[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 31 KB, 315x304, Carl_Sagan_Biography.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1635216 No.1635216 [Reply] [Original]

Is there anything that currently exists that cannot be comprehended by a person with average IQ ?

I've always wondered, because as a highly gifted individual I've never run into anything I would consider difficult to comprehend.

I have, however, noticed difference in speed between myself and the others I have met.

I can appreciate that someone with 40 IQ (extremely severe mental retardation) is not going to understand astrophysics, but what about people with 100IQ?

Is there anything they cannot understand that we currently have an understanding of today?

>> No.1635220

The fact that you don't understand this is testimony to the fact that you aren't as intelligent as you tell yourself you are.

Carry on.

>> No.1635226

>>1635220
Jealous fag detected.

>> No.1635230

theoretical physics can be hard to understand, even to me with my IQ if 128, but honestly it's called "theoretical" for a reason; it's all over the damn place and a good chunk of the stuff is just hypothesis.

>> No.1635229

>>1635220
>have nothing useful to say
>post anyway

>>>/b/

>> No.1635241

Feynman: I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

>> No.1635245

My IQ is 173 and there's plenty of things I find difficult to comprehend, those things usually involve something I've never thought to think of, and I end up understanding it (like when I started learning QM, by myself). I think never encountering something that is atleast initially hard to comprehend is unlikely at best. Think about this as not difficult to comprehend: a figure with 78 different dimensions.

>> No.1635246

>>1635230
Well sure, but hard is a long way from impossible

>> No.1635251

>>1635220

/thread

>> No.1635253

Person with average IQ can understand anything.

>> No.1635255

The level of difficulty found when approaching a new subject I find is mostly dependent on how you are taught and/or the way you break down the problem. Nearly everything can be broken down and explained in basic terms.

It makes me angry to think of the bullshit overlong names that have been given to things in certain fields simply to preserve the idea that they are more difficult.

>> No.1635256

My IQ is 233 and I still can't understand why retards like you think anyone cares or believes what IQ you post on anonymous image board.

>> No.1635257

>>1635229
boards.4chan.org/z

>> No.1635258

>>1635253
OP here. I'm inclined to agree.

>> No.1635259

That whole relativity, lightspeed thing. I have tried to understand that like 8 times and I still dont get it.

Like if a stationary object fired a light ray, and then an object moving 10 meters per second fired a light ray, how are both rays moving at the same speed? This seems like it would violate the laws of physics.

>> No.1635261

>>1635256
>223 IQ
>Fails to comprehend OP didn't even post his own IQ

10/10

>> No.1635263

>>1635241
Of course we can't. Understanding it and using it are different things. We can understand stories and metaphors, and trick ourselves into thinking we understand the real thing, but we are still pretty clueless about it.

>> No.1635265

my iq is 274 boys, you can not comprehend the reasoning behind life!

>> No.1635267

>>1635259
Maybe you haven't had it explained well enough

>> No.1635272

>>1635265
there is no such person

>> No.1635277

>>1635259
The only law that violates is the galalean law that speed difference between A and B + speed difference between B and C = speed difference between A and C. It violates that law because that law is false.

>> No.1635278

>>1635272
who says i'm a person?

>> No.1635280

The most dangerous thing to you understanding something is fear that you can't. I found that out the hard way with C++ templates, which I put off learning for almost a year because the examples I saw at first were so complicated.

>> No.1635285

>>1635277
HOW COULD THAT LAW POSSIBLY BE FALSE. ITS THE MOST SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS LAW EVER.

>> No.1635288

>>1635278
I dont believe AIs have progressed this far yet

>> No.1635290

>>1635280
The worst thing is when you ask a question and someone says "That's too complicated for you," or "You don't need to know that." That's why I didn't teach myself calculus in my first two years of High School, although I could have done it easily.

>> No.1635296

>>1635272
William James Sidis had an IQ of 250 and to Harvard at 13

>> No.1635310

>>1635285
And yet it's demonstrably false. Speeds don't add that way. The only seem to at low speeds.

>> No.1635325

>>1635310
so your telling me that If I threw a rock at 10 mph, and another person who was standing in a car sunroof and the car was going at 10 mph, who also threw a rock at 10mph, his rock would NOT be going at 20mph?

>> No.1635333

>>1635325
Low speeds.

>> No.1635334

>>1635325
So if a couple hundred million cars stacked on each other, each going at 10mph, and someone a stone out the top car at 10mph, that rock would travel faster than light? Doesn't work that way..

>> No.1635350

>>1635334
So how does that work then? Is that last 10mph of speed just lost somehow? Doesnt that violate the first law of thermodynamics?

>> No.1635362

OP is a faggot.

>> No.1635399
File: 45 KB, 400x300, peru.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1635399

>>1635216

The importance of IQ is over-estimated big time.

There are many other factors and personal characteristics that determine your ability to learn, wisdoms and worldview (some arrogants actually think smart people have a different worldview).

The intensity of the nerve system for example verays from person to person, This characteristic has an equally influence on one`s person as intelligence.
The only difference is no one makes notice about his sensitivity and iq point are considdered from verry important value.

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

>> No.1635428
File: 85 KB, 599x1440, Objective_truth_debunked.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1635428

>>1635216
Anecdotal evidence but,

The Philosophical Gap between Objectivity and Subjectivity may be a good candidate. I have never seen an idiot or an averagefag correctly display full understanding. This may be why most people are religious.

Pic somewhat related. It's what I am referring to ( But extremely dumbed down ).

>> No.1635434

Life is not meaningful, therefore it is.

>> No.1635442

>>1635428
Finally, thank you!
FUKKEN SAVED.

>> No.1635456

>>1635428
I can't believe I read that whole rambling thing. Could have been said in a paragraph.
>All knowledge is inherently subjective.
True.
>Therefore there can't be an objective source of knowledge.
False. There can be an objective source, but we will still understand that objective source subjectively, and therefore imperfectly. But it is still important that the origin is an objective source.
>Attributing this to God is therefore delusional.
False. That begs the question that God is nonexistent or not in communication with those who experience him in whatever way.

>> No.1635459
File: 118 KB, 800x530, AtheistMotivation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1635459

>>1635428

WOW, have you ever been told you are arrogant ??

And how do you know you make an arrogant impression towards theists because of your atheism.

Maybe you are atheist because you are arrogant.

>> No.1635486

>>1635456
>>1635459

Butthurt Averagefag's detected.

>> No.1635493

>>1635486
>implying 4 1/3 standard deviations above average is average.

>> No.1635495

>>1635456

>>Therefore there can't be an objective source of knowledge. False. There can be an objective source, but we will still understand that objective source subjectively, and therefore imperfectly. But it is still important that the origin is an objective source.
>>There can be an objective source, but we will still understand that objective source subjectively, and therefore imperfectly.

This is actually what that article was stating. It never says Objectivity can't exist.

Lern2readingcomp

>> No.1635497

I have an IQ of 250 and I post it on anonymous image boards just to annoy faggots like you all.

>> No.1635501

>>1635495
No it didn't. It granted that the objective source could be objective, but only argued that in receiving information from that objective source we would make it subjective. Have you read it yourself?

>> No.1635503

>>1635399
psychology is a 10/10 troll sometimes

>> No.1635516
File: 7 KB, 170x195, holly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1635516

I have an IQ of 6000 and I have found nothing hard to comprehend.

>> No.1635520

>>1635501


>>Therefore there can't be an objective source of knowledge.

>>It granted that the objective source could be objective


niggerfullretard.jpg

>> No.1635528

With my IQ of 304, I wonder why I even browse this board...

>> No.1635534
File: 8 KB, 200x207, HollyWithAWomansFace.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1635534

>>1635516

I used to have the same IQ as 6000 PE teachers too.

>> No.1635554
File: 23 KB, 547x314, asdgfhgturfg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1635554

>>1635501
>>1635456
>>1635459


I was going to write a retort on how the uncloseable gap between objectivity and subjectivity could be easily understood by anyone and you twats had to jump in and add proof that he/she may be right.
Well, fuck.

>> No.1635574

>>1635528
The highest IQ in the world is in the 200s, and I'm pretty sure it's not possible to go beyond the 200s.

>> No.1635577

>>1635574

Are you blind? There's someone in this thread with an IQ of 6000.

>> No.1635588
File: 15 KB, 325x396, DataTNG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1635588

My IQ exceeds 9*10^3

>> No.1635590

>>1635554
I think everyone understands the unclosable gap between objectivity and subjectivity. It is not a difficult subject.

If you're trying to use the fallacy that anyone who understands it wouldn't believe in God... just don't.

>> No.1635722

>>1635588
but that is fasetr than light

>> No.1636049

>>1635428

tl,dr
probably just another attempt by an atheist teenager to feel superior to his peers nothing is true everything subjective you can't judge me for wearing a furry suit waaa

i'm an atheist too btw

>> No.1636094

>>1635459
I think as long as everything can be explained, to people of all IQ ranges, then everything can be understood. But in order to explain something, you have to understand it, and if you don't understand it, then someone has to explain it to you, and so on..

>>1635459
Lol. Just lol.

>> No.1636153

My IQ is 32 and I'm about to complete a masters in neuroscience.

>> No.1636165

>as a highly gifted individual

>I have, however, noticed difference in speed between myself and the others
>I have, however, noticed difference in speed
>I have noticed difference
>I have noticed difference
>I have noticed difference
>highly gifted individual
>I have noticed difference

>> No.1636190

>HURR IQ

>DURR IQ

People who boast about their IQ are losers.


Understanding things are very individual; often it isn't just about understanding, it's also about interest. If someone finds astrophysics appealing to their way of thought, they will have (1) a fairly easy way of learning it or (2) a hard way of learning it but enjoying it so much that the individual will eventually get 'everything'.

If, however, astrophysics is not appealing to an individual, that does not mean that the person is stupid; he/she simply has different interests than you have.

My father gave me a very good example on this. My father studied sociology and law.He had a friend who studied physics and chemistry when he went to university. He used to boast about how much he knew about the cosmos and the things in it, but when my father asked him anything about his subjects he had, say law, he failed to answer it.

A human being of average intelligence can learn most things so long as it appeals to them. At least that's my theory.