/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4595710]

I don't think I have true intelligence, all I seem to have is like a parrot intelligence or something. I can figure out mathematic problems relatively easy and I can memorise methods and facts and apply them to answer a question or do something but I can't answer simple question such as
'Whats the purpose of a government' or 'why are human rights important' I feel these questions cannot be answered, because they mean nothing to begin with.

How do I fix myself?
Is this thing that can fix itself?
Could this be autism?

Pic related; new laptop

[Anonymous No.4595711]

OP-histhread.png

[Anonymous No.4595718]

Maybe you are just intelligent enough to intrinsically understand that those questions are unanswerable.

[Anonymous No.4595732]

>>4595710
If you can solve sums then you have the analytical ability to make sense of such questions. There are no objective answers to them, but you can piece together general information (people survive if they aren't killed, I am a person, therefore I survive if I am not killed; Surviving is good)

[Anonymous No.4595780]

The first step is admitting you have a problem. Good job!

Our culture produces pseudo intellectuals, and even rebukes true intellectuals as arrogant etc.

If you were a true intellectual you would be able to answer those questions because you would have become logically precise in all of your thinking. Every idea you had would fit together like puzzle pieces, and you would unconsciously arrive at answers to questions like that which were logically precise and accurate.

What can you do? Start from scratch basically. First realize that other people cannot protect you from the dangers of the world and instead you must understand and be able to predict things on your own. Then start building a network of ideas that precisely interact with each other. Like math with words. Arguing with other people can help you find logical imprecision in your beliefs. They create examples that counter your claims.

[Anonymous No.4595810]

This concept interests me greatly
I've noticed there's a MASSIVE schism between two types of intellectuals, analytic and memory based.
In other words, there are exceptional problem solvers, and then there are people who can only remember things. Of course it's not that definite, everybody's mind has a little bit of the other at the very least, but the more of one you have, the more you can compensate for the other.
practical Geniuses on the other hand display exceptional use of both the ability to remember and problem solve.

In society, schools are more likely to grade somebody able to remember things higher than people who can solve problems, in fact, schools are designed to 'treat' people who suck at problem solving by teaching them how to use there memory as much as possible. 'write down your formulas !' for example.
Whereas people with the capacity to solve problems, invent, or even be abstract (art) have a much lesser chance at being successful if they can't both memorize and recall knowledge quickly and effectively.

[Anonymous No.4595821]

>>4595810
cont'd


This system produces intellectuals who know how to tie their shoes, but would take quite a long time to redraw the components of the knot involved compared to a problem solver unless they had seen the knot and memorized it beforehand.
Philosophically speaking, society is giving success to people who actually can't think for themselves, and the implications of this are fucking devastating to this entire civilization as we are not only Not exploiting the analytic people, but giving out diplomas to basically any idiot who's brain can function similar to a computers. I can't begin to count the ways that this problem alone is ruining society. philosophy is a dead art, but you can get a diploma for it if you remember the dead artists works.

I'm a problem solver, and I won't ever know my potential because I have been handed a shit card for focusing. Yet I get to watch idiots succeed at life without any purpose beyond the third tier of Moslow's hierarchy.
We are so far behind our ancestors philosophically, it's tragic.

[Anonymous No.4595826]

I think I used to feel the same way OP. And I think the way I solved it was by remembering methods and facts until I had enough to synthesize answers on a problem to which I don't know the direct answer.
Learn what makes good evidence for a

I actually had a similar inability to answer "big" questions, and specifically for ones about the philosophy of government, law, and economy, I just read books containing other people's opinions until I could form my own.

Actually, the fact that you're not willing to just spout off a bull-shit pseudo-thought on the matter is a big point in your favor.

I think the most important thing to learn was the scientific method. It's a powerful tool for general problem solving. Learn what good evidence is, learn how to collect it, learn what the most common flaws in human cognition are and learn and develop methods to counter them. I'm sorry to say it's not all laid out in one easy to consume chunk, but small efforts over time eventually accumulate to big change.

[Anonymous No.4597285]

I wish I could be a little bit more like op

[Anonymous No.4597350]

So what you're trying to say is that you're asian?

[Anonymous No.4597375]

I don't understand the OP?
>'why are human rights important' means nothing to begin with.
Clearly the sentence means something, you understood it didn't you? Is english your second language?

[Anonymous No.4597381]

>>4595821

Some of the reason of why this occurs though is because memorizing a formula for passing the curriculum is much easier and less tedious than deriving it.

You cannot rigorously prove that the area of a circle = pi*r^2 unless you've taken calculus. One is pre-algebra, the other is gr 12 level math.
See?

[Anonymous No.4597392]

>>4595710
>Whats the purpose of a government
answerable, linkable to evolution

>why are human rights important
same, very linked to evolution and the concept of kinship, government in a grander scale just regulates the emotions and interactions between one another while preserving their rights (we were never used to interacting with such large numbers of individuals).

Its not so much as a lack of intellect but not enough information to create links/hyphotesis/imagination, notice I didnt give a definite answer either, but my (personal) idea is that these concepts can be explained by looking at our former selves (our ancestors). Its the same way people explain why apes clean eachother from parasites and such. Because they learned that if they cared for the pack, the chances of survival for everyone were better (including theirs).
Plus other vestigial traits.

But I do agree some people are just "massive memory bags" while others are "people that can solve problems", both are necessary (think scientist vs doctor, lawyer vs engineer), for our society.

dont feel bad OP, you're ok.