/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7523991]

How does intelligence work?

I mean you can try and quantify it with IQ tests, GPAs, and other methods.

But given enough time, anyone without a true learning disability or mental retardation can get just as high scores as anyone else.

My next door neighbor is a wigger, acts like an idiot, and cant do basic algebra. But lately I have been thinking, that given the right upbringing and training, he might be able to be a doctor of physics.

How do we know when someone is intelligent?

[Anonymous No.7524011]

>>7523991
>But given enough time, anyone without a true learning disability or mental retardation can get just as high scores as anyone else.
uh no

[Anonymous No.7524013]

>>7524011
>uh no

good argument, thanks for your participation in the thread.

The door is that way

[Anonymous No.7524023]

>>7523991
>But given enough time, anyone without a true learning disability or mental retardation can get just as high scores as anyone else.

[Anonymous No.7524030]

>>7524013
what evidence do you have to support your claim. natural gaps in intelligence have been noted time and time again, to suppose these gaps can ALWAYS be bridged by hard work is not some sort of natural presumption by any means

[Anonymous No.7524044]

>>7524030

imagine someone who you think to be stupid lives to be 300 years old.

Just through familiar pattern recognition alone he might seem to be more intelligent than someone else you deem to be "intelligent"

is intelligence therefor a learned behavior?

[Anonymous No.7524055]

Memory, pattern recognition and the ability to conceptualize abstract ideas can't really be taught but they are important facets of overall intelligence. For instance, I have no problem recognizing complex patterns and drawing conclusions with critical thinking or conceptualizing complex abstract ideas but I have shitty memory so I can easily get lost within long, complex problems and tend to forget whatever it was I was trying to accomplish originally. I as a result, also have a shit attention span so it's hard for me to actually finish anything I start. So basically, I'm dumb.

[Anonymous No.7524058]

>>7524055

why is your memory bad im curious, i have shit memory as well but thats from smashing my head on a windshield though im quite sure

[Anonymous No.7524059]

>>7524044
Intelligence has always been reasonably defined as an ability to learn and to inherently apply in different ways. Someone cannot acquire a quickness of mind, just like someone cannot acquire the ability to do 50 digit number multiplications mentally like the human calculators. The illusion of being able to think quickly may be acquired through sheer memorization, but it is obvious this similarity only exists on the surface. No one defines a college student to be more intelligent than a child prodigy because the student simply has more "knowledge", because it is not hard to see that if they both had the same resources of time, one would be much more knowledgable.

[Anonymous No.7524081]

>>7524058
I think genes are to blame in my case but I did hit my head a lot as a kid.

[Anonymous No.7524162]

>>7523991
Yes anyone with a healthy mind and brain CAN become a doctor of physics. The difference is how long it takes them. Thats what intelligence is.

>Jimmy the wigger is going to need half a lifetime.

[Anonymous No.7524306]

>>7523991
Give Flowers for Algernon a read
inb4 lit

[Anonymous No.7524432]

>>7523991
Intelligence is just how fast you can recognize and form new patterns

[Anonymous No.7524623]

>>7524432

well memed

[Anonymous No.7524633]

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep11713

>the genes that effect academic performance do so across all subjects, so if you're good at one, you ought to be good at the rest

>always been fairly good at language and literature, but terrible at math and science

So what did I do wrong?

[Anonymous No.7524637]

>>7524633
>find language, literature, history, and science easy
>math fucks me up every time
What did I do wrong

[Anonymous No.7524728]

>>7523991
Sorry, but there is a cutoff for STEM. If you score lower than 600 on your SAT M, you have a nearly zero chance of making it at a graduate level. Not to mention, a guy had to spend a decade to teach a downie basic algebra, using the most sophisticated cognitive methods available.

[Anonymous No.7524734]

plants are intelligent

[Anonymous No.7524735]

>>7524432
>>7524623
recognize, form, and react to in a meaningful way I'd say but well memed still

[Anonymous No.7524739]

Can we stop thinking intelligence is only being good at math and physics ?

[Anonymous No.7524742]

>>7524739
Having a high g means you're good at everything

[Anonymous No.7524756]

>>7524739

for real though
no two humans' intelligences' are the same as no two humans' brains developed alike while having the same DNA

[Anonymous No.7524760]

>>7524756
They develop pretty damn alike with the same DNA. Two identical twins raised in a family have a variation in IQ scores similar to that of an individual taking an IQ test twice.

[Anonymous No.7524784]

>>7524030

>what evidence do you have to support your claim.

Not him but a fundamental problem with intelligence tests is that they have a flawed comparative analysis in that they can only measure current populations within a small time frame. Prior to the inception of Binet-Simon there were no "provable" and "correlated" assessments of intelligence with scientific weight to them. So before Binet-Simon there is no hard data to show how intelligent the populations of humans on earth were, meaning our IQ numbers today are near useless due to the fact we can't prove on a micro level (for the past several thousand years) our mental development beyond roughly 110 years ago.

To top it off if Flynn effect holds true, that "wigger" op has mentioned could technically be more intelligent (though not more productive) than a large sum of the populations of humans throughout history. This even includes some of the philosophers, mathematicians and scientists we hold dear. All because he is a future derivative of prior populations with relatively better nutrition and educational resources at hand now.

Thus op's premise of his neighbor with the right upbringing and training to become doctor of physics could be held true to some degree. The only difference is the issue of quality relative to other doctors.

>natural gaps in intelligence have been noted time and time again, to suppose these gaps can ALWAYS be bridged by hard work is not some sort of natural presumption by any means

This maybe true but how do you quantify those gaps? With only around a century of provable testing how do you show gaps are significant enough to negate hard work? Especially when there is no way to prove the quality of modern intellectuals to those who were their precursors who founded and/or developed major gains in science, math and philosophy? This goes twofold for the average population too.

We have people saying major mathematicians and philosophers had IQ's beyond 140 but where is the proof?

[Anonymous No.7524787]

>>7523991
>But given enough time, anyone without a true learning disability or mental retardation can get just as high scores as anyone else.
We don't really know this. Human brains are limited and as hard as a retard tries it will probably never get that far no matter how much time you give it.

[Anonymous No.7524795]

>>7524784

*We have people saying major mathematicians and philosophers in the past had IQ's beyond 140 but where is the proof?

[Anonymous No.7524822]

>>7524787
We do know this, or at least the opposite of this. For certain tasks there are basic thresholds. Verbal communication is impossible below IQ 50. College level math is impossible below 100 (making a stem career impossible). Nothing can change that, not even 30 years of hard work. Read some fucking stephen hsu or take psychology 101.

>>7524784
That's fucking retarded. The greatest minds of old are just as intelligent as the greatest minds of today (just read their proofs and writing), same as the fact that the average man was like 5'4'' but nobility were as tall as modern people.

What proof is there? A significant number of late twentieth century scientists did take IQ tests. People did research on the correlation between occupation and IQ. Researchers used surrogates such as the SAT,MAT and GRE(.8 correlation) and grades (.5 correlation). Researchers looked at the biographies of these famous scientists. For example, Von Neumann could divide six digit numbers in his head by age five and calculus by age seven. One significant part of the IQ test is digit span, and the feats he accomplished would have been well over 160+ on that sub score. Not to mention, IQ is calculated as mental age/chronological age for children. His accomplishments in every other field of learning prove that he was well over the average. Same applies for all geniuses, though there are outliers.

You are seriously misusing the flynn effect.

[Anonymous No.7524846]

>But given enough time, anyone without a true learning disability or mental retardation can get just as high scores as anyone else.
Prove this or it will be completely ignored as bullshit.

[Anonymous No.7524886]

>>7523991
Human psyche is complicated. If you are really determined you can probably make a promising mind totally useless. Wallowing in self-doubt and lack of motivation. Especially efficient if you are able to combine steering the persons perceptions of their work performance, social feedback, and information control ( starting to doubt their perception, thinking they gone mad et.c. ). At that stage the "threat" ( intelligent person with wrong ideals ) pretty much rendered harmless.

[Anonymous No.7524891]

>>7524886
Isn't it built into the concept "intelligence" to be able to figure out when one is being mind fucked by altered perceptions?

[Anonymous No.7524902]

>>7524891

Even if it is, would it not just make the target feel even more abused and depressed if realizing that?

[Anonymous No.7524907]

>>7524822

>That's fucking retarded. The greatest minds of old are just as intelligent as the greatest minds of today (just read their proofs and writing),

Proofs and writing are indicative of workmanship and dedication to their craft. It is not a 1:1 representation of their IQ if they took an intelligence test.

>What proof is there? A significant number of late twentieth century scientists did take IQ tests.

Check your reading comprehension, late twentieth century is within the 110 year time frame that IQ test have existed in. I am talking about before the last 110 years when people like Archimedes and Issac newton were alive.

>You are seriously misusing the flynn effect.

Saids the person who completely missed the point of the post. I will repeat it again, the fundamental flaw with intelligence test is they current populations within a small time frame. That time frame is within 110 years, your example Von Nuemann lived between 1903 and 1957, well within the 110 year time frame for IQ testing.

Your entire post is a waste because it doesn't adress the flaw I pointed out with any scientific proof.

[Anonymous No.7525457]

>>7524907
Look, you didn't even bother reading my post. You think a wigger of today is smarter than the greatest minds of yesterday. That's fucking retarded. That's not how the fucking flynn effect works. Read my analogy.

Because IQ is a measure is mental age over chronological age you can EASILY interpolate a person's IQ from their childhood accomplishments.

[Anonymous No.7525677]

>>7525457

>Look you didn't even bother reading my post.

Actually I did read your post that's why I lambasted you for mentioning late twentieth century scientists when I specifically talked about the IQ of people before the twentieth century.

>You think a wigger of today is smarter than the greatest minds of yesterday. That's fucking retarded.

It is actually not "retarded" because it works within the means of logic. Just because that "wigger" has a different disposition than that of the intellectuals of yesterday does not take away from the fact he is 1. A future derivative of the populations from which those intellectuals came from. 2. Is highly likely to have relatively better nutrition than past populations. And 3. Has access to better educational resources.

>That's not how the fucking flynn effect works.

Except that's exactly how the flynn effect does work.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/

The standards for IQ testing changes throughout the years, if IQ test existed back during Archimedes and Issac Newton days they would surely get high if not maximum possible scores during their lifetimes. But because of how IQ measurements "work" constant sampling to guage the average for each interation of the test would slowly push their scores down.

This is why when the flynn effect is mention it is often brought up as a boon for developing countries. This is also why stated in the link I posted the capital punishment involving the mentally deficient is a big issue because the standards change throughout the years.

>Read my analogy.

Your analogy means nothing, you pointed to an indindividual who existed when test

[Anonymous No.7525687]

>>7525677

*Your analogy means nothing, you pointed to an indindividual who existed when test were backed up scientifically, so we know that von nuemann is smarter than the "wigger" op mention because the time frame still favors nuemann since education/ testing standards has not changed significantly within said span.

What I'm bringing up is how fair does the "wigger" hold up to standards over +350 years ago.

[Anonymous No.7525696]

We all have diferent learning ways.
I assure you "Intelligence" is greatly overvalued. A lot of factors affect learning ability such as culture, financial state, beliefs, etc. Someone with little to no worries and with a privileged background can easily learn whatever he wants. Someone stressed out living in a competitive environment with zero coping abilities for anxiety will lose itself in fear.
It's not just "intelligence".

[Anonymous No.7525710]

>>7524030
and what evidence do you have to prove him wrong

>inb4 the reddit meme burden of proof argument

nah i'm sick of your reddit tier brand of fake intellectualism. you don't know shit or have any argument for anything, the only thing you know how to do is say "hurr durr give me proof" and even when you get proof you ask for more and more proof, the proof is never good enough.

you are like a 5 year old.

[Anonymous No.7525722]

>>7525710
>and what evidence do you have to prove him wrong
Many studies have shown IQ to be heritable and crystalizing at around the age 6.

[Anonymous No.7525738]

>>7524633
>>7524637
I was the same way when I was younger. Now that I'm 26, I'm finding math that I thought was damn near impossible in college isn't really that hard. Maybe the part of the brain that deals with mathematics wasn't fully mature yet.

[Anonymous No.7525854]

>>7525677
No idiot, my analogy was that while the average in terms of IQ and height were lower, the people at the top were similar. A wigger of today would most certainly NOT have a mind comparable to that of Aristotle.

Nice popsci.

[Anonymous No.7525861]

>>7525677
You know that IQ tests are capped at 160, and therefore 160 and 240 would be the same thing on such a test? Both Michael Phelps and I would pass a test on whether we would sink or swim, but there's still a gigantic fuckin difference.

The human brain hasn't changed much in ten thousand years, and I'm saying the people with the highest level of cognitive ability back then would still be people with the highest levels of cognitive ability. You can infer that from their childhoods.

People in the year 1600 might've been like 5'4'' on average, but THE TALLEST PEOPLE WERE STILL 7-9 feet tall.

You're misinterpreting the flynn effect.

[Anonymous No.7525871]

>>7525861
>THE TALLEST PEOPLE WERE STILL

GRRR IM TYPING WITH CAPS LOCK TO PROVE A POINNNTTTTT

GAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Anonymous No.7525878]

>>7525861
>The human brain hasn't changed much in ten thousand years
Well that's misleading. The IQ distribution of humans started to the right ever since the advent of civilization, as civilizations is an environment which allows the smart to thrive.

What I mean is that the world average IQ has probably risen over the past 10000 years.

[Anonymous No.7525890]

>>7525878
>civilizations is an environment which allows the smart to thrive

yo, the smart thrive no matter what. since when has being smart EVER not helped something survive more than a nigger?

[Anonymous No.7525894]

>>7523991
>calls neighbour a wigger
>can't spell whigger
fckn intelligence, how duz it werk?

[Anonymous No.7525896]

>>7525871
No, it was highlighted to prove why a fucking wigger wasn't smarter than great minds of old just because of the flynn effect.

I seriously can't get over how retarded what you said is.

>>7525878


Yes the average has risen, I think we understand that?

[Anonymous No.7525904]

>>7525896
>how retarded what you said is.
>what you said is.

you write like a retard tbh

[Anonymous No.7525906]

>>7525890
>yo, the smart thrive no matter what. since when has being smart EVER not helped something survive more than a nigger?
In an environment which favors physical strength, such as tribal hunter gatherer societies.

Although it's true that some psychologists tested a bunch of Kalahari bushmen and found that the tribe members who were considered to be the best hunters typically had higher IQs. I guess what I meant is that civilization accelerated humanity's IQ increase.

[Anonymous No.7525924]

>>7525906

OK, im glad i was able to correct you.

Try to be less bad at making points in the future.

tyvm (thank you very much)

[Anonymous No.7526019]

>>7525854

>No idiot, my analogy was that while the average in terms of IQ and height were lower, the people at the top were similar.

Wheres the evidence to back this statement up? Remember I am talking about comparing intelligence of current populations and individuals to those who lived well before the twentieth century.

>A wigger of today would most certainly NOT have a mind comparable to that of Aristotle.

Believe it our not the "mind" is not exactly the same as intelligence as it relates to IQ. So of course the wigger does not have a mind comparable to Aristotle. Aristotle questioned and thought about concepts the wigger would take for granted today because it's already been documented and well explored. Aristotle lived in a time where the foundation of logic wasn't well established, the Wigger does. The setting, culture, technology, diet are all different between the two.

>Nice popsci.

And yet I'm the one who posted a citation while all you have done is posted analogies and anecdotes with no scientific backing at all. No, wait, I'm sorry you posted information but with no sources and said information is not even addressing the particular points being discussed in my post.

>>7525861

>The human brain hasn't changed much in ten thousand years,

Bullshit, you are telling me the human brain of today that intefaces with books, computers, aware of continents across the world and planets in space and is expected to retain some institutional education has changed little in ten thousand years? The same brain that also controls for our body's actions, adapting behavior and dieting to modern technology has made little difference in all this time?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/

>and I'm saying the people with the highest level of cognitive ability back then would still be people with the highest levels of cognitive ability.

Show proof and cite sources anon.

[Anonymous No.7526023]

>>7526019

tldr

[Anonymous No.7526033]

>>7526023

Fuck off, you're on /sci/ you don't get that luxury.

[Anonymous No.7526048]

>>7525738
It's actually true
It takes longer for the math part of the brain to fully develop and mature
Is why putting the average kid in advanced math (2 grades ahead) only ends in neurotocism, hatred, autism mode, or not a full grasp on the fundamentals
study for test then drop the content

[Anonymous No.7526067]

>>7524846
lol at that "study". But yea that statement by OP.. No comment.

[Anonymous No.7526097]

>>7526067
>No comment

ah, the last bastion of those without intelligent opinions

[Anonymous No.7526233]

>>7525894
>spelling slang
retard

[Anonymous No.7526260]

>>7523991
>My next door neighbor is a wigger, acts like an idiot, and cant do basic algebra. But lately I have been thinking, that given the right upbringing and training, he might be able to be a doctor of physics.

I watch tv and played vidya my whole childhood. Only copied math/science homework (rarely did it myself).

I still get A's in math/science classes, 760 on Math SAT. I regularly get 100+% on my exams in some of the hardest science/math/engineering classes at my university now.

When I was in 1st grade I was the only one in my class who couldn't read (I went from shitty kindergarten to good school). A year later I was in the advanced reading group.

I never worked hard. Hard work really doesn't help that much beyond the basics (showing up for exams and writing papers). It is 80% natural talent.

[Anonymous No.7526323]

>>7523991
>But given enough time, anyone without a true learning disability or mental retardation can get just as high scores as anyone else.
lol no, retards are pretty much hopeless.

>My next door neighbor is a wigger, acts like an idiot, and cant do basic algebra. But lately I have been thinking, that given the right upbringing and training, he might be able to be a doctor of physics.
We don't really know how true this is. You can try many things all their lives but all of those attempts added up are incredibly small to the size of a humans input space. Some people might be destined to never accomplish certain things no matter what you do but it's hard to say right now.

>How do we know when someone is intelligent?
Mostly by what they do. You can have people who are intelligent but decide not to do anything but then you can argue that they aren't intelligent because they made retarded decisions.

[Anonymous No.7526551]

>>7524055
whoa you sound like new me, I had a defuse axonal injury (borderline sever, 9 months of rehab, initially written off). my memory is no longer very good, I also have attention issues (split attention no focused issues). my head has been coping by applying a bunch of logical rules to everything I do and see around me, so I sound clever... it's very interesting. at work a mfg place, coworkers will misplace things/tools, I will tell them where these things are because of analytical methods applied to that individual and how they think / act, things that I have not touched or seen, also my digit recall got beefed up because of all my speech therapy activities, so I can recall order numbers on the fly, alpha numerical stuff around 12 digits long, these are sometimes numbers I simply overheard coworkers discuss, that shit freaks em out... the bull shit is they all use it as evidence to point out the completion of my recovery, they doubt know half the bull shit that I have to deal with. this concludes my blog post.

[Anonymous No.7526618]

>>7526551
>this concludes my blog post.

thank god

[Anonymous No.7526677]

>>7525906
>In an environment which favors physical strength, such as tribal hunter gatherer societies.

intelligence and physical strength are in no way related, especially not inversely correlated.
also, even in those environments, higher intelligence still presents an advantage.

also, civilisation doesn't particularly favor intelligence over other traits. it mainly favors social skills over all else.

[Anonymous No.7526722]

The higher your ability to process information is, the more intelligent you are.

[Anonymous No.7526809]

>>7525904
Try writing it better, retard.

[Anonymous No.7526835]

>>7523991
>Basic Algebra
Good, I'm not the only one. Jacobson's such a hard book, like sweet holy damn.

[Anonymous No.7526854]

>>7526233
>spelling slang
trademark of a retard

[Loserbernd No.7527085]

I only know that I have low intelligence.

Those IQ tests are not really valuable to me, because you can train to get a better score.

RL personal experience is far more informative.

[Anonymous No.7527126]

>>7526677
>also, civilisation doesn't particularly favor intelligence over other traits.
Of course it does. Especially societies with a high degree of freedom of opportunity.

[Anonymous No.7527271]

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
- Alberto Cuckstein

[Anonymous No.7527284]

>>7527271
Everyone is fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.7527307]

>>7527284

If Einstein "stole" credit for relativity from thos three, why did those same three guys above give him so much credit? Why was he the most respected among his colleagues? Did he somehow fool all of his contemporary elite physicists with a ruse that only /pol/ could see through?

[Anonymous No.7527342]

>>7527307
why did those same three guys above give him so much credit?
citation from author needed

> Why was he the most respected among his colleagues?
He wasn't. probably Lorentz was

> Did he somehow fool all of his contemporary elite physicists with a ruse that only /pol/ could see
Is blaming people with racism the best thing you can do ?

It's like a torch passing marathon where Einstein got the last torch and finished the run. He definitely did not steal their ideas but it is unfair that people talk about "Einstein's relativity theory" where as the originators of the idea don't gain the same scientific popularity. This theory wouldn't exist if it was not for all of them.

[H No.7527369]

>>7527284
What about general relativity?
That's what really made Einstein famous, especially with the public.

[Anonymous No.7527385]

>>7527342
>It's like a torch passing marathon where Einstein got the last torch and finished the run

This is more or less the same story for all of science though. Most people know about Newton and Leibiniz as if they invented calculus but there is more too it.

[Anonymous No.7527392]

>>7527369
General relativity is simply macro special relativity

[Anonymous No.7527400]

>>7527385
Not really, because Newton and Leibniz independently developed infinitesimal calculus. Calculus is not Analysis, which is what you must be talking about. Analysis discovery includes Euler, Bernard Bolzano, Cauchy etc

[Anonymous No.7527508]

>>7527284
>>7527342

You are fucking dumb.

Eisntein was the genius that saw how the universe works in those useless math masturbations.

If it were for Michelson, Poicare and Lorentz, we'd still believe in luminous aether, and would have beautiful matrix multiplications.
Einstein saw those useless stuff and said "hey, maybe the universe works like this, let us try it on these maxwell shit here", and Relativity.

Now go study.

[Anonymous No.7527514]

>>7527392

>geodesics
>macro special relativity

Are you learning from youtube, or something?