/sci/ - Science & Math

More valuable would be working towards a state of mind where you didn't particularly care what your IQ was, and measured your worth in better ways. Academic success is a good one.

inb4 well, i'm only sorta interested

that was easy

>>6441851
It's hard for a rationalist to also be an IQ denialist. Intelligence is the limiting factor in understanding and some things are just a waste of time if you don't 'measure up'.

>>6441861
Feynman had an IQ of 120 or so. He united quantum mechanics with electromagnetism and special relativity into the theory of quantum electrodynamics. Meanwhile some with an IQ of 160 haven't done anything meaningful in their life. It's not your IQ that matters it's what you do with it.

>>6441861
I am not denying IQ exists, but its predictive power to any population, is not (like anything with <1 correlation) not directly translatable to predicting an individuals success.

>>6441861
It's one of several limiting factors, and isn't a black white cuttoff.

If you are interested in academia, you success at school is a better predictor than IQ, though still not perfect and there are famous exceptions.

>>6441873
Feynman was an autist with an exceptional talent for a very special branch of physics while being literally retarded outside of his research.

>>6441879
IQ is the single best predictor for academic success and future socio-economic status.

>>6441897
>while being literally retarded outside of his research
source needed

>IQ is the single best predictor for academic success and future socio-economic status.
source needed

>>6441897
>IQ is the single best predictor for academic success and future socio-economic status.
Assuming that's true, it doesn't address my point that prediction for a population does not predict an individual, it just gives a probability, and it may not be an significant one.

That you missed the point suggests your IQ may be low.

>>6441897
>while being literally retarded outside of his research.
3/10

at least we're know you're a trolling though

>>6441897
>IQ is the single best predictor for academic success and future socio-economic status.
No, parental socio-economic status is far far better predictor.

>>6441897
>IQ is the single best predictor for academic success and future socio-economic status.

So what study came to that conclusion, and what tests and analytics did they compare IQ tests to?

>in b4
>it's common knowledge, read a book faggot

>>6441897
>Feynman was an autist
Is everyone going to just let this slide, or does everyone here truly not know what this word means in real life?

>>6442065
I assumed "while being literally retarded outside of his research" encompassed the "was an autist" statement so I didn't pick it up

>>6441884
>famous exceptions
I'm interested

>>6441897
lol'd

I have a love-hate relationship with the shitposting on /sci/

>>6441843
how much of a fuckwit does somebody have to be to not get answer 4?

>>6442071
He was quite popular with the ladies and liked to go to strip clubs.

>>6442175
Well that's what I was thinking

Never had it tested, I get A's in all my classes though so I'm not particularly concerned as to what it is. Maybe if I get really depressed sometime and need some number to tell me how good I am, I'll go get it tested.

>>6442175
Is this a troll? Occam's razor forces us to choose the simplest answer, which is clearly 6.

>>6442581
That's what we all think before we get into college/university. It's a whole other game there, buddy.

>>6442582
i think a smooth curve is simpler than one with corners, as the derivative is everywhere defined.

>>6442591
I'm a junior in college

>>6442591
Community college maybe.

>>6442606
You can't even respond correctly, and I go to Purdue

>>6442608
Where?

>>6442602
L2 Hilbert Spaces, specifically L^p.

>>6442610
No where special

>>6442610
Fucking watch yourself

>>6442612
Please explain.

>>6442622
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/L2-Space.html

Any "sharp" function can be approximated to any epsilon by a smooth function.
AKA sharp and smooth don't really matter.

>>6442622
He's having you on, Raven's Progressive Matrices are given to 5-year olds and above. They're intuition based as a judge of general pattern recognition and reasoning, here's another.

>>6442602
>implying I know what a derivative is

Not everyone here is a maths phd. IQ tests can't expect you to be a professional mathematician.

>>6441843
>Anybody (any Brits) taken the Mensa test?

That picture had better NOT be the mensa test, because i took that shit online and its flawed as hell.
It calls itself "international" as there is no written english, but at the start it clearly states what languaged people can take it. And all the languages are wead from left to right. So here i am thinking backwards forwards and upside down and the motherfucker gives me a bad score. Then i make my observation, and mandatorily assume it will need for most questions to be read from left to right. I do it again and BAM higher grade, closer to what my expected grade was.

So in conclusion, some motherfucker thinks their so clever as to make an international IQ test. But its based upon a lie.

>>6442630
What's the right answer to this one?

>>6441851
>More valuable would be working towards a state of mind where you didn't particularly care what your IQ was

No because thats called delusion faggt. You have to over come your own delusions before you can even be CALLED intelligent.

>>6442630
>They're intuition based as a judge of general pattern recognition and reasoning
There's AIs that can solve them. Look up spaun.

hey time wasters

http://www.raventest.net/raventest8.html

>>6442642
Why is not caring a delusion, care isn't a perception?

>>6442642
are you saying people who don't care about their IQ are delusional?

>>6442658
>sweaty_neckbeard.jpg

>>6442658
Before I waste my time, pls tell me whether I get the score for free or they want to scam me into paying.

>>6442672
5. Are you retarded?

>>6442672
it's 8 dumb fuck

What ever the score is, I'm retarded.

>>6442658
Was pretty easy excpet the last one, but you just have to take the outer ones as positive numbers and the inner one as negative numbers. Then you add up the rows. Therefore 5 is correct.

>>6442732
By the way I'm pretty sure the mensa tests are harder, because I don't think I would be accepted into mensa.

>>6442732
I aced that test, and I doubt I'd get in either.

>>6442744
>>6442738

You guys get your results yet?

By the way, this one that was going around a few months ago http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/ gives me 152, but I'm fairly confident it uses a different metric than mensa, as this test was quite easy and focused on things that I didn't think were part of IQ

>>6442658
I don't know if I'm just slow or if it's because my mind is fried from working on course work and I'm hopped up on caffeine, but I found a few of these really tricky. Mostly confident that I could've aced it sober.

I saw a lot of the patterns as having to do with the diagonals, did anyone else find that?

>>6442663
>Why is not caring a delusion, care isn't a perception?

Its a perception flaw.

>>6442754
But caring isn't to do with perception. Two people with identical perceptions may care about different things.

I don't know what my IQ is. I do fairly well in school so far, I'm a senior in college now and I have a 3.97 GPA over all and 4.0 Major. I hope to go all the way to getting a PhD, but if the work ever becomes impossible to me, I'll just drop out, and pursue work that is available to me given my qualifications. I try really hard, and some stuff really is difficult to me, and I would imagine that if I had a particularly high IQ that I wouldn't struggle with it as much.

That said, it might just be the mediocrity talking, but I'd rather have an IQ of 130 or something than be some idiot-savant who can't do anything other than be a novelty. My social aptitude I feel makes me a happier individual over all, although I'd like to be a bit sharper.

>>6442636
Derivatives are, at the latest, a first-year subject in most colleges, to say nothing of high-school Calculus courses.

At least, they are for hard science degrees. It's hardly doctorate material.

>>6442636
that's why i gave the layman explanation, smooth vs corners.

>>6442747
Yeah.
>mfw

>>6442582
>Occams Razor forces you
>Statements forcing you to do something
Fucking americans and their "fallacies" and "laws"
>hurr durr poe's law stop using ad hominems I won

>>6442758
>>>6442754 (You)
>But caring isn't to do with perception. Two people with identical perceptions may care about different things.

Proof?

I think, that in realistic terms you'd have trouble finding two people that perceive something identically outside of quantum entanglement.

So thats the first part of your statement bullshit.

Next.

>"caring isnt to do with perception"

Then, prat tell, what purpose is perception for? If perception is not for survival. What is it for?

So in total, your argument fails and you should feel very stupid. Which in a way brings us full circle from your denial of IQ tests.

Your emotional bias is clear; you dont like realizing how stupid you are. But if you wish to deal with something the first step is admitting its there in the first place.

Things do not vanish because you dont think about them. This is a conceit and is the basis of natural selection.

>>6442826
tl;dr

You seem to be having a nonsense word festival.

>>6442826

No. My school tested me and I qualified in top 2% which is enough for Mensa. Most other standardized tests that I took during my school career put me in the 99th percentile or better so I could care less about IQ. I haven't encountered something so far that I couldn't understand, but I have only studied undergrad level stuff.

>>6442826
>Then, prat tell, what purpose is perception for?
That's not at issue. I'm asking how caring about something or not is a failure of perception. It seems to me a matter of reasoning, motivation, etc.

>>6442830
Did i boast? Then tell me what my IQ is? Everything i said was about the idea of taking tests. Wow, such complex, many ideas, very hard. Wow.

>>6442828
>You seem to be having a nonsense word festival.

Ah, but disproving by grammar and spelling is the refuge of an idiot.

One day... very soon. Im gonna be too old for this shit, and leave y'all to your fractal wrongness.

I occasionally get insecure about my intelligence, OP.

But then I remember I have a PhD, and while I feel stupid because I'm surrounded by people who are smarter than me, I'm probably much smarter than the average American.

And then the feeling passes

>>6442839
But how do you propose to ask;
>how caring about something or not is a failure of perception.

If you havent even asked;
>what purpose is perception for?

doublenigger.

>>6442826
>Proof?
how can you prove a claim with a "may" in it?

but that two people with perceptions working properly, perceiving things as closely as possible, may care about different things simply because of differing past experiences or present circumstances. this seems self evident.

>>6441843

Here's the thing, OP: the actual test is whether or not you're smart enough to not bother with the test, the reliance on such arbitrary validation, the annual membership dues, etc. in the first place.

>>6442842
>Ah, but disproving by grammar and spelling is the refuge of an idiot.
No, I forgive the poor grammar and spelling, it is the actual words that are a nonsense.

>>6442842
>Did i boast?
No one claimed you did. Here we show a clever and successful academic not caring about IQ

>>6442846
We do not necessarily need to know what something is for to know its properties.

Do you believe caring is a perception?

>>6442849
Update definitions.

Installing.

Sorry Update definitions has encountered an idiot and needs to close.

>>6442848
>puzzles aren't fun
Wow

>>6442851
>No one claimed you did. Here we show a clever and successful academic not caring about IQ

But, Mungo...

Stephen Hawking said people who BOAST about IQ are loosers. He did not say never to TAKE an IQ test.

Indeed the concept of boasting integrally implies you must already have taken the test.

>>6442854
Obviously that is not an argument. Others in this thread have been a little more forensic in explaining why you are talking nonsense.

>>6442861
He said he had no idea (of his own IQ). So one would assume he had never taken a test. He could of course have been lying.

But I am not against taking tests and have taken several myself. I am against people caring about them enough to want to join an organisation based upon them.

>>6442861
>loosers
Now you are just deliberately baiting

>>6442860
>not an argument.

It was more than an argument. It was an argument put in a funny way.

Your whole bit here; all of you. Is to crucify others for your own lack of perception.

What lays at the bottom of it all, and i'd know having studied debates like this for a while; is conceit. You feel that if your emotions were told to work a different way, then they wouldnt be your emotions anymore. But your refusing to understand that the universe will kill you if you perceive a train is heading towards you, and fail to muster any care.

>>6442868
That post's poor grammar actually prevented me parsing it I'm afraid.

>>6442865
>He said he had no idea (of his own IQ).

Well this is false, he took an IQ test after he fell down the stares once and banged his head. Fact.

>I am against people caring about them enough to want to join an organisation based upon them.

Ah well, this is a far more interesting thing to talk about. You see i have discovered the real fact behind it being a bad idea to boast about IQ. You are essentially plateauing yourself. You have made such a colossal deal out of your intelligence, that you fail to ever better it. In essence, whatever great idea you've had needs to be discharged, like a capacitor, before you can move on.

I think that i'd prefer to join mensa just for the chance of some intelligent conversation.

>>6442868
You seem to be extraordinarily worked up over someone making the reasonable claim that what one cares about is not necessarily or solely a matter of perception.

>>6442870
>That post's poor grammar actually prevented me parsing it I'm afraid.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds ~ Bob Marley

>>6442874
>You seem to be extraordinarily worked up over someone making the reasonable claim that what one cares about is not necessarily or solely a matter of perception.

If you are not basing your 'cares' on your perceptions. Then what are you basing them on?

Do you even know yourself?

>>6442875
>Well this is false, he took an IQ test after he fell down the stares once and banged his head. Fact.
Citation? Most places seem to offer only estimates of his. And IQ tests are not used in medicine for any purpose outside of psychology (if you consider clinical psych a branch of medicine)

He has spoken elsewhere about his disdain for IQ.

>I think that i'd prefer to join mensa just for the chance of some intelligent conversation.

I think it is fairly easy to seek out smart people without Mensa, and you get the bonus of not having to talk to the sort of people who would join Mensa.

>>6442881
>Then what are you basing them on?
On many things, on hundreds and thousand years of evolution? I assume that's partly responsible for why I care about getting laid.

>>6442887
>Citation?

No, do your own fucking detective work. Its called GOOGLE. Its hardly difficult.

>>6442887
>And IQ tests are not used in medicine
What about biology? What about assessing that crows are smarter than dogs? Or whatever...

Cats ftw.

>>6442887
>I think it is fairly easy to seek out smart people without Mensa,
How then?

>>6442892
>On many things, on hundreds and thousand years of evolution?

So your saying that your priorities about getting laid outweigh your jumping out the way of a train, or perceiving that your IQ is important because knowing your capabilities is important.

/argument

>>6442895
>No, do your own fucking detective work. Its called GOOGLE. Its hardly difficult.
Of course I did, and didn't find a thing. If you have it, I'd be grateful.

>How then.
University? My math department is pretty good if you avoid the autists.

>>6442900
>So your saying
Nope, not what I'm saying.

See what I mean about nonsense?

>>6441873
>Feynman had an IQ of 120 or so.

IQ is test specific. Feynmann was certainly not only in the 90th percentile for g.

>>6441879
>I am not denying IQ exists, but its predictive power to any population, is not (like anything with <1 correlation) not directly translatable to predicting an individuals success.

True and uninteresting.

>>6441905
Attached.

>>6441912
No.

>>6441924
Whatever else sociologists try. The reason g works so well is that it is very general. Other predictors sometimes outperform g, but no other is as general, with the only one coming close is C from Big Five models.

>>6442640
It's a Raven's type test. They work well for international comparisons.

>>6442762
Just estimate from your SAT score.

>Citation? Most places seem to offer only estimates of his. And IQ tests are not used in medicine for any purpose outside of psychology (if you consider clinical psych a branch of medicine)

Yes they are. For detecting Alzheimer's and because you need them as controls for epidemiology.

>>6442911
>True and uninteresting
Not interested to know how this may affect you as an individual?

>Attached.
Doesn't say it is the best predictor, just that it is good.

>No
Afraid so. Obviously both IQ and socio economic status are passed from parents to children, so many confounding variables.

>>6442911
>The fedora curve

>>6442911
>Feynmann was certainly not only in the 90th percentile for g.
Why not? There will be outliers in the achivement-g correlation, like in any other.

>>6442911
>Yes they are. For detecting Alzheimer's and because you need them as controls for epidemiology.
Where they are (at least in my country) conducted by clin psychs

Point is in Hawkings case, not for head trauma.

>>6442903
>University? My math department is pretty good if you avoid the autists.
>University
>University

Welp, ya'see son. This rustles muh jimmies far off in the distance.

Having never studied at university, yet nonetheless attained a very high IQ score. Im more inclined to see its flaws.

Academics is not a predictor of intelligence. Because that would imply that all academics was not a wast of time. Which it majoritivly is... They train adherents to old thinking, they dont train leaders, deduction, not ever. So in that way it really isnt that different from Christianity.

>>6442911
>They work well for international comparisons.

No they dont. What i just said disproves it.

You're retarded: <90
You're not retarded: >100
You're OCD: >130

>>6442940
>Having never studied at university, yet nonetheless attained a very high IQ score. Im more inclined to see its flaws.
dat bias
>Academics is not a predictor of intelligence.
In math departments it is closely correlated

>>6442953
>In math departments it is closely correlated
EXCEPT.

For the bloody example.

I GAVE YOU.
>dat bias
See above.

>>6442940
>Academics is not a predictor of intelligence.
Of course it is you fucktard. The question is is whether it is a good predictor, with high correlation.

>Having never studied at university, yet nonetheless attained a very high IQ score.
This completely explains why you care about IQ, and it is your history, not your perceptions at work.

>>6442959
Every correlation less than 1 will have exceptions. So what?

>>6442960
>Of course it is you fucktard.

No it isnt times infinity.

Genetics determine intelligence. Fucktard. But i guess you wouldnt know that having;
>>6442940
>train adherents to old thinking
>they dont train leaders
>they dont train...deduction
None of the necessary skills to figure it out on your own.

>>6442960
>This completely explains why you care about IQ, and it is your history, not your perceptions at work.

Is that pseudo intellectual psychology i hear?

I care about IQ because it is a scale that a great many people have taken. That even if they cannot be compared to a true scale, they can atleast be compared to each other.

>>6442967
>Every correlation less than 1 will have exceptions. So what?

So you've understood that your wrong then... good.

>>6442921
>Not interested to know how this may affect you as an individual?
That is not what was claimed. Effects of g are stochastic for most variables.

>Doesn't say it is the best predictor, just that it is good.

IQ is better as you can see.

>Afraid so. Obviously both IQ and socio economic status are passed from parents to children, so many confounding variables.

That's why we have... multiple regression which is used in the above.

>>6442931
>Why not? There will be outliers in the achivement-g correlation, like in any other.

It is much more probable that he took a verbally focused test. Feynman also made a lot of errors in writing generally. See: http://info proc blog spot com/2012/05/jensen-on-g-and-genius.html

>>6442936
Ok?

>>6442944
We know that they do. How do we know? We tested it... Raven's tests are not biased and predict well for international comparisons.

>Academics is not a predictor of intelligence.

Yes it is.

>>6442946
Just no.

>>6442977
>I care about IQ because it is a scale that a great many people have taken. That even if they cannot be compared to a true scale, they can atleast be compared to each other.

Yet. In the next few decades we will be able to directly use genomes to predict g. That is a true ratio scale.

>>6442981
>not sure if troll or ignorant

>>6442953
>In math departments it is closely correlated

Nope. Math does not require a high IQ. Math is all about hard work.

>>6442747
i'm doing this with a massive flu right now, I fear I may be diagnosed with retardation

>>6445168
i'm so out of it I can't even find an IQ score, I just got within top 30% for the 3 overarching topics

>>6443942
>It is much more probable that he took a verbally focused test.

And also that he wasn't taking it seriously. It's hard to imagine a guy like Feynman caring about an IQ test.

>>6445220
It's kind of hidden

http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/challenge/introduction/2

>>6445288
I found that eventually, but once I finished I couldn't really see an aggregate score anywhere and only my percentages in relation to the population on the three topics

I don't even know if I want to see, I did so poorly in it

>>6442683
it's not.
middle diagonal is blunts, lower diagonal is opens, and the upper diagonal (answer) is sharps.