/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9858134
He's not the theory of everything guy right?

>>9858137
No, that's him. Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. He also lives on his ranch in the middle of nowhere taking care of animals and shit posting on the Internet. I think he's pretty interesting.

Could you sum up the CTMU?

>>9858134
imagine being this Chad
>can comprehend the most intrincate theories in a whim
>no need to go to university to do research: his mind is able to deduct important theorems while bouncing drunklards or driving a truck
>have manly bros to drink and have fun with
>fuck neuroscientist Stacy
>reject offers from top-notch companies to go work on your theories in your farm, living a comfy as fuck life
>virgins will study your CTMU for decades to come

>>9858175
From his own words:
“ How, then, can we ever form a true picture of reality? There may be a way. For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists). Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself. In other words, we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies. Then we could add an instructive twist. Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic. By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe. ”

I haven't looked into it. I do know it's in the middle of a cluster fuck where most scientists are refusing to take it serious due to him being outside academia. The quora pages talking about it are filled with idiots talking about their own qualifications instead of actually refuting it.

I can imagine langan solving the P=NP problem then in his speech going "now that I have your attention, I would like to talk about the theory I have devoted my best efforts..."

is langan actually confirmed to have a 200+ iq or is he just a huckster scam artist

like I just I just don't see how a supposedly 200+ iq spends his life milling about working as a bouncer or a menial laborer or whatever he did for so long, life isn't a good will hunting Hollywood movie, the probability of a legit 200+ iq guy ending up as a regular Joe schmoe bumble fuck working whatever jobs is almost non existent, I just don't buy it, he's mostly likely 130 iq guy at best pulling a fast one on everyone

>>9858191
So is he saying this shit's black magic or what?

>>9858207
He admittedly got a perfect SAT (pre re-centering) despite taking a nap during it... So I'd say he's definitely smart.
Also there is a non-negligible amount of big brain guys ending up living regular lifes because they get bored or sick of academia.
Having high IQ != having the desire to pursue research.

Hell, even Newton was a >literally who living in a farm on his nutjob theories of alchemy until someone got the idea of randomly asking him for the elliptic orbit problem.

>>9858207
No, he really does have an 195+ tested IQ. Quantifying fluid or crystallized intelligence gets tricky that far out of the norm, but you get the idea. You have to understand how much of an enigma he is. He was born poor as dirt, no father in his life, getting the shit kicked out of him from his step father. It's really no wonder why he didn't end up in Academia. He shit talks it all the time for being an insiders circle jerk.

": Academia, and the wider economy which unwisely relies on it, also exhibits self-containment and the associated mathematical closure property. Its constant accumulation of power and influence has now given it a virtual monopoly on scientific communication, intellectual commerce, and even the right to obtain a decent job on the basis of personal merit and intelligence.

Because Academia is closed, outsiders - people who have not paid tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for its increasingly watered-down credentials - have no access to it, its personnel, or its journals. This allows it to exclude anything for which its own members cannot take exclusive credit (in any other context, this would amount to a “conspiracy to commit theft of intellectual property”). In my own case, there was never any choice about whether or not to obtain academic credentials, as not only did I lack the money to obtain them, but by some combination of error and contrivance which it is either unable or unwilling to explain, Academia repeatedly blocked me from doing so."

>>9858222
yeah man but 200 iq is FREAKISHLY intelligent, it's not just some above average intelligence dude that fell through the cracks through laziness or whatever, a legitimately intelligent guy of that caliber would be followed his whole life from birth and be handed slots in top graduate schools with full funding on a platter, this is why I'm so skeptical

and the comparison to Newton isn't quite apt, in Newton's times academia by comparison basically didn't exist the way it does today

>>9858191
There's not much to refute when he isn't saying anything of substance.

>>9858235
You're basing this on what exactly? A brief two paragraph explanation? At least read some of his work before pretending it's incomprehensible drivel. You are basically doing the act same thing as some of the other scientists who won't touch it.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I find the reaction to CTMU very interesting. The scientific world is starting to base itself around an appeal to authority fallacy.

>>9858231
Nah, I don't buy the 200IQ shit either, but he could be 190 based on the SAT thing and the Mega Test score (it's not an standardized test mind you, but several Hi-IQ societies have been using it until the answers got compromised) imo.
The Newton comparison is apt in my opinion. His alchemy theories are definitely equivalent to the CTMU in the nut-o-meter, he published the Principia then went on to not producing anything else and dedicating his efforts to bureaucratic shit; and well, while it is true that Academia was very underdeveloped in the renaissance, it existed nonetheless, and there was a "national pride" (not to mention military applications) to it... It also was a very closed circle.
I'd say today's Academia is better suited for the 130-160IQ range, with some exceptions like Tao; and freakingly high IQ types steer clear from it (they comprise maybe 30 people in the whole planet, yeah, but still).

>>9858191
Its not pure gibberish, what he says haves meaning.

Anyway he's wrong, you cant describe reality itself because any model of though implies axioms that must be believed in order to be true, if someone had sent this guy to college for metaphysics or epistemology he could had made something, too bad the college system in US is only for a few

>>9858246
Yes, I'm basing it on his own words. I'm not pretending it's incomprehensible, I'm saying those two paragraphs mean "we should invent maths" and "we are one with the universe" but written in the style of Russell Brand.

I don't believe some shady person with no background in science is enlightened enough to be incomprehensible to everybody else, because I'm sure people much smarter than me have read this and found no merit in it.

His quote on academia is also "they took our jobs"-tier. I'm sure he's smart, since whatever he put on those 56 pages must be pretty intricate to not be called out immediately as nothing of value, but if you claim your IQ makes Einstein look like a chimp you better have proofs.

Say whatever you want about Langan, his recent shit post on Facebook about Somalis or whatever is just bad form, and only robbed him of whatever inkling of credibility he may have had.

>>9858279
Ad hominem. I don't see why you would expect him to be left wing just because most of the brainlets in academia have spiraled that way.

People with really high IQs are predominately libertarian. Mensa is overwhelmingly libertarian as well. You may as well say they are fucking nazis in today's political climate.

>>9858207
Yeah there's a kernel of truth in this, in terms of sheer probability the odds of a guy with an iq of 195+ just doing menial work are about on par with the odds of a 70 iq guy getting a Rhodes scholarship, in terms of sheer probability it simply doesn't happen. When you have a confirmed iq that high at some point the DoD or the CIA pretty much forced you at gunpoint to get a proper academic education purely as a matter of national security just so they can make use of your freakish intelligence.

>>9858296
Well I'm not saying he's wrong, nor am I saying he has to be right wing, I'm just saying it was a mean spirited faux pas and a pitfall he should have known to avoided.

>>9858134
>>9858246

Hmm, I feel like it'd be cool if there was some sorta CTMU studying general. Maybe on /lit/? I have a few resources that help explain some terminology in the CTMU better...

>>9858257
>with no background in science is enlightened enough to be incomprehensible to everybody else, because I'm sure people much smarter than me have read this and found no merit in it.
Like whom? Basic bitch empirical or mathematical scientists with no training in philosophy? As far as I know, it hasn't been seriously deconstructed and refuted, which is what I would like to see before people discount it solely because of his background. I'm probably not intelligent enough to understand it either, but that's outside the point. It should be seriously refuted.

>His quote on academia is also "they took our jobs"-tier.
Is it? I think it's a good explanation for why atypical smart people are so at odds with the academic system. They have literally taken any job he may have in academia. He's basically like a union scab at this point.

>>9858304
What do you mean? Was the faux pas pointing out that people from low IQ nations are not good candidates to be brought into countries with very complex jobs? I think it's a very fair point. Somalian immigrants in my country are known for being very incompatible and sending the crime rate sky high. This goes for almost every other western nation.

He didn't say that Somalians are gorillas, he stated that there was a gorilla with a higher IQ than the Somalian national average and, as a joke, he said that gorillas would probably be a better fit to society because they are more peaceful.

It's a comment that would make him lose his job, if he had one, but that speaks to how absurd things have gotten. You can no longer point out problems if there's a racial component to them without being treated like a leper.

>>9858358
>He didn't say that Somalians are gorillas,
The subtext was there and it was implicit. He not only pointed out the iq gap which is a massive faux pas as it is, he actually rubbed salt in the wounds. It was a needless dick move and now a man who was considered somewhat dubious as it is can be be written off as just another alt right nazi. He should not have done it and should have been intelligent enough to know that it was not a good idea.

>>9858134
This guy proves that IQ is a meme

>>9858374
>The subtext was there and it was implicit.
The subtext is that Somalians are worse than gorillas in modern society. Is that somehow less racist in your mind than him calling them out rightly gorillas?
>He not only pointed out the iq gap which is a massive faux pas as it is
It's a faux pas among liberals who refuse to see reality as it is and expect a Somalian immigrant with a 60 IQ to do equally as well as a well educated high IQ immigrant. This isn't race dependent either. There are white countries with lower IQs as well.
>he actually rubbed salt in the wounds
Yes, I'm sure it was a national new story in Somalia and that everyone saw an obscure facebook post.
>considered somewhat dubious as it is can be be written off as just another alt right nazi.
There's the problem. You can't write anyone off due to political views, as much as liberals want to try. Either address the arguments they make or don't. There's no credibility loss because you don't parrot bullshit safe talking points.
>He should not have done it and should have been intelligent enough to know that it was not a good idea.
Obviously not. You can say that he is the most intelligent person in how we quantify intelligence. I think the more intelligent the person, the higher chance that they will develop their own views and say what they mean, regardless of if it would cause people to be offended.

>>9858134

Hes smart enough to not give a shit about recognition, unlike the average /sci/tard that wants good boy points for saying smert things

>>9858317
Made the thread
>>>/lit/11437317

>Believing IQ is legitimate

Lol.

>>9858881
>That retarded tripfag that keeps shit posting about IQ because he is verifiably stupid.

lol

>>9858409
10/10

>>9858300
Fucking lol. Holy shit, just take your (you), you earned it.

>>9858191
basically it's like trying to understand the matrix while you're inside the matrix
the matrix controls you and you're trying to understand the controller

I feel as thought he has some ideas that don't have a particular word in the English lexicon that properly define it. Though I have not read his paper yet. It may or may not be a novel concept, but I cannot say if it's meaningful yet.
>can't know nuthin'

>For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists). Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself.

That almost sounds like circular logic. Suppose I define the color of the sky as the color of the ocean. Then I define the color of the ocean as the color of the sky. Rather than explicitly saying the color blue, I am referring to other things that share that color. If all blue things are defined by being referenced by other blue things, then I might as well group this "class" of things which can be blue by saying "There is the color blue, certain things are blue"

If I rely on this self reference model, I am side stepping the defining of color with an axiom. By simply saying, blue things are blue, red things are red. The color purple is constructed off the axioms of blues things are blue, red things are red. Purple things are red and blue. I have just constructed knowledge from my axiom of red and blue. Now maybe I've done that logic thing I don't remember the word for.

I still have not read his paper, nor do I think I will.

>>9858881

>>9858134
you haven't been to a dedicated STEM school lately. the swole nerd meme is real.

Oh look a guy scored high on a standardized test
Muh IQ

Someone please tell me what this supposed genius has contribued to science. What ground breaking revolutionary concept has he revealed? His 200 gorillion IQ must be worth more than just verbose prose and high test scores

>>9858134
>unhealthy
bodybuilding isn't healthy, you retard

>>9859508
Is this true?
If so there must be an amount that is healthier than not doing it at all, right?

>>9859508
Citation needed. Are you also going to refute the thousands of studies on Resistance Training? It's going to be quite the feat. If only you could gain heath benefits from all the mental gymnastics you do, you weak faggot.

>>9859279
He's not part of science as an institution and his thinking is more about philosophy/philosophy of science.

>>9859512
>>9859534
It's better than doing nothing, yes. But something like calisthenics or gymnastics combined with a proper diet is how you become and remain healthy. High-level bodybuilding is disastrous for health especially due to a tendency of abusing things like drugs and steroids. General bodybuilding is shit for health and physicality because you're doing a limited set of static movements that in most cases are done wrongly or in such a way that damages (though builds muscle) and reduces health. There is also mental health, like this guy >>9859534
many are extremely insecure and hold unhealthy notions about body image and masculinity (lack thereof, really).

In terms of longevity and a balanced body, bodybuilding is the worst and in most cases will reduce these. When I say health I mean health.

>>9858175
not even wrong

>>9859547
Jesus Christ, you are a retard who can't defend his own stupid argument.
>But something like calisthenics or gymnastics combined with a proper diet is how you become and remain healthy
This is wrong. Practically everyone in exercise physiology prefers weight training over calisthenics because it's more effective for progressive overload. Most of the movements are the same, only you can easily scale the weight before moving into awkward ineffective movement progressions.
>High-level bodybuilding is disastrous for health
Wrong again. The injury rates for weight lifting are lower than almost any other sport. Body builders usually do more volume than power lifters, so they are at an even decreased risk.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/51/4/211.full.pdf
>tendency of abusing things like drugs and steroids
That wasn't your argument, stupid. You said it was bodybuilding. Drug use is outside of that. The vast majority of those in the gym 'body building' are drug free.
>General bodybuilding is shit for health and physicality
Wrong. All of the scientific literature disagrees with you.
>or in such a way that damages (though builds muscle)
Yes, micro tears don't create any permanent damage. Have you ever been sore in your life? Same thing and muscle is protective for general injury.
>There is also mental health, like this guy
Only lifting is good for mental health in most areas, including increasing cognitive ability, which you clearly need help with.
>many are extremely insecure
Citation needed
>hold unhealthy notions about body image and masculinity
You mean, the notions that you will get treated better by the bulk of society for being more physically attractive? What a shocker. As for masculinity, sadly your new age definition doesn't change the fact that you're always going to be an insufferable frail weakling and no one is ever going to respect you. I can sense your recessed jaw from here and sour grapes. Prove your fucking claim, you actual retard.

>>9858134
They didn't read mishima

>>9859568
>>9859547
All bullshit arguing aside do either of you know of any studies relating to the long term effects of high intensity weight lifting? And whether it be positive for longevity or negative versus otherwise healthy individuals who engage in mostly cardio instead.

>>9859576
I don't have the time to research and hand feed you information, but here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514552/
It's likely preventive against dementia.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453303/
Conclusion Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.

I wish I had a good meta study on hand for all the benefits. There's dozens of them and more are found each year.

>>9859589
I think it was the same study that had a "23 percent reduction in risk of premature death by any means, and a 31 percent reduction in cancer-related death."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1307571
Weight training was associated with a significantly lower risk of T2DM, independent of aerobic exercise
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2680311
Meta study on lifting and depression. It's fairly good for depressive symptoms. Not killing yourself is probably good for longevity. It also helps with anxiety.

The weight of the available evidence supported the conclusion that strength training is associated with reductions in anxiety symptoms among healthy adults (5 trials); reductions in pain intensity among patients with low back pain (5 trials), osteoarthritis (8 trials), and fibromyalgia (4 trials); improvements in cognition among older adults (7 trials); improvements in sleep quality among depressed older adults (2 trials); reductions in symptoms of depression among patients with diagnosed depression (4 trials) and fibromyalgia (2 trials); reductions in fatigue symptoms (10 trials); and improvements in self-esteem (6 trials).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230820183_The_Effect_of_a_Strength_Training_Program_on_Affect_Mood_Anxiety_and_Strength_Performance_in_Older_Individuals

Frail fags, BTFOed

>>9858184
no one is studying ctmu lol

>>9858320
Do you have any idea how many papers come out every month in academia? Academics dont even read all the papers that come out in their specific field of study because there are simply too many. No credible researcher is EVER going to spend their precious time reading through something written by a layman, because statistically it is overwhelmingly likely to be drivel or one giant exercise in thinking from ignorance. That he doesnt realize this and/or doesnt care but still expects to be taken seriously is laughably stupid.

>>9858134
>Why is almost everyone in the STEM fields frail and unhealthy
They arent, you have a narrative in your mind that is demonstrably false. Go to any stem campus. In a broader sense people are more actively concerned with their physical health than they have been for decades. possibly centuries.

>>9858374
>subtext
>precrime
>imaginary rape
all basedboy terms, good luck anon I suppose.

>>9859688
they will.

Having a high iq doesn't make up for a shit personality and ignorance. You can easily have the world's highest iq and be an ignorant narcissist with silly beliefs.

>>9859699
>>9859227
I have, everyone on campus looks equally as frail as they have been for the last decade. Those who that actually do strength training are a very small minority. Most people don't even do cardio. This is a fact for the general college age population that doesn't greatly increase on a STEM campus because you're butthurt about it.

I also don't know why you're pretending otherwise because it certainly doesn't carry over into actual professionals outside of campus. Although they are generally more slim than average but only because of good diet. Another thing correlated with intelligence.
>In a broader sense people are more actively concerned with their physical health than they have been for decades. possibly centuries.
This is irrelevant and it's only because our lifestyle has gotten less active in recent years, leading to more people being into fitness for the protective effective they would have gotten naturally a few decades ago. It's also increasingly fashionable to pretend to be active. Instagram is a good example of this.

>>9858134
what's with the incessant few who relentlessly push CTMU on occasion? Is their support ironic? I feel that if your theory requires isolating yourself from the entirety of working scientists and mathematicians, something probably isn't right.

I don't necessarily disagree with his attitude towards academia- it isn't the end-all be-all of intelligent pursuit. However, it isn't to be entirely squandered either.

Also, this shouldn't need to be said but having a high iq isn't sufficient for establishing a correct theory.

>>9859693
>Do you have any idea how many papers come out every month in academia?
Yes, that isn't the point.
>No credible researcher is EVER going to spend their precious time reading through something written by a layman
False, although it depends on what you mean by credible. Researchers have read the paper before, and it's been cited a few times.

You missed the point entirely... It was that there are Academic based idiots that haven't read the paper and instead state that it's absolute bullshit because it isn't tied to academia. Either refute it or don't. Quit using your academia circle jerk to be dismissive of anything outside of it unless you are willing to prove it to be false. It's simple.

>>9860169
>what's with the incessant few who relentlessly push CTMU on occasion?
Are you implying that what I'm doing? I forgot he existed before I made this thread, having only watched the video on him years ago. I just wanted my question answered, not to have open a huge debate on him because I used his photo and stated that he definitely bucks the tread. It seems I triggered a lot of people who are upset by some of his claims and other people started to defend him.

As for your question, he gets support because he represents a lot of intelligent people who have been damaged or ostracized from the education system and academia. Before common use of the internet, there wasn't any platform for them to pursue much intellectually. Chris is also increasingly gathering some support from the right wing. He may hope to become a figure similar to Jordan Peterson and he's taken a shot at him before.

I don't particularly like Chris, have rewatched his interviews, but it's funny to see the reaction to him by low IQ brainlets ironically screaming that IQ doesn't matter.

>>9858304
there are some people that genuinely dont give a fuck whether people like them or not. its a personality trait. i dont know what langan said, but from what i know about him i imagine he just reallh doesnt give a shit if some stranger thinks he is racist. you will almost never meet people who dont care if people like them in academia, since academia is overrun by scared people.

>>9858447
you could replace /sci/tard with phd candidate and the sentence is just as valid.

the system now selects for pawns.

>>9859194
>a-prori or first principles?
If you don't have a establishment of an absolute truth everything is reduced to circular logic at some point, this is called faith and not unreasonable.

>>9859227
electrical engineers like me are usually the most swole(not per capita but the top), there were 5 guys in my program a lot bigger than me and leaner. But only 10 people lifted in ee.
Mechs and civils are most swole per captia, and computer and bio med come in last. Industrials were soibois.

>>9858134
>despite physical fitness being closely correlated with intelligence
Gonna need a sauce on that.

>>9860273
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/25/0905307106

https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/44/4/728/4942313
(Included research on the general population as well)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221864486_Physical_Activity_and_Intelligence_A_Causal_Exploration

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0898264315594139

You can nitpick the "closely correlated" point, but not only does it seem that intelligent people are more likely to have better fitness, people are more likely to be intelligent from exercise as well and it's a huge factor in age related cognitive decline.

>>9860120
true, but that's not his case.

>>9859547
High level anything is unhealthy, retard

80 IQ brainlet here, sorry for asking this question because I'm sure someone already asked it. In the end what is the CTMU attempting to prove? Through skimming of Wikipedia articles it seems like he's trying to formally define reality by relying on the fact that it's defined by how our mind processes it.

>>9858296
If you look at the IQ test scores from the Nuremberg trials, members of the nazi regime nearly all had markedly above average IQs. This may just indicate that IQ links to Machiavellianism or likelihood to end up in a leadership role rather than any ideological link with intelligence though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Intelligence_tests_and_psychiatric_assessments
One theory I have explaining this is that high IQ people tend towards ultra-libertarian beliefs when they have less control over governance, i.e. in a liberal democracy however tend towards ultra-authoritarianism when given power themselves.

>>9859508
>tfw managed to get a first class masters in EE from an RG uni whilst also living a hardcore and very time consuming bodybuilding lifestyle (tracking macros, meal prepping, training 3-5 times a week, 8 hours sleep pretty much every night the entire 4 years and used steroids for the last year and a half I was at uni)
No excuses to be a twink soiboi

>>9858397
upboat

>>9860766
I agree with most of that, but my only caveat is near everyone evolves into "ultra-authoritarianism" if given the opportunity. It isn't exclusive or even likely to be those with a higher IQ. The hypothetical libertarian framework prevents government authoritarianism, so at least most of it's supporters have good intentions. I'm not sure if there's a link between the dark triad traits and political affiliation, but I doubt they would be more likely to be libertarian once you adjust for everything else. I suppose the jury is also out on if they would want a more empathetic state and populous to take advantage of.

Anyway, Chris unnerves me for that reason. In an interview, he stated that those with the top IQs should govern and suggested he would be fit for the role. He doesn't seem to have any humility or good intentions.

>>9858296
>mensa
>smart people

>>9860829
Ya, I've been looking at the Mega Foundations website and the things he's stated about what should and shouldn't be given to certain people is a little spooky. He seems to have no real compassion towards anybody that doesn't have a genius level IQ, and although he keeps on spouting about how a few elite people have control over the whole of academia, with him at the helm of things this form of aristocracy would only get worse. I wonder if this form of thinking comes from when he was supposedly beat up as a child.

>>9860973
>things he's stated about what should and shouldn't be given to certain people is a little spooky
Sauce?
Different anon, but it would be an interesting read.

>>9860976
http://www.megafoundation.org/ProgramsandProjects.html

>>9860979
I'm not seeing anything overly spooky here. What particular passage were you referring to?

>>9858134
It's because when you're passionate about science you couldn't care less about anything else. There's always something new to discover in science. You can't say the same about other hobbies. It's also more difficult. All these make it eat up time.

you honestly think this guy had time to gym when he was changing the world? you cant be cristiano ronaldo and gauss at same time

>>9860262
Hmm, that seems really obvious now. Perhaps it's his way of doing it that's meaningful.

>>9860988

I guess spooky isn't the right word to use, but the area where he talks about incredibly gifted individuals and what resources they should be given hints at a sense of superiority, at least thats the "vibe" my retarded brain is getting. Even if this feeling is slight, if he were to be put in a place of power, i think interesting things would happen.

>>9861039
So you're against identifying intellectually gifted students and fast tracking them through more intense studies?
Are you uncomfortable with the idea that some people are just smarter than others?

>>9861042
No, but I'm against putting a bias on them when it comes to obtaining resources such as money or authority. I still think they have to prove themselves through action.

And yes, I am uncomfortable with the fact that some people are just smarter then others. The fact that my ability to do something depends on luck annoys me, and the fact that I can't change that ability pisses me off.

>>9861059
So instead of giving research grants to professional physicists we should instead give research grants to the illiterate inner city denizens of Detroit, for example?
Does it annoy you just as much that there's some people who are physically capable enough to be olympic athletes or special forces soldiers, and other people who physically cannot be those things, or is it only in the realm of intelligence that this notion unnerves you?

>>9860994
>>9860997
There's a huge problem with that, not exercising is irrational if you care about longevity, total time spent in your craft, and the totality of your life's work. Older scientists get a pass, because they didn't have much idea about the healthy benefits of exercise and may have thought it would kill them quicker, but modern scientists are well aware of them.

It's a lot like formula 1 race. If you don't stop to change your tires and fuel, you're going to be slower, if you finish at all. Preventing age related cognitive decline may add years or even decades to a scientist's working life.

I'm not that interested as to why people have irrational behavior, but it's curious how irrational even intelligent groups can be.

>>9860165
I havent worked in any office type setting so I wouldnt know. Super frail looking people at my campus are pretty rare, people are generally just normalish looking. Though I tend to use frail to describe muscle mass as opposed to their cardiovascular health.

>>9860176
What part of this arent you understanding? There are a finite number of potential productive hours in the day. Much more material even in very narrow fields comes out than is possible to read and fully understand. Therefore scientists dont spend time on material that isnt qualified, ie originating in Academia. This makes the notion of arguing it moot because it is very unlikely enough scientists will read it. If we was serious about his ideas and seeing them integrated he would integrate into academia. Ive never heard or seen ctmu cited, what papers are you talking about?

>>9861437
Generally people with a lower body fat have less muscle mass than those with a higher body fat because it's easier to make and retain muscle at a caloric surplus. Coupled with inactivity, it makes sense that students and scientists who aren't physically active would be comparatively frail.

Do they look like holocaust victims? No. Do they weak compared to active people? Yes.

>>9861444
>academics don't bother with anything outside of academia because academia
I don't have a dog in this fight, but isn't that kind of the root of the issue here?

>>9861444
>What part of this arent you understanding?
You made an assertion that wasn't true and you're now back tracking on it. You stated that no one with the scientific credentials bothered to look at and that's untrue. Scientists being unlikely to read it is irrelevant to the fact that most people who have tried to "refuted" it haven't actually read the paper and have made a fallacy argument due to their insecurity regarding the concept of work from outside academia.
>If we was serious about his ideas and seeing them integrated he would integrate into academia.
I guarantee more people have read his work than anything you publish or will ever publish. You've ruined your own argument because most of the work in academia goes unnoticed with only a few people reading it in the first place. Good innovative work will get noticed regardless. If CTMU practically, people would be jumping at the bit to incorporate it.
>Ive never heard or seen ctmu cited
Why would you? It's been cited nine times. I don't know about the quality of these but it makes the paper more novel than most research.

>>9861457
I mean:
If CTMU was practical*

>>9858134
Fritz Zwicky used to show off to his colleagues with the amount of pushups he could. He also accused a German colleague of being a Nazi and threatened to kill him.

There is also Edwin Hubble who claimed he broke multiple athletic records such as the high jump and was such a chad he felt like he didn't need to prove any of it.

>>9858134
A lot of academics do climbing and bouldering but maybe thats just France.

>>9858134
I have my master's en route to a PhD and I can bench 225. 500 lb bench at 50 sounds like bullshit, do you have a source for that.
Not reading the thread because no time suck my dick.

>>9861492
>I have my master's en route to a PhD
>I can bench 225
Cringe. I wish people would stop saying shit like this, you've giving me second hand embarrassment.
If you don't have a 350 pound plus bench, or even bench at an advanced strength standard, don't bother mentioning it unwarranted. If you're not a PhD student, don't mention it.

The claim is according to his website and a 2001 interview in Muscle and Fitness. They did a profile on him. No video evidence but he does seem pretty huge so it isn't outside the realm of possibility.

The real question is, why you imply you are at all intelligent when you can't take the two seconds to Google something?

>>9861457
You originally said you wanted to see it "seriously deconstructed and refuted". I provided you with the academic reality as to why it hasnt. You then assert is has been in fact deconstructed and refuted "Researchers have read the paper before, and it's been cited a few times.". Notice I said credible which I define as serious inquiry by multiple scientists from relevant fields.
>I guarantee more people have read his work than anything you publish or will ever publish
This is irrelevant
>"...most of the work in academia goes unnoticed with only a few people reading it in the first place"
This is my entire point, scientists dont read most literature by other scientists let alone laymen.
>Good innovative work will get noticed regardless
Actually no, it is in the works best interest but the chief factors on its spread are the journal it is published in, the names attached to it, the current zeitgeist in the field, and the global interest in the field.

I dont really know why you are trying to argue with me about something that is an observable trend, if scientists cared about it we wouldnt be having this dialogue. I dont even have a bone to pick with him, I actually would prefer he enter academia at least on paper so that his ideas could get more traction.
>>9861450
Yes it is, but its a necessary evil of peer review.

>>9858134
Unhealthy exam schedules at least for students.

>>9858134
desu i'm not convinced of the ability of iq tests to quantify intelligence

>>9858147
Living the dream.

>>9858191
The quora pages talking about it are filled with idiots talking about their own qualifications instead of actually refuting it.
What the fuck is wrong with quora?

>>9858134
It's not just the scientist, most people are ectomorph because it is a physical trait that has been heavily selected for. You don't need to be big to survive in the wild, you need to be quick and limit resource consumption.

>>9861558
>I provided you with the academic reality as to why it hasnt.
No you didn't. You stated that it wasn't going to be looked at in the first place as justification for why it isn't going to be refuted. Your assertion is wrong, and your argument is incoherent. You should have said 'there's no reason for those who look at it to seriously refute it'.
>Notice I said credible which I define as serious inquiry by multiple scientists from relevant fields.
Notice I said "I don't know about the quality of these" and gave you that point, you then repeated it like a smarmy kid. I don't know why you think what is basically a philosophy paper would attract many citations in the first place.
>This is irrelevant
No it's not. If you're making the claim that his work will go unnoticed and he's an idiot for not publishing in Academia, is completely relevant to bring up that most papers don't get noticed, including anything from you. You're very protective of academia because you're likely inside of it, probably at some low level position because I can't imagine someone that cannot make a coherent argument is that high up.
>This is my entire point,
No it wasn't, that's completely nonsensical. Your actual "point" was 'scientists are too busy reading their own work to notice things outside the sphere, thus you should publish inside if you want to be noticed'. It's wrong.
>Actually no
Yes, no one is going to replicate or cite novel research because of "the names attached to it". Well I would agree that academia is equivalent to teenage cliques fighting, this is a stretch.
>scientists cared about it we wouldnt be having this dialogue
No, the fact that we're having this dialogue proves that scientists and non-scientists care enough to talk about it and the issue in the first place. Granted they care in the way the fox cares about grapes he couldn't reach, but I think the point of the mega foundation, or whatever stupid thing he runs, is proving itself to be true.

>>9861900
I don't think those somatotypes are real. If most people are ectomorphs, those in the STEM fields are more ectomorphic than average due to having less body fat and muscle mass. Certainly they would have the ability to carry more muscle with an active lifestyle. They also have sleep schedules that are not conclusive to having a good hormone profile and maximizing muscle mass without much stimuli.

Mesomorphs are just people who lift weights or work a labor intensive job with an average or above hormone profile. Even if you have a thicc bone structure and abnormally high testosterone levels, you're not going to naturally gain a lot of muscle without working for it. People on TRT often have a similarly high test level without much muscle gain. There are other factors for signaling muscle to grow, but testosterone is the biggest.

>>9858134
>Why is almost everyone in the STEM fields frail and unhealthy despite physical fitness being closely correlated with intelligence?

there's not a very strong correlation between their physical fitness and their success in their chosen field.

>>9858134
Imagine being this smart and still thinking it's cool to wear tanktops in public.

>>9864844
>Assuming he is is wearing it in public and not either in space or on his ranch in the middle of nowhere.

>>9858184

Fuck, he needs to be included in a chad/virgin meme.

>tfw you will never be genetically superior
a-at least I have an intellectual personality

>>9858409

>There are white countries with lower IQs as well.

Lower than 60? I hope that your definition of white doesn't include the Middle East, and even if it did, it shouldn't be that low in any instance.

Alternatively, you might mean the average iq of Gorillas, which I can't genuinely comment on as I'm unaware of any studies on that species. Apparently it ranges between 65 to 90, and the only European country I know of with an iq below 90 is Serbia with 89. So I suppose, but that's only by the very highest estimate.

>>9865161

Also Sean Last just uploaded a new video for all those who are interested in race realism.

>>9865162
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgtFnpbFaec&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=oDNrbpcBXEJaCyw3-6

>>9858207
He's a pompous ass. His type just likes to go against the current to get in the spotlight. Have you seen his interviews? He soaks that shit up. God is he obnoxious

Daily reminder that IQ is irrelevant. IQ testing was devised to identify those with cognitive difficulties; use of the other end of the ‘scale’ is purely extrapolation.

>>9865178

>IQ is irrelevant

But you go on to describe that it was used to identify cognitive difficulties?

>Purely extrapolation

Genetic fallacy. To elaborate, just because a metric was made for one purpose, like identifying mental deficiency, doesn't mean that it doesn't have predictive validity for other categories, like mental excellence.

Also, you're behind the times. IQ is important because IQ tests are highly g-loaded. To my knowledge, most psyshometricians only care about IQ insofar as it illuminates the g factor.

>>9865178
>>9865189

This also doesn't make sense when you start comparing different races.

For whites, to be cogntively delayed means having an iq below 100, whereas for blacks that number is 85 (USA). Therefore by this argument, iq is valid for smarter than average blacks, but not for smarter than average whites. It would also be strange if it just happened to be that iq is only cosmically valid for humans who just happened to be below 100 of the human population that evolved in Europe.

>>9861927
You are inferring way too much.
>You should have said 'there's no reason for those who look at it to seriously refute it'
Yeah probably, the crux of it is that from an optimization pov it makes sense that scientists havent spent serious time on it.
>gave you that point
I was just clarifying what you assumed I meant
>No it's not.
A personal attack is irrelevant. As I said he is only an idiot if he cares and wants his work to have visibility and to be taken seriously. If that isnt his primary goal he isnt an idiot.
>Its nonsensical
It cant be nonsensical if you then go on to explain it in one line that follows
>its wrong
It was never a commentary on the merits of peer review, just an observation of academic reality that you were/are seemingly ignorant of.
>no one is going to replicate or cite novel research because of "the names attached to it"
If Tao publishes a paper it automatically gets more traction than anything I publish,
arguably deservedly so.

You seem to think academia is a massive open forum where ideas are freely exchanged many degrees removed from the originator where only merit matters. Its not, partially by design.

>>9865624
>A personal attack is irrelevant. As I said he is only an idiot if...
Ironic statement. You must be sensitive. It's not arbitrary to point out that he has more citations than a lot of scientists, including you. 90% of research is never cited. There's no need to be insecure about your near zero accomplishments. It's very hard to take you seriously when you're calling someone an idiot for doing obscure scientific work when it's being discussed by thousands of people.

Are you going to continue walking back every point you made or can we cut this short? Your whole argument was an ad hominem and appeal to authority in the first place. You've read a few paragraphs of his work and then assumed that scientists must also find it drivel and that he shouldn't be taken seriously. You justify this by creating some bullshit academic litmus test for valid ideas. It's a no true Scotsman fallacy.
> As I said he is only an idiot if he cares and wants his work to have visibility
I already refuted this.
>It cant be nonsensical if you then go on to explain it in one line that follows
Do you understand context? I didn't elaborate on everything conflicting, including the bit about how scientists barely read their own work yet he should publish it within academia if he wants it to be read. I'm getting sick of repeating myself. I'm sure your time would be more productive sucking the dicks of your academic superiors, whoever they are.