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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 11 KB, 291x304, 111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252076 No.4252076 [Reply] [Original]

>Beautiful People Are Also Smarter
>(NEWSER) – Beautiful people really do have it all, a new study suggests: They're also more likely to be intelligent. Researchers at the London School of Economics found that intelligence correlated strongly with physical attractiveness. Men judged by others in the study as handsome had IQs 13.6 points higher than the average, while beautiful women had IQs 11.4 points above the average., the New York Daily News reports.
>http://www.newser.com/story/109923/beautiful-people-are-also-smarter.html

Thoughts on this, /sci/?

>> No.4252085

there are so many counter-examples I experienced in my personal life.

>> No.4252088

Complete bullshit in my opinion. All attractive people I've came across are just entitled shits that get overpraised and have life hand crap out to them for free because of their good looks. They're just undeserving and manipulative cunts that probably just bought or tricked people into believing in this fuck.

>> No.4252092

>>4252085
obvious anecdotal evidences detected

>> No.4252094
File: 78 KB, 500x380, tumblr_llnpyp7tuS1qaqps8o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252094

The research could've been done by a bunch of blondes.

>> No.4252095

From personal experience? Its an utter load of codswallop!

>> No.4252100

Tends to be true in my opinion. People at universities tend to be the most attractive. Men at universities are also much taller and in better shape.

>> No.4252103

God fucking damn it. I have nothing.

>> No.4252108

I could say I'm beautiful and smart, but few would believe me and they would want proof that I don't want to give.

But yeah, I am.

>> No.4252111

not worth taking seriously.

>> No.4252112

>>4252103
LOL.

>> No.4252118

>>4252108
You sound like a woman. If so, I would demand tits as per the usual rule for women on 4chan, or be reported and banned for not showing any.

>> No.4252127

>>4252118
I'm a man. I just said "beautiful" because the article uses that word.

>> No.4252129

>>4252127
Okay then, COCK or GTFO!

>> No.4252131

i'm ugly as shit, but i see to be able to succeed and even exceed at most things i apply myself to.

the only thing i always seemed to suck at was sports and music, but that may be because i never played or practiced much of either.

>> No.4252140

>Be young and attactive
>Schoolmates tend to less discriminate
>Teachers tend to give you more attention
>Tend to like school better

>Be pretty, maybe due to good hygiene and care (dentistery, medecine, etc) that wealthier parents could afford
>Parents with more money can give afford better school for child
>Parents that are themselves attractive tend to get better jobs more easily

>Genes for handsome features are linked to genes for intelligence

Yeah, out of my ass, I wouldn't suppose that the last possibility is the most likely

>> No.4252141

There is far too little data and information about how the study was conducted to say anything

And it sounds like it was made just for to be published in small articles that just sayy 'BEATUTIFUL PEOPLE ARE SMARTER'

>> No.4252154

>>4252092
anecdotal, yes. but evidence, yes, too.

>> No.4252156
File: 48 KB, 500x500, 1326414709496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252156

>yfw A Brave New World

>> No.4252163

I'm sick of seeing news articles like this. It's bad journalism.

The headline should be "One Study Shows Correlation Between Physical Attractiveness And The Ability To Take An IQ Test".

Anything else is sensationalist garbage.

>> No.4252165

>London School of Economics

>> No.4252166

>>4252154
You need conclusivity to make any evidence valid, anecdotal evidence is virtually impossible to be made conclusive (unless you're in a court of law).

tl;dr: anecdotal evidence is not valid evidence

>> No.4252172

113.6 IQ intelligent lol

anything below 140 shouldnt even be considered as intelligent

>> No.4252174
File: 24 KB, 451x600, victoria-marshman[1].jpg_d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252174

Remember Yale hottie Victoria Marshman from ANTM. I bet most guys cannot say no to her.

If you want to see smart ugly people go here.
http://math.stanford.edu/photos/students/index.html

>> No.4252179
File: 53 KB, 490x628, 1326185656136.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252179

>>4252163
I am shocked that a publication I have never heard of called 'Newser' and has a slogan saying "Read less, know more" would publish such tripe. I am calling Rupert Murdoch right this moment.

>> No.4252183

>>4252088

strong jealousy

>> No.4252185

>>4252174
megan bernstein is hawt

>> No.4252186

>>4252166
what about anamnesis then?

>> No.4252197

there are smart&beautiful people, there are smart&ugly people, there are dumb&ugly people and there are dumb&beautiful people.

and then there are people who would never in their lifes go to a stupid psycho school to get rated in terms of intelligence or beauty.

so the whole study is biased chaotically.

>> No.4252210

I think that despite being pretty my self, I have no real advantage over anyone else who works hard. I think where people put others down for not meeting their expectations in visual pleasure. That is what makes those statistic. Asshole's ruining it all for everyone.

>> No.4252218

men judged by others as beautiful are also often gay

>> No.4252234

>>4252179
I very much agree.
I just read a few other articles on that site, and... well, it's as you would expect.

Aside from that
>men judged by others

Even if this article is not complete bollocks, "men that men find handsome are statistically more intelligent" doesn't make 'beautiful people are smarter'

>> No.4252248

>>4252186
Medical anamnesis? Well they're coming from a professional in the field that's either basing them on personal experience, education or both, and is certainly better information than it coming from someone outside the field. But it's not like doctors haven't been bought out by drug companies, for example, to prescribe and back-up a certain medicine or technique; not to mention just a single, random doctor isn't a very good source of information to go off of.

>> No.4252250

>>4252076

>Correlation =/= Causation.

>Engaging in social activity causes the brain to work exercise, allowing better mental and physical health, promoting less stress, more activity, making things easier to learn. Caring about what you look like also means reading social cues, being socially and mentally healthy and active, and therefore learning faster and taking more interest in things and being curious. This allows you to educate yourself and score higher on an IQ test.

/thread

>Also, don't underestimate people. They all go through xyz experiences. Action from them and your perception does not equal the abilities of their mental faculties.

>Also, poorer and thus less educated people tend to look worse.

>> No.4252251
File: 78 KB, 450x334, bender-smoking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252251

At least I can take out of it that when I act smart, people think of me that I'm pretty, too.

>> No.4252256

>>4252248
all careful inspections of natural phenomena have start out on a personal observance.

>> No.4252277

>>4252256
Yes, but that doesn't make the personal observance, by itself, any more valid.

>> No.4252303

>>4252277
also not less.

>> No.4252309

I could not give less of a shit over whether this is true or not, and no one else here should, either. I'm fine with being an exception.

Actually, it's always kind of funny to see people get surprised when they find out that I'm not as stupid as my bridge troll looking exterior makes it seem.

>> No.4252318
File: 57 KB, 280x396, einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252318

Pretty people may have the better average, but uggos have the high score. Suck it.

>> No.4252320

>>4252303
It was never valid to begin with. It's a nice hunch of information or idea to develop the hypothesis and experiment from, but the personal observance is not valid in itself.

>> No.4252324

>>4252256
>has never heard of "observation bias"

>> No.4252331

Link the actual study or don't link anything at all.

>> No.4252350

>>4252320
that is where the science machine starts working. on people's ideas.

>> No.4252351

>>4252324
>implying i'm not >>4252197

>> No.4252362
File: 156 KB, 399x320, sadfrogimmortality.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252362

I'm a /fa/shionable and good looking Comp Sci major with a 3.9 GPA who attracts girls all the time.

But then they talk to me and shy away because I'm awkward as fuck ;_;

>> No.4252364

>>4252362
cool story Bohr

>> No.4252376

>>4252320
Think of Newton's observation of the apple falling down. It was personal, not questionable, and valid.

>> No.4252379

>>4252350
Yes, but the ideas themselves are virtually useless. You have to validate them into something like a hypothesis or theory, by itself it's pretty much meager and has no practical value indepedently. Otherwise it'll be using the same logic as breaking a dollar bill into every element it's made out of them, and expecting a cashier at a story to accept them as valid currency. And has physicists like deGrasse have pointed out: "witness and personal testimony are of low importance in the field of science."

>> No.4252386

>>4252376
It's inspiration (even though whether or not the apple falling on his head actually happened is still debated among scientists), but it's not valid date on it's own, as it's not conclusive. Not to mention that insight it brings is to the force of gravity, and not of the apple or it falling; as well as much of Newton's laws are outdated now.

>> No.4252388

>>4252364
it's true! ...and it's sad ;_;

>> No.4252389

>>4252376
>It was personal
Stopped reading right there.

>> No.4252394

>>4252256
>>4252303
>>4252376
Oh wow, are you idiots really defending anecdotes as valid data? Jesus Christ, lrn2science or get the fuck off of this board; these is literally the first things they teach you about experimenting, fucking hell.

>> No.4252404

>>4252394
All data is based off of observation.
Anecdotes are observations
Anecdotes are data
Told status:
[ ] not told
[ ] told
[X] the told and the beautiful

>> No.4252409

>>4252379
>You have to validate them into something like a hypothesis or theory

Formulating every good idea I have into a theory would make me look like someone who is exhaling theories like other people carbon dioxide.

>> No.4252413

bitch I'm gorgeous

>> No.4252415

I guess this refers more to the difference between 110 and 90 than say 100 and 130.
Then it would even make sense.

>> No.4252418

>>4252404
Some people might think that a PhD makes personal observations while a highschool dropout only makes anecdotal evidence.

>> No.4252417
File: 40 KB, 256x256, dexterface.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252417

Wait, so if I'm smart does that increase my chances of the world seeing me as beautiful?

I've thought I was ugly all this time.

>> No.4252425

>>4252417
you might find a girl who is attracted by your intelligence (or at least your money).

>> No.4252426

>>4252404
That still doesn't make anecdotes valid, not even by proxy. Otherwise we'd be philosophy, and without peer review. It's very detrimental to science when you're just going off of personal observances rather than peers making sure it's provable and testable. It's very deadly to the field if we had this happens, Hendrik Schön being one of the worst offenders in recent memory. An idea itself is not valid, an idea on it's own still isn't any more or less valid in science, you have to develop it into something valid and tangible, but that idea itself is still not valid and tangible.

>> No.4252434
File: 43 KB, 247x240, okay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252434

>>4252425
Except I'm gay, so I guess I'm fucked.

>> No.4252435
File: 21 KB, 496x360, costanza13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252435

>2012
>thinking the score recieved on a test consisting of arbitrary pattern recognition termed "intelligence quotient" is a viable means of quantifying intelligence

>> No.4252440

>>4252426
If I read the output of a lab instrument before I write it down then there is some invalid observational or anecdotal step in between. Even if I write a lab book then there is absolutely no proof that I don't make errors.

Hendrik Schoen is a different story.

>> No.4252441

>>4252426
I'll try to answer this seriously.
Anecdotal observations are data. This is irrefutable. The reason why it's not usually considered valid scientifically is because real world situation typically don't control for variables AND, while you may trust your own experience, anecdotal data is not gathered in such a way that anyone else can necessarily verify that you didn't pull it out of your ass.
But this is not to preclude the importance of personal/anecdotal data. This is many times the impetus which leads someone to record rigorous (i.e. experimental) data to attempt verification of their hypothesis which seemed likely due to trends they observed in the chaotic and natural world.
The conclusion is that anecdotal data is not scientific proof but does have its place in scientific discussion.

>> No.4252446

>>4252434
if you're gay you're fucked any way you look at it.

>> No.4252448

>>4252426
among scientists, an idea always bases on accepted knowledge obtained beforehand.

>> No.4252451
File: 9 KB, 181x196, feelsbadman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252451

>>4252446
I know, but I thought maybe I could just be beautiful for a moment before I burn for eternity.

>> No.4252457

>>4252451
who cares about eternity when you can't even enjoy tender titties or a warm wet pussy during your short miserable life.

even women can't resist each other and nearly all women have some sort of lesbian experience.

>> No.4252458

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

>> No.4252461
File: 5 KB, 141x114, Ancient ass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252461

>That feel I'm ugly and stupid

>> No.4252462

>>4252457
Just not attracted to them. Probably the same way you feel towards other penises.

>> No.4252463

>>4252441
>Anecdotal observations are data. This is irrefutable.
But it's not valid data, and not just because it's easily suspected to observational and confirmation biases. Anecdotes are not valid data in science and never will be, and scientists who still use it otherwise should be fired from their position like Schoen. Just because they lead to something falsifiable, or you can base a theory on it if you have enough other evidence with it, doesn't make them valid data independently. Every professional scientist knows this and acts accordingly, regardless if they're a good or bad scientist.

>> No.4252465

>>4252448
But it doesn't mean that idea or knowledge itself is valid data or points.

>> No.4252466

>>4252458
This was already on /int/ back then and everone hated on her. And she got into serious problems with her university because of her racist idiocy.
Btw noone should make phone calls in the library.

>> No.4252470
File: 17 KB, 241x230, 1272395605700.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252470

>131 IQ
>I seriously doubt I am handsome
clearly I'm an outlier

>> No.4252471

>>4252441
>but does have its place in scientific discussion
So does philosophy, art, and a crappy scifi matinee; that doesn't make them relevant to the field.

>> No.4252474

>>4252463
Schoen was fired because he faked his data completely. There wasn't even anecdotal evidence, it was more like anecdotal lies. He had claimed there was had been anecdotal evidence. And this is why anecdotal evidence is valid evidence. Because you can always validate it if someting really depends on it.

>> No.4252475

>>4252470
>mfw I've heard multiple times that low self-esteem isn't uncommon for people with above-average intelligence

>> No.4252479

>>4252474
Anecdotal lies are still anecdotal evidence. And anecdotal evidence needs to be able to be made conclusive in order to be validated, which is not possible for anecdotes or here-say and would disqualify it as "anecdotes" if it were possible. You can't make the syllogism of "Germans are angry, my grandfather was angry and German" anecdote at all conclusive.

>> No.4252482

>>4252475
clearly people with high intelligence are more social than others because they know the importance of cooperation. they may look like awkward nerds but later on they work in excellent research groups.
low intelligence people are often considered asocial, eg. bullying others.
the low self esteem may be a healthy one, as it is not overreaching.

>> No.4252484

>>4252479
>Anecdotal lies are still anecdotal evidence.

NO.
That would mean that lies are evidence.

>> No.4252485

>>4252482
I would severely question if they were really intelligent at all if they were also very social. Intelligent people would be too busy with their work or studying to hang out with others. If I saw a science major here that was also very social, I would worry if they were spending enough time with their school work in order to pursue their goals.

>> No.4252491

>>4252484
Anecdotes are here-say, a lie can still be here-say, so lie can still be anecdotal evidence. Not to mention "anecdotal lies" do not exist to begin with, since the terminology of the first word covers both truth and lies. And as any proper argument would prove, just because A is true doesn't make it or B a valid enough argument to use. Ad hominems can be true, but that doesn't make them valid to an argument. Tu quoques can be true, but doesn't make them valid to an argument. Primacy and anchoring effects can be true, but doesn't make them valid arguments.

>> No.4252492

>>4252485
In order to do excellent school work he needs his stable (social) background, eg family or friends, not necessarily school-friends.
Highly intelligent people often seek discussions with other highly intelligent people or other low intelligent people to gather anecdotal evidence for their excellent science.
This might make them look too social.

>> No.4252496

>>4252491
Anecdotes are not here-say. Anecdotes derive from a single person's telling, heresay derives from more than one person involved.

>> No.4252497

>>4252492
He shouldn't be too social to begin with if he wishes to pursue a decent future. Save social interactions for when you're done with school and/or retired from working altogether; your field and (likely your) work are too damn important to spend personal time with others.

>> No.4252499

i don't see how they could even collect data to prove this...

plus beauty is in the eye of the beholder....

>> No.4252500

>>4252482
you can cooperate without being social.

there's a difference between cooperating and spending every night at the bar hanging out with your buddies.

>> No.4252502

I guess I'm more handsome than I thought I was.

>> No.4252503

>>4252496
in peer-reviews papers things like "personal communication" or "unpublished observation" may appear in the reference list.

>> No.4252507

>>4252496
>http://www.google.com/search?&q=define:anecdote
>anecdote - noun - An account regarded as unreliable or hearsay

Definition of the word is here-say and personal recollections. Not valid evidence for science. Truth does not equal validity.

>> No.4252508

>>4252497
Scientists have to take breaks to get a more clear view on their data and for these breaks they need adequate social skills.

>> No.4252513

>>4252508
Yes, but they should be at a very bare minimum in order to do science properly. It should not be any more than once or twice a month if they wish to make progress on their work. Anymore than that than I highly doubt their commitment to their work.

>> No.4252515

>>4252507
"an - ek - dosis", greek, means something is "given out on". modern american conversational language is NOT precise enough to determine the meaning of an old word.

>> No.4252520

>>4252513
that is a personal assessment and therefore not valid.
Watson and Crick did parties every fucking night.

>> No.4252521

>>4252515
>given out on
That's basically what a here-say is.

>> No.4252524

>>4252521
Also proven data is "given out on"

>> No.4252527

>>4252520
I don't care if it's valid, I still highly doubt their credibility as a scientist and their commitment to their field if they spent a lot of time partying their ass off. They're likely just slackers bringing a team down, the type of office guy that would get fired for the amount of naps he took in his cubical doing work hours.

>> No.4252529

>>4252524
No, proven data is something that was PROVEN, not given out, but PROVED to be valid data. How someone is able to confuse "given out" and "proven" together makes no sense, there's no logic behind how they were able to come to such a misunderstanding conclusion; not even someone who wasn't a native English speaker, or illiterate, would be able to do this.

>> No.4252530

>>4252527
Are you criticising Watson and Crick? Blasphemy!

>> No.4252531

>>4252499

Get a photo and an IQ score from a sample group. Ask a separate group to rate the attractiveness of photos without telling them why. Run correlation test.

Ain't large groups of people to judge a face's attractiveness on a scale if 1 to 10 is pretty standard procedure.

>> No.4252532

>>4252524
justwentfullretard.png

>> No.4252533

>>4252529
I said "given out on" not "given out". That is a tiny but crucial difference with implications for its meaning.

>> No.4252534

>>4252530
I'm criticizing other scientists in general that spend more time socializing in their personal life than they should. They're not Watson or Crick, so they're credibility as a scientist is suspect.

>> No.4252539

>>4252533
Irrelevant. You can't give out or give out on something that was proved, it was already examined and verified by multiple sources to make sure that it's proven. There is no way you can give out (on) such information and prove it, not even by derivations is this possible.

>> No.4252536

>>4252532
If a professor asks his student for the newly generated data, the data is "given out on" by the student. "Data" stems from the word "dare", latin, "give".

>> No.4252541

>>4252534
Clearly you never worked in high class lab. Scientists do parties.

>> No.4252542

>>4252536
Then that would be a misuse of the English language, not to mention of questionable relevance and reliability, and would not reach anything more than "under review."

>> No.4252543

>>4252534
You're either an extremely dedicated troll or a total fucking retard.

>> No.4252544

>>4252541
Yes, but the amount of parties they do will question whether or not their legitimacy as scientists. Parties should be kept at a minimum if they wish to be serious about their field.

>> No.4252547

>>4252539
"on" implicates a condition. The condition may be either 'validated' or 'hear-say'. Both is possible. Therefore even a commonly accepted fact is kind of "anecdotal"

>> No.4252548

>>4252543
Sorry but this is true information, if they spent a lot of time socializing, it's hard to see how seriously they take their field. Science and engineering requires a lot of commitment, there's not a lot of room for personal shit.

>> No.4252551

>>4252548
Total fucking retard it is, then.

>> No.4252552

>>4252542
one or two out of three reviewers would accept it. maybe with minor revision. also it depends on the field. some fields are slower, some are more pop.

>> No.4252554

IQ doesn't imply they're using their intelligence in a meaningful way.

>> No.4252557

>>4252547
>"on" implicates a condition.

>The condition may be either 'validated' or 'hear-say'. Both is possible.
Not in science. Personal and witness testimonies are the worst kind of evidence you can ever have, it's one of the reasons why the legal system is corrupt and flawed.

>Therefore even a commonly accepted fact is kind of "anecdotal"
That doesn't make the fact valid or relevant, and no different than an urban myth or a societal expectation.

>> No.4252556

>>4252548
i lol'd. engineering is long confirmed for gayness in here.

>> No.4252560

>>4252554
Yes, because that would need additional social skills.

>> No.4252561

>>4252551
Well then sorry you're fucking a failure that is not intellectual capable of fully giving himself to science, math, and engineering. Might as well just get an office job, you don't belong here in these fields, and you shouldn't be if you're not going to take them seriously.

>> No.4252566

>>4252547
yeah, but those are more of a semantical issue than anything /sci/ related

>> No.4252567

>>4252561
this is why YOU are on an imageboard full with wanker pics

>> No.4252576

>>4252543
>>4252548
As much of a troll as he is, even for people like Einstein and Hawking a social life were very small parts of their, well, lives. You almost never saw outside unless it was an interview or a guest lecture, most of their time was spent on their work. The only (famous) scientist I can think that had a good social and party life was Feynman, but most of it was when he started teaching (dating his students and attending college orgies).

>> No.4252580

>>4252576
Einstein sat down hours in Central Park helping kids with their homework.

>> No.4252583

>>4252576
and using Hawking as an example is just mean.

>> No.4252591

>>4252076
were the IQ differences significant?

>> No.4252594

>>4252580
1). [citation needed]
2). He's still technically working, and sounds like he was doing this when old in his age and more time.
3). Awesome if true.
4). ?????
5). [citation needed]

>> No.4252603

>>4252594
I read it in a biography book so I guess it is true. And according to the author he did it after Hiroshima.

>> No.4252607

>>4252603
Isaacson's book? On page 439 he talks about something like that, but the details are a bit different.

>> No.4252609

>>4252603
If so, I point back to number three.

>> No.4252610

>Look up most intelligent people in history

Why is it that the vast majority are not attractive in the least?

Give me a goddamn break.. what sort of jackass study is this.

>> No.4252617

>>4252607
I read it 15 years ago, before the internet. I kept it in memory. Plz provide copypasta from Isaacson.

>> No.4252619
File: 235 KB, 945x945, I'm_ok_with_this.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4252619

I'm a good example for OP's correlation as I am beautiful and highly intelligent.

>> No.4252627

>>4252617
No copypasta, I read it as well. Give me a minute, I'll type the section up.

>> No.4252642

>>4252627
In addition to the tales of the dreamy Einstein, another common theme was that of the kindly Einstein helping a child, usually a little girl, with her homework. The most famous of these involved an 8-year-old heighbor on Mercer Street, Adelaide Delong, who rang his bell and asked for hel with a math problem. She carried a plate of homemade fudge as a bribe. "Come in," he said. "I'm sure we can solve it." He helped to explain the math to her, but made her do her own homework. In return for the fudge, he gave her a cookie.

>> No.4252646

>>4252642
After that the girl kep reappearing. When her parents found out, they apologized profusely. Einstein waved them off. "That's quite unnecessary," he said. "I'm learning just as much from your child as she is learning from me." He loved to tell, with a twinkle in his eye, the tale of her visits. "She was a very naughty girl," he would laugh. "Do you know she tried to bribe me with candy?"

>> No.4252650

>>4252642
what a bro

>> No.4252654

>>4252646
A friend of Adelaide's recalled going with her and another girl on one of these visits to Mercer Street. When they got up to his study, Einstein offered them lunch, and they accepted. "So her moved a whole bunch of papers from the table, opened four cans of beans with a can opener, and heated them on a Sterno stove one by one, stuck a spoon in each and that was our lunch," she recalled. "He didn't give us anything to drink."

>> No.4252674

>>4252654
Later, Einstein famously told another girl who complained about her problems with math, "Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics; I can assure you that mine are even greater." But lest it be thought he helped only girls, he hosted a group of senior boys from the Princeton Country Day School who were baffled by a problem on their math final exam.

>> No.4252695

>>4252674
>>4252654
>>4252646
>>4252642
Fucking shit, talk about a much needed brofist.

>> No.4252730

>>4252642
>>4252646
>>4252654
>>4252674
Einstein just wanted a daughter ;_;

>> No.4252763

>>4252730
You mean Lieserl?