/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10347046
"Ultra" means "beyond". 175 is a standard deviation beyond "smart". The official ratings of IQ go by standard deviation:
>100+ - subhuman
>115+ - borderline human
>130+ - brainlet
>145+ - high functioning brainlet
>160+ - high IQ
>175+ - ultra high IQ

>>10334223
>I want to be able to work to afford 3-5 kids
You're gonna fail your PhD because your retarded OP

>rote memorization
the lowest form of cognitive endeavour

>>9816968
>they're not arbitrary categories
What are they then, you fucking moron? Somebody came up with broad terms to describe different ways in which something can be seen as having value, but that does fuck all to change the meaning of "value" itself. You're deliberately veering off into semantics and category autism and distancing the discussion from the real world phenomena you are trying to predict.

Value is an abstraction. It does not exist as something you can directly observe. It's a term invented by humans to describe certain complex patterns of observable things. It doesn't even have a precise definition that everybody can agree on, so trying to claim it is something you can objectively quantify is retarded. You are trying to predict the actions of individuals, or the aggregate effect thereof. The construct of "value" is just a crutch to that end. First you need an model or the actor that is being analyzed. A human or a similar type of actor has some sort of internal model of the outside world and a reward function of some sort it uses to decide what manipulations it wants to perform to its environment in order to maximize reward. The "value" of some action or thing to the actor is a function of the effect it would have on this reward, be it direct or indirect. It can get compounded this way (x has value because I can exchange it for y which will let me do z which will...), but that doesn't change the basic concept. You can have things the value of which is tied to how others perceive them, but at the end of the day it all comes back to you, the monkey, trying to get that dopamine shot.

You can get lost in beautiful internally consistent abstractions if you want, but the goal of any kind of science is making predictions about the real world. Your model can simultaneously be completely logically consistent and a horrible approximation of the real world. Mathematicians and philosophers always seem to forget this simple fact.

I snuck a bitcoin onto the rocket

BTC is literally going to the moon boys, I'm all in

>>9355000
>You'd have +$3.64 after 365 days.