/sci/ - Science & Math

How else are you supposed to prove your intellectual superiority? Acadummic achievements are insufficient, given that any midwit can get a PhD nowadays.

>>14777636
>low IQ hands typed this post
Impressive

>>14777641
Most of these midwit who say that they are high iq have taken online tests

>>14777641
why would I need to prove I am intelligent to strangers? wouldn't doing the test be enough?
> any midwit can get a phd
> t. NEET

>>14777641
Except most people who claim to have a high iq are midwits who have taken an online iq test

>>14777636
>t. t. "I measure intelligence by how kind someone is, how much they do to combat fascism, how nice they are to animals, how many people they feed at the soup kitchen, how much they combat misinformation on the Internet. The meager 105 result I got on a test predicated on white intellectual colonialism -- this I vigorously reject as meaningless in the context of my worth as a person."

>>14777636
how to fix /sci/
>ball all iq threads
>ban all 0.999--->1 threads
>ban 2hu posters
>ban everyone on /mg/
>ban /career general/


there you fixed /sci/

>>14777636
>t. "I measure intelligence by how kind someone is, how much they do to combat fascism, how nice they are to animals, how many people they feed at the soup kitchen, how much they combat misinformation on the Internet. The meager 105 result I got on a test predicated on white intellectual colonialism -- this I vigorously reject as meaningless in the context of my worth as a person."

>>14777636
>what is up with this boards obsession regarding IQ?
IQ is a scientifically validated measure of cognitive ability accepted by the APA and by neuropsychologists. The loudmouths skeptical of IQ went AWOL when journalists were headlining IQ drops as a result of COVID infection and therefore lost all credibility. We won.

>>14777668
>"how to fix /sci/"
>ban all math threads
retard.

>>14777641
>>14777643
>>14777659
>>14777662
>>14777668
>>14777670
>>14777681
>>14777974
> even though I do nothing but post on 4chnins, I still have le epic number which makes me smart and the rest of you dumb
thanks, I see it clearly now. you are nothing more than conceited idiots with IQ obsessions who basically fell for a meme. I'll let you rot here. Good day.

>>14777636
Okay, nobody asked

>>14777636
Didn't read a single word. My IQ is higher than yours ergo I'm superior.

>>14778033
Well good day to you too, newfriend.

>>14777636
Think of the hundreds of millions of users of the internet. A small amount are interested in IQ. But objective discussion of it gets you banned on most sites because IQ studies on race have uncomfortable results. So now that fraction of hundreds of millions of people all get funneled to the remaining few sites that actually let you have those conversations.

>>14777636
High IQ is retarded. Money is all that matters

>>14778067
>>14778074
>>14778092
>>14778124
> the subtle /pol/ vent

>>14777636
>what is up with this boards obsession regarding IQ?
Why would you take anything posted on this board seriously?

>>14778154
Because they're low IQ, obviously.

>>14778033
>IQ obsessions who basically fell for a meme
IQ is recognized by the American Psychological Association and all serious cognitive researchers and has been recognized as a valid metric of intelligence for many decades.
If you think you can just talk yourself around that, you don't belong on the science board and will have as much success as you had talking yourself into possessing a real vagina.

>>14777636
IQ is like an LGBT badge for users here
It doesn't exist along with every other psychological metric
>>14777668
very good solution

>>14778154
because I am sure there is a large part that genuinely thinks their cattle number makes them superior to other people. apparently having a higher IQ is ranked higher than having a PhD. This is the state of IQ-lets.
>>14778186
this is an IQ thread. take a look yourself, the majority of arguments are
> low IQ take
> you have low IQ therefore you are wrong
disagreeing with someone does not automatically imply they have lower intelligence. There is a difference between actual scientific discussions about intelligence and just containment board speech. Just imagine someone would use that as an argument in a scientific community.

>>14778225
This is a meta thread, which is restricted to one thread per board. Let's not pretend it is something different.

>>14778225
>Just imagine someone would use that as an argument in a scientific community.
The reason everyone is correctly telling you that you're a low IQ retard is because this isn't some debate at the royal academy of sciences, this is a funpost on a azerbaijani wind sailing forum. The fact that you don't seem to understand the difference means you wouldn't fair much better there either, but you should probably go back to redd!t.

The real question one needs to ask is why they are participating in threads that they dislike? If one is self aware, surely creating threads about topics that interest them would generate productive discussion and boost board quality? Yet these monkeys continue to participate and generate continuation of the "boorish" threads, indicating a lowly quality about their own selves that does not seem to be indicated upon those that participate happily within these same discussions.

Conclusion: If /sci/ is too fucking stupid for you to participate with happily, then why not change it? If you can't change it, whether due to a permanent influx of the imbecile overriding such attempts, or ones own impotence and futility, why continue participating? Retract, disengage, and find better quality mental masturbation elsewhere, you dullard speck.

>>14778225
IQ denialism, which often masquerades on this board as IQ fatigue, is a low-IQ take because, as I noted, IQ is recognized by the American Psychological Association and all serious cognitive researchers and has been recognized as a valid metric of intelligence for many decades.

>>14778252
>>14778257
>>14778273
you should finish precalc before posting on this board

>>14778322
You should learn a different coping mechanism besides projection.

>>14778322
Agreed. Come back when you're done.

>>14778428
>>14778432
did you sneed lately by any chance?

>>14777636
>>14777641
>>14778186
IQ is a meme. You can train on it and score higher which unequivocally proves it's a meme. If for example you give IQ tests to mathematicians who train with logical problems of that nature 24/7: they will score extremely highly.

It might had had some validity if you could somehow control all the tested not being pre-trained for it but that's in practice impossible even if they are literal toddlers.

E.g. if I keep training a toddler to solve general logical problem of the nature in IQ tests' it will absolutely destroy a twin toddler.

>>14778527
Practice effect is real, but I'm seeing a lot of midwit cope there, bro.

>>14778527
>if I actually did things to increase my intelligence, I would be smarter than an identical person who did not
>that proves intelligence doesn't exist
kek, you're sliding off the left side of the distribution like it's some kind of retard theme park

>>14778551
you're stupid, if you have two toddlers of the same mom and one of them was just trained for a couple of days by his dad to score higher and the same toddler may forget about the training in a month and you proclaim that toddler "is forever smarter in the future", you're stupid.

>>14778551
also nice strawman, retard. does your high IQ forces you to know know what logical fallacies are?

they watched a couple of sci-fi movies, and got the delusion being smart is being an autistic sperglord who screeches about it, stupid people are like that.

>>14778586
You can train strictly to improve your IQ score, which is a bit of a flaw in the test now that so many people have access to the questions asked. However, education alone and dealing with logic does surprisingly little to boost IQ in adulthood. We know this from twin studies who grew up in different environments, the effect on IQ is minimal.

If IQ is only a meme, please show me someone with IQ 80 who can do algebraic geometry on at graduate level.

>>14778611
It mainly depends on if you teach a kid to think logically and not mechanically only. E.g. a lot of people make their small kids learn to count to twenty and they think that's smart. Not so smart if I ask them how many "10s" do you need to make a 20 and they don't have a concept of it at all.

>>14778614
> correlation is causation bruh

>>14777668
Based and correct. What about schizos like Tooker and Mandlbaur?

>>14778586
>I trained one kid to be smarter
>therefore he tested smarter
>therefore intelligence doesn't exist
lol
lmao
you keep doing it

>>14777636
It's the natural result of raising a generation with FitBits. These kids are obsessed with metrics and have bought hard into the self-improvement meme. Look at your first response.
>who cares about actual results? I just want to max my metrics.

People with low IQ are confused as to why thinking skills matter. unfortunately, we live in a culture where people are obsessed with someone’s ability to throw a ball in a basket better than other people. that’s a test they get paid highly for but accomplishes nothing.

>>14778619
>It mainly depends on if you teach a kid to think logically and not mechanically only. E.g. a lot of people make their small kids learn to count to twenty and they think that's smart. Not so smart if I ask them how many "10s" do you need to make a 20 and they don't have a concept of it at all.
Sure, but IQ tests, especially the matrices, are very straight forward. You don't need advanced skills in mathematics to solve them. IQ tests in children are notoriously flawed, but they're a decent metric in adults because they don't test beyond a low-level education. The working memory sections like digit span and reverse digit span are also stable in adulthood unless mnemonics are used. So there will be some individuals who have learned to inflated their IQ scores by taking practice tests and learning mnemonics, but at the population level they're still decent. I personally think hard word can trump intelligence in many cases, but I'm not so sure an aptitude for hard work isn't as hardwired as intelligence.

>>14778124
>But objective discussion of it gets you banned on most sites because IQ studies on race have uncomfortable results
This is just plainly untrue.

>>14778696
>This is just plainly untrue.
There's no point in lying, nobody forgot what happened to James Watson.

>>14778694
> matrices, are very straight forward. You don't need advanced skills
point is if you train on them, your brain makes shortcuts.
kinda like playing minsweeper and knowing patterns that always win (they may take 5 minutes to invent on your own but 1 second only to execute if you know them already).

>>14778627
nice strawman brainlet, does your high IQ make you so smart, that you can't learn what logical fallacies are?

>>14778788
Absolutely, and I agree that training with them directly via online tests will inflate scores. But they follow basic mathematic principles, so anyone who can do basic arithmetic or understand and/or logic statements will be on equal footing. An advanced math degree isn't necessary, and probably won't help much upon first exposure.

>>14778793
Ad homosexual, post discarded.
Better luck next time, IQlet.

>>14778816
it's so easy to have someone have previous training in logical thinking, because entire fields of science may be filled with it (e.g. a kid doing Geometry a lot VS a kid only doing a lot of Geography), that can be extremely unreliable if you care about any kind of accuracy.

>>14778912
>it's so easy to have someone have previous training in logical thinking, because entire fields of science may be filled with it (e.g. a kid doing Geometry a lot VS a kid only doing a lot of Geography)
Additional years of education, even in scientific fields, does almost nothing to boost IQ scores. Unless you're training the matrices directly, you're unlikely to get much carryover effect. The only real way to game IQ tests is to repeatedly take IQ tests, which I don't think is much of an obsession for the majority of people.

>>14778964
source: butt and speculation
it's exactly the same sort of thinking
geometry may have tons of logical puzzles and other subjects have none

>>14778696
Which part? I guarantee you'll get banned on Reddit for posting the Harvard 30 year study.

>>14778991
>source: butt and speculation
Each year of higher education only boosts IQ by a few points. Add to that, again, studies between identical twins raised separately and you'll see how little environment has to do with IQ scores.

>geometry may have tons of logical puzzles and other subjects have none
Sure, but evidence points to it contributing very little to improved IQ scores. Go through a Raven's Progressive Matrices test. See how many questions involve more than basic adding or subtracting before the final 10% of questions. They're piss easy, yet your average person is going to have a hell of a time with them despite having gone through "geometry" to simply get a high school degree. You're seriously overestimating carry over, the average person struggles to apply logic across domains. That's why IQ scores are still relevant. The only way you're going to see markedly inflated scores is if the person has been practicing IQ tests, but the person willing to do that is likely someone who is already intelligent and enjoys logic puzzles.

>>14779202
you are obsessed. it's irrelevant if a specific study you found did not have the right example (the right setup of living conditions for that to happen in a mass scale).
it's extremely easy to have the right environment for that to happen and it's inevitable that you are wrong since it possible to have hobbies that remind of IQ tests.
a kid with a hobby at geometry is a good example; you are not going to find "studies" that prove that kids do that in a mass scale; it's unecessary since it can happen easily on an individual basis.

to put it simply: you're basically telling us most people are not "cheating" the IQ testing on a mass scale and it averages out on statistics.

I don't give a shit; I know that; I'm telling you it's very easy to ruin their reliability on an individual basis if the kid has the right hobbies.

>>14779273
>you are obsessed. it's irrelevant if a specific study you found did not have the right example (the right setup of living conditions for that to happen in a mass scale).
You realize you're making my point, yeah? I never said IQ tests are perfect, I said they're applicable for the majority, and the fact that you're making a point to talk about very particular circumstances required for it to show up at the group level is very good proof that IQ tests remain relevant.

>>14779273
>I don't give a shit; I know that; I'm telling you it's very easy to ruin their reliability on an individual basis if the kid has the right hobbies.
You'd be rich if you could prove this, because scientists have yet to find a meaningful way to raise IQ scores.

>>14779327
>>14779328
I don't give a shit if you make a gallop poll of the entire globe you're getting those averages.
It's an unequivocal fact it can be ruined at reliability with the right similar hobbies.

You contradict yourself when you admitted "you can just train on IQ tests" and don't see that can be easily done if the hobbies kids have are similar to IQ testing logic.

>>14779337
>It's an unequivocal fact it can be ruined at reliability with the right similar hobbies.
No it's not, otherwise we'd have study after study showing you can use a simple training method to boost IQ through the roof and parents would be buying it up.

>You contradict yourself when you admitted "you can just train on IQ tests" and don't see that can be easily done if the hobbies kids have are similar to IQ testing logic.
No contradiction, because studies using logic and math as the training modalities didn't boost scores. You're calling it "similar" but the reality is it's far transfer to direct math logic to a Raven's Matrix. That doesn't get into working memory, processing speed, verbal comprehension, etc, so even if you boost your score in one area, that's not a guarantee to significantly boost your overall IQ score.

But if you're so certain you've solved it, create your training method with "hobbies" that will create a bunch of 150+ IQ children and make yourself a fortune.

>>14779343
Jesus fucking christ; you literally try to twist reality itself; because you can't admit anything. The very fact they are of a certain mathematical logic and the very fact the exact same mathematic logic can be found in other activities is unequivocal proof that IQ testing can be easily manipulated with the right activities even if it's unintentional.

The fact most of the globe does not do it is irrelevant; they could do it; I could easily do it.

Your only "proof" is statistics on that from people who profit from the delusion existing.

>>14779349
NTA but you really need to take your meds. Your desperate cope is getting out of hand.

Only dumb americans obsess over IQ..

>>14779349
>The very fact they are of a certain mathematical logic and the very fact the exact same mathematic logic can be found in other activities is unequivocal proof that IQ testing can be easily manipulated with the right activities even if it's unintentional.
There's no evidence for this happening. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but it's clearly not common.

>The fact most of the globe does not do it is irrelevant; they could do it; I could easily do it.
The fact that giving children training with skills that should transfer over, but apparently do not, should tell you that they can't easily do it.

You're really coming across as someone making excuses for having a low IQ at this point. Or maybe you're some genius who has managed to find a way to rig the system despite companies investing a shitload of R&D into the brain training industry and coming up empty.

>>14777641
The problem is you trust anonymous users to properly report their IQ despite the fact you have no real proof said imaginary number is true.
>t. 136

>>14777641
The only way i'll call someone intelligent is from their achievements or things he does, creates or solves. Possibly their status and various other external factors.
But if you just walk up and say you're X IQ or that you have non sense PhD ill burst in laughs

>>14777636
"IQ" should be wordfiltered to "penis size".

>>14777641
>Proving shit to randos
kek
Inferiority complex the post.
If you're better it will be self-evident in the actions you take. Leveraging random chance to feed ego is pathetic.

>>14778611
I'm not doubting you, but how ? I really felt like my math education and training helped me a lot during matrices test, there was for example a question which was basically a cyclic permutation, and a lot of other questions were just xor operations, maybe I'd have found them had I not been studying maths, but that made said questions really easy.

Why does the mere mention of IQ lead to such insane levels of midwit cope?

>>14780928
I like the idea, but it should be filtered to 'vaginal depth' instead.

>>14779761
Intelligent people are not obliged to have any achievements. Only midwits think like that.

>>14781611
People won't like you merely for being intelligent. They might like you if your intelligence benefits them, but that won't happen if you never achieve anything.
>I don't care if people like me
That isn't very intelligent.

>>14782104
>They might like you if your intelligence benefits them
Perhaps this is why intelligent people become resentful and become driven to enslave the less intelligent masses.

>>14782173
I believe your confusing intelligence with frustrated impotence.

>>14782203
*you're

>>14782203
Is it impotence when it is already happening. The middle class is owning nothing and a step away from eating bugs.

>>14782210
Go home George, you're drunk.

>>14777636
Jews worship IQ, and are in a constant state of anxiety regarding it, because they are worthless as parasites if they can't outsmart and cheat someone.