/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7945044]

>Hell might actually be other people -- at least if you're really smart.
>Kanazawa and Li theorize that the hunter-gatherer lifestyles of our ancient ancestors form the foundation for what make us happy now. "Situations and circumstances that would have increased our ancestors’ life satisfaction in the ancestral environment may still increase our life satisfaction today," they write.
>First, they find that people who live in more densely populated areas tend to report less satisfaction with their life overall. "The higher the population density of the immediate environment, the less happy" the survey respondents said they were. Second, they find that the more social interactions with close friends a person has, the greater their self-reported happiness.
>But there was one big exception. For more intelligent people, these correlations were diminished or even reversed.
>"The effect of population density on life satisfaction was therefore more than twice as large for low-IQ individuals than for high-IQ individuals," they found. And "more intelligent individuals were actually less satisfied with life if they socialized with their friends more frequently."
>Let me repeat that last one: When smart people spend more time with their friends, it makes them less happy.
>But why would this relationship get turned on its head for really smart people?
>I posed this question to Carol Graham, a Brookings Institution researcher who studies the economics of happiness. "The findings in here suggest (and it is no surprise) that those with more intelligence and the capacity to use it ... are less likely to spend so much time socializing because they are focused on some other longer term objective," she said.

Can /sci/ explain this? I consider myself smarter than average and I do need at least one day a week to decompress, but I love hanging out with friends and meeting new people.

[Anonymous No.7945049]

>>7945044
>I consider myself smarter than average
An opinion held by many brainlets. What actual evidence do you have to distinguish yourself from the masses? Your mummy and an internet IQ test?

I think this thread would fit in /r9k/. You could all cry about how sad you are that no one recognises your obvious intelligence.

[Anonymous No.7945058]

>psychology

religion masquerading as science belongs on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.7945124]

>>7945044
>Kanazawa and Li theorize that the hunter-gatherer lifestyles of our ancient ancestors
>evolutionary psychology

Into the trash.

[Anonymous No.7945231]

>I posed this question to Carol Graham, a Brookings Institution researcher who studies the economics of happiness. "The findings in here suggest (and it is no surprise) that those with more intelligence and the capacity to use it ... are less likely to spend so much time socializing because they are focused on some other longer term objective," she said.

I've thought about this a lot before and I think it just has to do with habituation. "Smart" people are smart because they are in the habit of reading and learning things on a daily basis... following their curiosity wherever it leads and thinking about things a lot. You can't do that while socializing, it's one or the other, you can't multitask it. So, "Smart" people being less happy when surrounded by more people is just a reflection of their daily habits which feeds in to the reward system in their brain. For some, socializing hits the reward centers in their brain and that's how they make themselves feel good, for others, reading a book or watching a documentary does it. It's all about habituation.

[Anonymous No.7945236]

I have no friends.

[Anonymous No.7945237]

>>7945049
>pepe.jpg

[Anonymous No.7945284]

>>7945044
>Can /sci/ explain this? I consider myself smarter than average and I do need at least one day a week to decompress, but I love hanging out with friends and meeting new people.
Then you're obviously not as smart as you think you are, idiot.

[Anonymous No.7945302]

I have no friends and I'm not smart. Hwat's going here?

[Anonymous No.7945308]

Research like this is useless because it fails to consider the socialized effects of being "smart" (which in this case probably exclusively means being good at math/science i.e. a nerd) on someone's personality.

[Anonymous No.7945319]

>>7945231
Bingo. Totally agree. It's very intuitive and I experience this exact feeling quite a bit throughout my own life. Often social activities feel like wasted time. I'm constantly reading and studying something new and for me that's always more intellectually gratifying than small talk with friends.

[Anonymous No.7945341]

>>7945231
>You can't do that while socializing, it's one or the other, you can't multitask it
but you can.
With the right friends. You can find friends to have meaningful discussions with, friends with differents perspectives etc.

If socializing is reduced to going out and gossiping, then... yeah you're better off doing something else.

[Anonymous No.7945349]

>>7945341
Its hard to find proper friends

[Anonymous No.7945361]

>>7945349
who said it was easy?

Having fewer very close friends feels much better than having many "friends" you know superficially or with whom you bond only a little.

[Anonymous No.7945367]

Y'all college kids need to go check out some clubs because that shit is like friends on a silver platter. Good luck finding anything remotely as easy to meet people through after you graduate, even in grad school.

[Anonymous No.7945371]

>>7945044
I can testify.

Fucking normies man, they just grind my gears way too much. Nearly everything out of their mouths is wrong in some way. Not just wrong but absurdly stupid most of the time. It is like they live in some fantasy land.

Once I got rid of most of my friends, my life improved significantly.

[Anonymous No.7945384]

>>7945367
Making friends at a club is probably the most retarded suggestion I've ever heard. Clubs serve four purposes and four purposes only:
1. Listen to electronic dance music
2. Dance to electronic dance music
3. Wait in line for 20 minutes to buy a gin and tonic for $12
4. Hook up with some sleezebag who probably has an STD

[Anonymous No.7945394]

>>7945384

No, moron, clubs like student organizations. Goddamn, no wonder "smart" /sci/ kids don't have any friends.

[Anonymous No.7945399]

>>7945302
impending suicide

[Anonymous No.7945400]

>>7945231
>>7945319

Same here. I've always wondered if it's due to me having "normie" friends: it's hard to talk about anything but "bro do you remember that time when we got drunk etc." or "hey stacy is a real slut etc"...maybe if I had friends invested in more intellectual things I'd be more gratified to go out with them?

[Anonymous No.7945401]

>>7945371
this has to be b8

[Anonymous No.7945403]

>>7945400

Aim for emotional salience in friendships, not intellectual stimulation.

[Anonymous No.7945425]

>>7945401
normie spotted

[Anonymous No.7945434]

>>7945425
please stop with the cringe

[Mitchell !!7GG7kwbVTS0 No.7945442]

>>7945044
Wow living in a huge city surrounded by people will stress you out and lower your satisfaction? who knew..

[Anonymous No.7945447]

>>7945341
>but you can

I disagree.

In a social setting, you can have intellectual discussion but it can never go any deeper than whatever comes off the top of everyone's head. There's no opportunity to think deeply about the subject with all the external noise or at least a long, uncomfortable silence, which isn't allowed in social settings. New information is coming in, but you don't have an opportunity to think about it, you can only respond with immediately obvious implications, which is trivial for any subject worth thinking about. The essential part of learning which can only happen when you take time to reflect and process new information can only happen when you are alone, only you and your internal dialogue. It never, ever ever ever happens when you're with other people.

Anything worth understanding takes time to reflect internally about it, letting your internal dialogue go until you're able to integrate it in to whatever else you know about the world. That just can't happen when you're actively interacting with other people.

[Anonymous No.7945455]

>>7945447

The ability to synthesize new information quickly and parlay that into intelligible discussion is a worthwhile skill in and of its own right. On the fly collaborative work is rooted in the ability to do this. But I guess that's one of my ADD superpowers.

[Anonymous No.7945466]

>>7945394
this

[Anonymous No.7945470]

>>7945044
>evolutionary psychology

[Anonymous No.7945474]

>>7945455
I guess some people may be able to do this, obviously I can only speak from personal experience. I know there's a lot of variation in how people think which impacts cognitive flexibility.

When in a social setting, if I start to think about some new information someone just said, my thought will always be sidetracked as soon as someone else speaks, no matter how profound the incoming realization.

[Anonymous No.7945481]

>>7945474

My thoughts are sidetracked constantly because I have severe ADHD so I actually thrive in an environment where I can go in many different directions simultaneously. I don't think profundity should be your goal in intellectual conversation - you should view it as dialectic with the goal of coming to a mutual understanding of each other's points of view regardless of your individual conclusions.

[Anonymous No.7945491]

>>7945474
>>7945481

In other words, your method of individual learning is perfectly valid, but consider looking at discussion not as an extension of your individual thinking, but as a different form of learning altogether where the goal is to integrate what others are saying. It's kind of a breadth vs. depth type of thing.

[Anonymous No.7945506]

>But why would this relationship get turned on its head for really smart people?

Because we're all fucking full of ourselves. We have big egos that other people get in the way of. Just look at this board for proof. We get dopamine and chemical rushes from understanding or working some new or complex problem which low IQ people don't get. It seems only natural that you'd spend more time chasing that high by yourself.

[Anonymous No.7945509]

>>7945044
>I consider myself smarter than average

prove it, dimwit

[Anonymous No.7945516]

>>7945481
>I don't think profundity should be your goal in intellectual conversation - you should view it as dialectic with the goal of coming to a mutual understanding of each other's points of view

Sure, the goal should just be to learn something you didn't know already. But reflecting on that new information in a profound way is what satisfies me the most, and that takes place outside of social situations. Even in the case of someone lecturing me on a subject in detail, I would still need time a lone to process the information.

I think my bias for profundity is warranted. In my experience, the world is messy, and notions of simplicity are more often naivete(often in the form of extremist ideologies) than wisdom; few subjects worth understanding are without complexity. Truly understanding things takes diligent effort to think about all of the implications, and the effect that such diligence has on your world view is worth the effort.

Look around you, the people who seem to be least happy and least well adapted to life on earth are frequently people who shun intellectual pursuits.

[Anonymous No.7945524]

>>7945049

[Anonymous No.7945526]

>>7945049
i installed arch linux and am an expert in implementing monad transformers

[Anonymous No.7945529]

>>7945367
Check out meetup.com, if you're not aware of it

[Anonymous No.7945533]

>>7945516

The complexity of thought is why I love discourse so much - it's messy and random and contradictory, and while you can take a methodological approach to the consideration of implications, you can also take a more chaotic approach and jump around and find really interesting ideas and entailments that way. But we're just different folks is all, and you seem like a smart and thoughtful person in your own right. I love seeing how other people think and view the world.

[Anonymous No.7945537]

>>7945533
Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1993
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of
California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.

@(#) $Id: arcnet.h,v 1.2 2001/04/24 02:17:52 guy Exp $ (LBL)

from: NetBSD: if_arc.h,v 1.13 1999/11/19 20:41:19 thorpej Exp

[Anonymous No.7945584]

>>7945044
>He actually enjoys the company of others
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
But in all seriousness this board is enough socializing for me.

[Anonymous No.7945586]

>>7945384
Lmao you fucking autist.

[Anonymous No.7945703]

>>7945384
>1. Listen to electronic dance music
>2. Dance to electronic dance music
No no no, these people do not listen to electronic music. They aren't dancing to it either. They can barely stand that shit whilst near the LD50 of MDMA, and their "dancing" is really just them spazzing out after they chugged 2L of water from all of that MDMA.

[Anonymous No.7945921]

>>7945584
>this board is enough socializing for me

Jesus, man

[Anonynous No.7946106]

>>7945526
>i installed arch linux and am an expert in implementing monad transformers
If this is real and not a meme, then please teach me.

[Anonymous No.7946111]

>>7945703
What's your definition of proper "dancing", going down to the county barn for a swing dance?

[Anonymous No.7946126]

>>7945319
That's just autism

[Anonymous No.7946226]

>>7946126
Works for me then

[Anonymous No.7946245]

>>7945044
I believe socializing is easier for 'normal' people and highly intelligent people are often singled out in a group and they feel alone even with other people. Of course they may have friends that are also highly intelligent but the socializing becomes different kind and especially less physical. Physical human contact connects people on a different level. Also physical activities activate different chemicals in the brain. I would say highly intelligent people don't end up feeling a companionship with other people in the way of 'going through' things together as a team.
Of course there's lots of exceptions like Feynman for example, who really thrive on human interaction.
First I thought it must've something to do with intelligent people being introverts more often, but I found this and it seems that doesn't make a difference.
https://peerj.com/articles/1300/

[Anonymous No.7946255]

>>7945384

This response is perfect.

[Anonymous No.7946745]

>>7945049

[Anonymous No.7946751]

>>7945516
>Look around you, the people who seem to be least happy and least well adapted to life on earth are frequently people who shun intellectual pursuits.
That's simply because the people who shun intellectual pursuits are a supermajority.

[Anonymous No.7946766]

>>7945470
What's wrong with evpsych?

[Anonymous No.7946779]

>>7945237
>>7945524
>>7946745
>brainlets getting triggered

[Anonymous No.7946786]

>>7946766
1. We don't know anything about the social life during the hunter-gatherer period, it is all derived from modern tribes and guessing from very few artifacts. Can you derive all we know about the egyptians when all you have is two axes, a statuette of Beth and a paddle?

2. Especially we don't know how uniform their life was, did the tribes in spain had the same social life as the settlers in australia?

3. it uses an arbitrary timeframe and says that this is the time when humanity was shaped, why don't we say that intelligent people are better of with fewer friends because all intelligent people with many friends have a higher risk of being killed in intrigues during the roman republic?

4. The human is unique because we replaced biological evolution with cultural evolution. Saying that we behave like X because our ancestors behaved like Y assumes some kind of continuity. Can you reason about our dating scheme today when looking at the society in 1870? Now how can one say that smart people today, with a completely different skillset defining "smart" than 50 years before, are better off lonely when skipping 1000 generations?

evolutionary psychology wants to express very fundamental properties of humans, by reasoning about a time we know next to nothing, skipping time frames defining the very sociological aspect they want to examine, based on the believe that social behavior is encoded in our genes, while looking back 100 years is enough that biological reasoning about sociology and psychology is useless.

There are very very few proper studies and articles in evolutionary psychology, with very little results but with very many "ifs". Most is plain unsound and bullshit, the popsci articles like OP are only taken serious by loser who blame their failure on muh hunter-gatherers
>Stacy rather fucks a well-build groomed guy with friend who can make her laugh instead of a fat neckbear?
>S-she is forced to be a slut! I-I have a study!

[Anonymous No.7946793]

You can shit on evopsych all you like but denying that a rapid shift in how human society organises itself has no effect on people makes you an idiot.

[Anonymous No.7946799]

>>7946793
Claiming that you can derive concrete behavioral patterns from something you don't more than that it happened makes you a literal retard

[Anonymous No.7946815]

>>7946799
I did not claim such a thing. Op's link is a typical science reporting with bullshit and misleading quotes but /sci/ shouldn't dismiss psychology just because nobody here studies it.

[Anonymous No.7946819]

>>7946815
I don't dismiss psychology, I dismiss the approach of evolutionary psychology.

[Anonymous No.7946820]

>>7946786
>social behavior is encoded in our genes
Well to some extent it is.
While you could question the validity of comparing us to other animals, other species do seem to exhibit clear patterns of interaction with other members of their own species, and I think that while the style of human social interaction has changed much with the ages, there are definite common threads that run throughout.

At any rate I don't see anything wrong with attempting to examining how evolutionary pressures shaped the brain/mind, it could well provide valuable insights.

[Anonymous No.7946862]

>>7945403
>emotional salience
What does this even mean?

[Anonymous No.7946869]

>>7945044
What even is a normal amount of friends?
How well do you have to know them to be "friends"?

I have 3 people I'm willing to hang out with, otherwise I only hang out with extra people for networking purposes. How the hell do people make time to meet more than 3 people? And I can only really do 2 in a week, or try to meet two at once.

[Anonymous No.7946871]

>>7946862
Sounds like it means that you are hanging out with them because they are an emotional support, not just because you like to talk intellectually to them about things, or play video games with etc.

[Anonymous No.7946980]

>>7946779

[Anonymous No.7946984]

>>7946980
> posting fedora
further triggering

[Anonymous No.7946995]

>>7946980
>being this btfo
>being a brainlet
when will they learn?

[Anonymous No.7947142]

>>7945341
my strong impression is that in social situations its always assymetric level of skill/knowledge
so one person is wasting their time - if the information is available for 'free' elsewhere, like the internet

also for most people reading is faster than listening (to live talk anyway)

and then there is the fact that live talk is less structured i.e. less efficient absorption of information for the consumer


so all things considered, i tink the future of 'socializing' is various forms of very good collaboration software combined with interwebz

[Anonymous No.7947145]

>>7945371
same here

still good idea to get a solid network of highskill people

[Anonymous No.7947153]

>>7945447
>intellectual discussion but it can never go any deeper
there is something about bouncing ideas off each other with rapid respnse times, that can spark certain things other environments are worse at sparking.

[Anonymous No.7947388]

I enjoy being with other people, but mostly to laugh. I don't talk to people outside of uni desu unless sex or money is involved.

When I'm with my (admittedly small) group of friends, it's to laugh and that's why I choose my friends. The only intellectual part of our conversations is me being unnecessarily pedantic for humorous purposes.

The only other socialising i do is 4chan and Quora desu. Anyone else the same?

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.7947579]

>>7947142
>also for most people reading is faster than listening (to live talk anyway)

No it's not. When you listen to someone you can get the most important points straight away, and you can ask for clarifications on anything you don't understand.

Reading a text is inferior to talking to someone in every way.

[Anonymous No.7947875]

>>7946786
>1. We don't know anything about the social life during the hunter-gatherer period
Uh, there are still a few tribes left.

[Anonymous No.7947879]

>tfw smart but lazy
>no friends

LIVING THE DREAM

[Anonymous No.7949786]

>>7947579
Depends on how you learn
Reading gives you the chance to reread, and look for further information at the same time, or look back in the book to link information

If you ask someone to repeat what they said 5 times, wait while you Google something, then tell them to say again what they said 3 days ago you just look like an autist

[Anonymous No.7949801]

>>7947388
yea i'm sort of like this as well except a little more autistic

[Anonymous No.7949803]

>>7947879
>LIVING THE MEME
ftfy

[Anonymous No.7949804]

>>7945044
It frees brain capacity. Take a consideration: I can study offline, I rarely need to go online to study a lot of useful stuff once I have it. Well, it is fair to expect lower productivity once I go online, and it is fair to expect the lowest productivity when I am not only online, but talking with my friends, doing social things etc. Same goes for physical socialization. Alright, so it is sure we are limited and we have to choose between friends, fun or study, hard work. Guess which one smart people choose? Not only because of the high IQ's curiosity, high IQ people are hard workers: the higher a nation's IQ, the more productive, prolific, busy, it is. Fair, isn't it?

Also, your IQ is low. It is above median, I am sure that is what you meant, but I doubt you are smarter than, say, Newton, Leibniz etc. Stop tapping yourself in the back.

[Anonymous No.7950143]

>>7945049
>What actual evidence do you have to distinguish yourself from the masses?
Out of curiosity, what is an acceptable answer to this? Knowledge isn't intelligence and vice versa, so something like "I know a lot of physics" or "I understand this theory" or "I know how to build this thing", etc, are invalid. Most people "smarter than average" aren't necessarily geniuses, so it's not as if they'd be able to point to amazing works that they've done in different fields.
Stuff like internet IQ tests are obviously flawed, but a legitimate IQ test has some backing. What about GREs or SATs? Do higher-than-average scores on these things suggest higher-than-average intelligence?
I'm asking because any claim I've ever seen of being "smarter than average" has been met with this sort of response and it just seems sort of silly that we're only allowed to claim to know the intelligence of other people (I can say "he seems pretty smart, and be met with no opposition") and must be either deprecating with respect to our own intelligence or pretend complete lack of awareness.

[Anonymous No.7950170]

>>7950143
Things I'd consider indications of intelligence:
*prodigal talent ex. self-teaching maths as a child
*succeeding at a top university with relatively little effort
*publishing quality (ie. not a matlab sim at some shitty conference) research as an undergrad
*being top in the country in maths competitions

What I wouldn't consider a sign of intelligence is what appears to be quite common here: a vague idea of oneself as gifted because of pandering feedback received from the people around you and a meme IQ test.

[Anonymous No.7950186]

>>7945044
I have exactly one friend. I am friendly with several people, but I only have one friend.

That's my anecdote.

[Anonymous No.7950199]

>>7950170
I think you missed a point that I was trying to make.
Just saying "smarter than average" does not imply genius. If you are just a bit smarter than average then these aren't things that you're going to be doing. How can any man claim to be "smarter than average" if all your indicators of being smarter than average seem to lay closer to the "genius" end of the line? Also, all of these things require effort (even if it is "relatively minimal"), which mixes up intelligence with drive and work ethic. Now, I'm not saying that those things aren't an indication of intelligence, but say we have a lazy intelligent person and their alternate-universe twin the hard-working intelligent person. What would these two have in common? Would they both score similarly well on a certain type of test given minimal preparation such as a GRE, SAT, or IQ test?
I mean, if you don't think so that is fine, but you have to realize the flaws about only listing "indications of intelligence" that are so heavily dependent on other factors and are relative rarities compared to the mass of people that we should expect to be more intelligent than average.

[Anonymous No.7950265]

>>7950170
If you achieve a bachelor's in math, you are smarter than 99% of the population.

Hell, if you achieve a bachelors in any STEM, you are probably smarter than 80% of the population.

The problem is that someone like you, who let's be honest is probably decently smarter than the average person, compares themselves to the 1% or even the 0.1% (which is still 7 million people!). Give some people a break man, chances are, if you are here and you understand half of the math that gets discussed here, you are in the top 5% at least.

[Anonymous No.7950275]

I keep to myself. I have freinds, but I have found that I start to dislike them if I hang with them for too long. Love solidarity, but I do long for a partner :/
>tfw no gf

[Anonymous No.7950329]

>>7950265
>If you achieve a bachelor's in math, you are smarter than 99% of the population.
One time, in college, I was working on homework with a friend of mine that happened to be a math major as well as another friend of mine.
I can't remember the exact problem (I believe it was an intermediate E&M problem), but in a very general sense we had gotten to a point where we had n variables that we needed to solve for and only n-1 equations and we were trying to figure out what the other equation we were supposed to use was and having a lot of trouble.
In the middle of it my math major friend stops and says "wait, what if I use the solution for [x] from this equation to solve for [y] in the same equation?"
We stared at him in disbelief and told him that it wouldn't work, but he kept insisting that he try it out just to see. And then, like an absolute madman, he actually did it and was only then convinced that it was nonsense. This was not even close to being his first semester, and graduated a short time later becoming the proud owner of a bachelors in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.7950391]

>>7950329
The purpose of your post was to demonstrate that the rule has an exception? Wow.

[Anonymous No.7950443]

>>7950391
Just thought I'd throw in a counterexample to your "mathematicians are smarter than basically everyone" claim. You didn't at all say how you defined "smarter than", so I'm not sure how I would possibly demonstrate anything against your claim. I guess it points out that it's not particularly hard to get a degree in mathematics. Intelligence is by no means a necessity. I don't even think that he worked particularly hard. He played a lot of videogames. I'm not even against believing you if you want to actually talk about why you think what you are saying.

By my vague criteria for intelligence, if purple is your favorite color and you like to collect mugs, you are smarter than 101% of everyone.

[Anonymous No.7950467]

>>7950443
>if purple is your favorite color and you like to collect mugs, you are smarter than 101% of everyone.
irrelevant idiocy

> I'm not even against believing you if you want to actually talk about why you think what you are saying.
because mathematics is difficult to understand and the ones who perform better are therefore likely to be more intelligent.

btw I wasn't the original guy who made that claim, I was just pointing out that you're being an annoying nitpicker by giving an irrelevant and anecdote. if you made an argument for mathematics grads being of average intelligence I wouldn't have called out your dumb arse.

[Anonymous No.7950479]

>>7945044
This entire hypothesis could be reduced to "people who are different feel alienated / enjoy socialising less." It's not even intelligence specific.

[Anonymous No.7950542]

>>7950143
>any claim I've ever seen of being "smarter than average" has been met with this sort of response

They're dicking with you, mate. For as much as /sci/ shits on psychology for practicing "magical" thinking, there is nothing particularly magical or rarefied about intelligence as a trait.

Most intelligence tests are normed to produce a normal distribution of scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. "Smart" is obviously a subjective term, but above average, by definition, implies an IQ greater than 100, or above the 50th percentile. Score conversion equations relating GRE and SAT to IQ have been developed and are routinely used in public policy and epidemiological studies.

"Good college material" has in some places been defined using a lower bound of 115 (84th percentile of intelligence). Ivy League material has been defined as approximately the top centile (99th percentile) of individuals. The Von Neumann's, Dirac's, and Feynman's who get held up as a standard here are literally one in a million, if not rarer. Statistically, it is unlikely that somebody of such ability has ever been on here ,a likely point of likely butthurt given that this board is one big intellectual circlejerk.

[Anonymous No.7950569]

>>7950542

ivy league material means nepotism and a rich daddy

[Anonymous No.7950577]

>>7950542
to be pedantic, 4chan gets millions of viewers so even a one in a million person may run across the board eventually

but I agree with you otherwise

[Anonymous No.7950578]

>>7950170
>>7950265
> if you achieve a bachelors in any STEM, you are probably smarter than 80% of the population

Holy shit. You guys are delusional. This is equivalent to saying that 20 out of every 100 people in the population at large should be candidates for STEM education. That is even less stringent than what is regarded as the cutoff for "good college material" in general by intelligence researchers such as Michael Hernstein and Charles Murray.

The criterion for intelligence posed by most people on /sci/ would serve as a filter for all but those above the 99th percentile. Totally unrealistic and unnecessary expectations that will do nothing but make you feel miserable and perpetually inadequate in your work if you take them seriously.

[Anonymous No.7950588]

>>7950467
>irrelevant idiocy
Chill, it's a joke. He's talking rubbish without backing it. That is the point.
>because mathematics is difficult to understand and the ones who perform better are therefore likely to be more intelligent.
It's not that fucking difficult if you can get a bachelor's degree in it without even understanding the concept of n unique equations being necessary to solve for n variables. I'm sure most math majors do understand this, but the point is that they don't even need to. All you need to do to get a math degree is to have an interest in math, and having an interest in math doesn't make you the smartest fag ever to walk the planet. College is easy, and his percents are laughable.

[Anonymous No.7950747]

>>7950569
Kek. Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure the next Feynman is an under-recognized genius currently slumming it at Shitsville State.

The reality is that Ivy schools are more efficient than ever at concentrating the best talent in the US and abroad at their institutions. Diversity enrollment initiatives and legacy preferences may make things less than entirely meritocratic, but they do not significantly change this fact.

[Anonymous No.7951339]

>>7945049

/thread and Sage this stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.7951342]

>>7945231

How's about being happier from less social interactions because when people know that you're smart the will attempt to exploit you at every opportunity.

When people know you're intelligent their default when around you will be depending on your knowledge rather than thinking for themselves. It's fucking annoying.

[Anonymous No.7951969]

>>7950747
What is the SD in this?

[Anonymous No.7952003]

>>7945447
>In a social setting, you can have intellectual discussion but it can never go any deeper than whatever comes off the top of everyone's head
>discussion
>round-robin memeing
>discussion
>intellectual

[Anonymous No.7952009]

>>7947145
>>7945371
this. good luck finding skilled people you can tolerate though.

[Anonymous No.7952019]

Maybe it's because intelligent people might miss their other interests.. I'll use myself as an example. Back in the first term at university, I socialised a hell of a lot more than I usually do. I missed reading and writing and my other interests, and by the end of term I was burnt out as fuck despite having more social confidence. It sucks because I'd like to have more close friends but it's just impossible; I need my alone time. This may change somewhat if I have friends with the same interests as me.

[Anonymous No.7952022]

>>7945384
Not true; the smoking area exists. I mean maybe it's different in places that aren't Oxford but I've met some really interesting people outside a club.

[Anonymous No.7952024]

>>7945371
This. I can't handle inane conversations. Makes me think of Roosevelt's quote:
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
But then again I think I'm better than other people

[Anonymous No.7952030]

>>7947153
forming the ideas to a level they can be communicated to another person means developing your ideas to a level that can be easily criticized and worked with. you bypass a lot of weird assumptions in your mind that form mental blocks and such.

[Anonymous No.7952157]

>>7945044
This is the validation I've wanted.

[Anonymous No.7953715]

I have aspergers and I can't stand people. It's not intelligence, it's a mental illness. You're not special, and you're most likely stupid.

[Anonymous No.7953738]

>>7950170
prodigious not prodigal you ape

[Anonymous No.7953741]

>>7952022
of course you're going to meet interesting and intelligent people in fucking oxford. Most people don't go to a top university which means its pretty hard to meet people that are interesting.

[Anonymous No.7953849]

>>7950747
They might have used an inflated SAT IQ conversion. Gonna need a source on this.

2.8 SDs away from the mean indicate an IQ of about 145 (SD 15). I go to one and trust me, the average Ivy kid is not that smart. Okay maybe the mean can be that high but the median is definately not more than 130.

Trust me, the smart ones are bloody prodigies but there are plenty of sharp minds that are not quite geniuses especially if you look toward the humanities department (the top 5 percentile of English grads are still definitely smarter than most of you reading this though)

Also, student athletes.

If we're talking grad students in math at an Ivy though that is a whole diff ball game.

[Anonymous No.7953855]

>>7945231
>"Smart" people are smart because they are in the habit of reading and learning things on a daily basis.
That's not true. Smart people are smart because some quirk of upbringing and genetics allows them to mentally model/compress/generalize/whatever concepts of some common form better than the average person.