File: 1626873155918.jpg (224.17 KB, 1600x900, 16:9, daria-watching-recommendat….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
It's horrible to see how everyone fawns over-educated academics and their titles, thinking education means one is intelligent, mature and wise.I got to know a professor of literature on /lit/ and he was just your basic, entitled, tantruming 4chan poster with little insight on human life beyond his own experience. This opened my eyes.Doctors are the worst. They worship succubi and get all the glory in society, but the hidden truth is that med students are the biggest party animals and worst turbo normies. They enroll in med school to get status money and pussy. That pretty much says all about their character. Smarter people choose math and physics. But not even a degree in physics guarantees you're an actual seeker of truth. I'm actually an ex physics student so please take that into consideration before you think it's clever to mention Dunning-Kruger.
I'm not posting this out of arrogance or a false sense of superiority I actually think I'm some sort of a brainlet That's exactly what makes me sad beyond words to see that everyone I've ever respected turns out to be more emotional and more prone to logical fallacies than me. It's like there's no hope. All my life I've wanted humans to be smart so bad Only people who have almost died seem to have grasped actual wisdom Education has nothing to do with it.
As a Wiz. do you think you're smarter than the average normalfag despite not doing good at school?
I'm not posting this out of arrogance or a false sense of superiority I actually think I'm some sort of a brainlet That's exactly what makes me sad beyond words to see that everyone I've ever respected turns out to be more emotional and more prone to logical fallacies than me. It's like there's no hope. All my life I've wanted humans to be smart so bad Only people who have almost died seem to have grasped actual wisdom Education has nothing to do with it.
As a Wiz. do you think you're smarter than the average normalfag despite not doing good at school?
In terms of intelligence, STEM majors will always be higher on the ladder than everyone else. That's just how it is. I cringe whenever I read about someone who majors in geography, history, literature, etc. Personally, I want to have an education that challenges me and makes me think about how to solve complex problems, otherwise I'd get bored pretty quickly.
>>182092
I'd also like to point out that it's depressing to see that even theoretical physics students just drink and fucc all the time and have very immature opinions on politics, human life and philosophy. It's like calculus is all they're good at.
I feel like I'm the only actual autistic robot on the campus.
I'd also like to point out that it's depressing to see that even theoretical physics students just drink and fucc all the time and have very immature opinions on politics, human life and philosophy. It's like calculus is all they're good at.
I feel like I'm the only actual autistic robot on the campus.
>>182092
TFW a PhD guy sees pedos on the news and goes on an emotional tantrum where is no longer able to think rationally.
Surpassing this sad state is not autism, it's just superiority.
TFW a PhD guy sees pedos on the news and goes on an emotional tantrum where is no longer able to think rationally.
Surpassing this sad state is not autism, it's just superiority.
lately im feeling that people just choose math or physics because they're boring losers who have nothing interesting about themselves
>>182100
(yes this post is partly about you joseph, if you're reading this. fuck you btw youre an idiot)
(yes this post is partly about you joseph, if you're reading this. fuck you btw youre an idiot)
>>182092
also its funny that people think a smarter person would choose to stusy physics or math, when they are basically dooming themselves to a life of poverty.
if they were smart they'd be engineers or computer programmers or lawyers or doctors.
also its funny that people think a smarter person would choose to stusy physics or math, when they are basically dooming themselves to a life of poverty.
if they were smart they'd be engineers or computer programmers or lawyers or doctors.
File: 1626880193051.gif (21.72 KB, 535x660, 107:132, c543026a122b52ce5e6424c743….gif) ImgOps iqdb
>>182094
>I cringe whenever I read about someone who majors in history
Man, I just wanted to study something and work in a profession that interests me, why so rude?
>I cringe whenever I read about someone who majors in history
Man, I just wanted to study something and work in a profession that interests me, why so rude?
>>182103
he's just being a pretentious faggot dude. Trying to act smart because like I said, he is uninteresting.
he's just being a pretentious faggot dude. Trying to act smart because like I said, he is uninteresting.
>>182103
>work in a profession that interests me
There are tons of grads who are either unemployed or work in McJobs for exactly the reason you're stating. Around 95% of these cases involve a liberal arts degree. You don't go to college to study something you enjoy. You go there to learn about how to escape poverty. Unless you're already rich, then carry on.
>work in a profession that interests me
There are tons of grads who are either unemployed or work in McJobs for exactly the reason you're stating. Around 95% of these cases involve a liberal arts degree. You don't go to college to study something you enjoy. You go there to learn about how to escape poverty. Unless you're already rich, then carry on.
everyone ITT needs to realize that the term normal and normalfag also applies to educated people. Introverts and “wizards” will always be the minority in every setting, it’s just a fact of life.
To answer OP, I did reasonably well in school and do think I’m smarter than the average person.
>>182103
There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just like the other have said though, there’s no job for history majors. Now if you went back to school and earned a high degree and stayed in academia, then you could make some money using a history degree. But that requires more education and for you to basically stay within the academic realm which can be suffering. Also you’d have to learn to write, a lot. Your job would be writing.
To answer OP, I did reasonably well in school and do think I’m smarter than the average person.
>>182103
There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just like the other have said though, there’s no job for history majors. Now if you went back to school and earned a high degree and stayed in academia, then you could make some money using a history degree. But that requires more education and for you to basically stay within the academic realm which can be suffering. Also you’d have to learn to write, a lot. Your job would be writing.
>>182107
I come from a long lineage of non-commercial uneducated Southern European farmers who have accomplished nothing but provide enough food for themselves at the end of the harvest. Am I retarded for thinking I have a chance at success with such poor slave genetics?
I come from a long lineage of non-commercial uneducated Southern European farmers who have accomplished nothing but provide enough food for themselves at the end of the harvest. Am I retarded for thinking I have a chance at success with such poor slave genetics?
More often than not, success in education and academia is merely an indication that you have the kind of personality that can follow rules and muster up sterile motivation to memorize and regurgitate arbitrary information. You obviously can't be a complete retard, but education mostly rewards obedience. Even in my university days, the problems and exams were formulaic and one only needed to go through enough of them, memorize the general pattern and also go to every class as the professor often chunks out bits of information that aren't available anywhere else, perhaps as a way to reward the most obedient students.
In my experience, the people that got the best grades were often very average, but had a knack for studying, doing all the homework and trying to please the teacher. I often excelled in certain subjects like math and computer science without much effort and needing only to follow along on the lesson, but had a nasty aversion to subjects like history, where examination always boiled down to orally presenting a story, remembering dates and numbers like the amount of people who died in battle. I wasn't lazy or stupid, but simply found it difficult to justify my interest and effort in such a subject, at least not beyond having a high grade which failed to drive me towards doing the work.
One can safely conclude that intelligence does not equal education, but certainly some base amount is required. Having a degree is often just an indicator that you were willing to do the work required and your employer can be somewhat sure that you will do what he needs as well.
In my experience, the people that got the best grades were often very average, but had a knack for studying, doing all the homework and trying to please the teacher. I often excelled in certain subjects like math and computer science without much effort and needing only to follow along on the lesson, but had a nasty aversion to subjects like history, where examination always boiled down to orally presenting a story, remembering dates and numbers like the amount of people who died in battle. I wasn't lazy or stupid, but simply found it difficult to justify my interest and effort in such a subject, at least not beyond having a high grade which failed to drive me towards doing the work.
One can safely conclude that intelligence does not equal education, but certainly some base amount is required. Having a degree is often just an indicator that you were willing to do the work required and your employer can be somewhat sure that you will do what he needs as well.
>>182122
>the problems and exams were formulaic and one only needed to go through enough of them, memorize the general pattern
So you are saying that what you studied in college was not abstract?
>the problems and exams were formulaic and one only needed to go through enough of them, memorize the general pattern
So you are saying that what you studied in college was not abstract?
>>182123
There was no attempt to teach students a higher, deeper understanding of the subject matter. All my classes followed a general pattern of theory and practice, which were taught by different people, a professor and his assistants respectively. The theoretical classes were simply presenting what was already in the textbook and practice was generally going over all the types of problems one would encounter on an exam. If you were brilliant, you could come to that deep understanding using your own resources and approach, but everyone else simply had to memorize and repeat hoping down the line that the deeper gestalt would somehow materialize if all the smaller pieces were present. It often took me years to understand the deeper implication of something I learned to calculate using an algorithm. I could tell you the definition, list out some theorems, apply it correctly to a problem, but there was always a sense that something was missing. In general, I've felt like my schooling was largely a waste of time, an exercise in bureaucracy, getting enough required "points" to get to the next stage and get a piece of paper.
There was no attempt to teach students a higher, deeper understanding of the subject matter. All my classes followed a general pattern of theory and practice, which were taught by different people, a professor and his assistants respectively. The theoretical classes were simply presenting what was already in the textbook and practice was generally going over all the types of problems one would encounter on an exam. If you were brilliant, you could come to that deep understanding using your own resources and approach, but everyone else simply had to memorize and repeat hoping down the line that the deeper gestalt would somehow materialize if all the smaller pieces were present. It often took me years to understand the deeper implication of something I learned to calculate using an algorithm. I could tell you the definition, list out some theorems, apply it correctly to a problem, but there was always a sense that something was missing. In general, I've felt like my schooling was largely a waste of time, an exercise in bureaucracy, getting enough required "points" to get to the next stage and get a piece of paper.
>>182124
Well I learned math in college. Some of what I learned is applicable in understanding abstract reasoning. What did you study in college?
Well I learned math in college. Some of what I learned is applicable in understanding abstract reasoning. What did you study in college?
>>182126
Computer science, but I ended up dropping out in my third year because I found a job. Like I said, I think education and academia requires a certain kind of personality. I always find it easier to learn when subject matter is directly applicable to some kind of problem I'm trying to solve, rather than purely something needed to pass an exam. I haven't regretted my decision to abandon higher education and I've found actual employment to be an infinitely more rewarding experience.
Computer science, but I ended up dropping out in my third year because I found a job. Like I said, I think education and academia requires a certain kind of personality. I always find it easier to learn when subject matter is directly applicable to some kind of problem I'm trying to solve, rather than purely something needed to pass an exam. I haven't regretted my decision to abandon higher education and I've found actual employment to be an infinitely more rewarding experience.
>>182114
>>182120
Things are actually looking up I'd say. I've specialised in a field that has a shortage of teachers here where I live, so I was already told that there's a good chance that I'm getting employed. I'm also a reservist transating stuff for my countries army during the summer breaks, so I'm not keeping all my eggs in one basket.
>>182120
Things are actually looking up I'd say. I've specialised in a field that has a shortage of teachers here where I live, so I was already told that there's a good chance that I'm getting employed. I'm also a reservist transating stuff for my countries army during the summer breaks, so I'm not keeping all my eggs in one basket.
>>182124
This is the problem with current education (though it may have always been like this I don’t know). The bar has been continually raised (or rather lowered?) so that now college is considered the minimum you need for a “good job”. And so college is just high school now. They are just degree mills, they exist to give out pieces of paper, not advance a field or generate knowledge. I still maintain that in graduate studies this is not the case, and it is much harder to get by with just turning in formulaic answers, but undergraduate studies are just high school for another 4 years.
This is the problem with current education (though it may have always been like this I don’t know). The bar has been continually raised (or rather lowered?) so that now college is considered the minimum you need for a “good job”. And so college is just high school now. They are just degree mills, they exist to give out pieces of paper, not advance a field or generate knowledge. I still maintain that in graduate studies this is not the case, and it is much harder to get by with just turning in formulaic answers, but undergraduate studies are just high school for another 4 years.
File: 1627142456473.mp4 (8.62 MB, 540x960, 9:16, 1626487803486.mp4) ImgOps iqdb
>do you think you're smarter than the average normalfag despite not doing good at school?
im smarter according to my psychologist iq test. Not that I care, it's more important to have healthy genes and a relaxed personality to get the most out of life. Being neurotic, full of anxiety, and intelligent would suck. Being neurotic, anxious, depressed, and low iq must be hell.
im smarter according to my psychologist iq test. Not that I care, it's more important to have healthy genes and a relaxed personality to get the most out of life. Being neurotic, full of anxiety, and intelligent would suck. Being neurotic, anxious, depressed, and low iq must be hell.
Dead average or a bit below average intelligence. I have learning and emotional disabilities. My self awareness is high enough to see the farce but I all I can do is screech and mope.
>>182263
Actually think it's worse being high IQ and neurotic, you'll always call out your own copes so few of them will actually work. Be low IQ and you can readily delude yourself into a more comfortable state of mind.
Actually think it's worse being high IQ and neurotic, you'll always call out your own copes so few of them will actually work. Be low IQ and you can readily delude yourself into a more comfortable state of mind.
Definitively below average. I have a really hard time solving problems and im also the kind of person who's completely lacking on wits. (Also, im too much of a coward to rely on myself so i allways look up to others)
Im very good at bullshitting tho
In general, i absolutely hate the piece of garbage that i am and im glad one day im going to die. Soon, hopefully
Im very good at bullshitting tho
In general, i absolutely hate the piece of garbage that i am and im glad one day im going to die. Soon, hopefully
>>182122
>>182124
This is the cold hard truth that I learned as I went through a STEM education. A degree is effectively a certificate of complacency.
Having taught a couple of courses, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, I could reliably notice that while succubi outperform men, this was entirely due to complacency. Men were consistently more stubborn, choosing to figure out things for themselves, or try things in a different way. And unfortunately, the grading systems don't look positively at such things.
>>182124
This is the cold hard truth that I learned as I went through a STEM education. A degree is effectively a certificate of complacency.
Having taught a couple of courses, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, I could reliably notice that while succubi outperform men, this was entirely due to complacency. Men were consistently more stubborn, choosing to figure out things for themselves, or try things in a different way. And unfortunately, the grading systems don't look positively at such things.
>>182263
>Being neurotic, anxious, depressed, and low iq must be hell
I am honestly skeptic if such a combination is even possible. Both depression and anxiety require a high level of self-awareness and pattern recognition, both traits not commonly found in 'dumb' people.
>Being neurotic, anxious, depressed, and low iq must be hell
I am honestly skeptic if such a combination is even possible. Both depression and anxiety require a high level of self-awareness and pattern recognition, both traits not commonly found in 'dumb' people.
>>182942
I can tell you from experience that that combination is very possible. It may not be common, but its there.
I can tell you from experience that that combination is very possible. It may not be common, but its there.
>>182942
Being depressed and average iq is extremely common and it's almost as bad as being depressed + low iq.
It's similar to how attractiveness works. If ur ugly or average it doesn't matter because both aren't getting above average partners. Low iq and average iq people aren't getting well paid jobs in similar fashion.
Being depressed and average iq is extremely common and it's almost as bad as being depressed + low iq.
It's similar to how attractiveness works. If ur ugly or average it doesn't matter because both aren't getting above average partners. Low iq and average iq people aren't getting well paid jobs in similar fashion.
>>182092
What I hate is the lack of passion in academia. Often the people I was around with saw university as a stepping stone in their life. Never had they shown any remote interest in the things they were learning. Only as things to be memorized and recited on an exam
What I hate is the lack of passion in academia. Often the people I was around with saw university as a stepping stone in their life. Never had they shown any remote interest in the things they were learning. Only as things to be memorized and recited on an exam
In the USA you are basically treated like a leper if you don't have at least a bachelors. Your only way to make a good living without an education is to have some type of serious skilled trade, or you're a sales guy. Other than that you're basically stuck working $15/hr wagie type jobs. That's where I am at, and I can tell you its not fun. Not only do I hate my job, but I am treated like a peon by society. And despite working full time I can hardly afford my own place.
>>183093
Even manager jobs at restaurant chains will start requiring a lot of experience or a bachelors
Even manager jobs at restaurant chains will start requiring a lot of experience or a bachelors
>>183093
A lot of these college grads not only fail to get a better job but are also stuck with loans. Often a lose lose situation
A lot of these college grads not only fail to get a better job but are also stuck with loans. Often a lose lose situation
>>183450
actually its the opposite. more jobs are hiring without a bachelors since its so oversatured. most jobs are bachelors preferred now.
actually its the opposite. more jobs are hiring without a bachelors since its so oversatured. most jobs are bachelors preferred now.
>>182094
I'm a STEM graduate and I think my "intelligence" is more akin to autistic savantism. I am in every respect, with the exception of my ability to manipulate mathematical expressions and program code, an idiot. My fluency with language? Another form of savantism. I am like one of those language-model AIs that superficially appear like intelligent beings at first glance.
I'm a STEM graduate and I think my "intelligence" is more akin to autistic savantism. I am in every respect, with the exception of my ability to manipulate mathematical expressions and program code, an idiot. My fluency with language? Another form of savantism. I am like one of those language-model AIs that superficially appear like intelligent beings at first glance.
>>182092
>As a Wiz. do you think you're smarter than the average normalfag despite not doing good at school?
But did good at school until the state of things catched up to me and threw me into depression and apathy.
>As a Wiz. do you think you're smarter than the average normalfag despite not doing good at school?
But did good at school until the state of things catched up to me and threw me into depression and apathy.
>>182122
Well we liberal arts types think of ourselves as the pure souls who study without need of a monetary reward career, but out of love of learning, while you STEMs are the robots
Well we liberal arts types think of ourselves as the pure souls who study without need of a monetary reward career, but out of love of learning, while you STEMs are the robots
File: 1635450049590.jpg (326.06 KB, 869x3565, 869:3565, awdad.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
hot take: if you didn't get good grades in school, you're either dumb or not conscientious . this goes double for amerifats who have it easy in school.
social sciences are definitely a grade below sciences. in science what you think about a rule doesn't change it, so if you're wrong reality will slap you in the face. with social sciences what you think and do has effects on the real world, so there is a level of uncertainty involved in your methods. also, the social sciences have been ruined by leftists and midwits.
for uni go STEM or go home. economics/finance, philosophy are acceptable
only go into bio/chem if you want to go into academia or be a doctor
social sciences are definitely a grade below sciences. in science what you think about a rule doesn't change it, so if you're wrong reality will slap you in the face. with social sciences what you think and do has effects on the real world, so there is a level of uncertainty involved in your methods. also, the social sciences have been ruined by leftists and midwits.
for uni go STEM or go home. economics/finance, philosophy are acceptable
only go into bio/chem if you want to go into academia or be a doctor
>>184947
The only thing you need to be good at school is the ability and willingness to mindlessly follow orders with zeal. It's basically a way to train children into becoming good worker drones.
The only thing you need to be good at school is the ability and willingness to mindlessly follow orders with zeal. It's basically a way to train children into becoming good worker drones.
File: 1635487813628.png (4.03 KB, 342x354, 57:59, vopr.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>184947
The relationship between IQ and academic success is largely circular, since they both rely on the same kind of unsophisticated tests to evaluate people and select for obedient, pencil-pushing drones. The same applies to military success since they use similar IQ-style tests for advancement.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
The relationship between IQ and academic success is largely circular, since they both rely on the same kind of unsophisticated tests to evaluate people and select for obedient, pencil-pushing drones. The same applies to military success since they use similar IQ-style tests for advancement.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
File: 1635501829710.png (25.17 KB, 610x375, 122:75, h5rehrth.PNG) ImgOps iqdb
>>184970
iq correlates to basically any measure of not being a degenerate. even high iq people don't slut themselves out, normally that's what midwits do. as for the tests themselves, the questions are designed to be relatively unfamiliar (like raven's progressive matrices or spacial reasoning) so that people are on even ground in terms of experience.
anyway, no idea why im arguing with some coping midwit. just wasting time i guess.
iq correlates to basically any measure of not being a degenerate. even high iq people don't slut themselves out, normally that's what midwits do. as for the tests themselves, the questions are designed to be relatively unfamiliar (like raven's progressive matrices or spacial reasoning) so that people are on even ground in terms of experience.
anyway, no idea why im arguing with some coping midwit. just wasting time i guess.
>>184971
The thing about IQ is that it's a terrible measure, but it's relatively good at measuring extreme unintelligence and general learning disabilities if you score below a certain value. This is because a stupid person will likely fail at any task you give him, so you don't even need a "sophisticated" IQ test for that. You could, in principle, give someone Candy Crush and if they fail to make score above a certain value, it can be a sign of a learning/mental disability. And you could then smugly make a correlation between being a "degenerate" (general stupidity) and failing to make more than X points in Candy Crush.
The other side of the IQ scale is a different story tho, as the sharp correlation in the lower end of the scale basically turns into random noise, and suddenly you have 145+ IQ alcoholics and 115 billioners. Getting a high IQ score, after a certain point, shows only one thing - that you are good at doing IQ tests (and similar tests).
Read the Taleb article, it points out a lot of flaws in IQ as a measure that "midwits" like you like to ignore for the sake of some dick measuring contest. I happen to score in the 99th percentile of any IQ test you can give me, but I would be embarrassed to advertise this fact or god forbid, get a Mensa membership and parade my complete lack of achievements alongside a consolation prize of being "very smart" according to SCIENCE™.
The thing about IQ is that it's a terrible measure, but it's relatively good at measuring extreme unintelligence and general learning disabilities if you score below a certain value. This is because a stupid person will likely fail at any task you give him, so you don't even need a "sophisticated" IQ test for that. You could, in principle, give someone Candy Crush and if they fail to make score above a certain value, it can be a sign of a learning/mental disability. And you could then smugly make a correlation between being a "degenerate" (general stupidity) and failing to make more than X points in Candy Crush.
The other side of the IQ scale is a different story tho, as the sharp correlation in the lower end of the scale basically turns into random noise, and suddenly you have 145+ IQ alcoholics and 115 billioners. Getting a high IQ score, after a certain point, shows only one thing - that you are good at doing IQ tests (and similar tests).
Read the Taleb article, it points out a lot of flaws in IQ as a measure that "midwits" like you like to ignore for the sake of some dick measuring contest. I happen to score in the 99th percentile of any IQ test you can give me, but I would be embarrassed to advertise this fact or god forbid, get a Mensa membership and parade my complete lack of achievements alongside a consolation prize of being "very smart" according to SCIENCE™.
>>184973
>There is no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth.
why should it?
>National IQ is a Fraud
It is a meme, but not for the reasons he states. Can't be fucked to correct him.
>Additional Variance
It is true that you can see a large amount of variation for scores near the extremes, though that is to be expected based on the fact that is literally regression to the mean. Why does this idiot think that the variance of iq tests would increase as iq increases? Either way iq tests do contain a disturbing amount of variance, about 10 points, which should be addressed.
>There is no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth.
why should it?
>National IQ is a Fraud
It is a meme, but not for the reasons he states. Can't be fucked to correct him.
>Additional Variance
It is true that you can see a large amount of variation for scores near the extremes, though that is to be expected based on the fact that is literally regression to the mean. Why does this idiot think that the variance of iq tests would increase as iq increases? Either way iq tests do contain a disturbing amount of variance, about 10 points, which should be addressed.
>>182092
im dumber than the average normgroid, but it is not their "low" intelligence that annoys me, but the lack of depth and lack of interest of going in depth in a given subject, they satisfy themselves with a bunch of things they memorized, but it is easy to notice that none of what they say is connected to a greater structure of knowledge by asking questions directed to the fundamentals
normgroids will refuse to go there, the thinking man will either humble himself for not knowing or present to you the fundamentals of what he is talking about and "connect" it to what he talked about, kind of like explaining why 2 + 2 = 4 using peano's axioms
im dumber than the average normgroid, but it is not their "low" intelligence that annoys me, but the lack of depth and lack of interest of going in depth in a given subject, they satisfy themselves with a bunch of things they memorized, but it is easy to notice that none of what they say is connected to a greater structure of knowledge by asking questions directed to the fundamentals
normgroids will refuse to go there, the thinking man will either humble himself for not knowing or present to you the fundamentals of what he is talking about and "connect" it to what he talked about, kind of like explaining why 2 + 2 = 4 using peano's axioms
There don't seem to be many undereducated or poorly-performing wizards, judging from the content of this thread.
>>185221
theres that unwarranted sense of superiority you collegefags love to flaunt about so much
theres that unwarranted sense of superiority you collegefags love to flaunt about so much
File: 1636439707619.png (30.95 KB, 923x230, 923:230, main-qimg-0172ef2548ac4e45….png) ImgOps iqdb
>>184970
>The relationship between IQ and academic success is largely circular, since they both rely on the same kind of unsophisticated tests to evaluate people and select for obedient, pencil-pushing drones
le taleb regurgitator has arrived
obviously, people with good wordsum and digit span scores simply *must* be conformist robots, right?
…actually, no… IQ is positively associated with risk-taking behavior, entrepeneurship, propensity to become a leader, mental nonconformity, and critical thinking.
>>184973
>Getting a high IQ score, after a certain point, shows only one thing - that you are good at doing IQ tests (and similar tests).
Wow holy shit a cognitive test that correlates to nothing at all in the real world? wow that would be a first lol
of course actually, no, it correlates positively with job performance, income, conscientiousness, the aforementioned mental traits. and it's obvious to even the most casual student of the subject that the greats in any intellectual field such as math/science etc are all geniuses. even Feynman who is famous for his 'low' IQ of 125 was in the 95th percentile lol. see pic related, mean IQs for nobel prize winners. is the fact that people in this group have IQs fucking FOUR standard deviations above the mean supposed to be some kind of coincidence? i don't even feel like calculating the p value for that lol.
what's silly about all this is that Taleb is certainly included in this group. he is a smart guy, and I'm not going to call him stupid no matter how wrong and stupid his arguments with regard to this subject are. I have to assume he's either engaging in motivated thinking (taking IQ (or rather, intelligence) seriously leads many to depressing and not necessarily accurate conclusions), or else just blustering in public to try and dunk on IQ tests for brownie points regardless of his personal feelings. he's pretty bombastic so I assume it's the former.
Silly arguments to the effect of "There are billionaires with 115 IQ, and useless NEETs with 160, so obviously IQ tests don't measure intelligence" can be rendered much more accurately as "There are billionaires with 115 IQ and useless neets with 160; turns out, intelligence isn't perfectly deterministic with regard to life outcomes. (And the path to billionairedom in particular is fraught with stochasticity.)
I've always wondered what it is that makes IQ denialists think that high intelligence for some reason just can't be measured, or tested for, like, at all? Some people are particularly quick and clear thinkers and others, well, aren't. You can tell as much just from having conversations with people, it never should have become this weird controversial topic.
>The relationship between IQ and academic success is largely circular, since they both rely on the same kind of unsophisticated tests to evaluate people and select for obedient, pencil-pushing drones
le taleb regurgitator has arrived
obviously, people with good wordsum and digit span scores simply *must* be conformist robots, right?
…actually, no… IQ is positively associated with risk-taking behavior, entrepeneurship, propensity to become a leader, mental nonconformity, and critical thinking.
>>184973
>Getting a high IQ score, after a certain point, shows only one thing - that you are good at doing IQ tests (and similar tests).
Wow holy shit a cognitive test that correlates to nothing at all in the real world? wow that would be a first lol
of course actually, no, it correlates positively with job performance, income, conscientiousness, the aforementioned mental traits. and it's obvious to even the most casual student of the subject that the greats in any intellectual field such as math/science etc are all geniuses. even Feynman who is famous for his 'low' IQ of 125 was in the 95th percentile lol. see pic related, mean IQs for nobel prize winners. is the fact that people in this group have IQs fucking FOUR standard deviations above the mean supposed to be some kind of coincidence? i don't even feel like calculating the p value for that lol.
what's silly about all this is that Taleb is certainly included in this group. he is a smart guy, and I'm not going to call him stupid no matter how wrong and stupid his arguments with regard to this subject are. I have to assume he's either engaging in motivated thinking (taking IQ (or rather, intelligence) seriously leads many to depressing and not necessarily accurate conclusions), or else just blustering in public to try and dunk on IQ tests for brownie points regardless of his personal feelings. he's pretty bombastic so I assume it's the former.
Silly arguments to the effect of "There are billionaires with 115 IQ, and useless NEETs with 160, so obviously IQ tests don't measure intelligence" can be rendered much more accurately as "There are billionaires with 115 IQ and useless neets with 160; turns out, intelligence isn't perfectly deterministic with regard to life outcomes. (And the path to billionairedom in particular is fraught with stochasticity.)
I've always wondered what it is that makes IQ denialists think that high intelligence for some reason just can't be measured, or tested for, like, at all? Some people are particularly quick and clear thinkers and others, well, aren't. You can tell as much just from having conversations with people, it never should have become this weird controversial topic.
File: 1636441095444.jpg (309.32 KB, 1500x1879, 1500:1879, math anime girl.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>182092
>I'm actually an ex physics student so please take that into consideration before you think it's clever to mention Dunning-Kruger.
From how you phrased it, I'm taking it that you dropped out before graduation, so Dunning-Kruger and Nietzschean ressentiment sound spot-on.
>I'm not posting this out of arrogance or a false sense of superiority I actually think I'm some sort of a brainlet
>That's exactly what makes me sad beyond words to see that everyone I've ever respected turns out to be more emotional and more prone to logical fallacies than me
So basically you're claiming you're a brainlet but it just so happens that everyone else (even people more qualified than you) is even MORE retarded than you? Isn't that a not-so-subtle way to claim that you are actually smart, at least by comparison? Don't pretend to be humble when you're actually a narcissist.
>As a Wiz. do you think you're smarter than the average normalfag despite not doing good at school?
The only thing that makes me smarter is having figured out that marriage (and succubi in general) is a scam.
You seem to worship mathematics and STEM in general in the same way that some normies worship chess: as glorified intellectual pissing contest where people can show off how "smart" they are.
It is unwise to remain completely ignorant of math and physics, but past a certain point it is a soul-crushing endeavor to keep digging deeper and deeper. Becoming a specialist in some esoteric field of advanced mathematics is pure suicide fuel unless you're a turbo-autist and/or you want to become famous at all costs and be recognized as "smart" by the international community.
You are likely to be happy by devoting yourself to a less demanding (even if less prestigious) job and studying history and philosophy instead. The humanities suit your human nature much more than becoming some automatic theorem machine who takes coffee and meth as input and produces mathematical proofs as output.
Scientists and mathematicians are among the most miserable and boring people in the world and your idealized view of them is detached from reality. Read G. H. Hardy's short book, A Mathematician's Apology. The preface by C. P. Snow is particularly illuminating as he offers a short biography of Hardy's miserable life (which ended in a botched suicide attempt and a slow death at the hospital). Hardy was one of the greatest mathematicians of his times but he was as far from happiness as the most distant stars are from us. It's funny that he admitted that he decided to become a mathematician out of the sense of superiority he got to feel when he was in school and could solve problems that his peers were unable to. At the root of many STEM worshipers there is a desire to be praised by their teachers, by their superiors in general. It is a very submissive character marred with low self-esteem and a desire for recognition, which is why it is not unsurprising that a crab like Ted Kaczynski also became a mathematician, and he later denounced math as completely useless after he became Unabomber (Hardy also admits most math is completely useless as much as poetry is).
In conclusion I'm not saying you should drop science and math altogether, but do not bother with becoming a specialist unless you want status and money. That's literally the only kind of people who should specialize in STEM, plus a few autists who should carry out research in pure mathematics. Unless you're a party animal like the med students you described, stay away from medicine; unless you're a turbo-autist who feels miserable if he is not crunching numbers and proving theorems all day, stay away from STEM. The fact you felt the need to make such a thread proves that you're neither of the above; you're more philosophically-minded than scientifically-minded; you enjoy speculation more than calculation.
That being said, I do believe that people who don't know at least calculus (up to Stokes' theorem and basic differential geometry) and some basic physics are subhuman brainlets more akin to monkeys than to actual human beings. But digging any deeper than that is not really worthwhile for most people.
>I'm actually an ex physics student so please take that into consideration before you think it's clever to mention Dunning-Kruger.
From how you phrased it, I'm taking it that you dropped out before graduation, so Dunning-Kruger and Nietzschean ressentiment sound spot-on.
>I'm not posting this out of arrogance or a false sense of superiority I actually think I'm some sort of a brainlet
>That's exactly what makes me sad beyond words to see that everyone I've ever respected turns out to be more emotional and more prone to logical fallacies than me
So basically you're claiming you're a brainlet but it just so happens that everyone else (even people more qualified than you) is even MORE retarded than you? Isn't that a not-so-subtle way to claim that you are actually smart, at least by comparison? Don't pretend to be humble when you're actually a narcissist.
>As a Wiz. do you think you're smarter than the average normalfag despite not doing good at school?
The only thing that makes me smarter is having figured out that marriage (and succubi in general) is a scam.
You seem to worship mathematics and STEM in general in the same way that some normies worship chess: as glorified intellectual pissing contest where people can show off how "smart" they are.
It is unwise to remain completely ignorant of math and physics, but past a certain point it is a soul-crushing endeavor to keep digging deeper and deeper. Becoming a specialist in some esoteric field of advanced mathematics is pure suicide fuel unless you're a turbo-autist and/or you want to become famous at all costs and be recognized as "smart" by the international community.
You are likely to be happy by devoting yourself to a less demanding (even if less prestigious) job and studying history and philosophy instead. The humanities suit your human nature much more than becoming some automatic theorem machine who takes coffee and meth as input and produces mathematical proofs as output.
Scientists and mathematicians are among the most miserable and boring people in the world and your idealized view of them is detached from reality. Read G. H. Hardy's short book, A Mathematician's Apology. The preface by C. P. Snow is particularly illuminating as he offers a short biography of Hardy's miserable life (which ended in a botched suicide attempt and a slow death at the hospital). Hardy was one of the greatest mathematicians of his times but he was as far from happiness as the most distant stars are from us. It's funny that he admitted that he decided to become a mathematician out of the sense of superiority he got to feel when he was in school and could solve problems that his peers were unable to. At the root of many STEM worshipers there is a desire to be praised by their teachers, by their superiors in general. It is a very submissive character marred with low self-esteem and a desire for recognition, which is why it is not unsurprising that a crab like Ted Kaczynski also became a mathematician, and he later denounced math as completely useless after he became Unabomber (Hardy also admits most math is completely useless as much as poetry is).
In conclusion I'm not saying you should drop science and math altogether, but do not bother with becoming a specialist unless you want status and money. That's literally the only kind of people who should specialize in STEM, plus a few autists who should carry out research in pure mathematics. Unless you're a party animal like the med students you described, stay away from medicine; unless you're a turbo-autist who feels miserable if he is not crunching numbers and proving theorems all day, stay away from STEM. The fact you felt the need to make such a thread proves that you're neither of the above; you're more philosophically-minded than scientifically-minded; you enjoy speculation more than calculation.
That being said, I do believe that people who don't know at least calculus (up to Stokes' theorem and basic differential geometry) and some basic physics are subhuman brainlets more akin to monkeys than to actual human beings. But digging any deeper than that is not really worthwhile for most people.
What's the fucking point of this? I'm a 100IQ brainlet but even if I was a 200IQ super genius I would still hate my life and would think about killing myself.
The problem is not that I'm dumb or not, the problem is that the world is designed to make people like me suffer every day.
The problem is not that I'm dumb or not, the problem is that the world is designed to make people like me suffer every day.
>>185229
>Only miserable people with low self esteem would take pride on being math geniuses because the whole field consists of having a desire for recognition
>But if you don't know math to the point of my absolutely arbitrary goalpost then you're a subhuman brainlet akin to a monkey
lmao this thread is pure projection and idiocy, none of you are even that smart, if you were you wouldn't be here shitposting autistically.
>Only miserable people with low self esteem would take pride on being math geniuses because the whole field consists of having a desire for recognition
>But if you don't know math to the point of my absolutely arbitrary goalpost then you're a subhuman brainlet akin to a monkey
lmao this thread is pure projection and idiocy, none of you are even that smart, if you were you wouldn't be here shitposting autistically.
I got like 153 on a test years ago but I'm guessing alcoholism has probably made me average or dumber. Whatever, don't need high IQ to just lie down in a dark room staring at a computer screen all day.
Define "real intelligence". (That's right, you cant).
Many university professors are miserable
> do you think you're smarter than the average normalfag despite not doing good at school?
I did very well and got special treatment as a "gifted" child. Despite this, i am barely functional in this society that requires social ability above all else. It is wrong to say that intelligence is defined by ability to do particular types of academic problem solving that arent even converted into practical success at living
Many university professors are miserable
> do you think you're smarter than the average normalfag despite not doing good at school?
I did very well and got special treatment as a "gifted" child. Despite this, i am barely functional in this society that requires social ability above all else. It is wrong to say that intelligence is defined by ability to do particular types of academic problem solving that arent even converted into practical success at living
File: 1636632140885.jpg (930.22 KB, 2048x1377, 2048:1377, asuka rain coffee.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>185248
>>But if you don't know math to the point of my absolutely arbitrary goalpost then you're a subhuman brainlet akin to a monkey
People get shamed all the time for being ignorant of history or literature, yet it is okay to be ignorant of math and physics, it is even something people brag about.
Read the Two Cultures by C. P. Snow:
>A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: 'Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?'
>I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, 'Can you read?' – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Snow#The_Two_Cultures
There is a double standard in what counts as "general education" nowadays, and however arbitrary my goalpost may be, you've got to draw the line somewhere since clearly nobody can know everything but being an ignorant fool like a medieval peasant is not an attractive option either.
>>But if you don't know math to the point of my absolutely arbitrary goalpost then you're a subhuman brainlet akin to a monkey
People get shamed all the time for being ignorant of history or literature, yet it is okay to be ignorant of math and physics, it is even something people brag about.
Read the Two Cultures by C. P. Snow:
>A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: 'Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?'
>I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, 'Can you read?' – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Snow#The_Two_Cultures
There is a double standard in what counts as "general education" nowadays, and however arbitrary my goalpost may be, you've got to draw the line somewhere since clearly nobody can know everything but being an ignorant fool like a medieval peasant is not an attractive option either.
>>185299
i just now realized how unrelated my post is to yours, but im convinced it is a good one so im going to post it anyway
——————–
>I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration
my dude, this question is harder than the former, because the definition for mass and acceleration will vary a lot depending on whose ideas you consider true, it is as hard as determining whether something is alive or not, let me give you an example
mass is the quantity of resistance of a body against changing its position due to an external force <- depends on newton's laws
mass is the quantity of matter <- matter is undefined, although we know intuitively what it is, aristotle dared to say it is continuous
mass is the quantity of atoms <- this one implies that the atomic theory is true, while the latest development of physics is string theory, where everything is made of strings, not small spheres
i don't think acceleration would be a problem, i haven't given enough thought to it, my point is, be wary of anyone implying that the building blocks of a theory are easy to define
i just now realized how unrelated my post is to yours, but im convinced it is a good one so im going to post it anyway
——————–
>I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration
my dude, this question is harder than the former, because the definition for mass and acceleration will vary a lot depending on whose ideas you consider true, it is as hard as determining whether something is alive or not, let me give you an example
mass is the quantity of resistance of a body against changing its position due to an external force <- depends on newton's laws
mass is the quantity of matter <- matter is undefined, although we know intuitively what it is, aristotle dared to say it is continuous
mass is the quantity of atoms <- this one implies that the atomic theory is true, while the latest development of physics is string theory, where everything is made of strings, not small spheres
i don't think acceleration would be a problem, i haven't given enough thought to it, my point is, be wary of anyone implying that the building blocks of a theory are easy to define
File: 1636734702143.jpg (225.21 KB, 510x800, 51:80, 1567384989399.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>185311
>my dude, this question is harder than the former
You're missing the point. It may be true that a satisfactory answer to that question may be difficult or even impossible to provide, but that's not what he was asking for. He was asking, "What do you MEAN by mass, or acceleration, etc." so his question has to do with the current consensus about the meaning of those terms. Thus a definition in terms of inertia or quantity of matter would have been appropriate. There is no need to go as far afield as invoking something as advanced like string theory (which is still a work in progress and it has little or no experimental evidence, so far as I know). The whole of Newton's mechanics is "wrong" according to our present-day understanding of mechanics, yet Newtonian mechanics is still taught in colleges and engineers use it to build stuff since it is a pretty good approximation for most practical purposes.
The point of the question was about being up-to-date with the most basic concepts of scientific culture (in their most elementary form); it was not about stating incontrovertible truths.
>my dude, this question is harder than the former
You're missing the point. It may be true that a satisfactory answer to that question may be difficult or even impossible to provide, but that's not what he was asking for. He was asking, "What do you MEAN by mass, or acceleration, etc." so his question has to do with the current consensus about the meaning of those terms. Thus a definition in terms of inertia or quantity of matter would have been appropriate. There is no need to go as far afield as invoking something as advanced like string theory (which is still a work in progress and it has little or no experimental evidence, so far as I know). The whole of Newton's mechanics is "wrong" according to our present-day understanding of mechanics, yet Newtonian mechanics is still taught in colleges and engineers use it to build stuff since it is a pretty good approximation for most practical purposes.
The point of the question was about being up-to-date with the most basic concepts of scientific culture (in their most elementary form); it was not about stating incontrovertible truths.
>>185365
literally in the first line i acknowledge my post is unrelated to yours so no, im not missing the point. the author wants to highlight how it is acceptable to be ignorant of the basic laws of classical physics, but you get fiercely shamed for not knowing certain literary works
>There is no need to go as far afield as invoking something as advanced like string theory (which is still a work in progress and it has little or no experimental evidence, so far as I know).
i would call you a jogger and punch you in the face for spitting this """sentence""" in front of me, you are lucky there is an ocean protecting you, kid; scientists should always do their best to always use the proper words to express their findings, im tired of looking up quantum physics articles and the first thing i notice is the author trying to be feynman, meaning he uses meaningless wording such as "quantum physics is the science of the small lamo me smart" or parroting le quantum cat in a box, or exposing the history of it rather than giving you an introduction starting from the current developments
studying this field only to find that there are 1234878239457 variations of it larping as one makes me rage; there is even talk of university professors being unable to see it as an unified field, but rather a bunch of facts disconnected from each other, which doesn't happen in newtonian physics
seriously, screw your joggery
literally in the first line i acknowledge my post is unrelated to yours so no, im not missing the point. the author wants to highlight how it is acceptable to be ignorant of the basic laws of classical physics, but you get fiercely shamed for not knowing certain literary works
>There is no need to go as far afield as invoking something as advanced like string theory (which is still a work in progress and it has little or no experimental evidence, so far as I know).
i would call you a jogger and punch you in the face for spitting this """sentence""" in front of me, you are lucky there is an ocean protecting you, kid; scientists should always do their best to always use the proper words to express their findings, im tired of looking up quantum physics articles and the first thing i notice is the author trying to be feynman, meaning he uses meaningless wording such as "quantum physics is the science of the small lamo me smart" or parroting le quantum cat in a box, or exposing the history of it rather than giving you an introduction starting from the current developments
studying this field only to find that there are 1234878239457 variations of it larping as one makes me rage; there is even talk of university professors being unable to see it as an unified field, but rather a bunch of facts disconnected from each other, which doesn't happen in newtonian physics
seriously, screw your joggery
File: 1636807473420.jpg (292.46 KB, 640x800, 4:5, guenonchad.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>185369
Im sorry wizzie but this guy REFUTED your scientism last century.
This guy is Rene Guenon (PBUH)
Im sorry wizzie but this guy REFUTED your scientism last century.
This guy is Rene Guenon (PBUH)
>>185452
I am not the poster you were orginally applying to but Maths has very little use outside certain specialised fields like becoming a math professor or learning to solve random puzzles or equations for the fun of it.
I am not the poster you were orginally applying to but Maths has very little use outside certain specialised fields like becoming a math professor or learning to solve random puzzles or equations for the fun of it.
>>185452
Math, history, philosophy professors all get the same salary if they are actually dedicated to learning in their field. It is true math has more practical application in the material world. But a true lover of math wouldn't care about that.
Math, history, philosophy professors all get the same salary if they are actually dedicated to learning in their field. It is true math has more practical application in the material world. But a true lover of math wouldn't care about that.
>>185452
>The world belongs to scientists, mathematicians and engineers now.
all just higher level servants working for their masters
>The world belongs to scientists, mathematicians and engineers now.
all just higher level servants working for their masters
>>182092
Equating output to intelligence is where problems start. While intelligence can define the yawning heights of an individual's productivity and creativity, it tends more toward the ease of attaining some relative position when measured against another. In other words, a clever person and a not-so clever person can achieve the same things in life, but the clever person will achieve some arbitrary set of goals more quickly and with greater ease. Moreover, he can likely bring in a degree of abstraction that further aids advancement from plateau to plateu along a learning curve. In the realms of academia, the loudest elements are those with the biggest egos - egos inflated by the amount of hard work they believe has been put into an achievement. It is commendable, but indicative of someone of far lesser intelligence than someone who remains quiet and reaches the same level. Indeed, such quiet, humble individuals will most likely excel to levels way beyond the noisy ones. This works both ways, however. An underachiever who does not act on his intelligence, real or otherwise, can just as easily trap themselves into believing that they -could- do something easily, but just choose not to. Nothing more than chewing gum for the ego.
From many observations over the years, I believe wizzies and the majority of introverts may take particular issue with this sense of false reality in the world, but there are two positive spins on it, depending on your circumstance.
1. Even if you aren't the brightest, you can still achieve anything you want. It just might be more of a challenge to do so. But what you are gifted with is a MUCH easier path to transcendence, for you don't have to achieve as much to gain those intellectual, spritiual, moral or ethical revelations as they come. This is the path of self-improvement manisfest. There's no better feeling, really.
2. Those who really are intellectually superior to others but feel assaulted when faced with these aggressively egotistical lessers can take genuine solace in knowing that they are like cornered wolves, fighting off percieved competition from every area that surrounds them. They're terrified of being found out, of being shot down, of losing what they fought so desparately for and postured past the point of reality. On the odd occasions where you run into someone so blind to their limitations that they actually believe themselves to be extraordinary, pity or scorn is demanded. It's a disaster of a life that they lead. This is also a pretty good feeling - schadenfreude.
Equating output to intelligence is where problems start. While intelligence can define the yawning heights of an individual's productivity and creativity, it tends more toward the ease of attaining some relative position when measured against another. In other words, a clever person and a not-so clever person can achieve the same things in life, but the clever person will achieve some arbitrary set of goals more quickly and with greater ease. Moreover, he can likely bring in a degree of abstraction that further aids advancement from plateau to plateu along a learning curve. In the realms of academia, the loudest elements are those with the biggest egos - egos inflated by the amount of hard work they believe has been put into an achievement. It is commendable, but indicative of someone of far lesser intelligence than someone who remains quiet and reaches the same level. Indeed, such quiet, humble individuals will most likely excel to levels way beyond the noisy ones. This works both ways, however. An underachiever who does not act on his intelligence, real or otherwise, can just as easily trap themselves into believing that they -could- do something easily, but just choose not to. Nothing more than chewing gum for the ego.
From many observations over the years, I believe wizzies and the majority of introverts may take particular issue with this sense of false reality in the world, but there are two positive spins on it, depending on your circumstance.
1. Even if you aren't the brightest, you can still achieve anything you want. It just might be more of a challenge to do so. But what you are gifted with is a MUCH easier path to transcendence, for you don't have to achieve as much to gain those intellectual, spritiual, moral or ethical revelations as they come. This is the path of self-improvement manisfest. There's no better feeling, really.
2. Those who really are intellectually superior to others but feel assaulted when faced with these aggressively egotistical lessers can take genuine solace in knowing that they are like cornered wolves, fighting off percieved competition from every area that surrounds them. They're terrified of being found out, of being shot down, of losing what they fought so desparately for and postured past the point of reality. On the odd occasions where you run into someone so blind to their limitations that they actually believe themselves to be extraordinary, pity or scorn is demanded. It's a disaster of a life that they lead. This is also a pretty good feeling - schadenfreude.
>>185483
math and physics are useless. Engineering only leads to shitty pleb jobs.
If youre not teaching yourself programming when youre 14 years old youre doing it wrong
math and physics are useless. Engineering only leads to shitty pleb jobs.
If youre not teaching yourself programming when youre 14 years old youre doing it wrong
>>182092
Definitely. I have a bachelors in business but i decided about 2 years after i got it that i hated business and decided to pursue cooking. Now I’m a chef making pretty good money in a 3 star with decades of expierence in an actual skill, not just sitting at a desk
Definitely. I have a bachelors in business but i decided about 2 years after i got it that i hated business and decided to pursue cooking. Now I’m a chef making pretty good money in a 3 star with decades of expierence in an actual skill, not just sitting at a desk
>>185229
>At the root of many STEM worshipers there is a desire to be praised by their teachers, by their superiors in general. It is a very submissive character marred with low self-esteem and a desire for recognition, which is why it is not unsurprising that a crab like Ted Kaczynski also became a mathematician, and he later denounced math as completely useless after he became Unabomber (Hardy also admits most math is completely useless as much as poetry is).
LMFAO that is pretty straight on me and most of the students i see
>At the root of many STEM worshipers there is a desire to be praised by their teachers, by their superiors in general. It is a very submissive character marred with low self-esteem and a desire for recognition, which is why it is not unsurprising that a crab like Ted Kaczynski also became a mathematician, and he later denounced math as completely useless after he became Unabomber (Hardy also admits most math is completely useless as much as poetry is).
LMFAO that is pretty straight on me and most of the students i see
>>185486
it was fun honestly.
>>185299
i think there is a lot of value in "stored" memory/intuition vs open memory.
lets say you want to remember the formula for a stats equation. if it's in open memory you directly remember it. if it's in closed memory, you will open a textbook, see the formula, and then the concept behind the theorem becomes clear. this is much more preferable to not knowing the formula in the first place.
you don't have to know the exact details behind every single concept to apply it. lets say you need to calculate the mean of 5 numbers. you don't need to explain addition and division to yourself to calculate it. at that point it's just muscle memory.
it was fun honestly.
>>185299
i think there is a lot of value in "stored" memory/intuition vs open memory.
lets say you want to remember the formula for a stats equation. if it's in open memory you directly remember it. if it's in closed memory, you will open a textbook, see the formula, and then the concept behind the theorem becomes clear. this is much more preferable to not knowing the formula in the first place.
you don't have to know the exact details behind every single concept to apply it. lets say you need to calculate the mean of 5 numbers. you don't need to explain addition and division to yourself to calculate it. at that point it's just muscle memory.
>>185484
>>185485
I hate this mindset that just because you're not making someone else richer, your field of study is useless. This is a capitalistic point of view. Hardly anyone majors in math because they expect to find a decent job afterwards. They study it because they LOVE math. They want to spend their lives studying it instead of wasting their time creating value for soulless corporations.
I do know that some mathematicians become programmers or work in tech, but this is only because they have to and not because they particularly enjoy it.
>>185485
I hate this mindset that just because you're not making someone else richer, your field of study is useless. This is a capitalistic point of view. Hardly anyone majors in math because they expect to find a decent job afterwards. They study it because they LOVE math. They want to spend their lives studying it instead of wasting their time creating value for soulless corporations.
I do know that some mathematicians become programmers or work in tech, but this is only because they have to and not because they particularly enjoy it.
>>185502
I studied math in college. I studied it _because it was the only thing I had an aptitude at_. I'm one of those people who became a programmer because I had to, and not because I enjoy it.
I studied math in college. I studied it _because it was the only thing I had an aptitude at_. I'm one of those people who became a programmer because I had to, and not because I enjoy it.
>>185487
Would you prefer being a math teacher to 13-18 year olds? or which type of engineering office would you prefer to spend 9-5 at for 30 years, stuck in your home country because engineering regulations are different everyone else? There are hardly any jobs that a wizard can use to have a life that's tolerable. Tolerable IT jobs are almost like unicorns too, but regardless of that, recommending math/physics/engineering is terrible advice
Would you prefer being a math teacher to 13-18 year olds? or which type of engineering office would you prefer to spend 9-5 at for 30 years, stuck in your home country because engineering regulations are different everyone else? There are hardly any jobs that a wizard can use to have a life that's tolerable. Tolerable IT jobs are almost like unicorns too, but regardless of that, recommending math/physics/engineering is terrible advice
>>185502
This is exactly the sort of message I used to write when I was young. But after studying math, which you might spend 10 years max on, you realise that you need to make money, and universities are also just "soulless corporations" as you say, except shitty ones that work you to death and make you do things you hate just the same
This is exactly the sort of message I used to write when I was young. But after studying math, which you might spend 10 years max on, you realise that you need to make money, and universities are also just "soulless corporations" as you say, except shitty ones that work you to death and make you do things you hate just the same
>>185511
You also have to shit papers because of the "publish or perish" motto. Worse yet is that everyone is writing papers, but no one is reading them. What is even the point of waste years in research if no one will ever read it?
You also have to shit papers because of the "publish or perish" motto. Worse yet is that everyone is writing papers, but no one is reading them. What is even the point of waste years in research if no one will ever read it?
>>185524
Everything is either saturated or filled with normies. You really can't get anywhere these days.
Everything is either saturated or filled with normies. You really can't get anywhere these days.
>>185531
>high iq, low status jobs
Any examples for that. The things I'm interested has either made me starve(master in math and in philosophy) or keep me unemployed because no job here(EE + CS double major).
>high iq, low status jobs
Any examples for that. The things I'm interested has either made me starve(master in math and in philosophy) or keep me unemployed because no job here(EE + CS double major).
>>185532
I majored in CS and it was terrible. The other students were turbo-normies who had careers and social lives. I did not fit in at all. They all thought they were hot shit because they could type commands into a computer and occasionally reinstall an operating system. It was supposedly a degree for socially awkward geeks, but I was very wrong. Transferred to the actual science department. I will NEVER work in tech after what I've been through. I'd rather deliver pizzas for a living.
I majored in CS and it was terrible. The other students were turbo-normies who had careers and social lives. I did not fit in at all. They all thought they were hot shit because they could type commands into a computer and occasionally reinstall an operating system. It was supposedly a degree for socially awkward geeks, but I was very wrong. Transferred to the actual science department. I will NEVER work in tech after what I've been through. I'd rather deliver pizzas for a living.
>>185533
when my mom was taking me to look at college dorms about 10 years ago the computer science building smelled like cum and body odor, maybe it is a new thing but back then it was definitely a geeky thing, a least where I lived
when my mom was taking me to look at college dorms about 10 years ago the computer science building smelled like cum and body odor, maybe it is a new thing but back then it was definitely a geeky thing, a least where I lived
>>185534
This is me:
>>185532
I majored both in EE and CS and no, they were full of normies. More so in EE because "Engineering is for anyone that wants to get rich" and fuck I hated that since I felt like an outcast there. I love old tech, old computers and so on, so I decided to major both in CS and EE because of that, I was hoping to meet people who were also in that, but I was wrong.
The CS people would praise Linux as it was the second coming of Christ, but they were all using Ubuntu with Gnome and thought they were hack because they were not using any IDE. Some were too stupid to even know how to compile C codes on gcc if it had more than a single .c file. They also would spent most of they time talking about politics instead of, you know, talk about computers and whatnot. I don't even remember if I met anyone that knew what a MSX was without having to google it.
The EE people were even worse, since they were rich kids, in majority, who would spent their weekends in partying since "university is the place where you go to fuck succubi and party, who cares about studying?". Since most of those people were either rich or knew people, they could easily find both an internship and a job, while since I didn't know anyone, I didn't find a job nor internship and decided to just stay at academia and get my masters(another stupid decision in my life). God, my uni life resumes in "making the wrong choices all the time".
This is me:
>>185532
I majored both in EE and CS and no, they were full of normies. More so in EE because "Engineering is for anyone that wants to get rich" and fuck I hated that since I felt like an outcast there. I love old tech, old computers and so on, so I decided to major both in CS and EE because of that, I was hoping to meet people who were also in that, but I was wrong.
The CS people would praise Linux as it was the second coming of Christ, but they were all using Ubuntu with Gnome and thought they were hack because they were not using any IDE. Some were too stupid to even know how to compile C codes on gcc if it had more than a single .c file. They also would spent most of they time talking about politics instead of, you know, talk about computers and whatnot. I don't even remember if I met anyone that knew what a MSX was without having to google it.
The EE people were even worse, since they were rich kids, in majority, who would spent their weekends in partying since "university is the place where you go to fuck succubi and party, who cares about studying?". Since most of those people were either rich or knew people, they could easily find both an internship and a job, while since I didn't know anyone, I didn't find a job nor internship and decided to just stay at academia and get my masters(another stupid decision in my life). God, my uni life resumes in "making the wrong choices all the time".
>>185225
>I've always wondered what it is that makes IQ denialists think that high intelligence for some reason just can't be measured, or tested for, like, at all?
funny you mentioned taleb, I believe he started rallying against iq only after he took a test. no prize for guessing why it made him angry.
>I've always wondered what it is that makes IQ denialists think that high intelligence for some reason just can't be measured, or tested for, like, at all?
funny you mentioned taleb, I believe he started rallying against iq only after he took a test. no prize for guessing why it made him angry.
I used to think I wasn’t very smart and that I wasn’t special just like everyone else. I still somewhat believe this because I can be wrong of course and do stupid shit. But I’ve been forced to be around and talk to people more in the past year than I really ever had before. And it really convinced me that while I may not be the smartest man alive, I’m definitely more “enlightened” than most everyone I come across. I don’t mean this in a book smarts kind of way, though I did well in school. I mean this as it seems to me almost everyone is operating under one or more delusions. And when you’re outside looking in these delusions are easy to see.
Makes me wonder what my delusions are. I’m sure that my perception of succubi is probably incorrect but I feel no need to try and correct it, and if any part of it is correct I am justified in staying away. I do feel I suffer from less delusions than the average person though.
Makes me wonder what my delusions are. I’m sure that my perception of succubi is probably incorrect but I feel no need to try and correct it, and if any part of it is correct I am justified in staying away. I do feel I suffer from less delusions than the average person though.
>>182092
OP im letting you know some real IQ shit. Earth is flat, not a globe spinning ball in the infinite space. were fixed on an enclosed fixed not moving system. like a huge terrarium
OP im letting you know some real IQ shit. Earth is flat, not a globe spinning ball in the infinite space. were fixed on an enclosed fixed not moving system. like a huge terrarium
File: 1639789439457.jpg (12.11 KB, 360x450, 4:5, Claude_Jean_Frollo.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Social intelligence is more important than knowledge, trivia, or skills. A puppet politician or human resources manager is more intelligent than a scientist.
Preachers who live off of donations are more intelligent than skilled scientist who work for a living.
Billionaires are the peak of intelligence in capitalism.
Life is cruel and this is why wage servants or neetbux fags are bottom tier only single mothers are below us.
Preachers who live off of donations are more intelligent than skilled scientist who work for a living.
Billionaires are the peak of intelligence in capitalism.
Life is cruel and this is why wage servants or neetbux fags are bottom tier only single mothers are below us.
>>182107
>Unless you're already rich, then carry on.
I recall reading an article that was suggesting that in the late 20th century rich people were losing their potential to use material wealth and objects to signal status as well, so a few decades ago they started realizing that they could use 'status behaviors' instead. The reason why so many rich people go and get useless liberal arts degrees is as a means to flaunt their wealth. "Look at me, I'm so wealthy that I can get a completely useless degree." The reason they–despite being flagrant capitalists–are amongst the most avid anti-capitalist protestors is to say, "I'm SO fucking wealthy I don't even have to pay attention to how I got wealthy." Etc..
And then poorer classes try to emulate the wealthy and end up staying poor because they can't distinguish between the behaviors that the rich use to signal status and the ones that are actually needed to get rich. However, that's exactly how the rich want it, because it makes it all the easier to signal status.
>Unless you're already rich, then carry on.
I recall reading an article that was suggesting that in the late 20th century rich people were losing their potential to use material wealth and objects to signal status as well, so a few decades ago they started realizing that they could use 'status behaviors' instead. The reason why so many rich people go and get useless liberal arts degrees is as a means to flaunt their wealth. "Look at me, I'm so wealthy that I can get a completely useless degree." The reason they–despite being flagrant capitalists–are amongst the most avid anti-capitalist protestors is to say, "I'm SO fucking wealthy I don't even have to pay attention to how I got wealthy." Etc..
And then poorer classes try to emulate the wealthy and end up staying poor because they can't distinguish between the behaviors that the rich use to signal status and the ones that are actually needed to get rich. However, that's exactly how the rich want it, because it makes it all the easier to signal status.
>>183522
that's the female version of a wiz.
obvious schizoid personality disorder, but men will always be more willing and less picky, so it doesn't hinder her sex life anywhere near as much as it would for a guy.
let me be very clear here, that's neither a bad or good thing, it's just the reality of the situation.
that's the female version of a wiz.
obvious schizoid personality disorder, but men will always be more willing and less picky, so it doesn't hinder her sex life anywhere near as much as it would for a guy.
let me be very clear here, that's neither a bad or good thing, it's just the reality of the situation.
>>185457
>all just higher level servants working for their masters
depends on if they fund and find a way to sell their own R&D without needing any middlemen.
Look at Gordon Murray and the things his company produces, beautifully engineered cars without needing some business majors breathing down his neck support.
Freedom to explore and perfect his ideas. Isn't that the goal of all STEM people?
Although, I suppose one example from millions of people isn't very good.
>all just higher level servants working for their masters
depends on if they fund and find a way to sell their own R&D without needing any middlemen.
Look at Gordon Murray and the things his company produces, beautifully engineered cars without needing some business majors breathing down his neck support.
Freedom to explore and perfect his ideas. Isn't that the goal of all STEM people?
Although, I suppose one example from millions of people isn't very good.
>>182092
school/college/university is a fucking scam and you think that you have a high iq you should know that
school/college/university is a fucking scam and you think that you have a high iq you should know that
>>188598
retard statement. if you ever seriously studied history you would learn that "history" is the artifacts and written information recovered from certain periods and events in human history. fuck off with your layman conspiracy shit.
retard statement. if you ever seriously studied history you would learn that "history" is the artifacts and written information recovered from certain periods and events in human history. fuck off with your layman conspiracy shit.
I've given up on "smart" as a useful metric. There is such a thing as general intelligence, but it does not correlate to this strange idea of "smart" that is advanced in schools and society generally. I think most people are capable of far better than what this society allows them to be, and this society doesn't want people to actually exercise their intelligence. It's set up to do the exact opposite, to grind people down and direct people towards destroying other people. That's why the professions that are most praised for "intelligence" are the professions that fuck people over, and why lawyers, military officers, spies, managers, psychologist inquisitors, and so on are the only professions that do much at all. Anything productive or beneficial for humanity is a barely acknowledged necessity at best, and this society spends an inordinate amount of effort destroying people who would have inventions or any idea that would undermine this destructive, exploitative arrangement. It's why the kids in gifted programs are the nastiest shits imaginable - I never saw anyone who was as bad as them. I have more regard for ghetto niggers than I have for the so-called gifted. At least with the niggers, there's not any pretense that they're not about stabbing their fellow nigger in the back for a nickel. They know how it is. The wiser of their kind have told me how it is. I have not and never expect to see the "gifted" perform the same sort of introspection, because this sick death cult of a society demands fanatical obedience and tells the gifted how fucking special they are. The only ones who might get it are the ones who break down, who are destroyed by this beast. The whole thing, by the way, is designed to recruit future CIA officers. It's not about actually being intelligent, but about recruiting the elements that were selected to perpetuate this sick farce.
>>190434
>It's why the kids in gifted programs are the nastiest shits imaginable - I never saw anyone who was as bad as them
>I have not and never expect to see the "gifted" perform the same sort of introspection,
Telling these kids that they're supposed to be "gifted" at such a young age at all is likely what makes them turn out like that because when you spend your whole childhood being told that your gifted and special and excellent at everything you do and you can do no wrong it all goes to your head and you view yourself as righteous and infallible and everyone else are maggots who are beneath you
>It's why the kids in gifted programs are the nastiest shits imaginable - I never saw anyone who was as bad as them
>I have not and never expect to see the "gifted" perform the same sort of introspection,
Telling these kids that they're supposed to be "gifted" at such a young age at all is likely what makes them turn out like that because when you spend your whole childhood being told that your gifted and special and excellent at everything you do and you can do no wrong it all goes to your head and you view yourself as righteous and infallible and everyone else are maggots who are beneath you
>>190434
The education system is largely designed to train people to do tasks that are difficult and highly specialized for profit. Things that are productive and beneficial to society are the things that are prioritized the most. People who have inventions or ideas are the ones who are rewarded the most. Basically your entire post is just wrong and delusional and full of hatred.
The education system is largely designed to train people to do tasks that are difficult and highly specialized for profit. Things that are productive and beneficial to society are the things that are prioritized the most. People who have inventions or ideas are the ones who are rewarded the most. Basically your entire post is just wrong and delusional and full of hatred.
>>190584
>Things that are productive and beneficial to society are the things that are prioritized the most. People who have inventions or ideas are the ones who are rewarded the most.
That is not what the system selects for in a population
>Things that are productive and beneficial to society are the things that are prioritized the most. People who have inventions or ideas are the ones who are rewarded the most.
That is not what the system selects for in a population
>>190589
If you have an invention that benefits humanity, why wouldn't you be able to sell it and make a comfortable life for yourself? People like Bill Gates are super rich because they invented shit that is really useful and beneficial. I just don't understand your reasoning here.
If you have an invention that benefits humanity, why wouldn't you be able to sell it and make a comfortable life for yourself? People like Bill Gates are super rich because they invented shit that is really useful and beneficial. I just don't understand your reasoning here.
>>190584
I agree with you. So many people here are filled with delusions that they might as well be called religious looneys.
I agree with you. So many people here are filled with delusions that they might as well be called religious looneys.
>>190603
nah, you are so mentally lost in bullshit that you might as well not even be called a human. you are so hostile to logic and you just interpret life through some weird wizchan-tinted glasses.
nah, you are so mentally lost in bullshit that you might as well not even be called a human. you are so hostile to logic and you just interpret life through some weird wizchan-tinted glasses.
>>190614
>you just interpret life through some weird wizchan-tinted glasses.
Where the actual fuck do you think we are?
>you just interpret life through some weird wizchan-tinted glasses.
Where the actual fuck do you think we are?
>>190615
ok but there's seeing life for what it is, and there's interpreting life in some delusional way and breaking all of the facts so you feel comfortable.
ok but there's seeing life for what it is, and there's interpreting life in some delusional way and breaking all of the facts so you feel comfortable.
>>190584
Are you even american? Why do you shill for the education system? It's meant to churn out wage-slaves and it's obviously broken because every year theirs another shooter.
Are you even american? Why do you shill for the education system? It's meant to churn out wage-slaves and it's obviously broken because every year theirs another shooter.
>>190584
>The education system is largely designed to train people to do tasks that are difficult and highly specialized for profit
No lol, the education system started off as a religious place for general inquries, but quickly became a scholastic thing where people argued over how many angels danced on the head of a pin. Then it mutated into a finishing class for rich aristocrats to get drunk and shitfaced while they schmooze and network for a few years (The modern day version of fratboys). Only when the Industrial giants in Chemistry got involved in the mid 19th century, did it become about training people for industry. And since about the 1960s, the education system has again mutated to be a sort of finishing school again, where people load up on debt and study useless subjects. The decline in standards in higher education reflects this last mutation, they drop the standards and give extensions like crazy to keep it a fun, happy place.
All these factors contribute to the education system. You still to some degree have religiousfags arguing about how many angels dance away, you still have the elites paying for the opportunity to network. Industrial giants still provide scholarships and hunt for actual talent in STEM. I think the actual serious element of the university system will rip itself off and establish itself elsewhere. I can see FAANG companies starting their own privately funded institutions that serve as a brutal IQ filter that lasts 1-2 years, and from there they groom people into being specialists. Better that than waiting for people to finish their MA and only getting them in when they're in their late 20s/early 30s, when their most productive and teachable years are behind them.
>The education system is largely designed to train people to do tasks that are difficult and highly specialized for profit
No lol, the education system started off as a religious place for general inquries, but quickly became a scholastic thing where people argued over how many angels danced on the head of a pin. Then it mutated into a finishing class for rich aristocrats to get drunk and shitfaced while they schmooze and network for a few years (The modern day version of fratboys). Only when the Industrial giants in Chemistry got involved in the mid 19th century, did it become about training people for industry. And since about the 1960s, the education system has again mutated to be a sort of finishing school again, where people load up on debt and study useless subjects. The decline in standards in higher education reflects this last mutation, they drop the standards and give extensions like crazy to keep it a fun, happy place.
All these factors contribute to the education system. You still to some degree have religiousfags arguing about how many angels dance away, you still have the elites paying for the opportunity to network. Industrial giants still provide scholarships and hunt for actual talent in STEM. I think the actual serious element of the university system will rip itself off and establish itself elsewhere. I can see FAANG companies starting their own privately funded institutions that serve as a brutal IQ filter that lasts 1-2 years, and from there they groom people into being specialists. Better that than waiting for people to finish their MA and only getting them in when they're in their late 20s/early 30s, when their most productive and teachable years are behind them.
You've got the wrong idea about this wiznon, sophomoric but I forgive you because I'm an unapologetic brat and my field demands maturity, I still don't care about it lol, if I can get away with it I'm good
File: 1653532054145.png (1.54 MB, 738x1300, 369:650, PanicAttackBack.png) ImgOps iqdb
File: 1653532360151.jpg (190.76 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, VirginChildSurvivor_ChadZo….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>184973
>and suddenly you have 145+ IQ alcoholics
You realize that if you have 145+ literally almost every single person you meet is retarded compared to you, and a significant percentage are as far from you as a chimp is from them (chimp IQ starts at 35). So, how could you not become an alcoholic if you are surrounded by retards and apes all your life and everything is made for them and for their level?
>and suddenly you have 145+ IQ alcoholics
You realize that if you have 145+ literally almost every single person you meet is retarded compared to you, and a significant percentage are as far from you as a chimp is from them (chimp IQ starts at 35). So, how could you not become an alcoholic if you are surrounded by retards and apes all your life and everything is made for them and for their level?
>>191167
Oh wow, so the smarter you are, the less you're able to adapt to your environment and general problem solve? Guess at some point it just wraps around and you return to monke when you realize civilization was a mistake.
Oh wow, so the smarter you are, the less you're able to adapt to your environment and general problem solve? Guess at some point it just wraps around and you return to monke when you realize civilization was a mistake.
>>191165
This is the most pro-normal post I ever seen a while why do you post this on here? Gtfo to 4chan pol you normalscum
This is the most pro-normal post I ever seen a while why do you post this on here? Gtfo to 4chan pol you normalscum
I'm not really sure how to reconcile intelligence in an academic sense. I have a degree in business but I've never really succeeded at work. The only job I was ever able to hold for close to a year was when COVID-19 started and it was all remote. If I work in person people start wanting to fire me pretty quickly or do fire me quickly. My last job I was fired after 13 days with no notice and just treated like dirt. They tried to deny me unemployment but I contested it and won, although I haven't worked long enough to actually collect benefits so I guess it didn't matter.
>>191173
No, he's right. You're 4chan diaspora. The use of insipid, childish outsider template memes that worship normalcattle and stereotypical football jocks (of all things) would betray that on its own; but then you accentuate it with strawman greentext used by every underage shitposter on that fallen imageboard. Go back to that hellhole and be a liability there instead of anywhere else.
No, he's right. You're 4chan diaspora. The use of insipid, childish outsider template memes that worship normalcattle and stereotypical football jocks (of all things) would betray that on its own; but then you accentuate it with strawman greentext used by every underage shitposter on that fallen imageboard. Go back to that hellhole and be a liability there instead of anywhere else.
>>190597
I think you should know that Bill Gates didn't get rich by inventing things. He got rich by having a mother so important she was able to get IBM to go after him for their IBM PC idea. The OS used, DOS, was not even created by him.
I think you should know that Bill Gates didn't get rich by inventing things. He got rich by having a mother so important she was able to get IBM to go after him for their IBM PC idea. The OS used, DOS, was not even created by him.
>>191337
so what did they do the 5 years prior to the ibm/micro-soft partnership. just twiddle their dicks? they created awesome basic interpreters, stuff that was so good other companies frequently stole it
so what did they do the 5 years prior to the ibm/micro-soft partnership. just twiddle their dicks? they created awesome basic interpreters, stuff that was so good other companies frequently stole it
>>191338
I guess QBasic was neat for its day, but home computers very often reverted to a ROM-based basic interpreter before that. It was more the standard of the day than anything new or special.
I guess QBasic was neat for its day, but home computers very often reverted to a ROM-based basic interpreter before that. It was more the standard of the day than anything new or special.
>>191364
>I guess QBasic was neat for its day, but home computers very often reverted to a ROM-based basic interpreter before that.
i meant altair basic which came in 1975, that is exactly what you're describing. it spawned the personal computing basic era. wozniak was so inspired from altair basic but couldnt afford an altair so he made the apple, and him and jobs eventually made the apple 2, and the company is huge now
>I guess QBasic was neat for its day, but home computers very often reverted to a ROM-based basic interpreter before that.
i meant altair basic which came in 1975, that is exactly what you're describing. it spawned the personal computing basic era. wozniak was so inspired from altair basic but couldnt afford an altair so he made the apple, and him and jobs eventually made the apple 2, and the company is huge now
File: 1654576317830.png (435.83 KB, 1083x720, 361:240, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>182263
>>182942
> Being neurotic, anxious, depressed, and low iq must be hell.
> I am honestly skeptic if such a combination is even possible.
I exist, my life is truly hard, people thinks I am mentally ill but I haven't been diagnosed with anything else other than "depression" which derives from my hard exceptionally challenged life.
>>182989
Yes.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/lower-childhood-iq-associated-with-higher-risk-of-adult-mental-disorders/
>>182942
> Being neurotic, anxious, depressed, and low iq must be hell.
> I am honestly skeptic if such a combination is even possible.
I exist, my life is truly hard, people thinks I am mentally ill but I haven't been diagnosed with anything else other than "depression" which derives from my hard exceptionally challenged life.
>>182989
Yes.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/lower-childhood-iq-associated-with-higher-risk-of-adult-mental-disorders/
>Doctors are the worst
I find them akin to auto mechanics. If they see that you're vulnerable enough they will try to lie to you about your own body and scam you out of money. Plenty of them misdiagnose you without any repercussions. Yet they all act like that they are gods amongst men or they have this air of fake humility when you can tell that are massive douchebags with huge egos.
I find them akin to auto mechanics. If they see that you're vulnerable enough they will try to lie to you about your own body and scam you out of money. Plenty of them misdiagnose you without any repercussions. Yet they all act like that they are gods amongst men or they have this air of fake humility when you can tell that are massive douchebags with huge egos.
>>182098
Since you sounds like you're fairly young, I have some bad news for you. If you actually care about the line of your work that you're in, the alienation isn't going to stop. A good bulk of people receive their jobs on nepotism, not hard work and competency. What your colleagues are doing is networking in a way. One of them is going to get a job at a company and get all of his buddies hired, while you struggle to find employment after college because you have no friends.
Since you sounds like you're fairly young, I have some bad news for you. If you actually care about the line of your work that you're in, the alienation isn't going to stop. A good bulk of people receive their jobs on nepotism, not hard work and competency. What your colleagues are doing is networking in a way. One of them is going to get a job at a company and get all of his buddies hired, while you struggle to find employment after college because you have no friends.
>>193158
It's a lot worse than that. A car is just a small part of your life, some money. Doctors have influence and make biased ideological and cultural judgment over all your thoughts and actions, with the power to have you literally imprisoned or sentenced to wageslavery
It's a lot worse than that. A car is just a small part of your life, some money. Doctors have influence and make biased ideological and cultural judgment over all your thoughts and actions, with the power to have you literally imprisoned or sentenced to wageslavery
21 year old anon here. I graduated high school and never looked back, but today it's been revealed to me that my asshole of a father signed me up for a college course without my consent. How the fuck do I back out of this without him raging and kicking me out of the house?
>>193213
Get a job? You're just delaying the inevitable.
It's best to get in early and get experience, so you have better and easier jobs in the future.
Get a job? You're just delaying the inevitable.
It's best to get in early and get experience, so you have better and easier jobs in the future.
>>193213
is he paying for it? i regret going to work immediately after high school. i could have had a few more years of easy-mode gaming and slacking if i went to college. but then again my parents weren't going to pay for college so i would have been fucked afterward
is he paying for it? i regret going to work immediately after high school. i could have had a few more years of easy-mode gaming and slacking if i went to college. but then again my parents weren't going to pay for college so i would have been fucked afterward
File: 1658602922616.jpg (106.8 KB, 1440x650, 144:65, herbal-alternative-medicin….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>182092
I did superb at school. About my wits, It is kind of an amount of weakness and advantage mixed.
The important thing is that I constantly shill about alternative medicine, sending the knowledge monopoly of these turbonormals to the heck as it properly deserves
I did superb at school. About my wits, It is kind of an amount of weakness and advantage mixed.
The important thing is that I constantly shill about alternative medicine, sending the knowledge monopoly of these turbonormals to the heck as it properly deserves
File: 1658604669866.jpeg (76.55 KB, 576x665, 576:665, long slap.jpeg) ImgOps iqdb
>>186380
You are confusing the stupidity of a victim with the prowess of a parasite.
Social intelligence? If you actually talked to normies to very way you people post crap here about them you'd just see how much npc-ish they can get showing their roast about it
You are confusing the stupidity of a victim with the prowess of a parasite.
Social intelligence? If you actually talked to normies to very way you people post crap here about them you'd just see how much npc-ish they can get showing their roast about it
>>184969
A person must have an above-average IQ to enter into the highest academic settings, such as university, where intelligence acts as a baseline minimum. That cutoff generally orbits around 110 IQ points for most university degrees. Nonetheless, it does not follow that everyone who excels at university necessarily does so due to being the most intelligent, let alone that a high IQ unconditionally translates into academic achievement. Conscientiousness, meekness, neat handwriting, emotional stability, and even a willingness to engage in "questionable" extracurricular activities outside the reach of men in general and wizards in particular all play a role.
The very graph you have uploaded shows a >130 IQ points (98th percentile) student with the same GPA as a 90 IQ points (25th percentile) one, an equivalence that doesn't shed a very positive light on the educational system's capacity to select for intelligence.
A person must have an above-average IQ to enter into the highest academic settings, such as university, where intelligence acts as a baseline minimum. That cutoff generally orbits around 110 IQ points for most university degrees. Nonetheless, it does not follow that everyone who excels at university necessarily does so due to being the most intelligent, let alone that a high IQ unconditionally translates into academic achievement. Conscientiousness, meekness, neat handwriting, emotional stability, and even a willingness to engage in "questionable" extracurricular activities outside the reach of men in general and wizards in particular all play a role.
The very graph you have uploaded shows a >130 IQ points (98th percentile) student with the same GPA as a 90 IQ points (25th percentile) one, an equivalence that doesn't shed a very positive light on the educational system's capacity to select for intelligence.
>>195317
Notice how the top marks are 110 IQ? That's pretty much where the most intelligent succubi seem to cluster as they have a lower standard deviation for IQ than men.
I argue that for men, if you're getting top tier GPA score you either have Asian tiger parents that are forcing you sacrifice your life for grades, or there's likely something fundamentally wrong with you on a psychological level. Men shouldn't be happy or satisfied rote memorizing that shit pointlessly without context. The most motivated and ambitious healthy men seek mastery by actually doing things. While a succubus will rote memorize formulas and do the test, and then quickly forget everything, men will stubbornly seek out problems online and test themselves against it. Take a look at any successful man like Linus or Elon Musk, at a young age they were playing with what they learnt and had a natural curiosity. They set goals and went for them, they didn't passively do nothing but regurgitate an arbitrary curriculum.
To break into the top 90%+ grades for many subjects, you've basically got to hover around the teacher and consoom nothing but the school material on the subject. As someone who does independently learn I've been burnt by this a few times. I've noticed in a lot of places the marking schedule only accepts narrow definitions which match the marking schedule to a letter. I lost points on my essay once and got a big question mark in red when I wrote about Russia declaring peace with Germany in 1917, why did this happen? Because the school textbook on World War I didn't include that event, and the teacher herself didn't know a thing about it. It's that sort of shit that burns you if you try to independently learn.
Notice how the top marks are 110 IQ? That's pretty much where the most intelligent succubi seem to cluster as they have a lower standard deviation for IQ than men.
I argue that for men, if you're getting top tier GPA score you either have Asian tiger parents that are forcing you sacrifice your life for grades, or there's likely something fundamentally wrong with you on a psychological level. Men shouldn't be happy or satisfied rote memorizing that shit pointlessly without context. The most motivated and ambitious healthy men seek mastery by actually doing things. While a succubus will rote memorize formulas and do the test, and then quickly forget everything, men will stubbornly seek out problems online and test themselves against it. Take a look at any successful man like Linus or Elon Musk, at a young age they were playing with what they learnt and had a natural curiosity. They set goals and went for them, they didn't passively do nothing but regurgitate an arbitrary curriculum.
To break into the top 90%+ grades for many subjects, you've basically got to hover around the teacher and consoom nothing but the school material on the subject. As someone who does independently learn I've been burnt by this a few times. I've noticed in a lot of places the marking schedule only accepts narrow definitions which match the marking schedule to a letter. I lost points on my essay once and got a big question mark in red when I wrote about Russia declaring peace with Germany in 1917, why did this happen? Because the school textbook on World War I didn't include that event, and the teacher herself didn't know a thing about it. It's that sort of shit that burns you if you try to independently learn.
We have to be very careful about defining "intelligence". Strictly speaking, the intelligence judgements are political rather than "natural". We assume intelligence is hereditary, which lines up with assumptions we held for a long time, but ultimately the intelligence measurements concern what is politically useful. You can have a lot of processing power, insight, and adaptability while being useless politically, and if you're not willing to play ball, your IQ score goes away. Membership in the high IQ club means you will be expected to adopt the creed of the "smarts" against the dumbs. If you don't see yourself at war with your class enemy according to the religion, you must not be "smart".
I really think humans are taught in such a maladaptive way, and humans are not in the main intellectual creatures at all. We're just smart enough to spit words out of our mouths and do a few things. The primary education method is traumatization, and we are lied to about everything education entails on purpose, so we don't learn or adapt or grow in any way like we could if we had an education plan oriented towards actual learning and development. You can even see the difference because American education is uniquely destructive compared to global norms. Education in the Soviet Union produced far better outcomes on average. This had the caveat that you had to get along with the Soviet system and its ideology, and if you were at all a mental invalid, they did not want you in their society. They put people like me to death and they will say this to your face if pressed, and they will say that this is how it should be before telling me to get the fuck out of their sight forever. That said the Soviet system didn't go out of its way to invent categories of mental defect, and made something out of relatively stupid people as you can see with Russia today. You just couldn't be markedly retarded or politically insane, basically like here but less overtly eugenicist. They couldn't afford to just destroy people the way the American system could, and that was one of the downfalls of the system. People fear and respect the terror, it's the only thing that has effectively ruled societies.
So many people think that there was a time where retards were actually tolerated. In the old days, if you were seen as retarded, you were beaten down and kept as a slave and never really allowed to enter society proper. Believing it was going to be different was the lie, though they didn't have a clear sense of "retarded", nor was there an effort to expand the definition of retarded or explicitly exterminate them. It used to be you could keep your head down, ignore what was happening, and survive so long as you could make yourself useful, with the caveat that when times got bad, you were probably the first to die. Now there's a whole science and set of institutions tasked with the extermination of the retarded, and that task is carried out every day. It is inevitable. If you are out of step, you do not have a future, and they're going to make damn sure you will never be anything. If you somehow defy the system, it says something very bad about the ideas that rule over us.
I really think humans are taught in such a maladaptive way, and humans are not in the main intellectual creatures at all. We're just smart enough to spit words out of our mouths and do a few things. The primary education method is traumatization, and we are lied to about everything education entails on purpose, so we don't learn or adapt or grow in any way like we could if we had an education plan oriented towards actual learning and development. You can even see the difference because American education is uniquely destructive compared to global norms. Education in the Soviet Union produced far better outcomes on average. This had the caveat that you had to get along with the Soviet system and its ideology, and if you were at all a mental invalid, they did not want you in their society. They put people like me to death and they will say this to your face if pressed, and they will say that this is how it should be before telling me to get the fuck out of their sight forever. That said the Soviet system didn't go out of its way to invent categories of mental defect, and made something out of relatively stupid people as you can see with Russia today. You just couldn't be markedly retarded or politically insane, basically like here but less overtly eugenicist. They couldn't afford to just destroy people the way the American system could, and that was one of the downfalls of the system. People fear and respect the terror, it's the only thing that has effectively ruled societies.
So many people think that there was a time where retards were actually tolerated. In the old days, if you were seen as retarded, you were beaten down and kept as a slave and never really allowed to enter society proper. Believing it was going to be different was the lie, though they didn't have a clear sense of "retarded", nor was there an effort to expand the definition of retarded or explicitly exterminate them. It used to be you could keep your head down, ignore what was happening, and survive so long as you could make yourself useful, with the caveat that when times got bad, you were probably the first to die. Now there's a whole science and set of institutions tasked with the extermination of the retarded, and that task is carried out every day. It is inevitable. If you are out of step, you do not have a future, and they're going to make damn sure you will never be anything. If you somehow defy the system, it says something very bad about the ideas that rule over us.
I find it cute that people are bragging about 110 IQ. That's basically nothing. Of course the tests are so lazily administered that they don't really test for anything. Most people act dumb because of course they don't want to give any more to this shithole society than they have to. Mostly the IQ tests turn into a just-so story to say the people who were selected because of their lineage were naturally intelligent and deserved to rule, and then they poison people and dumb down normal education enough to ensure that the prophecy becomes true. That way they can feed a slightly-better-than-substandard education to the few selected to be anything, while telling the majority of people they are retarded like Trump.
File: 1663394197768.pdf (2.37 MB, underground-history-of-ame….pdf)
I'm also going to leave this here because it's required reading if you want to talk about the American situation, or damn near close to it because I haven't found a better summary of just what this is.
[Last 50 Posts]