/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6323263
>Where does intelligence come from? Do we each, well most of all humans have the mental capacity of Einstein?

It is between 50% and 80% genetic. (Different studies get different results.) If there is a way to become much smarter than you "naturally" are, nobody has discovered it yet. So no, you don't have the capacity to be as smart as Einstein was.

>>6323263
It is largely genetic, particularly as time goes on. That being said, there are ways to help people learn more at their peak potential. The real "source" isn't very well worked out yet. Its my understanding that some genes are correlated with intelligence, but no casual relationships have been established.

In regards to the fedorable comment, skepticism and intelligence are also only correlated.

>>6323273
>yfw I am Einstein

>>6323301

That would make you 134 years old and quite likely suffering from severe mental deterioration, so you're still can't be as smart as you were before you faked your death.

What do you think is the best proof of intelligence? Success? Career? For example, you have a famous rapper lets use Eminem, if we could have gone back in time and set him on a different path could he have the potential to be a successful engineer or physician. Implying Eminem is even smart~`

>>6323263
Yes, no, and maybe.
Yes, you can become as good as Einstein at solving differential equations and equal his understanding of theoretical physics.
No, you cannot revolutionize our understanding of physics by following the simple new idea that the speed of light is a universal constant and working out the implications of that.
Maybe, if you acquire the technical and mathematical understanding necessary you might be able make a breakthrough by finding another elegant, simple idea and following it to its logical conclusion. But that's not just intelligence, that's also a combination of imagination, creativity, and passion.

The real question is, what is so great about being the next Einstein? He had his own share of personal problems.

Also, FYI, plenty of people much smarter than you were devoutly religious. Kelvin, Planck, Gödel, and Heisenberg were all actively religious, and Einstein himself was something of a deist. They were probably wrong, but equating intelligence with atheism is pretty stupid.

>>6323307
who are you to tell me what my still can and can not do? how do you even know I have a still?

>>6323273
How do you measure that, though? I'm interested in examples. Only one I got is

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38657/title/Test-Scores-Are-in-the-Genes/

>Genetics accounts for some 58 percent of the variation in test scores of more than 11,000 high school students taking the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education), a qualifying exam common in the U.K., according to a study published in PLOS ONE. In contrast, students’ school environment and home life accounted for only 36 percent of the variation.

>>6323519
>How do you measure that, though?

IQ tests are the most obvious and useful example, since so many other things are correlated to IQ scores.

>Where does intelligence come from?

It evolved.

>>6323519
>How do you measure that, though?

Twin studies. Think about it and it will make sense to you (if you have a high IQ that is… apologies if you don't get it and have a low IQ).

IQ heritability is crazy high (some say as high as .9). So choose your mate carefully if you want your kids to be smart.

>>6325572
Why does everyone mention this study? Was it scientifically done? Was it replicated? Was it verified to be true in all cases?

>>6325583
>study

you seem confused since you're using a singular. you clearly know fuck-all about heritability studies and/or twin studies. why don't you do some reading on Wikipedia, at the very least, so you don't sound so damn clueless.

Obviously genetics have something to do with it as well as formative environment.

Furthermore it is my belief that every person's capabilities are unlimited, but the health and longevity of our brains are. Given enough time any one of us could become smarter than Einstein, however genetics gives you a head start and rarely will anybody have enough time to catch up before your brain functions slow via old age or stop via death, and of course there are those who are never able to reach certain heights due to mental illness, retardation, or otherwise.

Think about it, humans, indeed all animals are built for adaptation. Sit with a fool long enough, teach him 2+2=4 enough times, explain the concepts a million times over and eventually he will demonstrate a thorough understanding of it. With understanding, comes growth and intelligence. It might take years of constant study, and most people do not devote their energy to that, because they are busy doing other things with their life. And certain more complex equations and theories might take even longer to master, perhaps longer than the human lifespan, or the biological prime of the brain before neurons start dying off and the brain is no longer physically capable of strenuous work.

tl;dr there's some science to it but eventually it becomes a more philosophical question that no scientist can answer and scientists should stop trying to answer philosophical questions like whether or not a god exists, because its out of their area of expertise

>>6325646
>Furthermore it is my belief that every person's capabilities are unlimited

Oh yea? In what way? Have you ever tried to teach someone with a 100 or below 100 IQ math? Your theory will quickly fall apart.

How about you do some research?

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

>>6325656

I don't pay much attention to IQ but all I can say is what I said, if you are genetically fucked due to fetal alcohol syndrome or some shit has biologically ruined your brain, then you're fucked. If your brain has all the right parts, it just takes time, maybe even thousands of years of repetition. Have you ever thought that people with below 100 IQ are actually mildly retarded?

All posts above this are bullshit

Intelligence is just a word, just an idea
To summize it into a number is beyond idiotic.

Try to remember that some of us can paint, and some can do math, and others can write poetry, or play the drums. Some can build and some absolutely can not.
The truth about intelligence is that it is as simple as this..

Our brains came after our bodies, consciousness even longer after both. Brains are receptors of senses. Some of us are better at some senses than others. Some of us have connections from one sense to another. Sometimes these connections prove worthless, sometimes they prove genius. Currently, capitalism is ideal for analyticals. People who can memorise and recall facts are considered brilliant. All you have to do is memorize how numbers and functions work, and memorize series, you have Jacob Barnett.
Using visual keys like geometric shapes can allow faster memory, geometry is a visualised concept. In other words, eye discernment + memory capacity = super mathematician.
Some of us are linguistic, some of us are sensual, some can smell and some can hear. Its the ways these things cross that produce brilliants. That's why autistic kids can do amazing things, to put it lightly, their wires are crossed and some are overdriven.
Intelligence isn't like some RPG, a stat on a character you can raise. Some is learned, some is predetermined.

Some of this audience may have very little creativity, but with excellent memory and social skills and good habits, can be brain surgeons and rocket scientists. Can they ever propose new ideas? Can they philosophise? Can they paint, or invent like Tesla? No, but they can still score 150 on an 'IQ' test.

The best metaphor I can think of, is intelligence is a bit like cooking. A good dish is balanced, a poor dish has too much of one thing and not enough ofthe other. An incredible dish is an acquired taste that harnesses an intricate composition that balances and contrasts many mediums.

>>6325659
FAS is just a severe manifestation of a mental impairment. People with average IQ are also impaired, in a way, when it comes to advanced abstract thinking. This is why many kids have so many problems with math in schools. It's not that teachers cannot teach or that they are not doing their best, it's just that many of the kids they're teachign these subjects to lack mental capacity to excel at these subjects which require a lot of thinking. Some kids are tall, some skinny, some short, some with brown hair, some with blue eyes and some with lower mental acuity. It's just biology and heritability at work.

To claim that everyone has the same mental acuity is beyond delusional and just shows how uneducated people are.

>>6325661
> Intelligence is just a word, just an idea
> To summize (sp) it into a number is beyond idiotic.

Uh oh.

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

Pic related.

>>6325661

>A good dish is balanced

One of the better things you said, look at some of the greatest figures in history. They were jacks of all trades. Newton wrote more on Theology than anything else yet was one of the most influential scientists in history.

tl;dr if you want to find a truly "intelligent" person find someone who is good at EVERYTHING

>>6325670

But there is a certain biological norm for most of the species, the vast majority of humans are somewhere between idiot and genius, and what I'm saying is if you're at least "normal," that is biologically you have all of the right parts in working order, you can learn eventually anything, the issue is that a person will never live as long as it would take, or perhaps they wouldn't put enough effort into it, even. Humans can't just simply be set to fire on all cylinders all the time, my point is that a brain that is biologically healthy can accomplish roughly anything that is possible given enough time, even hypothetically thousands of years.

>>6325674

The only thing you proved is that "IQ," whatever it is, is decent at measuring social success. That doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to intelligence.

You cite work an awful lot; what if a brilliant man was simply unable to find work because his field was not profitable and corporate interests saw to it to lay him off? What if he is just lazy and doesn't want to work, does that make him any less "smart?" There are an awful lot of non sequiters in your statistics.

Daily reminder that genes only code for proteins, nothing else

>>6325674
Thanks for proving my point.

Economic standards based on capitalistic system, system works best off of analytical, there for IQ is standardized to reflect analytical ability above other things. The system promotes analytical skill more than anything because schools are foremost used to help usher students into a working world.

My question to you is, why do you think there are no IQ tests that ask you to paint different shapes, objects, and things from our imagination? Because those skills are useless to corporations. IQ is a number that reflects utility in today's market, not abstract ability, not musical intuition, or the ability to discern a nuance of flavour in a dish of thirty different prep aired ingredients.
These things require the brain to work, but aren't recognized as a valuable skill, that doesn't mean its not there, and it could be quantified. Its quantity could surpass your own. Maybe some of our homeless could play violin, but nobody put it in their hands, hopelessness and circumstance abound, their lives go unnoticed, their proposed IQ below 100, they can't do math, and are contemptuous of society, but in another life their ability to move their hands, express emotion and discern pitch and timbre, may have lead them to write beautiful music.

>>6323519
Various ways. See the infographic I made on the topic.

>>6323626

>>6325694
Standard IQ tests are great at measuring intelligence, i.e. idealized g factor.

See: >>6311506

In this moment are you euphoric op?

Anyone claiming "you can't measure intelligence" is clearly misinformed.

Intelligence can in fact be measured with a great deal of accuracy. A little bit of research would show you that.

I've found that the only people who ever claim that "you can't measure intelligence" are people who are considered dumb or unintelligent to begin with.

>>6325858
>I've found that the only people who ever claim that "you can't measure intelligence" are people who are considered dumb or unintelligent to begin with.

>Ad hominem
>Ad populum
>Grand amount of irony

>Intelligence can in fact be measured with a great deal of accuracy. A little bit of research would show you that.

The CONSENSUS is that intelligence can be measured with a great deal of irony

Once again
>Ad Populum and possibly appeal to authority
Also dependant on the definition of intelligence.

I could go on and on, but I need to go to bed.

>>6325882
Holy christ you're dumb.

I've seen countless math skilled people fail to fabricate simple bridge designs, and plenty of musicians that can't build bridges or do math.
IQ tests will never accurately determine any single persons ability to use their brain, because the test results are only represented by a single number, whereas the true ability of any persons brain is based on a broad spectrum of aptitudes that interplay with each other.
If you were to replace visual mathematics with sound, where pitch would determine value, and rhythm would determine functions, its possible that musicians would excel at math. The proposition isn't practical because sound is harder to work with than visual representations, but this is an example of how flawed the average IQ system is works, and how it discounts many if not a majority of the human minds aptitudes.
If you believe that any IQ test can gather enough information to
>>6325890

And you try to prove it with another ad hominem?
Are you trying to be ironic or are you This stupid, really..

There are no accurate intelligence tests, because the mind has many outputs, be it visual, lingual, olfactory, or analytical. Too many variables to effectively designate a single Number that would represent the potential of a persons mind.

>>6325946
You are really really dumb.

The IQ measure isn't supposed to account for individual and arbitrary spectrums of intellect like emotional or musical. It's a composite score of intellect. Do you know what that means? Go do some research before you spew more shit from your mouth, sperglord.

I believe it is innate. Give your average Joe a 1000 year lifespan and do you think they would have the creativity to invent calculus?

Even if I trained my hardest from childhood I wouldn't be able to run the 100m as fast as Usain Bolt. Hard work can go a long way, but to get to the elite levels you need a genetic advantage.

>>6325967
Can it measure how stupid you are?
>composite score of intellect
Hey, no, it isn't. Thanks for playing. Try citing that or even defining it. You don't know what you're saying.

>>6326074
Stay mad and retarded. People as dumb as you never realize it anyway.

>>6326103
You know how insults are associated with anger?
Well only one of us is insulting the other.

Frustration is also associated with stupidity, not to insult you or anything, but that would be why intelligent debates don't have insults, like this one.

If looking like a fool is somehow enjoyable for you, by all means keep it up.

>>6326167
"you can't measure intelligence!1one!1! we're all smart in our own special way!!1!" hurrrr durrrr keep talking

>>6325993
False analogy. Usain's feats were physical, not mental.

>>6325993
This is entirely true. Same goes for things like piano, chess, etc.. Practice only gets you so far.

>>6323538
>IQ test
kill yourself

>>6326268
>not knowing that IQ scores are actually pretty fucking accurate.
pleb

>>6323387

Don't they have your brain in a museum

how many processors are you running off

>>6326191
>This is entirely true. Same goes for things like piano, chess, etc.. Practice only gets you so far.

Not only that, but even if you have aptitude for music, for example, unless you start it really early (before the age of 7), you will never attain perfect pitch necessary to understand music really well. This is due to brain's increased plasticity in that region that goes through changes as you age and loses plasticity.

This is why older people (ie. over the age 7) have trouble picking up tonal languages like Chinese etc.

I'm pretty sure that the same is true for many other aptitudes including math. While you can teach an old dog few tricks, he will never be as good as a young dog that started early.

>>6326341
>I'm pretty sure that the same is true for many other aptitudes including math.
Yep. Each person has a "genetic potential" which limits them for any given task/aptitude. Practice will get you closer to your genetic limit.

The reason the that "elites" in any skill stand out is not just because of their hard work and practice, but because they have a heightened genetic limit that they have been able to approach (or even meet).

Think olympians, chess grandmasters, master pianists, etc etc

This stuff is actually pretty fascinating.

>>6326343
(same guy)

For instance, master pianists have highly adaptive central nervous systems that allow them to perceive (and encode) proprioceptive movements with a great deal of precision. Their perception of realtime movements coupled with sound are also very acute and allows them percieve incredibly fast playing at a much slower (more manageable) rate than others.

>>6323263
>bringing up religion
Your fedora is showing.

>>6326467
When did "fedora" become a buzzword insult for "opinon I don't like"?

>>6328187
it's for you enlightened atheists

>>6328192
You can be enlightened too. All you need is to accept science and rationality.

>>6329841
He's not putting you down because he's christian.
Fedora refers to people that are atheists and revel in their superiority as enlightened individuals.
The fedora was connected because assbuger atheists like to wear them or something.

>>6329848
>Fedora refers to people that are atheists and revel in their superiority as enlightened individuals.

Maybe originally, but retarded godfags have adopted it and are successfully changing to just any atheist.

"haha, those atheists sure are losers, right chums?"

that kind of thing

Yes, everybody can be the next Einstein. It only takes hard work. Biological factors like "intelligence" are only social constructs and not important to academic success.

>>6329848
Then why do I get called a fedora even though I'm not an atheist?

>implying Einstein was smart

He was a good physicist but he failed at babby math.

>>6329848
>Fedora refers to people that are atheists and revel in their superiority as enlightened individuals.
So it's a feeble attempt by lesser individuals to try insulting somehow?

That's cute. *tips headwear*

>>6323519
Who's to say test scores determine intelligence?
Intelligence is incredibly multi-dimensional. You could inherit different types of intelligence from your parents.
Call it an anecdote, but while I've always done fairly well in school, there were people better than me. When I talked to them, however, I found out that the areas they excel at were time management, organization, and to a lesser extent focus and memorization. They were very adept at studying and test taking because of these qualities. I lacked a few of these qualities compared to them (save for memorization), but I had a significantly higher reasoning ability, imagination, and knowledge base (though I understand knowledge base isn't necessarily a form of intelligence, is just means I read a lot). This means that while I Iost to them in terms of test scores, I often beat them in terms of debating and rationalizing information.
Regardless, I'm starting to doubt whether we'll ever completely understand intelligence without a far more solid understanding in neuroscience.

>>6335964
>Who's to say test scores determine intelligence?

Literally thousands of studies.

>Intelligence is incredibly multi-dimensional.

No.

>Call it an anecdote,

Anecdote.

>>6323519
Like this.

>>6335995
If this is true, then it's definitely odd. I don't remember people's names very well, but I can recognize faces near instantly, I can also remember facts very well. While I always was a mediocre English student, I excelled at Math and Science.
Once again, I'm spewing anecdotes, but I would appreciate if you could give me some clarity over why that image contradicts other sources of information I've seen and my own experiences.

>>6335995
>Literally thousands of studies.

Yes, its a good thing psychology is psuedoscience, this way we know what to ignore in lieu of actual science.

Take this trash to /x/

>>6325696
>genes only code for proteins
What does this mean and how is it relevant to the thread? Surely genetics have some affect on the brain as well.

>>6336044
Why do you believe going full retard was a good idea?

I'd say it's genetics. I'm stupid, and I know that I was born this way. It's like being born with no legs or arms, except instead your brain is crippled.

For people with good genetics, they will get better at school stuff through hard work. They already have the talent and capacity to get better easier than most, but also just a huge capacity for expansion.

For us stupid people we never get better no matter how hard we try, and the max that we can learn is pretty small. There's just some things I'll never get no matter how hard I try to get them.

Hard work is just something of the movies. It really doesn't mean shit if you don't gain anything from hard work, which is what being dumb is.

You guys won't get it though and just tell me that I'm not trying hard enough. No, I've tried hard enough for too long and I'm sick of people constantly passing me up with their fingers up their asses just because they were just born smarter than I was.

Aside from being obviously wrong, what does religion have to do with intelligence
I'm sure there are theists that are smarter than some athiests

Who cares about being smart? Being pretty is where it's at!

It's a fact that being pretty turns everything you say into a golden word, even if it was turd-stupid and sometimes an outright lie. You can make all the gilded jokes you want, but it's still golden.

>>6336015
Why do you think? Your experiences are not a representative sample.

I'm really bad at remembering people's names, but if you test a lot of people on this skill, their score on that skill will correlate positively with pretty much whatever other mental test you can think of. Definitely not a trivial finding.

As you can see, the correlations are quite small. They would not be noticeable without a large sample size and statistics -- which is exactly what you don't have from personal experience.

>>6336111
Well, what do you think the proteins do, hm?

>>6336624
>You guys won't get it though and just tell me that I'm not trying hard enough. No, I've tried hard enough for too long and I'm sick of people constantly passing me up with their fingers up their asses just because they were just born smarter than I was.

This is the unfortunate social consequence of denying intelligence differences or denying their relative immutability. If that is true, it must mean that some people are just lazy or whatever. This obviously leads to condemnation of the supposedly lazy people. Such behavior serves no good purpose.

>>6338379
>I'm sure there are theists that are smarter than some athiests

Yes, but on average atheists are smarter, perhaps by about 5 IQ.

>>6325661
Well I can do math AND play the drums.
Checkmate athiests.

>>6325661
did you just seriously say mathematics is about memorization?
back2highschool

>>6340039
What else would you expect from someone who wrote a 341 word post about how IQ tests are bullshit and he didn't want a grape anyhow?

>>6340039
If mathematics doesn't involve any memorization, then please logically deduce the definition of an Iwahori–Hecke algebra. Since you didn't need to memorize it, I'm sure you can post it without looking it up on wikipedia.

bump

>>6340039
Mathematics is mostly about memorization. Elementary mathematics where you solve solved problems isn't. But "doing mathematics" involves a ton of memorization.

"Theorems, you should remember. Propositions are good to remember too. Lemmas, you can forget."

>>6340309
>>6340317

den y can't computers run proof algorithms doe?

>>6340322
http://coq.inria.fr/

>>6335999
>However, they share only half the genes, so one has to multiply the correlation by 2 to get the estimate.
is that really the technique and if so, why is it rigorous? it implies to me a lot of weird independence assumptions; as a really extremal example consider a factor that's determined by interactions between > 10% of the gene sequence; people who share < 10% of their genes can never share the whole factor

after a long ass time not saying anything on here, im glad to see my thread has popped off lol

I'll just leave this here

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
>http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-morphogeneticfields.html