/sci/ - Science & Math

Feynman's quip to his professor about the one-electron universe convinced me he was brilliant

>>9973819
THE BROKEN ACADEMIC SYSTEM DISCOURAGES TRULY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE FROM STAYING IN PHYSICS

>>9973819
He did the test as a kid in the 1920s when it was entirely based around language and vocabulary. No math component at all.

>>9973826
THINKING A TEST MADE BY RETARDED MONKEYS CAN TRULY QUANTIFY HUMAN INTEL BEING THIS RETARDED.

SRS CHINA IS PROOF THE TEST IS RETARDED ALSO THEY INVENTED WHAT PAPER AND GUN POWDER WHILE STEALING IPHONE DESIGN

TOP KEK

>>9973829
>Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][56] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points[citation needed]. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][57][58] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[59]
Citations:
>Neisser, Ulrich; Boodoo, Gwyneth; Bouchard, Thomas J.; Boykin, A. Wade; Brody, Nathan; Ceci, Stephen J.; Halpern, Diane F.; Loehlin, John C.; Perloff, Robert; Sternberg, Robert J.; Urbina, Susana (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns" (PDF). American Psychologist. 51 (2): 77–101
>Mackintosh 2011, p. 169 "after the age of 8–10, IQ scores remain relatively stable: the correlation between IQ scores from age 8 to 18 and IQ at age 40 is over 0.70."
>Kaufman 2009
Cont.

>>9973837
YEAH, BECAUSE SCIENTIST ARE NEVER WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING. EXPLAIN CHINA

>>9973829
>>9973837
>Terman, Lewis Madison; Merrill, MaudeA. (1937). Measuring intelligence: A guide to the administration of the new revised Stanford-Binet tests of intelligence. Riverside textbooks in education. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin. p. 44.
>Anastasi, Anne; Urbina, Susana (1997). Psychological Testing (Seventh ed.). Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall. pp. 326–327.
>Silverman, Linda Kreger (1991), "Review of The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy", Gifted Child Quarterly, 35 (3): 153–156,
IQ of China:
>https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php
>104-105
Why China Stalled?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_equilibrium_trap
Excerpt:
>The high-level equilibrium trap is a concept developed by environmental historian Mark Elvin to explain why China never underwent an indigenous Industrial Revolution despite its wealth, stability, and high level of scientific achievement. Essentially, he claims that the Chinese pre-industrial economy had reached an equilibrium point where supply and demand were well-balanced. Late imperial production methods and trade networks were so efficient and labor was so cheap that investment in capital to improve efficiency would not be profitable.
>At the same time, an intellectual paradigm shift from Taoism to Confucianism among the intelligentsia moved the focus of academic inquiry from natural science and mathematics, which were conceived of under Taoism as investigations into the mystical nature of the universe, to studies of social philosophy and morality under Confucianism. According to Elvin, this produced an intellectual climate that was not conducive to technical innovation.
You're welcome, now you have no excuse to be a retard.

>>9973841 see >>9973840.
Also, if you don't like /sci/ence, try posting on /pol/, it might fit you better.

>>9973841
Also, Feynman's IQ was 120. That is gifted, and that was only measuring the thing he wouldn't have been very good at, verbal IQ. He was, whilst above average in verbalization, far more brilliant in things like mathematical thought.

>>9973840
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_equilibrium_trap

SOUNDS LIKE A GUESS >>9973843


CLEARLY THE HIGHEST IQ HIGHEST POPULATION IN THE WORLD IS A TESTAMENT AS TO A MAJOR FAULT WITH THE TEST. RUSSIANS HAVE A LOWER IQ PER CAPITA AND ACTUALLY BEAT THE US TO SPACE IN A COMMUNIST SYSTEM. HURR DURR IQ IS FLAWED AND EXPLAINS RICHARD

>>9973848
Everything is a guess, idiot. But it makes more sense then whatever you're pushing. Besides, you have nothing to back it up, bar your caps.
Their average IQ is still within a normal European range, they also do brilliantly in Fields Medals, being number 2, just behind the US.
So no, I'm still right, you're still wrong.

>>9973841
>EXPLAIN CHINA
High IQ bugmen. Incapable of creative thought.

>>9973848
Richard's IQ test wasn't a comprehensive modern IQ test, you moron.
Nowadays, we have things like Raven's Matrices, which are far more accurate and culture fair.

>>9973850
>But it makes more sense then whatever you're pushing

NO IT DOESN'T YOU LINKED SOME RETARDED STUDY FROM A HIVE MIND OF PSYCHOLOGIST WHO NEED MONEY FOR GRANTS AND WHAT NOT. SO YEAH THEY ARE LIKE OH GUYS THIS IQ TEST IS CASH AND COMPLETELY WORKS BRO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING TRUST US.

>>9973855
That's not an argument, try again.

>>9973855
And it wasn't a study, it was... 6 studies.
Learn to count.

>>9973852
>High IQ bugmen. Incapable of creative thought.

EXPLAIN THE MILITARY, USING IQ TEST TO GET "INTELLIGENT" PEOPLE

WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO BE A PAWN OF THE US GOVERNMENT AND SENT OUT TO STUPID WARS TO GET SHOT AT OVER FAKE WMDS AND WHAT NOT. ANYONE WHO WOULD CONSIDER SIGNING UP FOR THAT IS RETARDED BY SIMPLE LOGIC IMHO

>>9973861
And this just strayed out of the realms of science, into politics. Fuck off, back to your containment board.

>>9973859
>6 studies.

CHERRY PICKING HAPPENS ESPECIALLY IF YOU WANT TO PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU CAN FIND STUDIES TO BACK UP YOUR NARRATIVE ON ALMOST ANYTHING

>>9973862
CHECK MATE

/SCI/ BTFO

>>9973865
Right, so you wont even read (or accept studies). You wont accept widely accepted academic thought. And you don't accept a good local answer. Instead, you mix politics, with your opinion and try to pass it off as objective?
Get the fuck out of here, you moron. This board isn't for you.

>>9973868
Because not everyone is a carbon copy of you, coward?

>>9973869
EPIDEMIOLOGIC DATA DOES NOT BACK UP YOUR STUDY

SORRY BRO YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT

>>9973869
>*logical

>>9973875
>EPIDEMIOLOGIC DATA
I'm sorry, what study are you citing? Oh wait, your personal opinion! Yeah, anecdotes aren't valid, certainly when I've already explained the ones you've put forth.

>>9973869
>widely accepted academic thought

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard

SORRY BRO BUT RICHARD DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR EXPERIMENT AT 125 IQ. IT IS WRONG SIMPLY WRONG. IQ TEST IS LIKE A MODERN DAY REPRESENTATION OF FLAT EARTH THINKING FROM THE PAST. IF IT WAS THE BE ALL AND END ALL TO QUANTIFYING INTEL THEN RICHARD WOULD BE LIKE 3MILLION IQ

>>9973882
Again, this isn't an argument. You haven't refuted anything. Besides, if you have to quoting someone else, to try and prove something (which it doesn't) you're probably a very stupid person.

>>9973886
I WILL FIGHT YOU IN REAL LIFE

>>9973886
>*have to resort

>>9973886
>EXPLAIN THE MILITARY.

STILL WAITING

>>9973888
Are you literally 12?

125 is 5 iq points short from two standard deviations. It's not average by any means.

>>9973890
Because not everyone has the same thoughts as you? Are you actually autistic? Do you lack theory of mind? Besides, that isn't even a logical standpoint, it is a subjective standpoint, and thus proof of nothing.

>>9973891
NO, JUST THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY

SERIOUSLY, WHY WOULD HIGH IQ PEOPLE WANT TO BE EXPOSED TO GETTING SHOT IN THE FACE. COME ON HURR DURR I AM SMART LET ME GO GET BLOWN UP BY PEOPLE WHO MATE WITH GOATS. THIS IS THE BEST THING I CAN THINK OF BEING SMART AND WHAT NOT.

>>9973900
Well, considering you seem to think ancedotal evidence is "totally rad", DARPA alone disproves your theory. What now, idiot?

>>9973903
>DARPA

Probably drafts people from other places like university and private industry that are top of their fields even Richard did not want to go into the military himself because he thought it was a stupid venture and first refused.

>>9973907
You do know the military isn't just fighting? And that only a very small amount of troops are liable to even go into combat, unless we're at some major war? Right? Often, it is a great way to propel your career, whilst getting 'respect' for serving.
Also, is Richard your autistic obsession or something? It's pretty creepy to form a personality cult.

>>9973909
>Also, is Richard your autistic obsession or something?

No he is just a major sticking point in the flaw of IQ. The man literally was like the smartest person who walked the planet.

>And that only a very small amount of troops are liable to even go into combat,

Even the idea of the government controlling your life or the possibility of risk would out way the reward to a mildly intelligent person. The military is a desperation attempt for poor stupid people. Had a friend who was pretty "smart" tell me join the military it is a good idea we won't go to any wars. Things had been relatively peaceful. This was like at the same time the military was trying to build a smarter military and only accepting people with high IQ scores. I was like hrmm maybe but told him that it was a bad idea. then 9/11 happened. Even more prof that the iq test is extremely flawed because Achmed out smarted the military and blew up the trade towers.

>>9973924
>No he is just a major sticking point in the flaw of IQ.
He isn't, as we've already discussed It was a verbal IQ test, his verbal IQ was 120, and this is still a gifted IQ. Do try to keep up.

>Even the idea of the government controlling your life or the possibility of risk would out way the reward to a mildly intelligent person.
Look, this isn't even topical to the board, or thread. This is your personal opinion, just like other people have theirs.
Your evidence is anecdotal, my evidence is anecdotal (DARPA), ergo, this standpoint is now pointless and moot.

>>9973927
>This is your personal opinion

But it isn't opinion. Military literally became more stringent on who they let in because there wasn't any major wars going on so they up'd the fucking standard with IQ test so they would get the best most intelligent people. Then the goat people literally out witted them. I am sorry but using this retarded metric that is based on pseudoscience to quantify human intellect is a major fault.

>>9973935
>But it isn't opinion.
It is your opinion, because you've offered nothing up to demonstrate that:
>military = lower intelligence
And DARPA disproves this standpoint.

>>9973935
>I am sorry but using this retarded metric that is based on pseudoscience to quantify human intellect is a major fault.
More opinion, a real let down.
See: >>9973837, >>9973840
The science and the academic community disagree.

>>9973941
>because you've offered nothing up

China, Military, Richard,

HOW ABOUT CHRIS LANGAN 200 IQ ABSOLUTELY USELESS ONLY CLAIM TO FAME IS THE ACTUAL TEST.

>>9973942
>science and the academic community disagree.

THE HIVE MIND IN IVORY TOWERS SAY REAL WORLD IS WRONG. OH NO ANON.

>>9973945
>China
See: >>9973840
As for validity: widely accepted and espoused academic thought > your personal opinion.
>Military
See: >>9973941
>Richard
See: >>9973927
>HOW ABOUT CHRIS LANGAN 200 IQ ABSOLUTELY USELESS ONLY CLAIM TO FAME IS THE ACTUAL TEST.
Above 145 IQ matters a lot less, and the validity of testing above this level is questionable. In other words, once you reach genius, it doesn't really matter anyway, you're just a genius.
>>9973947
See: >>9973869
Gosh, you're a real letdown. I'm simply unimpressed by this thread. I provide evidence and just attempt to restate it, as if I've given you nothing. I've given you studies, academic theories that are widely accepted and equally valid anecdotes disproving yours.
I'm done. You're worthless. This thread is worthless. And you at the very least, below average.
You're boring, I'm bored, good bye.

>>9973955
>Gosh, you're a real letdown. I'm simply unimpressed by this thread

Then you find You link some arbitrary bullshit that is biased to dodge actual real world examples.then you find fault in me....

>>9973819
me nigga

>>9973861
You must realize there's quite a few sub-branches within the branches of the US military where combat is paramount to zero. But you're a narcissistic pussy anyway, so it's not really relevant for you. fucking dweeb

>>9973988
>few sub-branches within the branches of the US military

Yeah, it is a cluster fuck that believes Ivory tower bullshit and lets planes hit its headquarters for the lulz. >>9973935

Not like this was gross incompetence all backed by "smarter better military" based on IQ testing at the foundation.

/sci/ is a place filled with people who will never accomplish anything but really wish to do so.
So getting a high number on a test that they force themselves to believe is important, makes them feel better.

>>9973819

stay out of /biz/ faggot

>/biz/10920270

>>>/biz/10920270

>>9973819
Feynman was a Putnam fellow without even studying for it. The test was probably verbal based, which was something Feynman didn't care much about. His IQ could have been 150+