/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 111 KB, 789x680, intelligence.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 00:23:18 2011 No.3413479 [Reply] [Original]

>http://shawneehistory.tripod.com/16.pdf
>http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-563.pdf
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/653365
>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5794948
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-alex-benzer/why-the-smartest-people-h_b_169939.html
FML ;_;

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 00:39:18 2011 No.3413565 >>3413479 if you can't be fun and attractive to women then you aren't as smart as you thought OP

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 00:44:18 2011 No.3413597 because you use your intelligence to separate, distinguish instead of bonding and understanding.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 00:46:18 2011 No.3413610

women don't like intelligence in a romantic partner if it makes them feel inadequate about their own. same reason we don't like women being intelligent in a way that it makes us feel inadequate about our own. in fact, as men, we don't like the girl being smarter than us in even the slightest, that's just weird and uncomfortable.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 00:46:18 2011 No.3413609 I'm not smart. I just grind my way through class. Undergraduate chemistry and biology is too easy to weed me out. Maybe grad school will do the job or maybe I'll get my shit together by then. I still won't have a girlfriend.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 00:47:18 2011 No.3413618 >>3413609 Are too easy. Sage for me being a fucking retard. I should go to bed. I've got class in the morning.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 00:57:18 2011 No.3413669
File: 272 KB, 600x831, batman-trilogy-posters-combined-17364-1310975567-17.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I will give you a simple answer but most of you won't understand or appreciate it.

Nevertheless...

There is more chance of being a genius if you are antisocial.

Einstein, Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, etc were all extremely antisocial and geniuses.

This is because you have more time to your self if you are antisocial, which gives you more time to waste trying to understand the things around you. If you are social, you spend that time with friends partying and trying to get laid.

You cannot be a genius if you like partying with people, as regular people won't appreciate what you are chasing, and in the end you give up on it even if you could have been a genius.

However, you can still be smart and social. Smartness that comes from being book-smart does not have to be driven by curiosity (which is important for a genius).

In short genius people need time and curiosity... both of which is lost if you spend it chasing people...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 00:59:18 2011 No.3413680 Simple answer: Because you're not intelligent. You're nerdy. Geniuses like Einstein and Russel got laid all the time.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:00:18 2011 No.3413683

>>3413669
It's a personal pet peeve of mine when you twats mistake "antisocial" for "avoidant." An antisocial person is someone who doesn't understand why he should follow social rules, and breaks them nonetheless.

Also the "more time to yourself = more intelligent" only works if you're under twenty (averagely), while the brain is still developing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:03:18 2011 No.3413689 >>3413680 but nerds all intelligent...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:04:18 2011 No.3413692 >>3413610 What? For Pete's sake, guys are actually intimidated by intelligence?

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:05:18 2011 No.3413696

>>3413683
Not really...

If you don't have time to think about the universe... how are you going to figure it out? It is not like there is this hidden book in your head that you need to grab somehow...

Figuring out needs time... people who are social are not going to have that time. What I am talking about has nothing to do with developing brains.

Also when I say antisocial, i mean anti-social... i.e. not social. I am sorry to confuse you there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:08:18 2011 No.3413701 Because Emotional Intelligence.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:08:18 2011 No.3413702

>>3413692
Haha... i understand what the guy you are referring to is talking about but he has misunderstood this.

Men being intimidated by female intelligence is driven by a sexist idea of how men are better than women. However, this is not the case for all men.

I would love a girl who could talk about science all the time with me but I just keep making women feel bad about not knowing science as much as me. I wish it wasn't that way but in no way am I intimidated by an intelligent woman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:09:18 2011 No.3413707 File: 41 KB, 580x572, Dean Smile.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm intelligent. I'm not single. I found this out last month when a girl invited me over and spontaneously started to make out with me while watching a movie.

>>	Blackman Tue Jul 19 01:10:18 2011 No.3413710 Hmm... Maybe if you stop being an asspie with a horrible acne that only wears Invader Jim graphic tees and phat pants you might have better luck? Females like nerdy guys...When they dress well and look nice. Fairly simple.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:11:18 2011 No.3413713

>>3413696
Yes really, the reason why it only works for adolescent because thinking develops the brain more, which helps gain it's ability to process information at any given time (which is what intelligence is), but only when it's actually still developing. Once you past that stage, it's not going to do anything for that it hasn't done before. And everything after is more experience than intellect.

>Also when I say antisocial, i mean anti-social... i.e. not social.
And it's the wrong word for that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:12:18 2011 No.3413717 File: 363 KB, 3252x2250, Wello.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I get laid every weekend by this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:13:18 2011 No.3413721 >>3413702 You and I would get along just fine then. Too bad this is 4chan and I will slink back into the background.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:14:18 2011 No.3413722

>>3413707
same here! *high five*
except not with a movie.. I was starting to think the universe was out to get me somehow and there was no way I would ever get a girl...
and then it just happened!

maybe /sci/.. our problem is that we are just too shy. This experience changed me, if I become single again I am just going to start asking girls I like out on dates.. I never even would ask a girl for her number I was so shy, even if she showed signs of liking me..

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:16:18 2011 No.3413732 >>3413710 Gotta work on my fucking acne issue, maybe get a haircut. Hoping to ask a female out this fall when I see her again. Unfortunately, she's in a different country right now for vacation.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:18:18 2011 No.3413743

Statistics say the best relationships are those where the men are less intelligent and less attractive than the women. Neither party has to be retarded or genius or hideous or beautiful, the women just has to be, relatively speaking, better-looking and more intelligent.

That's why you're single, OP, because no intelligent woman would ever get within ten feet of you without an armed guard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:20:18 2011 No.3413751 >>3413702 Gotta love 'em science loving females.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:21:18 2011 No.3413752

>>3413717
Wow, I didn't know they made finger puppets that were so convincing!

Anyway, to the OP, women *are* attracted to intelligence. It's just that women are basically living embodiments of the Dunning-Kruger effect; they're attracted to their own perception of intelligence, not actual intelligence. For instance, they would think that a moronic stoner who makes "profound" statements is intelligent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:22:18 2011 No.3413757 >>3413479 >>3413669 Richard Feynman didn't have a problem. Henry Kissinger, that ugly motherfucker diabolical genius that he is, managed to bed tons of hot movie stars.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:23:18 2011 No.3413764 >>3413743 >Statistics say the best relationships are those where the men are less intelligent and less attractive than the women. Did you get this from the Hollywood Academy of Situation Comedy Sociological Studies? Stop watching According to Jim.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:23:18 2011 No.3413761

>>3413713
I understand what you are saying but that is more of a problem for book smart people.

And yes it would help if you were curious to begin. For a genius, if you have curiosity - then the world is just a bunch of mysteries to figure out.

It would be great if you push the limits when you are kid, but nevertheless age does not have a direct relation to this.
There is never an age when your brain stops being curious about the world around you. You decide when to stop asking questions, and when to stop giving yourself time alone to figure these mysteries. Most scientists are trying to solve these mysteries but lack the natural curiosity and do it for the money.

This is why geniuses are different. They don't prize possessions but are driven by curiosity alone. That is why they find more about the world than anyone could possible find.

Age has nothing to do with this as there is never a time, when there are no mysteries for you to figure out. If given enough time and interest, you will be amazed at would you could figure out about this world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:23:18 2011 No.3413762 File: 89 KB, 445x445, 1307812258681.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >not including this article http://www.cracked.com/article_19174_5-unexpected-downsides-high-intelligence.html

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:24:18 2011 No.3413768 >>3413762 >Cracked Fuck you. I swore off of Cracked binging but you're just pulling me back in.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:28:18 2011 No.3413784

Many smart people become smart because they somehow had more free time on their hands as they grew up.
They got that free time because they were unable to be more involved in social affairs and play dates or whatever.
They then turn toward solitary play and fiddle with things more, or read more books or something.

That's just an example of correlation v. causation.
Increased intelligence might not be a cause of being unable to get a date; being unable to get a date, that is, being unable to flourish socially, might be the cause of one's development of their intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:29:18 2011 No.3413786 >>3413721 I still noticed you... I wish I knew you in real life or at least keep in touch with you. Unfortunately, this is 4chan and this is probably the last I will hear of you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:30:18 2011 No.3413788 >>3413784 Exactly what I was trying to say... it is just amazing when you find out that someone else understands this too..

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:30:18 2011 No.3413791 I lucked up and met a girl who likes shy, socially awkward guys. Borderline aspie anyway

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:31:18 2011 No.3413795

>>3413761
>but nevertheless age does not have a direct relation to this.
>Age has nothing to do with this
Yes it does because the human body stops developing after a certain age, which will prohibit any significant changes you wish to make to it, which is why spending more time thinking is only good up to certain a biological growth stage.

>There is never an age when your brain stops being curious about the world around you.
You're talking about the mind here, not the brain. There's a difference between the hardware (brain) and the software (mind).

>You decide when to stop asking questions, and when to stop giving yourself time alone to figure these mysteries. Most scientists are trying to solve these mysteries but lack the natural curiosity and do it for the money. This is why geniuses are different. They don't prize possessions but are driven by curiosity alone. That is why they find more about the world than anyone could possible find.

Now this is descending into the philosophy of the human mind, which has very little significance or falsifiability needed to make it relevant here.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:32:18 2011 No.3413798

>>3413702
>intimidation
Fuck that shit. By all means a guy would already shoot for a girl that was hotter than he is handsome. Else why would he bother...
But now the bitch has intelligence on her side too?
Fuck. What the shit do you bring to the table instead of your manmeat?
Shoe's on the other foot.

Blackman Tue Jul 19 01:34:18 2011 No.3413803

>>3413732
Wash face with whatever face wash you want to clean face and open pores. Next, 2 tablets of Aspirin, add a couple drops of water, smash with fingers, add 2-3 drops of honey, apply evenly to face. Wash off after 10-15 minutes. Do this twice a day.
Drink a shit dick load of water everyday. Juices and milk are also acceptable. Take fish oil supplements and a multivitamin.

For breakfast I'll normally do something like an omelet with peppers and some other vegetables inside. You can also apply the eggs whites and yolk to your face to keep it from becoming oily (search it online). A hot cup of water + lemon juice (shit works wonders but use a straw to protect your teeth). Then wash your face and do an aspirin treatment.

For lunch I'll drink a hot cup of green tea and something healthy with fruit on the side.

Dinner... Eat some more damn fruit. Drink some water with lemon juice again if you want.

If you want to get rid of acne scars use an extra virgin olive oil mask.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:34:18 2011 No.3413805 >>3413788 Our love was never meant to be! why.jpg

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:36:18 2011 No.3413811 File: 51 KB, 768x768, 1280540353061.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3413803 >WHAT . >THE . >FUCK

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:40:18 2011 No.3413835

>>3413795
You need curiosity to figure things out... this is not something that is unscientific.

I am guessing you are just a booksmart nerd as otherwise you would have figured this out on your own. If you have time to figure things about the world and you have that curiosity... then you can figure those things out.

If what you are saying is right then all the geniuses we know should be under 20 years old or so. It isn't and so you are not making any sense here.

Stop blabbering things just to knock me aside. This is not in any way unscientific but something that even geniuses have said themselves. This can also be seen by looking closely at the lives that geniuses have lived.

If what you are saying is right then that means at a certain age the world stops being mysterious and even if you have a lot of time on your own, you spend it staring at a freaking rock like a brain dead ape.

>>	Blackman Tue Jul 19 01:41:18 2011 No.3413844 File: 185 KB, 500x281, 1294033059248.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3413811 Deal with it

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:48:18 2011 No.3413872 >>3413844 Aspirin and honey? On MY face?!?!!?!?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:48:18 2011 No.3413874 >>3413805 This is just sad now... p.s.: I hope you are not a guy... lol

>>	Blackman Tue Jul 19 01:51:18 2011 No.3413889 >>3413872 This routine cleared my acne up. Might work for you as well...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:53:18 2011 No.3413891 Just wash your face with water whenever you can... this works... you don't need to do anything else. Try this and if it fails... go for the mad scientist.. Nevertheless, we are straying too far from the topic...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:53:18 2011 No.3413892 >>3413889 Yes, but you posted crazy shit on 4chan. Even worse, you posted crazy shit with no sources on /sci/. My trolldar is just exploding.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:56:18 2011 No.3413901

>>3413835
>You need curiosity to figure things out... this is not something that is unscientific.
Curiosity is nothing more than a pursuit to satisfy a mental stimulus and desire.

>If what you are saying is right then all the geniuses we know should be under 20 years old or so.
>If what you are saying is right then that means at a certain age the world stops being mysterious and even if you have a lot of time on your own, you spend it staring at a freaking rock like a brain dead ape.
Like it was pointed out before, these arguments are confusing intelligence (comprehension, analysis, problem solving, understanding) with experience (knowledgeability, relaying bits of information, memory). Intelligence does not work like this is any way. You need the brain and mind to develop to certain point in order obtain abilities to comprehend information and relay it to one self, but it can only develop to a certain point up to a certain age when the body and brain reaches it's maximum biological stages and structure, thus any ability to think or comprehend information would start to remain at such a state permanently. I.E.: Once your brain stops developing, any ability to perceive and comprehend information will no long be able increase (or decrease) from the stage it is then. Everything else after that is more experience than intellect. This is also why people who are avoidant or reserved in their childhood and their adolescent end up appearing more intelligent in their adulthood, because they were only able to spend their time thinking than anything else, which helped develop their brain and mind more, which in turns grants them a greater ability to understand and process information. But a downside to this is that if you're not more social by adulthood, chances are you'll stay that way for rest of your life, i.e.: continued behavior. And also once their adults, they won't be able to become more intelligent than they already are then.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:56:18 2011 No.3413903

>>3413874

I'd troll you and say yes, but I'm a nice person. I'm a girl, and I'm sorry for making you sad. You'll find love one day, I can tell you that. There are girls out there who love science. It just takes a while to find them. So, while you're waiting for her, work on yourself as a person so that when she comes along, she'll fall in love with you.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:57:18 2011 No.3413906

>>3413835

>>3413901 cont.

>I am guessing you are just a booksmart nerd as otherwise you would have figured this out on your own.
Minor ad hominem.

>Stop blabbering things just to knock me aside. This is not in any way unscientific but something that even geniuses have said themselves. This can also be seen by looking closely at the lives that geniuses have lived.
>this is not something that is unscientific.
Now this argument is just starting to grasp and beginning to reek of anchoring effects.

>Stop blabbering things just to knock me aside.
... And primacy effect apparently.

>>	Blackman Tue Jul 19 01:57:18 2011 No.3413907 >>3413892 Healthy diet = Dis nigga trolling Google aspirin + honey mask or try rubbing Bengay on your balls

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:59:18 2011 No.3413911 >>3413907 Another thing that made me apprehensive is you saying milk is okay. Dairy is proven to worsen acne.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:01:18 2011 No.3413917 i knows its hard to admit, but you are not as intelligent as you think you are

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:02:18 2011 No.3413924 Because of >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

>>	Blackman Tue Jul 19 02:04:18 2011 No.3413929 >>3413911 Kay, I should have said don't drink eight glasses of milk a day. You can occasionally substitute your water for milk without making your face look like a pizza.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:07:18 2011 No.3413939

>>3413901
We could argue this all day... but there is no way of proving this. We cannot answer this b/c we don't even know what makes a person a genius. Are MCAT scores or grades proof that someone is a genius? Far from it...

Is your brain development limiting your curiosity about the world? Do you stop wondering why you are on the planet b/c you didn't think of it as a kid? You could keep arguing but there is no science that could show this...

Like I said, you don't just stare at a rock if you had nothing else to do for hours and if you had curiosity. It is not experience that made the wheel or the fact that you thought about stuff as a kid.

Experience is useful to do things that you always do. However, it is not useful to figure out things that are mysteries and those that never had solutions. That requires out of the box thinking. This is not something that you stop having after you grow up.

I know what curiosity is but does this definition somehow negate it's purpose in the search for scientific understanding? No... it only supports it if anything

Here is a quote from a genius in hopes that you understand what I mean...

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."
- Albert Einstein

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:12:18 2011 No.3413950

>>3413903
Naah I am not bad as a person either. My weakness is in my flirting skills. Haha.

I end up becoming best friends with girls than anything. I have had a few relationships before but in all those cases they have been intimidated by all the science.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:15:18 2011 No.3413956

>>3413950

D'aww. You may be bad at flirting, but I'm bad at rejecting people. Honestly, I tell myself the next time someone is rude or tries to pick me up in a not nice manner, I will tell them where to go. Then when it actually happens, I look at them awkwardly then walk away. I'm a dork, I suppose.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:21:18 2011 No.3413978

>>3413956
At least you end up getting the job done. I know women who try to reject someone and end up sounding flirty instead. So, yeah it could be worse.

Besides, I think it is a kinda cute, but I guess that really depends on what the awkward look is... haha

Maybe you should tell me how those guys flirt... maybe I could learn from them... jk

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:27:18 2011 No.3414004

>>3413978

There are two types of guys: Either the complete douchebags who think they're God's gift to the world or something, then creepy neckbeard guys who always smell like they haven't bathed in weeks. The latter is always in EB Games or HMV or somewhere similar.

It's actually quite sad because normally I'm a very out going, well spoken and outspoken person, but when I get hit on, I shut down, essentially, and have no idea what to do. It might be because I didn't get attention from boys when I was younger, so I never learned how to deal with it.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:32:18 2011 No.3414022

>>3413939
Now this entire argument is a complete, and suspectedly deliberate, misread of everyone else's argument in this thread.

>but there is no way of proving this
Descending into the philosophy of the mind again. Also,
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_development
>http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867408011215
>http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v3/n6/full/nrn845.html
>http://www.cell.com/neuron/retrieve/pii/S0896627301004202

>We cannot answer this b/c we don't even know what makes a person a genius.
There are multiple definitions of what makes a person a genius, the most agreed upon definition is either a certain IQ score or the person's contribution to society or any given field. Multiple definitions are subject to obscurity of others or conflicts, but we do know what makes someone a genius.

>Are MCAT scores or grades proof that someone is a genius?
No, information you can relay from comprehension and experience is proof and evidence of someone's intelligence, as well as the result of comprehensive skills and abilities.

>Is your brain development limiting your curiosity about the world?
Yes and no. No as in it depends on where it is in development, yes as in there's a limit on what or how much someone is curious about something, which is dependent on the person himself (which depends on how his brain and mind is developed).

>Do you stop wondering why you are on the planet b/c you didn't think of it as a kid?
People always get tired and used to wondering about a certain subject and move onto others, or an expanded view on said subject.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:32:18 2011 No.3414025

>>3414022 cont.

>You could keep arguing but there is no science that could show this...
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_genetics
>http://galton.org/books/hereditary-genius/
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00643.x/pdf
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_(emotion)
>http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/CognitivePsychology/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9
OTc4MDE5NTE1ODU1Nw==
>http://books.google.com/books?id=J2YQAAAACAAJ

>Like I said, you don't just stare at a rock if you had nothing else to do for hours and if you had curiosity.
This is an ill-defined/undefined concept of curiosity.

>It is not experience that made the wheel or the fact that you thought about stuff as a kid.
Yes it is. The memory and ability to retain and relay information and bits of knowledge is experience, since you experienced learning and expressing it, allowing for the person to remember and carry it with them.

>Experience is useful to do things that you always do. However, it is not useful to figure out things that are mysteries and those that never had solutions.
Yes it is. You need to help comprehend and understand a solution based on past experiences with a situation, or recollecting a variety of situations and experiences that can be adaptable for the present one before you. Your argument provides only an ill-defined and simplistic view of experience.

>That requires out of the box thinking. This is not something that you stop having after you grow up.
No one claimed that. But it determines what kind of thinking the person will have as an adult and what and how he transact information.

>I know what curiosity is
Your arguments thus far only supports the complete opposite.

>but does this definition somehow negate it's purpose in the search for scientific understanding?
Why wouldn't it?

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:36:18 2011 No.3414041

>>3414004

I guess I understand that. Maybe you should keep a short response in mind... so you can just automatically say it and not think about it.

It could even be as simple as 'Sorry, but I have a boyfriend'. lol

It sucks to have to pick from those two choices. I hope you get someone that doesn't fit either of those groups. Definitely don't settle with either of those... you can definitely do better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:39:18 2011 No.3414048 >>3414022 i smell psychology major take your pseudoscience out of my /sci/

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:55:18 2011 No.3414124

>>3414022
My personal pet peeve is when people misuse science to support their wrong ideas. I will point out the faults in few of your argument as I am not going to spend time replying to everything when you are just misunderstand the entire point...

>Now this entire argument is a complete, and suspectedly deliberate, misread of everyone else's argument in this thread.
You assume everyone agrees with you because you are right. Egotistical much? Please step down from
that high horse..

>There are multiple definitions of what makes a person a genius, the most agreed upon definition is either a certain IQ score or the person's contribution to society or any given field. Multiple definitions are subject to obscurity of others or conflicts, but we do know what makes someone a genius.

Wow the biggest bs I have ever heard. Your last statement does not even agree with your "proof". This is a clear example of using science to support your false claims. If people don't agree on something... it means that we don't know exactly what does it. Get it?

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:56:18 2011 No.3414128

>>3414124
Continued

>No, information you can relay from comprehension and experience is proof and evidence of someone's intelligence, as well as the result of comprehensive skills and abilities.
You said no but then answered the rest as if your replied "yes".

>Yes and no. No as in it depends on where it is in development, yes as in there's a limit on what or how much someone is curious about something, which is dependent on the person himself (which depends on how his brain and mind is developed).

You are definitely a psychologist as someone else claimed earlier. This is the same lame argument that people say when they say "genes made my a gambling man". Cut the rubbish.... you should be responsible for your own actions and there is such a thing as "You" the person who makes his/her choices. I don't care what psychologists want to believe. Curiosity is not something that your genes decide... next thing you know you will be arguing for a master race.

>>but does this definition somehow negate it's purpose in the search for scientific understanding?

B/c it doesn't? The definitely is accurate but it doesn't in anyway make it mythical or unscientific.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:09:18 2011 No.3414181

>>3414124
>You assume everyone agrees with you because you are right. Egotistical much? Please step down from
>that high horse..
Ad hominem.

>Your last statement does not even agree with your "proof".
But no one in this thread even claimed that their argument were proofs, or that even claimed there were citations in them. Citations are present, yes, but no one even mentioned them.

>You said no but then answered the rest as if your replied "yes".
That's a misread of both the person's arguments, almost a CB to an extent.

>You are definitely a psychologist as someone else claimed earlier.
There's only the suspicion of such, but no actual claims or verification.

>This is the same lame argument that people say when they say "genes made my a gambling man".
>Curiosity is not something that your genes decide
But no one in this thread even mentioned anything about genetics (surprisingly), but biological development that comes with aging. Also genetics can determine certain personality characteristics and intellectual patterns, but those said genetics only work as a canvas where experiences and influence work as the paint.

>you should be responsible for your own actions and there is such a thing as "You" the person who makes his/her choices.
This is where experience comes in to determine what knowledge and information they can relay and attribute.

>B/c it doesn't? The definitely is accurate but it doesn't in anyway make it mythical or unscientific.
This doesn't even make any sense, conceptually or coherently.

Plus the argument the so-called "psychologist" was presenting is more neurobiology than psych<suffix> field.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:11:18 2011 No.3414196

>>3414124
>If people don't agree on something... it means that we don't know exactly what does it.
that doesn't mean we don't know what it does, just that we don't have a clear definition to choose over the other. it's one of those situations where you have to rely on a broad definition instead until everything else is figured out

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:25:18 2011 No.3414249

>>3413732
Forget about that bitch and find one who's nearby, right now. This is why nerds are always forever alone. They get fixated on one bitch, think too hard about getting with her and get anxious, and either nervously fuck it up or she was never ever going to be interested in him in the first place. The dumbest question you can ask about dating or getting laid is "how do I get a girl to like me?" You don't. You just play the field continuously until you run into a girl who just likes you. You can't do anything to make a girl like you if she just doesn't. Talk to every single woman you see and you'll get your dick sucked a lot quicker than you might realize.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:32:18 2011 No.3414271

>>3413479

A lot of reasons. I am grad student in physics so that has to do with it. But that can't be it because there are plenty of physicists that get laid. It also has to do how I have always put ambition first and I suppose for a very long time I was afraid of girls.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:33:18 2011 No.3414278 >>3414249 >>3414249 >>3414249 This this this. I have been a huge faggot most of my life, it took me 23 years of my life and several awkward and a few spectacular pedestal worshiping failures before I realized this.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:34:18 2011 No.3414281

>>3414196
The closest you say to figure out geniuses is by their IQ. A lot of people will disagree with you. IQ does not show how much of a genius you are... it is perhaps the best test of intelligence we have but that does not in anyway imply geniuses...

All we have are hypothesis as nothing really explains all that we know about geniuses... so it is incomplete... it's not just a matter of what theory to pick as all of them are rubbish and only test for book smart for the most part

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:40:18 2011 No.3414303

>>3414281
>The closest you say to figure out geniuses is by their IQ.
No, the original claim that it was one of the closest definitions to genius because some facilities qualify "geniuses" by IQ level. Like an IQ of 130 is qualified as "regional" genius by one facility, and 145 is straight-up "genius" by another. IQ doesn't really say anything more than what your mind is capable of processing at any given time.

Also the closest one can aptly measure someone's intelligence is, sadly, by the impression you get off of them. But that impression can be easily misread or faked, but mathematical attempts to measure intellect, knowledgeability or mental processes (especially without neurology backing you) is so inconsistent and vacillative that it often ends up being less accurate and more questionable than an impression of the person's intelligence, even a vague one.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:47:18 2011 No.3414324

>>3414181

>Ad hominem.
And I wonder what you just did there before... shame on you when you criticize people for doing just what you do...

>>Your last statement does not even agree with your "proof"
Are you saying that you are merely suggesting your opinions? If so... you should have said that first as I wouldn't have cared as much.

Citations are present but no one mentions them? So what the citations are there to occupy empty space on this thread?

>But no one in this thread even mentioned anything about genetics (surprisingly), but biological development that comes with aging. Also genetics can determine certain personality characteristics and intellectual patterns, but those said genetics only work as a canvas where experiences and influence work as the paint.

Implying that genetics does not deal with development. Also, are you suggesting that you cannot personally bring anything to the table than experience, what was influenced by others, what you developed as a kid? I am sorry if you actually believe this as I personally don't believe in setting limits to mankind like that...

In short, what you are saying does not make any sense. You are saying that mysteries can only be solved depending on your brain development... curiosity on the subject as nothing to do with your ability to figure those mysteries... you are dead wrong and many geniuses will agree to this. You are brain washed by educational institution, as they are the only ones that believe this is true. These institutions continue to fail in detecting geniuses and so i wouldn't depend on your understanding too much..

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:47:18 2011 No.3414330

>>3414324
Continued
>>you should be responsible for your own actions and there is such a thing as "You" the person who makes his/her choices

So if someone had the same experiences as you and developed as much as you,.. that person would be the same as you? Nope... if that was true then we would have a lot of people that behave like others... a robot might be a better replacement for this job.

I said you were a psychologist b/c only those people argue that people shouldn't be blamed for their actions but for their genes... you are starting to sound a lot like that in what you state... that is not neuro

Again this is not that hard to understand. If you want to believe that after a certain age, it is just downhill and you can never be a genius then go ahead. Others that want to do more with their lives can try to spend some time on their own trying to figure out the mysteries of the world... just like Einstein suggests. It is better to learn from a genius on how to be a genius than a ton of book smart people.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:53:18 2011 No.3414350

>>3414303
>No, the original claim that it was one of the closest definitions to genius because some facilities qualify "geniuses" by IQ level. Like an IQ of 130 is qualified as "regional" genius by one facility, and 145 is straight-up "genius" by another. IQ doesn't really say anything more than what your mind is capable of processing at any given time.

What are you even saying now? Are you saying that IQ doesn't show that you are genius and yet you say "There are multiple definitions of what makes a person a genius, the most agreed upon definition is either a certain IQ score or the person's contribution to society or any given field."

So you just said,
>IQ is the closest definition for genius
>IQ does not mean genius
>we know what genius really is

wtf

Again please decide what you are really trying to say... b/c you keep saying yes no to everything. Are you just disagreeing to disagree? B/c it really sounds like it...

I could go on but I should stop here as it is 4am here...

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:55:18 2011 No.3414353

>>3413610

wrong. women love dominance and must know that the men they're with can stand with them on an equal footing in regards to intellect. they will not respect you if you cannot do that; in fact, some women prefer the man to be smarter than them in the relationship. for the record, an enormous amount of women are aware of their inability to think logically at times; as such, they yearn for men who can be logical most of the time so they can someone to lean upon during times of stress.

why do you think some women call men, ''bitches?'' it's a sign of disrespect, which is obvious, but it's meant to disrespect their ability to think rationally than anything else. a woman doesn't want another woman for a romantic/sexual companion, they want a man. period.

furthermore, the lot of /sci/ is idiotic.

>>3413917
>>3413917

this guy has it on point. you guys are not smart. more than half of you have yet to do actual graduate research. a lesser portion of you are unpublished. an even lesser portion doesn't even have a graduate degree of any sort.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:07:18 2011 No.3414414 >>3414353 >you guys are not smart. Judging by the quality of your post, you're not so smart yourself either. Also, you're projecting.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:13:18 2011 No.3414438

>>3414414

what's wrong with my post? my inability to utilize capitalization in the beginning of my sentences? or was it the minor mistake i had in my first paragraph since i was amending the statement?

>so they can someone to lean upon during times of stress.
>so they can HAVE someone to lean upon during times of stress.

furthermore, i'm not projecting. i'm a math grad student myself, but i've done research and it's relatively difficult. for the most part, however, i don't think i'm smart. i'm considered smart by the majority of the populace due to my ugrad GPA, the University I go to and other miscellaneous facets about me, but i've seen true intelligence. i have witnessed intellectual breakthroughs from the professor i work with and i can honestly state that i'm nothing in comparison to him and others. regardless of this fact, however, i know that one day i'll reach that pinnacle of intellect. it'll take a while, but it's happening day by day.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:16:18 2011 No.3414456 >>3414438 You are not talking about geniuses here. You are talking about book smart and intelligence gained from experience... I hope you realize that. A genius does not have to get high ugrad GPA or research to unlock that potential....

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:16:18 2011 No.3414460

>>3414324
>And I wonder what you just did there before... shame on you when you criticize people for doing just what you do...
But there aren't any criticisms of anybody in this thread, just their argument. There's no need to criticize a person here, just their argument and the way it's presented, pointing out why it works and does not work, etc.

>Are you saying that you are merely suggesting your opinions? If so... you should have said that first as I wouldn't have cared as much.
Where did anybody say that? I would like to directly see where, please. Also what are with people quoting someone else's argument other than the person they're replying to? It just makes it all-the-more nonsensical.

>So what the citations are there to occupy empty space on this thread?

Here:
>>3413762
>http://www.cracked.com/article_19174_5-unexpected-downsides-high-intelligence.html
>>3413479
>http://shawneehistory.tripod.com/16.pdf
>http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-563.pdf
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/653365
>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5794948
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-alex-benzer/why-the-smartest-people-h_b_169939.html

>>3414022
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_development
>http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867408011215
>http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v3/n6/full/nrn845.html
>http://www.cell.com/neuron/retrieve/pii/S0896627301004202
>>3414025
>You could keep arguing but there is no science that could show this...
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_genetics
>http://galton.org/books/hereditary-genius/
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00643.x/pdf
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_(emotion)
>http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/CognitivePsychology/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9
OTc4MDE5NTE1ODU1Nw==
>http://books.google.com/books?id=J2YQAAAACAAJ

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:17:18 2011 No.3414465

>>3414460 cont.
>Implying that genetics does not deal with development.
Geneticism and biological development are two different things. Sure one dictates the other and lurks as rooted influence, but biological development is more dependent and affected by environmental influences like climate or diet or activity, and often takes different turns than what is predisposed by the person's genetics.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:18:18 2011 No.3414468

>>3414465 cont.

>Also, are you suggesting that you cannot personally bring anything to the table than experience, what was influenced by others, what you developed as a kid?
Well experience is the crowning jewel for anything in humanity, or any biological entity one can whip up. We learn through experience, even sitting in classroom or wondering to ourselves is experience. The way one develops point-of-views is through experience and influence, influence being the input and experience being and determining the output, as well as determining what point-of-views the person may take or change to. We learn what pain is through experience, pleasure is through experience, what <insert anything here> works and what doesn't through, what to avoid and to persist, what to enjoy, what to akin to, where to go with one's life, where to not go, what our preferences are, what we like, what we hate, what we believe, what we exhibit, what we disallow, what our tastes are, what we think, what we believe in, what we're skeptical of, what people we go for and what people do not. Experience is the very root that human action and understanding grow from, is what our knowledge and memories are, and what identity is ultimately determined in the very end. Intelligence is the ability to comprehend and process, as said a thousand-times thus far, information and influences, while experience is the ability to retain and relay that for future uses.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:19:18 2011 No.3414474

>>3414468 cont.

>I am sorry if you actually believe this as I personally don't believe in setting limits to mankind like that...
Keep in mind this is another ad hominem, attacking the person themselves instead of attacking their argument. Also remember that criticism of an argument by proxy of criticism of the person does not count.

>In short, what you are saying does not make any sense.
Well that's problem of the person's inability to comprehend such information, since this is all research psychology and neurology has determined, argued, proven in some cases, and made evident of; as cited before.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:19:18 2011 No.3414476

>>3414474 cont. final

>So if someone had the same experiences as you and developed as much as you,.. that person would be the same as you?
In some ways yes, but not entirely. It'd be more of similarities than sameness. But you would have to account for both party's influences (like upcomings) if you're willing to prove they're the same person.

>Nope... if that was true then we would have a lot of people that behave like others
But everyone has the same behavior and personality type as at least someone else on this planet. There aren't an unlimited number of personality and behavior types in any creature capable of such.

>What are you even saying now? Are you saying that IQ doesn't show that you are genius and yet you say "There are multiple definitions of what makes a person a genius, the most agreed upon definition is either a certain IQ score or the person's contribution to society or any given field."

Well go back to the "There are multiple definitions of what makes a person a genius" part of that claim. There are multiple definitions of "genius" as in more than one definition. Some definitions would list IQ, some would list impressions, some would list knowledgeability. We don't have a single definition to go off, but multiple ones that conflicts or are compatible with one-another. We can form a broad or blanket definitions covering each one, but it'll have the same problems of conflicts.

>Again please decide what you are really trying to say... b/c you keep saying yes no to everything.
Well these are arguments that can be confirm to be either accurate or inaccurate, as well as providing reasons and clarification of such as well as expanding information on them. These are coherent arguments that have much research and documentation to shed light on, if not back up entirely.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:20:18 2011 No.3414481 You do not understand what it takes to be a genius. What you are talking about is intelligence that can be gained from reading books and experience...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:20:18 2011 No.3414482 >>3414474 cont. >I saw a lot of posts with 'cont.' on them and it looked like fun So I decided to join in >What's going on guys I think I like 'cont.'

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:21:18 2011 No.3414488

>>3414456
>>3414456

>You are not talking about geniuses here.

suppose i am. there is a strong correlation between geniuses and grades, if the genius in question actually cares about the studies.

>You are talking about book smart and intelligence gained from experience... I hope you realize that.

Not necessarily. An individual cannot acquire a PhD by sheer book smarts and regular intellect acquired from experience alone. A Doctor of Philosophy is relatively difficult to obtain, specifically because it stresses the mind immensely and suckles out every ounce of intellect you have to offer. Hard work is an integral part of acquiring the PhD, yes, but one must be above average intellect.

>A genius does not have to get high ugrad GPA or research to unlock that potential....

We call those people useless. It's the equivalent of having a huge cock built for pornography, but not getting laid once. It's fun to wave your dick around every now and again, but it's useless in the long run. Look at Christopher Lagan. Supposedly a genius, but he's nothing special in the overall spectrum of life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:23:18 2011 No.3414501 File: 23 KB, 330x357, 1304731570048.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm stupid. I'm single.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:23:18 2011 No.3414499

>>3414465
Environmental influences affect genes, which effect development. So what you are saying does not make any sense as everything has to be genetics.

Anything that happens in your body has to do with genetics (especially during development)... environment just influences your genes and turns certain ones on and off as necessary.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:23:18 2011 No.3414494 >>3414481 >intelligence that can be gained from reading books and experience... >intelligence >gained from books and experience pick one

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:25:18 2011 No.3414506

>>3414494
Cannot be both?

You can read all you want but your lack of experience will never make you great.

You can gain as much experience but it will be a long while before you naturally learn what is going on if you don't want to read books or learn about it. It is like trying to learn chess while playing it.

Why do you think doctors have to gain experience and also know about medicine?

Again I am guessing you are a troll and don't even realize how education works...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:29:18 2011 No.3414518 >>3414506 Anything gained from books or experience is not intelligence, it's knowledge. Intelligence is how one acquires, handles, manipulates, and utilizes that knowledge.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:30:18 2011 No.3414519

>>3414499
Nope, that's not what it says, it says that genetics stay the seeded root for the influence, while the environment grows it. Take the paint analogy, genetics provide the canvas to be painted on, while environmental influence and adaptation are the paint that goes onto it. Most personality and biological functioning are determined by external stimuli such as influence and adaptation, but genetics at least provide a blank slate to house them, but in the end only make up a small portion of who the person comes out to be.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:35:18 2011 No.3414538

>>3414519
That analogy doesn't work so well... if it has to work, then the paint has to be already on the canvas (genes) and the brush is the environment that mixes it around...

You are what you are genes are... you can switch it on and off with the environment but you can never create something new that wasn't in your genes already... (unless radiation or something). So implying that environment is paint says that environment introduces something that wasn't even there... which is not true... hypothetically a person could still exist even if he/she didn't have an environment.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:37:18 2011 No.3414543 >Intelligence is how one acquires, handles, manipulates, and utilizes that knowledge. What you just said was experience... Riding a bicycle a second time is not intelligence... but it fits your definition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:37:18 2011 No.3414545 "Intelligence is inverse to Happiness." - Anonymous

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:39:18 2011 No.3414551 File: 50 KB, 345x345, 1293857577442.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3414543 >employing learned motor control >knowledge

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:39:18 2011 No.3414552

>>3414538
Well the point of the analogy was the represent the relationship between structure to be built on, and actually building on it. Genes can influence certain characteristics about you, but as medical science is concerned, actually living as a human and taking in what your environment gives you as more of an affect than genetics. And I don't think saying you can turn genes on or off is accurate, but they can be pushed to certain levels of importance and significance over one or the other to points where the seem non-existent, but still there in some respect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:40:18 2011 No.3414554 >>3414551 My point was to show that your definition is inaccurate and it works quite well for that purpose.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:41:18 2011 No.3414557

>>3414538
>hypothetically a person could still exist even if he/she didn't have an environment.
Well that depends on what definition of environment we're going off of. In some respect, where ever you are (no what it is or what's in it) is still an environment. Even an empty void of darkness that goes on endlessly is still an environment of sorts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:42:18 2011 No.3414559 File: 39 KB, 562x437, 1292559890554.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3414554 >works quite well for that purpose

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]