothing more.

>>6166138
>and pls don't say pyramids since the engineer who drafted them and conceived them was clearly a very smart
Oh man, this is retard tier shit right here.

Do you even ancient pyramid?

>>6167073
>nothing scientific, pseudoscience and magical thinking, nothing more.

LOL. everything you said is factually wrong and completely disproven. you either have a very low IQ or you're a SJW.

>>6167079
How is it disproven in any way?

You cant fucking PROVE anything in cognitive "science" because the traits are unobservable.

>>6166886
>indians are still dumb and criminal in their own land, for some reason the smart hard working ones get to migrate to the west (my own belief is because they dont have government programs actively shipping them in under the lie of "asylum" like they do with blacks and muslims)

If the migrants perform well and integrate, it is because they were the self-selected 'good ones'. If they do poorly, it is because they're typical and being smuggled over :\

we can't win!

>>6167073
Just because you've posted the same BS a dozen times in this thread doesn't mean it's true or will ever become true.

>>6167091
Sort of like everything in psychology.

>>6167089
its a confirmed fact that governments are smuggling them in to western countries. why theyre doing it is up to you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

just one of many of these types of stories

>>6167098

>>6167105
No it isnt bait, nothing in psychology is empirically verifiable.

Deal with it you enormous faggot.

>dat soft-science

>>6167108
> nothing in psychology is empirically verifiable.
> laughing_girls.jpg

>>6166321
I wouldn't care about the validity of degrees either if mine was based on pseudo-science.

>>6167110

Neurology is.

Most hard scientists will candidly agree that the rest is about as objective as women's studies.

In the past century, physics produces Einstein and Heisenberg,; psychology gave us such gems as Freud and Jung.

>>6167122
> great man view of science
stop it.

>>6167132
take your psychometry to /x/ and /pol/ where it belongs

>>6167138
You should be banned for shitposting and trolling.

Which I was a math whiz. I'd love to study teh physics.

Sadly I must settle for neuroscience...

btw to everyone knocking the objectivity and empiricism of psych...

it's just as testable to prove that a particular neuro-pathway or psychological function exists as it is to prove that there is actually an electron.

>>6167140
please stay on topic.

anyway, psychology isn't really a science because it's empirically unverifiable.

>>6167149

you're almost as stupid as Jaden. are you Jaden?

>>6167149

psychology is just as empirically verifiable as a whole ton of physics. we can't see it, but we know it's there.

look at all the physicists working on the concept that everything we KNOW is wrong, and that it's all a big series of string vibrations.

>>6167152

I know with your hitler complex and your brain made for women's studies equivalent you get violent and start to use ad hominems but this isn't the thread for that.

we're much closer to understanding everything about the human psyche and neurology than we are everything about the physics of existence.

>>6167156
psychology is an illusion of subjective perception.

physics, chemistry, and to a lesser degree biology are the limits of science.

>>6167149
A survey is an experiment.
Doesn't that mean it's empirically viable?

>>6167163
that's because there's no objective standards for the former.
hence,
>soft science

psychology begins and ends where people find its use convenient for supporting this or that political agenda.

>>6167169

psychology IS neuroscience.

we will soon be able to physically see the reasons for human behavior, there's your criteria met.

>>6167166

no because it can't be properly controlled

>>6167169
> psychology begins and ends where people find its use convenient for supporting this or that political agenda.
so does climate science
is that complete bullshit too?

>>6167177

no, like physics to astronomy. the cause and the effect.

>>6167172

stop playing semantics.

like astrology to astronomy

>>6167176
>is that complete bullshit too?

Yes.

>>6167176

yes?

>>6167173
There are standards.
So because you can't control everything it's not an experiment?

>>6167182
Everything must be controlled.

>>6167177

more like physics and chemistry.

physics tells us that there are elements and that they can bond together and behave in many different ways. chemistry is the study of every possible bond/interaction.

neuroscience tells us how these neurological connections and structures can form, and psychology is the study of every possible result of said wiring.

chemistry steps back from physics.
psychology steps back from neuroscience.

either way, everything in all of these fields are testable empirically, we just may not have the tech yet. we can't actually see all of this electrical activity happening within the elements, but we know they are happening. same deal with psychology behavior being inherited via neurology.

>>6167182
standards as exacting as one can be in psychology, which is like, nothing.

>>6167190
> Everything must be controlled.
wut

you think in a physics experiment everything is controlled?
why do you think there's such a think as dark mass?

>>6167196
you have no idea what you are talking about.
please leave

The OP is basically correct.

Some people just can't deal with reality.

There are people ability to understand concpets and solve problems is as far above a typical person as a typical person is above someone with downs syndrome.

It's just the way of the world.

>>6167209
refer to
>>6167205

>>6167212
oh ok,

you're disagreeing with me so you must think that someone with down's syndrome is capable of graduating in mathematics from Harvard.

Or that a typical highschool student selected at random amongst the nation who has average grades for their school in maths is capable of winning a gold medal at the IMO.

you're an astoundingly ignorant or self deluding little twerp, aren't you?

>>6167215

This fella is right.

The whole reason why one does better on an IQ test over another is the same reason one would be better at math than another.

Basically, OP doesn't think that intelligence exists, only hard work.

topkek

>>6167215
>you're disagreeing with me so you must think that someone with down's syndrome is capable of graduating in mathematics from Harvard.

They have a mental disability so i doubt it.

>Or that a typical highschool student selected at random amongst the nation who has average grades for their school in maths is capable of winning a gold medal at the IMO.

inherently possible so long as they are mentally healthy.

>>6167215
Heisenberg had an IQ of 50. Schrodinger had an IQ of 45. Dirac had an IQ of 57. They never learned the alphabet and their language was heavily reduced. If we listened to IQ fanatics like you, these geniuses would have never invented quantum mechanics. Eat this, IQ boy!

>>6167238

Ahh see there's your problem. Faulty information to base your deductions off of.

Thinking that Werner Heisenberg had the same IQ as a severe mental retard who can't even wipe his own ass would skew your reasoning.

>>6167246
It makes no difference because all humans are of equal intelligence. There are differences in height, running speed and weight, but there are absolutely no differences in cognitive abilities. Evolution stops at the neck. The brain is not subject to evolution. All brains are equal and every human can study science and math at any level he wants.

>>6167246
Everyone knows that Feynman had an IQ of only 12, and he never learned to feed himself or tie his own shoes.

>>6167071
Nice pic you've got there. Apparently you don't understand irony, which has always had comedic applications.

Actually children with down syndrome are smarter than Stephen Hawking because if they want they can study all his physics AND they can walk. Suck it, IQ fags!

>>6167251

Intelligence is LARGELY formed after birth, you code your hardware during developmental years. Nevertheless, once it's there, it's there.

Even then, genetic physical developmental variation in the brain does exist.

Open your mind to the possibility that someone with a lobe with half the voltage and half the neuro-connections won't function as well as someone with extra activity in said area.

>>6167259
Intelligence is not genetic. Intelligence is not subject to evolution. Intelligence is a fundamental right and inherent to all humans in equal quantity. If you disagree, you are a racist from /pol/.

>>6167259
>Open your mind to the possibility that someone with a lobe with half the voltage and half the neuro-connections won't function as well as someone with extra activity in said area.
[Citation Needed]

::Spoiler ALERT!::
The brain of a genius is no different pathologically than that of the average person.

>>6166773
>ireland
>93
wow, all the stereotypes are true

>>6167251
>It makes no difference because all humans are of equal intelligence. There are differences in height, running speed and weight, but there are absolutely no differences in cognitive abilities. Evolution stops at the neck. The brain is not subject to evolution. All brains are equal and every human can study science and math at any level he wants.

>>6167265

If you're saying we wouldn't see functional differences in those two individuals then you don't even believe in neurology.

There are many cases of super-geniuses who have had their brains' scanned, showing heightened activity and differences in anatomical size.

At the moment though, all we can see is vague electrical activity maps, like a thermal map of an area. We can't see close enough in yet to know all of the differences.

There are processors out now that use half the power and run twice as fast, just because of the architecture. So I will agree with you in part that heightened energy in an area does not necessarily correlate to higher function of said area - but it's a trend in neuroscience of that being the case.

There are drugs and physical interventions tested that heighten neurological function by increasing "power" to that area of the brain.

>>6166773
>IQ Estimate
Now that's just some hilarious bullshit right then there.

>>6167265
They tend to be bigger and wrinklier.

>pathologically

>>6167269

aw fuck yeah, great example totally forgot about neuro-degenerative diseases.

>>6167236
totally false and divorced from reality. you're beyond help.

>>6167259
Intelligence is largely formed after birth in the sense that if you took a baby and locked it in a cupboard for 8 years it's going to be extremely mentally deficient. but if provided with relatively normal upbringing and a decent amount of nutrition then it's mental ability will progress at a certain trajectory that's dependent on genetics and schooling/ envinroment/effort. for a given amount of schooling and academic effort , the student with the better genetics for high IQ will do better, but improving the effort put into schooling/academic work what-have-you can help a person reach their full potential. the potential of someone with good genes will be higher than the potential of someone with less good genes though

>>6166957
>>6166957
Because there's different types of intelligence, and that testing one through one specific test is bad (the test is IQ, in case you didn't catch it). Ever heard of Gardner's eight types of intelligence? I guarantee Mozart's IQ wouldn't be as high as Ferman's, yet they're both geniuses in their own right.

>>6167272
>Thinking neurology hasn't advanced since the 19th century.
Brain size is irrelevant to mental capacity. Albert Einstein had a remarkably normal sized brain, with the exception of his inferior parietal, which was slightly larger than normal. The question is then asked, is this the result of his chosen vocation, or inborn?

Until you have demonstrated that at birth a genius brain is remarkably different than an average brain. you really just don't know.

>>6167278
[citation needed]

>>6167286

Who the fuck is Ferman?

>>6167281
It is comparing down's syndrome, neuro degenerative disease and normal brain. Claiming that everybody have equal brains is absurd.

>>6167305
im on your side im the guy who wrote this


>>6167272

I meant your post further reinforced my point that physical differences in the brain create differences in functional ability.

>>6167296
I meant Fermat. I brain farted and thought of morgan freeman while I was writing that.

>>6167317
>>6167317

Sorry, you said Ferman, too late.

Did OP ever deliver his 1000 IQ revolutionary problem and solution?

>>6167319
brb editing wikipedia article to change the name to ferman.

>>6167336

Wikipedia...the power to change time...

>>6166078
how i hate when some faggot tries to make High IQ faggs like unreacheable gods denying a complete world history of pain and division in the specie.
go ahead. keep making high IQ people feel different.

Has IQ test ever been used for something that is not cutting funds for social programs around the world?
has it ever done a evident good?

>>6167415

But cutting funds to social programs around the world is good?

Then we can move in...

>>6167296
>can, can, can you do the Ferman? If you can then I can! I can Ferman if you Ferman - can you Ferman?

>>6167415
IQ testing is used to advance children into gifted programs

>>6167335
No he didn't.

I don't even disagree with OP's major point on IQ but I really want to know that goddamn problem and solution.

I don't know why this is so hard for everyone.

Intelligence, which is a combination of creativity, visualization skills, knowledge, and many other factors, has a huge effect on everything you do.

Your intelligence can be greatly improved with hard work, although natural talent does play a factor.

IQ is correlated with intelligence, especially in the range of 70-120 or so where it is measured most accurately. However, it is not fully representative of it, and someone with a high IQ can certainly be less capable than someone with a lower IQ.

The above three statements are "obvious", and there isn't really much else to say about it. The only people who insist on anything else are those who want to use their IQ as "evidence" for their intelligence, because they aren't actually capable in any other form.

>>6166138
If you ever delve just knee-high in any mathematical literature, you will see that most of it has been done by average people proving bits and pieces.

For instance I can pick a subject, say Information theory, and I get a laundry list of people that have worked hard on the field, without being some genius.

>>6166138
Almost everything. You just only hear about the people who make big leaps and get super rich or win some prize.

If you take something like physics, most of the work is not sitting in a room trying to think of the theory of everything. It is looking at data, analyzing data, and tons of other tasks that require above average intelligence, but not some crazy level. Hell most of it just requires you to know how to program.

thats ok man i'll just smoke some weed

>>6166409
>It's difficult to do good work in any subject, from history to statistics.
This. This guy is the only guy in this thread that knows what he's talking about. Everybody here sounds like autistic "muh maths and science" aspie undergrads. Wait until you actually try publishing something. People will rip you another one.

>>6166459
>Predictive power doesnt make empirical explanations
Uh, that's kind of what science is. Create theories that explain something (empiricism) and predict future phenomena. Math is the ideal language to create these theories in. Math is the language of science. Granted, soft sciences usually don't need much math, but soft science theories are also difficult to verify for many cases (i.e. very little predictive power).

IQ IS a rather shit measurement to be entirely honest

>>6166562
>>iq shitposting
>I wonder does it ever stop?
Welcome to /sci/!

>Confirmed for 17 year old highschool student, no one in university or higher gives a fuck about IQ, I don't think Ive heard it in a serious way for over 5 years except on this board.

THIS

Just a short story. A guy I met (knew him before from a forum), has 183 IQ. If his brains some day decide to switch on I will tell you. Too long to explain why HE IS STUPID, but is one of those cases that well... YOU KNOW HE IS STUPID. It's just that he performs well in IQ tests, that's all.

PD: The day you meet a real genius you will think you met some mad man, so stop pretending you all us with that shitty story. Also, just to clarify: being a genius is a condition based on practice and perfection, not on immediate intellect.

Post the fucking solution, you lying faggot

>>6167634
*you deceived all us*

>>6167634
>has 183 IQ. If his brains some day decide to switch on I will tell you. Too long to explain why HE IS STUPID, but is one of those cases that well... YOU KNOW HE IS STUPID. It's just that he performs well in IQ tests, that's all.

topkek! you just pulled that out of your smelly fat ass.

>>6167640
If anyone, who lies is the psychologist with whom he took the test.

>>6167427
*On USA* At least here in Europe, IQ = Nothing. But if you ask me, any child with a minimum intelligence can even enter College at 15-16 if the system allowed it, what's actually the matter is considering if it's correct to make him be under such pressure.

>>6166078

Fully agree OP. I have come across a couple of people like this myself. So incredibly intelligent its scary. I thought I was quite bright until I met them. Actually it was quite bad for my ego, once I realized how more intelligent they were. They made me feel slow, like a dunce, by comparison.

I think what stood about about these guys was the fact that they were able to conceptualize things differently than most of us. They could think in different ways, ways most of us cant even imagine. At least that's my take. I think most of us try to figure things out using the tools we have learned from others. Occasionally we might refine the tools and think we are pretty smart, sometimes we make the tools out of new materials and think we are shit hot. These super-smart guys, however, make the new tools. These guys can make new tools that no one has ever dreamed of making before, that's what make them into genius level while the vast majority of us are merely the mechanics who use the tools they invent.

>>6167667
Hollywood, is that you?

>>6167674
He's probably just amazed by someone doing Gauss's trick

>>6167674
Not Hollywood. Just a regular grunt, Masters in Chemistry. But smart enough to recognize someone who is much smarter than me and well enough educated to realize that how they derived a solutions to a problem was by using their own original conceptualizations that are not taught in University.

Or maybe I just go to a retarded Univeristy, and all the Profs I showed their proofs and solutions are all retards too, because they had never seen the same approach before,

Yeah, that's it, we are retards, but you aren't. You are probably a genius, a misunderstood one, no doubt?

>>6167697
> all the Profs I showed their proofs and solutions are all retards too, because they had never seen the same approach before
Unless it's a research level problem, it's more likely that they just didn't bother thinking about it much after they heard the solution the first time. And putting that aside, you're still assuming that intelligence = IQ, which is a pretty bad assumption.

>>6167686

Man, I came across you hicks all the time.

An inquiring mind considers all possibilities and asks for evidence.

Mediocre minds merely denigrate all that does not fit their world view.

You are very easy to spot, you know that? Most of time we just ignore you, but I just felt like swotting a fly.

>>6167705
Ok fine you're right. IQ matters a lot, and therefore you are inherently inferior to me. No amount of work you put in will allow you to solve problems with the ease and understanding that I can. Does that make you feel better?

>>6167667
>I have come across a couple of people like this myself. So incredibly intelligent its scary. I thought I was quite bright until I met them. Actually it was quite bad for my ego, once I realized how more intelligent they were. They made me feel slow, like a dunce, by comparison.

When I was in HS, my physics teacher asked me to do weekly tests that a US team for physics olympiad was sending out to HS's all across the US. I did those, found them enjoyable and some very easy and after 4 months, I was one of the lucky few invited to do the final test for a place on the team. Number of people who were invited to MIT that year was around 25. After a day of meetings and lectures, I basically realized that my biggest competition was going to be 4 guys. Each of them was scary smart. What I realized was that they knew the basics just as well as I did but they could APPLY those basics a lot better than me. Their brain just saw patterns in things that mine could not. And it wasn’t hard to figure out who was gonna be on the team either. I don't think you needed to administer the test at all. It was obvious who the smartest people are.

>I think what stood about about these guys was the fact that they were able to conceptualize things differently than most of us. They could think in different ways, ways most of us cant even imagine. At least that's my take. I think most of us try to figure things out using the tools we have learned from others. Occasionally we might refine the tools and think we are pretty smart, sometimes we make the tools out of new materials and think we are shit hot. These super-smart guys, however, make the new tools. These guys can make new tools that no one has ever dreamed of making before, that's what make them into genius level while the vast majority of us are merely the mechanics who use the tools they invent.

Agreed. They just see the world a bit differently. They see problems differently. They see patterns in things that most do not.

>>6166969
>hurr blame libruuls

leftists have higher average iq than conservatives

>>6167046
Sometimes researches do indeed use "general cognitive ability" instead of intelligence, but it means the same in that context, i.e. true g score.

Picture related. There is nothing 'subjective' about intelligence.

bump?

>>6167910
>"general cognitive ability"
oh great the liberal euphemism police has claimed another word: intelligence

no more gender, no more intelligence. is any word safe?

bump