/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11159377]

Is /lit/ unironically smarter than /sci/?

[Anonymous No.11159395]

>>11159377
maybe, maybe not, but /sci/ is certainly less wrong

[Anonymous No.11159424]

good quote

[Anonymous No.11159466]

yes

[Anonymous No.11159471]

You're all dumb as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11159482]

>>11159377
intelligence is highly correlated with the ability to shut the fuck up, sit down, and read, and to unironically consider the other guy's viewpoint, even if it's anathema to everything you believe.
reading philosophy and literature, just like reading scientific papers, involves a lot of that
so the answer is "probably", but it's close

[Anonymous No.11159517]

It's hard to explain to non-STEMfags, but we think you're all retarded. We can do your jobs better with half the effort. We are literally on a higher level than you

[Anonymous No.11159520]

>>11159377
I find myself thinking what a bunch of idiots more often after browsing /lit/, although less than /pol/, obviously

[Anonymous No.11159527]

>>11159377
On average probably, but the smartest anons on /sci/ are much smarter than the smartest anons on /lit/

[Anonymous No.11159535]

>>11159377
If Russel was so smart, then why didn't he apply his advanced mathematical skills to get on the right side of not being a cuck? Checkmate, atheists.

[Anonymous No.11159538]

>>11159466
/pol/ btfo

[Anonymous No.11159540]

>>11159517
people like you make me embarrassed to be STEM. The humanities have a value all their own

[Anonymous No.11159543]

>>11159466
>/k/ smarter than /co/ /int/ /tv/ /v/ /tg/
>/biz/ smarter than anyone
doubt

[Anonymous No.11159546]

>>11159377
If either board were noteworthy at all then they would've developed some sort of noteworthy content by now as a result of their noteworthiness, however thats not the case, neither of them have and given that there is no evidence of unusual cleverness either here or on /lit/, I fail to believe the results in the chart.
The experiment has already been run, the boards on 4chan which have demonstrated the ability to create innovative content are /b/ /a/ /pol/ /sp/ /jp/ and a whole bunch of other boards, but not /sci/ or /lit/.

[Anonymous No.11159554]

>>11159546
Clearly you missed the Optimum Theory debacle.

[Anonymous No.11159556]

>>11159466
How was this study conducted?

[Anonymous No.11159559]

>>11159554
insignificant compare to doubles

[Anonymous No.11159761]

>>11159377
After you've finished your first year at a STEM program at any half-decent uni you realize how vapid most posts here on /sci/ are, even on the "good" threads like /mg/. I imagine /lit/ is the same for those who actually study any humanities.

[Anonymous No.11159779]

>>11159546
An anon from /sci/ proved the Haruhi Theorem and /lit/ has published some books that have received critical praise on Amazon.

[Anonymous No.11159862]

>>11159556
the power of human creativity

[Anonymous No.11160056]

>>11159466
>implying /a/ isn't the highest IQ board

[Anonymous No.11160062]

>>11159377
DEFINITELY not, lol. /sci/ has its spergs and low-IQ posters, but for the most part, they are intellectually honest and are actually curious to learn more about the world. Not the case on /lit/. People there read one book by one author and believe they know everything there is to know about the world. I regret spending so much time in that shithole. You post an argument there and all you get back is soijack posters screeching while quoting your post. /sci/ has plenty of smart people, just go to /mg/ to see for yourself. /lit/ has plenty of insecure people who want to appear smart, but don't actually apply themselves.

[Anonymous No.11160070]

>>11159466
>claim to be in board you dislike
>get really low score on purpose
>bring down average iq of board

[Anonymous No.11160639]

>>11159779
This. Except that /lit/ always makes me censor my part about Jews so fuck them.

[Anonymous No.11160648]

>>11159556
As far as I can tell, that question has been asked every time that shit has been posted for years, and the answer is "it literally wasn't"