/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2841605]

Does anyone read wikis of highly successful and intelligent mathmeticians and phycisists and feel inferior? Cos I sure do.

"By the age of 15 he had mastered differential and integral calculus"

ffs

[Anonymous No.2841608]

*mathematicians

[Anonymous No.2841613]

>>2841605
richard feynman, right?

[Anonymous No.2841623]

blame the internet, the tv, stupid ass educational systems, demotivational teachers, etc.

[Anonymous No.2841625]

Check out wikis of Julian Schwinger, Enrico Fermi or Paul Dirac ...

>mfw

[Anonymous No.2841640]

I watched the movie fermat's room and felt pretty good for not being a mathematician, bitchs be crazy.

[Anonymous No.2841648]

be a genius and/or be taught math since early ages

while we were watching pokemon on TV some kids where making math conjectures

thats life

[Anonymous No.2841657]

>mastered differential and integral calculus
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2841664]

>>2841625
>>2841625

Fermi:

"For his essay on the given theme Characteristics of Sound, 17-year-old Fermi chose to derive and solve the Fourier analysis based partial differential equation for waves on a string. The examiner, Prof. Giulio Pittato, interviewed Fermi and concluded that his essay would have been commendable even for a doctoral degree"

[Anonymous No.2841668]

Yeah.

[Anonymous No.2841670]

it doesn't real matter, i cant remember who (might be Fourier) but one of the famous mathematicians said in a speech on his 21st birthday that he feels that he wasted his youth because newton and others were already published by 21. so even great mathematicians feel that way.

[Anonymous No.2841674]

Blaise Pascal is lulzy.
By 12 he had rediscovered alone all the scientific knowledge of this time.

[a strong ai No.2841681]

I don't feel inferior, pretty much because I know I am just like them and that there is a large degree of luck involved in being recognized for things like that, or not. Also exposure to a particular subject controls how much you are able to learn about it. I didn't have access to those kind of topics but I did do my sister's math homework who was 8 years my senior.

Einstein was thought of as a dummy because his stupid math teacher had no clue what was going through his head.

I can pretty much learn any new subject in like 15 minutes and reason about it on a theoretical level. There might be someone with x% more brain efficiency but as far as I am concerned I am good enough to pursue some things that haven't already been dealt with.

[Anonymous No.2841683]

>>2841625
>>2841664

Although reading stuff like this makes me want to gouge my eyes out, I just remember why I became a physicist in the first place: I like the work. End of story. I know, I don't have the smarts of becoming a world-renowned scientist and I do not have the virtue, patience and drive to put that much effort into being one.

I just like my job and live a relaxed life.

[Anonymous No.2841687]

>>2841681
that's a common misconception, Einstein was actually top of his class in math every year, and mastered calculus at 15. the thing about the teachers not understanding him was made up to let idiots feel good about themselves.

[Anonymous No.2841717]

>>2841687
you are wrong, my great grandfather taught einstein in high school
he was considered a bit slow

[Anonymous No.2841738]

Access to porn.

[almostphysicist No.2841744]

>>2841681
>>2841681
>>2841681
>I am just like them

lolno sorry. People like Einstein, Pascal, Green, etc are bound to make some kind of contribution eventually, it the only factor luck plays is how soon in their lives they'll come to fame.

You're more likely to win the lottery than to be "just like them."

>I can pretty much learn any new subject in like 15 minutes and reason about it on a theoretical level.

I would venture to guess you're not even a freshman in college yet. Don't let your unfounded arrogance cause you problems later.

[Anonymous No.2841757]

>>2841681

>There might be someone with x% more brain efficiency but as far as I am concerned I am good enough to pursue some things that haven't already been dealt with.

Yeah, no.

It's like driving a car. No matter how good at it you get, you'll never be as good as Schumacher. Same with composing music, or writing.

Some people just work harder and have more capacity to learn. You aren't one of those people, because if you were you wouldn't be on here - getting trolled by me.

[Anonymous No.2841768]

>>2841681
>Also exposure
You're missing a comma, Mr. Genius.

[a strong ai No.2841770]

>>2841744
Your response is fallacious. You don't know anything about who you are talking to. Such behavior implies that you think of Einstein etc. as some sort of meta-human mythical character that you could never have run into on the street or 4chan prior to them becoming famous. They aren't. They are just people.

[Anonymous No.2841782]

im 17 and about to choose my career path, i thought about studying math but then i ran into the same problem as you OP. anyone who would give me any kind of advice youre welcome inb4 trolling.

[Anonymous No.2841784]

>>2841605
OP, that is not impressive. There were five people in my graduating class who had done that by the age of 15, and we were kids from a hick town in Texas educated by public school.

I'm now a lawyer, two are doctors, one is a PhD candidate at Stanford in the engineering department/whatever, and the other died in a plane crash at 17.

[a strong ai No.2841788]

>>2841757

Again fallacious. Yes I would be on here. The world is anti-intelligence. I could probably learn in far less time than it took schumacher and then proceed to beat him in a race. I have done such things many times in the past.

Stop projecting your insecurities onto me.

[Anonymous No.2841801]

>>2841664

Yeah, it's going to suck when you have to actually learn something. You'll spend 15 minutes just trying to read a half-page of text, much less understand it or be able to fruitfully think about it.

[almostphysicist No.2841803]

>>2841788
>>2841788
>>2841788
He got me.

[Anonymous No.2841809]

>>2841788
>The world is anti-intelligence
That's an awkward sentence.
>Yes I
Missing comma again.

Non-genius with overinflated ego confirmed.

[Anonymous No.2841810]

Wait. I just remembered. I took AP calculus as a sophomore in high school. Got a 5 on the AP test. So I mastered it by...

16.

Fuck. Am I hopeless?

[almostphysicist No.2841813]

>>2841784
>>2841784
I doubt what you're saying is true, but either way I don't think "mastery" of differential and integral calculus amounts to memorizing derivatives and antiderivatives.

[Anonymous No.2841815]

I do that all the time.

>Recognized as a mathematical prodigy, at the age of 15 he began to study under Gábor Szegő. On their first meeting, Szegő was so impressed with the boy's mathematical talent that he was brought to tears.

>mfw

[Anonymous No.2841816]

>>2841770

>They are just people

And we see how craven the lowly are, that they presume that all those who leap and soar are on the same level on them. The notion of a superiority of a few would be anathema because the lowly must have their form of revenge, their triumph over those who are stronger then they.

Of course being weaker and not pursuing this revenge, which in the play between the stronger is a playful game of strength (for they have strength to "play") , in the arena of strength they instead poison themselves with idealisms whereupon they too can touch the surface and fathom the depths of these stars. They disrespect anything higher by themselves by imagining the distance to be mere anthills than mountains.

[almostphysicist No.2841817]

>MFW people ITT claim to have mastered integral and differential calculus and probably don't know what a partial differential equation is, let alone a differential equation

[almostphysicist No.2841823]

>>2841816
>>2841816
>And we see how craven the lowly are, that they presume that all those who leap and soar are on the same level on them. The notion of a superiority of a few would be anathema because the lowly must have their form of revenge, their triumph over those who are stronger then they.

Very well written.

[Anonymous No.2841826]

>>2841816
You forgot your tripcode, bro.

[Anonymous No.2841828]

>>2841681

You are full of fuck.

And Einstein was by no means considered a "bit slow."

He just loved to work alone and rarely attended classes. His professors got angry at his elitist attitude and didn't recommend him for further education.

[Anonymous No.2841834]

anybody would be able to master that at 15, if they received the right (in)balance of education.

[Anonymous No.2841835]

>"He obtained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in mathematics and physics—an unprecedented feat—but did rather poorly on the history and English portions.[14] Attendees at Feynman's first seminar included Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli, and John von Neumann. "

The fuck, man.

[Anonymous No.2841842]

>>2841834

Not really. I've met quite a bunch of students who couldn't for the live of them do a semi complicated integration.

It's not just memorization. Even if it was. Different people have different memorization capabilities. Memorization in itself is an intelligence.

[Anonymous No.2841851]

>>2841816
>jealous of the normies

[a strong ai No.2841856]

>>2841809

Apparently, you know nothing of intelligence. Use of grammar on the internet is not an IQ test. It's not even a test of knowledge. There are conditions in which certain grammar rules are redundant and/or unnecessary in modern society. Such as putting periods at the ends of sentences in texting/instant messages.

Further, you don't even know what you are talking about... your grammar complaints are mostly wrong.

I am sorry that god did not create you with the same level of ability to understand the world around you. You will not overcome this by trying to memorize useless information and then saying that people who were created with those abilities don't know what you know.

[Anonymous No.2841860]

>have ass burgers
>see that other faggots with it graduate high school by 8, question the quantum theory by 12 and so forth
>others are musical prodigies rivaling even the most successful of musicians
>achieve none of this
fuck man

[Anonymous No.2841874]

>I can pretty much learn any new subject in like 15 minutes and reason about it on a theoretical level.
This is where you, without a doubt, got confirmed as either a troll or a highschooler.

0/10.

[Anonymous No.2841880]

>not a prodigy, only hardworking
>be one of the most influential and important people in the 20th century
>who am i? take your pick

[Anonymous No.2841884]

>>2841856
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.2841886]

>>2841874

Eh, I'd be willing to even say "lower classman at anything but a really top notch school"

[Anonymous No.2841890]

>>2841880
Enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.2841896]

>>2841880

The people running the world? You know, the best amongst working class citizens.

[Anonymous No.2841902]

>>2841880
Oh, hi there every important person ever.

[Anonymous No.2841930]

>>2841880
Jeff Goldbloom?

[Anonymous No.2841948]

>>2841605

>hardworking [ ]
>particular technical skills [x]
>above average intelligence [x]
>genius abilities [ ]

I'm aware that I will never be no.1 but I also positive that this isn't the maximum I can reach. However I'm finding it hard to work hard. I don't particularly get bored learning new shit and stuff but I fucking hate revising shit (and since I'm not a savant revising is pretty much mandatory).

[a strong ai No.2841974]

>>2841816

Again, you speak of someone you don't know anything about thus eliminating the possibility of any legitimate motivation for lashing out.

You are projecting your own deep-seated insecurities and feelings of inferiority onto other people, wishing they were in the same boat as you.

Rather amusing considering that is what this whole thread is about. The first person who shows up and says "Actually that is me you are talking about and its not that big of a deal" you all fly off the handle crying "NUUUHHHH UHHH!!!!!".

If the news tells you the person is one of them, you feel compelled to accept it. However if the person themselves tell you, you think it impossible... Thus implying there is no objective truth. You don't even understand the existence of the phenomenon apart from it being recognized by the social structure.

[Anonymous No.2841988]

>>2841683
True words.

[Anonymous No.2841993]

>>2841605
>Does anyone read wikis

Damn it OP, you mean "wiki pages".

Wikipedia is a wiki.

Get it right, faggot.

[a strong ai No.2841995]

>>2841948

One issue with the concept of "Working hard". You seem challenged to find the motivation to work hard to do what? Is it something that you, yourself determined needed to be done or is it something that someone told you that you needed to do? Do you really believe that it is something you should be doing? Perhaps your reluctance to work hard for someone else is just knowledge that what they are asking you to do is not what you should be doing...

If you are a genius, with extreme analytical skills, then perhaps you are the one who should be deciding what the most efficient use of your time would be. Perhaps then your motivation would take off.

Those of lower capabilities often feel the need to control and direct people superior to them. They feel the need to punish those people as well. The sooner you free yourself from them, the better.

[Anonymous No.2842005]

>>2841995

I'm not a genius but what you say is true. I feel constrained by the educational system and would probably achieve more on my own terms.

[Anonymous No.2842008]

>>2841995

"Working hard" doesn't mean I'm working for anyone. The hours I spent pouring over my textbooks, bashing myself against problems, thinking about things and trying to connect the various concepts, I consider all of those things to be me "working hard".

[a strong ai No.2842083]

There are a lot of angry insecure people in this thread. I have seen many such people go through the stages of loss during my career. People showing teeth, attempting to use debate fallacies to attack my character, honestly approaching me as if they really believed I was doing something wrong by having better ideas despite having put forth less effort than them... crying.. etc etc etc

I will tell you the same thing I told them that seemed to make them feel better.

Intelligence is a real, scientifically validated phenomenon. It is not cause by environment, but rather by genetics. People with higher IQ are better than you at science in ways that are not immediately obvious to you. This is not your fault, nor their fault.

People generate abstract classes from their experiences. These abstract classes can be used as premises for deductive reasoning and often are. People who have lower IQ are confused by the deductive reasoning used by those of higher IQ. They challenge that reasoning in various ways, claim it is unfounded speculation etc.

Here is a scaled down example so everyone can understand: You point out a cat to a challenged kid, and he tell him it is a cat. He then points them out himself and says "cat". Then a dog walks by. He points it out and says "cat". Huh? You ask him why he thinks it is a cat. He says "It is furry and has 4 legs".

His brain only generates the two categories <furry> and <4-legged> from observing either cat or dog. Not enough to distinguish the two. In practice he can study it closer and find something to distinguish them, but he doesn't do it automatically - that is what makes him challenged. If you told him it was a dog, he might say something like "What do you know?".

This is pretty much how geniuses see more average people. They can use purely deductive reasoning that is basically infallible and be challenged by other scientists who claim that their statement is unsupported.

[a strong ai No.2842088]

But high intelligence itself is not rare enough to explain the type of people mentioned in this thread. The other issue involves analytical skills. This one involves the hierarchy of needs. A need often skipped over or erroneously grouped with the basic physical needs is the need for security. It is my belief that most people from civilized nations just skip this need entirely and do not understand it. This is a deviation from nature, where the need for security drives a large percentage of behavior. Why shouldn't they take their security for granted? Even when the rare tragic event does happen in civilized society, we don't have to rethink our whole approach - we just depend on social bonds to get through it.

But some people get unlucky and do have experiences that condition them to take their need for security more seriously. These people are wired quite differently, and in my opinion are the only ones capable of doing anything truly unique.

To others the very definition of truth is determined by social acceptability. To them truth is determined by the need for security - which leads them to objective truth... possession of which allows them to best prepare for their future.

If you have a genius, with a subconscious belief that their very survival depends on their ability to understand their surroundings you can bet that they will be capable of great things. But to be recognized as such in society is a quite different. The easiest way is to be recognized as a child and then be groomed from then forward. But that does not always happen.

[Anonymous No.2842105]

That and successful business men.

But it helps motivate me to work harder so I guess it doesn't matter.

[Stronger AI No.2842127]

[Anonymous No.2842141]

>Srinivasa Ramanujan
>no formal training in mathematics
>DISCOVERED THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYTHING ON HIS OWN

[Anonymous No.2842144]

>>2841995
Newfriend here.

This all assumes financial independence. Everyone has to play the game for a little while, because one needs to pay for food while studying.

[Anonymous No.2842146]

>>2842083
I haven't read this thread, but I wanted to point out you're a retard.

>IQ measures intelligence
>IQ is genetic

lol, no

also: [citation needed]


bye thread.

[Anonymous No.2842150]

>>2842146
You jelly of strong ai? He obviously has higher intelligence than you.

[Anonymous No.2842157]

Sure are morons in here

Most of the difference in intelligence between people just relates to memory. Memory is genetic. Aside from major outliers (retards) we're all basically the same intelligence wise. True fact. If you dont use your brain a lot or are never taught correctly you will never reach your full potential. Your full potential is dictated by your memory. If you do not have a naturally good memory you can often make up for it by working harder, but you'll never catch up to those who have been trained properly, have the drive, and have the memory. However

>there are drugs you can take to improve your memory.

Pircitam i believe.

Also my post disregards critical learning periods which are relevant, but meh.

Also, if you feel your development was stunted, do research, figure out what you think the best things to learn are, smoke a shitload of weed/eat edibles for about 3 months. It increases your neuroplasticity. Also jog during this period to increase blood flow to your brain. Begin your learning regimen, nootropics (like pircitam), eat healthy foods, and quit the weed smoke

>become a god

you're welcome newfags

[Anonymous No.2842159]

>>2842083
>Dog is the common use term that refers to members of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris (canis, "dog"; lupus, "wolf"; familiaris, "of a household" or "domestic"). The term can also be used to refer to a wider range of related species, such as the members of the genus Canis, or "true dogs", including the wolf, coyote, and jackals; or it can refer to the members of the subfamily Caninae, which would also include the African wild dog; or it can be used to refer to any member of the family Canidae, which would also include the foxes, bush dog, raccoon dog, and others.[10] Some members of the family have "dog" in their common names, such as the raccoon dog and the African wild dog. A few animals have "dog" in their common names but are not canids, such as the prairie dog.
>The English word dog comes from Middle English dogge, from Old English docga, a "powerful dog breed".[11] The term may derive from Proto-Germanic *dukkōn, represented in Old English finger-docce ("finger-muscle").[12] The word also shows the familiar petname diminutive -ga also seen in frogga "frog", picga "pig", stagga "stag", wicga "beetle, worm", among others.[13] Due to the archaic structure of the word, the term dog may ultimately derive from the earliest layer of Proto-Indo-European vocabulary, reflecting the role of the dog as the earliest domesticated animal.[14]

[Anonymous No.2842164]

>>2842159
>In 14th century England, hound (from Old English: hund) was the general word for all domestic canines, and dog referred to a subtype of hound, a group including the mastiff. It is believed this "dog" type of "hound" was so common it eventually became the prototype of the category “hound”.[15] By the 16th century, dog had become the general word, and hound had begun to refer only to types used for hunting.[16] Hound, cognate to German Hund, Dutch hond, common Scandinavian hund, and Icelandic hundur, is ultimately derived from the Proto-Indo-European *kwon- "dog", found in Welsh ci (plural cwn), Latin canis, Greek kýōn, Lithuanian šuõ.[17]
>In breeding circles, a male canine is referred to as a dog, while a female is called a bitch (Middle English bicche, from Old English bicce, ultimately from Old Norse bikkja). A group of offspring is a litter. The father of a litter is called the sire, and the mother is called the dam. Offspring are generally called pups or puppies, from French poupée, until they are about a year old. The process of birth is whelping, from the Old English word hwelp, (cf. German Welpe, Dutch welp, Swedish valp, Icelandic hvelpur) .[18]
>The Feliformia ("cat-like" carnivores, also Feloidea) are a suborder within the order Carnivora and includes cats (large and small), hyenas, mongooses, civets and related taxa.
>The first felids emerged during the Oligocene, about 25 million years ago. In prehistoric times, there was a third subfamily known as Machairodontinae, which included the "saber-toothed cats" such as the well known Smilodon. There were also other cat-like mammals, such as Thylacosmilus or the Nimravidae, which are not included in Felidae despite superficial similarities.

[Anonymous No.2842182]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek

[Anonymous No.2842197]

>>2842182
>>2842164
>>2842159

[Anonymous No.2842202]

>>2842083
Please show the scientific literature of protein metabolic pathways that regulate or elevates memory capacity in humans and how this directly correlates with intelligence.

TL;DT citation needed...

[Anonymous No.2842219]

>>2842202
>TL;DT
You need to improve on your reading skills.

[Anonymous No.2842227]

>>2842219
And you need to differentiate between reading and spelling.

Is that all you can muster, kid?

[Anonymous No.2842233]

I know that feel bro, even though I taught myself calculus around that age, it's got to the point where I'm not advanced beyond my peers at all.. slipping back to mediocre :(

[Anonymous No.2842235]

You are now aware of Akhil Mathew, freshman at harvard.

http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~amathew/
http://amathew.wordpress.com/

[a strong ai No.2842243]

>>2842159

You do realize that all this is irrelevant to the point I made correct?

>>2842157

The retards are not the only difference... not by a long shot... This kind of naive thinking has caused so much damage.

Why do you think streets with the name Martin King have such higher crime rates than all the rest? People above challenged but below average fail, then blame everyone else but themselves. Why? They are desperately seeking someone else to blame, because society calls them losers for being unable to accomplish things that THEY ARE PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of doing.

You know how you take an IQ test, and some of the questions ask you to recognize the pattern in a span of numbers? If you can't do that very easily, how can you do math? You can't easily recognize basic patterns in numbers and formulas.

If you can't recognize complex situations that form the context being referred to when a new word is used, and thus have a small vocabulary, how can you easily express yourself?

Every point of difference in ability on the types of pattern recognition skills measured on IQ tests makes it easier or harder to do everything in life that people are tasked with doing. And it is the same thing being measured in any legitimate IQ test. All the scores are correlated.

[Anonymous No.2842285]

>>2842243

These are things you can make up for with memory

I pointed out how to get around the 'critical learning period' difficulty. Seriously, pot isnt the only thing that increases neuroplasticity but if you follow the instructions in my post it will legitimately make you smarter

[Anonymous No.2842291]

>>2842243

I suck at pattern recognition and do very well in math, keep IQ bs out when debating about intelligence

[Anonymous No.2842303]

>>2842243

I disagree in part, and I will use my personal experience as an example.

First off, let me say that I do agree that SOME people have a very defined ceiling of intelligence, however, I believe (and have seen) the studious and unwavering dedication of ones self make these genetic barriers less cumbersome. I disagree with the sweeping implication that impoverished people have a low IQ ceiling, or that a high IQ is absolutely necessary to understand complex scientific concepts.

I saw my academic momentum stymied at calculus for a time (in high school). It seemed utterly impossible, equations and figures seemed almost mythical, with no base in reality, ln, e^x, log, etc.. You might say that this defined my intellectual potential for the subject, that I had reached my glass ceiling (i sure thought so); I studied hard though, taking extra care to the homework, and before I knew it we had moved on to integrals, and all was easy again. The point I am making is that the difference between someone who fails at understanding a subject, and someone who succeeds, is not usually a predetermined variable, but a reflection of effort and interest. Also, ones lack of ability in a scientific field does not negate the intellectual aspects at all, it may simply mean their specialty lies in a different field, or they are the master of something a bit more ambiguous, like fieldcraft, swimming, hunting, etc.

[Anonymous No.2842325]

when i was 8 my mother was dragging me from psychologist to psychologist trying to get me diagnosed with something because i didn't pay attention in second grade.

I caught up though, taking graduate courses at 18, will surely publish something by 21.


...fuck I'm still behind

[OP No.2842329]

>>2842235

oh lordy

>>2841815

made me laugh, reaction image was perfect.

[Anonymous No.2842340]

OP, almost everyone suffers from uncertainty about their own abilities or potential. Endeavor to be the best that you can and let history be your judge.

[Anonymous No.2842369]

>>2842243

> real math has anything to do with numbers and formulas
> dat highschool

[Faggot OP No.2842384]

William Shockley had he IQ tested twice. He scored 125 and 126.

Him and Luis Alvarez failed to qualify for the Terman Study as children (IQ 135+).

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

Shockley co-invented the transistor, for which all three were awarded the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics

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

>"Luis Alvarez (1911–1988) was one of the most brilliant and productive experimental physicists of the twentieth century."

If Shockley became the "father of the electronic age", you can at least be highly successful.

[Anonymous No.2842425]

>>2842384
Oh yeah.

I raise you a Richard Feynmann.

>In high school, his IQ was determined to be 125: high, but "merely respectable" according to biographer Gleick.[11] Feynman later scoffed at psychometric testing. By 15, he had learned differential and integral calculus. Before entering college, he was experimenting with and re-creating mathematical topics, such as the half-derivative, utilizing his own notation. In high school, he was developing the mathematical intuition behind his Taylor series of mathematical operators.[12]

[Anonymous No.2842454]

I think it should be pretty obvious that it has more to do with your specific interests and how much effort you put into them.

You'll go a lot further reading physics texts all day than playing vidya.

[Anonymous No.2842528]

>>2842303
I had trouble with math in highschool too, but it was because my learning style in the subject was different than how it's generally taught.

[Anonymous No.2842542]

>>2841613
Feynman is so awesome though, because when he describes how he comes to discover or understand new things, it makes it sound so normal and pedestrian, he just had a more advanced and natural proclivity to understanding things mathematically ergo such a precocious life. One of my few "heros" in life.

[Anonymous No.2842571]

hearing about the success of geniuses always gets me upset. I showed exceptional talent as a child but was left to burn out, rot and die in public school, i have notebooks filled with inventions, stories, recipes, music, thoughts. i could have been someone great, maybe i yet will be, for the time being though i might just be going crazy
cheers.

[Anonymous No.2842582]

>>2842384
>shockley only 126

hahaha what a dumb faggot!
i have eight points on him

[Anonymous No.2842613]

>>2842571
I know that feel

So much wasted potential

[Anonymous No.2842622]

>>2842571
>>2842613
>dullards deluding themselves that they are special unique snowflakes

Protip: you would never have amounted to anything anyway

[No one No.2842628]

15 isnt that young

[Anonymous No.2842635]

>>2842083
tl;dr
sounds like this faggot has a complex

[Anonymous No.2842649]

>>2842571
>That feel when you're parents said they were planning on sending you to this really good private school but decided that public school would be good enough.

[Anonymous No.2842656]

>>2842649
implying public school isn't good enough

[Anonymous No.2842660]

>>2842649
>mfw it absolutely doesn't matter what kind of high school you go to

[Anonymous No.2842666]

>>2842656
>America

[Anonymous No.2842674]

>>2842649
>it's my parents fault i'm fucking retarded because they didn't send me to private school

whatever you have to tell yourselves bros

[Anonymous No.2842679]

>>2842660
>mfw you obviously do not live in the south

[Anonymous No.2842684]

It's his parents fault he has terrible genes though.

[Anonymous No.2842687]

>>2842656
>>2842660
>>2842666
>>2842674
Some private schools teach religion anyway, that should already tell you what kind education you'll get there.

[Anonymous No.2842688]

> "By the age of 15 he had mastered differential and integral calculus"

Who didn't?

[Anonymous No.2842691]

>>2842684
>implying genes are as important as they layman thinks it is

[Anonymous No.2842692]

>>2842688
you

[Anonymous No.2842701]

>>2842679
former Kentuckyfag here

I know that feel, bro. My high school didn't have APs or offer calculus of any sort.

[Anonymous No.2842731]

>>2842687
My parents, aunts and uncles went to Catholic school as kids, they tell me they were never even taught evolution.

Be glad you didn't learn from some creationist biased text.

[Anonymous No.2842763]

russian jew math master race reporting in

i could do differential equations before i even learned to speak

[a strong ai No.2842925]

>>2842291

IQ IS intelligence... PERIOD. I am glad that you have worked so hard at math to become somewhat proficient with it. You will never accomplish the same things that someone else like you with a higher IQ could have accomplished. In fact in my experience, people like you try very hard to try and prevent others from making novel contributions claiming that to even try is arrogant, white privilege, or whatever else.

If it were up to me, people would have their IQ's stamped on their foreheads. At least for the duration of any academic debate.

[a strong ai No.2842972]

>>2842303
Yes, I go through this process every day working on unexplored theoretical subjects.

There is one kind of IQ. Not many kinds of intelligence... just one. It is called the g factor. It is mostly measured to be immutable. The most people seem to be able to do is get temporarily ahead in grade school by busting their butt. But as everyone is constantly learning, this headway disappears and they go back to their original IQ rating presumably because that earlier change was not due to a difference in ability but a difference in time spent learning. Their constant level of ability caused them to return to their original place in the IQ ranking.

You can struggle to make the most of what you have. But this does not mean you are increasing your IQ.

[Anonymous No.2843001]

>>2842925

>IQ IS intelligence... PERIOD.

You're dumb.

[Anonymous No.2843018]

>>2842925
>If it were up to me, people would have their IQ's stamped on their foreheads

fuck off, nazi

[Anonymous No.2843025]

>>2843001
>>2843018
>obvious butthurt

[Anonymous No.2843027]

>>2841623
>blame everything but yourself
Some people are born smarter.

[Anonymous No.2843039]

>>2842925
0/10

IQ is a broken test and there is no way to quantify intellect. Especially considering you can't define any particular subject as objective with 100% certainty. No, not even math.

[a strong ai No.2843041]

>>2843018
and the rest of this post says "for the duration of academic debates"

That way, when the stupid affirmative action academics participating tried to use strength in numbers and "NUH UH THATTTSS STOOOOO-PID" to overpower superior reasoning, they would be understood to have auto-failed.

[Anonymous No.2843078]

Why should I feel that way about famous scientists and mathematicians? There are scores, no probably more like hundreds of people in my year at university who are completely beyond my reach.

I would be presumptuous and vain for me to even begin comparing myself to famous scientists before I was one of the biggest fish in my current pool.

[Anonymous No.2843081]

>>2843041

IQ isn't intelligence.

This isn't a matter of me against you, or me wishing I was like the character you've created as your internet persona. If IQ was directly related to academic success then universities would be full of exclusively clever people, and they aren't. You're applying isolated logic to an illogical work, then claiming it's the efforts of stupid people that sully your brilliance.

Once again, if you were a fraction of the genius you claim to be you wouldn't be on /sci/, debating the same tired point over and over.

[a strong ai No.2843085]

>>2843039
Who told you that? Intelligence has been quantified... over and over and over.

Scores on every type of intelligence test are correlated for a particular individual. There is a single factor, known as g factor, governing performance on all of these types of tests. It is 80% heritable. It is immutable. It lets you do just about everything better and faster... except live and be happy (except that it makes it easier to avoid potential problems)

A person with a high IQ and analytical skills will leave average people in the dust. If you can't even remotely understand how this works and get mad at them for doing it, allow me to explain it to you. They aren't even really learning new subjects. They already learned it... by exploring the implications of similar principals that they generalized from other disciplines and subjects. They can then perform operations on these general principals they extracted to create novel contributions... at a very high level.

Sure we still need people to make minor revisions to the measurement of half-life. We just can't let them get all uppity and start trying to lock out the truly capable people.

[Anonymous No.2843091]

ITT: slightly above-average peasants convincing themselves they are on the same level as Von-Neumann, Einstein and Newton, and that the only thing holding them back is lack of motivation or shitty teachers.

Hate to break it you all, but these geniuses are simply born smarter. They process information faster and more accurately than normal people because they're not normal.

[Anonymous No.2843099]

>>2843041

So what you're saying is that you can do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGIiarIrUCI

give a lecture of this quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM

and write this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-TrAvp_xs&feature=related

simply because you claim to be intelligent.

also

>I could probably learn in far less time than it took schumacher and then proceed to beat him in a race.

You aren't physically fit enough, you aren't agressive enough, you aren't clever enough and you don't have the anticipation skills of anything more physically advanced than a 10 year old. Enjoy lying about yourself on the internet.

[Anonymous No.2843106]

Rather than just getting mad about it, i use it as motivation to me so i could get better. I always say to myself, "If you will not learn differential geometry, then you might as well be dead, because anyone can solve differential geometry." I have in imaginary high-expectations-Asian-father.

[Anonymous No.2843107]

>>2843085

>i skimmed through atlas shrugged, understood about half of it and now i'm a world leader!

[Anonymous No.2843141]

>>2843039
>. Especially considering you can't define any particular subject as objective with 100% certainty.

What are you even trying to say, man?
This is obvious butthurt. I'm sorry you didn't do very well when you had you IQ tested, but IQ is a good measure of intelligence. It isn't infallible or fully accurate to the degree it claims ot be ( I do not believe that someone with an IQ of 101 is exactly 1% more intelligent than someone with an IQ of 100), but it's decent.
If you took a group of 100 people with IQs of 80 and another group of 100 people with Iqs of 120, and say pitted them against each other in a series of mental games and challenges and problems that none of htem had experience of before, or had the lot of them all take a course in a subject none of them had done before and had htem all take an exam at the end, hte group of people with IQ os 120 would clearly utterly wreck the group of people with IQs of 80.

There's no point in even questioning this, it's what would happen. So try not being so butthurt, huh?

[Anonymous No.2843145]

>>2843106
That's cool, considering the grade scale is out of 4.

[a strong ai No.2843150]

>>2843078

You shouldn't feel that way, because if you were supposed to feel that way you would already know the answer to that question and would not be asking me.

If you have that high level of ability there are 2 paths for you... one is a sort of rogue path and the other is the beloved path. In either case one thing remains constant your knowledge and mastery of your subject matter. It is my opinion that people on the rogue path are inherently more capable... but I cannot deny that there are people who were never really considered outcasts that made significant contributions.

But the whole "biggest fish in the pond" thing. You are failing to separate objective ability, knowledge and even accomplishment from subjective perception of these things.

If you have that level of ability and knowledge, no one has to tell you and no one can tell you whether it is ok for you to have it. You just know.

Now if you are a super good looking people person, people are more likely to be like "goo team!" when you display blatant superiority to them. You wouldn't really feel the need to second guess average people, because they always allow you to get ahead soon enough.

If you were on the other hand a face-mangled abused super genius, people would mostly straw man everything you said and feel as though your existence challenged their naive sense of egalitarianism. You also would have built up a tolerance to and not respect false authority figures who tried to abuse their position to satisfy their insecurities towards people more intelligent than them.

Most of the arguments saying that "IQ doesn't guarantee success" are circular in nature and have to do with average people trying to force handicap people of higher ability.

If you are that genius, and you know you are that genius, why would you value the judgment of people who did not have your level of understanding?

[Anonymous No.2843153]

>>2843145

Nope. Top schools such as MIT use a 5 point system.

[Anonymous No.2843168]

>>2843150

>Most of the arguments saying that "IQ doesn't guarantee success" are circular in nature and have to do with average people trying to force handicap people of higher ability.

Once again, utter shit. IQ doesn't guarantee success and if you were such a clever guy you'd know there is no such thing as a guarantee.

I mean, it's not even a guarantee that you're completely retarded. You might just be trolling.

[Anonymous No.2843195]

>>2843039
you can quantify intellect, just not perfectly

[a strong ai No.2843218]

>>2843099

What are you talking about? I bench more than twice my weight. I won't get into the aggression part, but that is utter hogwash. I used to wrestle in high school and utterly dominated all but the most experienced wrestlers in the first week.

Trying to use your intelligence to speed up muscle memory is possible, but not always something you can do as fast as you would like. I have more than a few tricks that allow me to do this much faster than most other people however.

IQ is not correlated with physical frailness either.

[Anonymous No.2843226]

>>2843085
>There is a single factor, known as g factor, governing performance on all of these types of tests.
I think you mean "hypothetical factor, correlating to performance on all of these types of tests".

And guess what? It also correlates to height, physical attractiveness, grip strength, and cardiovascular endurance.

Because ALL generally desirable traits correlate.

There are two reasonable and complementary explanations for this:
1) a single genetic flaw or detrimental environmental factor more typically has diverse harmful effects than narrowly focused ones; almost any health problem will negatively affect concentration, appearance, and physical performance
2) those with good traits secure better mates, leaving those with poorer traits to settle for mates who also have poorer traits, resulting in general genetic stratification; we all judge prospective mates in a general sense weighing their flaws against their good points, and trying to at least get someone who's "in my league"

It's very hard to fail at measuring something that correlates to general quality.

[Anonymous No.2843242]

>>2843218

I feel like nominating you Time Person of the Year 2011.

Seriously, man. Chill out. You made a fool of yourself already, and nobody is going to bother reading your diary.

[Anonymous No.2843246]

I did Calculus at 15. It's not nearly as impressive if you don't have the guts or creativity to go further with what you learned, and really be passionate about it.

[Anonymous No.2843251]

>>2843218

Ubermensch detected

[Anonymous No.2843260]

>>2843242
>I feel like nominating you Time Person of the Year 2011.
Again? He had it once in 2006.

[a strong ai No.2843267]

>>2843168
Fallacy...
The counter argument you quoted does not state that high IQ guarantees success...

In fact it says that people with high IQ's can have their attempts at success stifled by average people in large numbers force handicapping them, punishing them for their nature, and denying access to needed resources.

[Anonymous No.2843272]

>>2843218
>I bench more than twice my computer's weight.
ftfy

[Anonymous No.2843287]

>i could have been my next einstein, but mommy sent me to public school

[Anonymous No.2843309]

>"By the age of 15 he had mastered differential and integral calculus"

Yeah, this sounds equivalent to taking BC Calculus as a sophomore in high school. Not entirely impressive, go on collegeconfidential.com if you want to see plenty of kids just like that. Especially check threads such as ones about MIT/Stanford/Ivy/etc. decisions- tons of the kids there did amazing things like starting successful businesses or charities, doing actual research, or being the president of a dozen clubs in the school, all while maintaining perfect GPAs.

[a strong ai No.2843310]

>>2843242

Another fallacy... anyone can say "Oh you lost the argument and made a fool of yourself" that doesn't suddenly magically give you a reversal. How did the person lose the argument? Gee when did that happen? That's not how I remember it lol...

I am not obligated to tell you my flaws, but if you accuse me of having ones I do not you are likely to hear a correction... You can't accuse someone of being arrogant after a ridiculous accusation of physical frailness was made and it was corrected...

[Anonymous No.2843312]

>>2843150
Where from my post did you get the impression that I consider myself a a highly talented person?

I don't. I'm not. In my own higschool and university there have been people so much better than me that no matter how hard I worked they would always be able to pick up things faster than me and spot solutions that would evade me. Those people, they might have the right to look at famous scientists and feel intimidated or defeated by them. I don't have that right. It would be as presumptuous as thinking "aww man, how am I ever going to get that fields medal" when you never even got past the first round of the IMO selection process.

[Anonymous No.2843330]

>>2843267
>In fact it says that people with high IQ's can have their attempts at success stifled by average people in large numbers force handicapping them, punishing them for their nature, and denying access to needed resources.
You sound like a disgruntled intellectual. That there are a lot of successful intellectuals negates your argument.

[Anonymous No.2843340]

>>2843218

>I bench more than twice my weight

No you don't, you fool.

[Anonymous No.2843343]

>>2843309
good point

there's a kid in my calc class who's a junior in HS and he's in calc 2 now and he'll be done with calc 3 over the summer and probably be done with differential eq's by the time he's done with his senior year

[Anonymous No.2843371]

>>2843226
>It's very hard to fail at measuring something that correlates to general quality.
...and if I wasn't being clear enough, the point is that the "Look, IQ correlates to all of these other things! That means we're measuring g!" argument is a crock of shit.

If IQ really was a good measure of intelligence, then its correlation to real-world success wouldn't drop off after the first couple of standard deviations.

Look at the way IQ is tested: no reference to long-term memory, puzzles neatly laid out with all necessary information, no individual problem that takes more than a few moments to solve. Intelligence is part of your IQ score, but other things that can boost your score are obsession with abstract puzzles, extremely narrow focus on the obvious things in front of you, and total unquestioning faith in information presented to you. Subtracting important aspects of practical thinking would streamline your performance on IQ tests. The tests ignore your ability to organize your memory and (being timed) penalize you for cautious habits of thought.

[Anonymous No.2843391]

lol
u know the main factor for determining verbal iq is generally vocabulary
sorry smart ai
ur vocab suckz

[Anonymous No.2843415]

>>2843371
i sort of agree, but why do you think intelligence has to correlate with 'success'. i would think they're separate and only related loosely

[Anonymous No.2843440]

>don't care what other people do with their lives
>don't care if others are smarter, dumber, stronger, happier, ect. None of that affects me
>all that matters is what I'M doing with my time on earth

[Anonymous No.2843461]

>>2843415
>why do you think intelligence has to correlate with 'success'.
It probably has something to do with me not feeling the need to put the word "success" in scare quotes.

Intelligence is the ability to reach sound conclusions based on available information. Genuine intelligence has no practical downside, and is beneficial in almost any pursuit. Almost by definition, it must correlate strongly to success.

[Anonymous No.2843464]

>>2843440
>all that matters is what I'M doing with my time on earth
>and I'M here on 4chan
>fuck

[Anonymous No.2843493]

I had one of these child savants in my college physics class. He was something like 16 and the rest of us were 20+.

I ended up partnering with him for most team stuff; he was there long enough to help me with a few things I probably would have messed up alone, and then he burnt out and transferred to IT. Never saw him again.

Also he thought he had an elementary proof of the four-color theorem, so there's that too. I guess he's still working on it...

[Anonymous No.2843528]

I'm not going to be anyone great or groundbreaking.
But I don't care. I don't have to be.

I don't care about discovering calculus on my own, because at age 16, when I finished high school, I knew more calculus, chemistry, and physics than the people who discovered those concepts.

Not only that, but I'm a bit smarter than most people in my class, who also grasped it.

Now I'm in university, still taking in more knowledge.

I'm smarter than anyone before me, because I'm learning more in less time. I'm smart enough to do nearly anything in this day and age - that's more about studying and learning than intelligence.

[Anonymous No.2843545]

>>2843461
calm down

that would sorta make sense if intelligence was the only thing that determined success, but it's not, and moreover just cause you 'reach sound conclusions based on available information' doesn't mean you will react in a way that brings 'success' (one cliched example is smart people becoming depressed more often because they perceive injustice/immorality/whatever more acutely).

[Anonymous No.2843572]

>>2843545
Am I being trolled?

>calm down
...to someone who's not acting aggravated.

...and then blatant stupidity:
>[intelligence correlating strongly to success] would sorta make sense if intelligence was the only thing that determined success

I do believe in fantastically stupid people, but this really looks like provocation.