/sci/ - Science & Math

>complain about shitposting

>shitpost

take it to >>>>>>/q/

IQ threads are /sci/ culture, intelligence is very relevant to academic research and psychology is a science.

Those threads are being bumped twice a day by a lone spammer. Look at the post times, and you'll see what I'm talking about. After you've seen what's going on, please join us in emailing moot about it:

moot@4chan.org

>>5879399
If moot didn't want threads to be bumped, he would have made the boards with less than 10 pages. Take your meds, you're paranoid. ;)

but NEETs need the right to gloat to someone about why they aren't worthless

>>5878798

> IQ threads are /sci/ culture
No.

> Intelligence is very relevant to academic research

No since the 90s.

> Psychology is a science.

And what? There are more interesting things in psychology than shitty IQ threads.

Why do you want to ban science? This is a science and mathematics board.

>>5880648
But IQ is less science and more some arbitrary, relatively inaccurate scale that everybody likes to compare. It's like comparing dick size, if Einstein held the record for world's largest schlong.

>>5880659
IQ is the only internationally accepted definition of intelligence. If you don't like it because you scored low, then either shut up or invent a better test.

I do not see any IQ threads.

>>5882074
>If you don't like it because you scored low, then either shut up or invent a better test.
Yeah, if all you have to talk about is IQ, you should probably change boards.

>>5882074
my cousin has a 160 iq, has worked at a grocery store making minimum wage for over 15 years and failed two grades and dropped out of grade school. he has no aspirations besides living his in his parents' house and spending all his money on video games

glad to know he's intelligent by definition

>>5882808
Because intelligence means you have to accomplish something that you agree with.

The most intelligent person in the world might be someone who killed himself as soon as he was able.

>>5882822
it's a measure of likelihood in succeeding by definition

>>5882808
>glad to know he's intelligent by definition
If he scored high on an IQ test, he is intelligent.

>>5882827
Intelligence does not imply success.

>>5884200
clearly you know nothing about intelligence

please leave

>>5878684
>Should we ban IQ thread?
Yes. Too bad the janitors will never do anything about it.

While we're on the topic of banning threads, anyone who posts Barnett images/threads should be permanently banned as well.

>>5878689
You really don't know what you're talking about.

not even op

>>5884209
That's the Titanspammer, she just did another round of bumping.

>>5884209
>>5884200 is the Titanspammer, she just did another round of bumping.

>>5882074
If you want to talk about the scientific basis for IQ that's one thing, but test taking / 'ITT post your IQ' / 'how do i increase my IQ' threads are not science.
Any more than talking about the science behind cooking is to be differentiated from posting recipies.

IQ threads are not science and math.

Ideally /sci/ should ban IQ, philosophy, stormfaggotry, obvious trolling ("0.99... = 1 ?"), and 'rating' sciences/schools/majors from 'god tier' to 'shit tier' threads.

What is "Intelligence" OP how do we accurately measure Intelligence?

>>5884289
>What is "Intelligence"
The quantity the IQ measures.
>how do we accurately measure Intelligence
By administering IQ tests.

>>5884281
>If you want to talk about the scientific basis for IQ that's one thing, but test taking / 'ITT post your IQ' / 'how do i increase my IQ' threads are not science.

We're not smart enough to discuss the actual science behind it, leave us alone. It's still related.

>>5884209
>clearly you know nothing about intelligence

You are projecting. I posted the academically accepted definition of intelligence.

>>5879968
gb2 reddit blank slatist

>>5880659
wrong

>>5884909
>We're not smart enough to discuss the actual science behind it
Not Harriet. Where is she?

>>5887353
Was she an expert on cognitive psychology?

>>5888744
She solved a lot of Raven's Matrices posted on /sci/. Does that count?

>>5889561
Those are hard. She must be really smart.

Please respond, Harriet. What do you think of the IQ threads on /sci/?

>>5891316

>>5888918
/thread

quit bumping old threads

>>5891316
Not her, but IQ is psychology and psychology is science. Of course IQ threads belong on /sci/.

>>5891316
>>5892992
haz knows IQ tests are a load of bollocks.
it's something that you can practise to improve upon. being good at IQ tests is something you can train, but that aint gonna magically make you ACTUALLY more intelligent, is it!??

wtf you on about anyway??
haz aint even in this thread you retard

>>5892992
gay means happy and happy means gay.

>>5892996
>haz knows IQ tests are a load of bollocks.
She is a psychologist. Like all legitimate, non-crackpot psychologists she is aware that IQ accurately measures intelligence.
>it's something that you can practise to improve upon.
In addition to the high school maths you appear to be too unintelligent to learn about psychometrics. Memorizing the correct answers to a bogus IQ test you found on Facebook will not raise your score.
>being good at IQ tests is something you can train
Argument by repetition is a fallacy and you managed to do it in the second malformed sentence. Has all that drug abuse destroyed the cortical structures responsible for working memory? Is 24/7 assistance in the psychiatric rehabilitation center required so you remember to defecate?

>>5893019
The meaning of the word changed over time.

>>5893810
>Like all legitimate, non-crackpot psychologists she is aware that IQ accurately measures intelligence.
It is not quite that simple.

Supposing I set up a mile long race. You would expect that ones performance in this race will correlate with their overall fitness. Healthy athletic people will do well, people who are disabled or severely obese will not do very well at all.
But consider a body builder who mainly focuses on the upper body, and does not exercise his legs much. He is stocky and heavy, and could well be outpaced in the race by very skinny people who do not weigh much, but is he less fit overall? Most would say not.

As a general rule of thumb, a person with a high IQ will be intelligent, but intelligence is a very broad topic, and it is a little too simplistic to have a single integer value to represent all of a persons intelligence.

Most importantly, how one uses their intelligence is far more important than whether or not they have high intelligence.

>>5894933
>but intelligence is a very broad topic

Intelligence is precisely defined by IQ.

>>5893001
>haz aint even in this thread you retard

How do you know? Doesn't she post anonymously now?

>>5896968
Yes, but EK would recognise.

>>5896972
How would she do that?

>>5897805
coz haz uses a unique writing style that makes her stand out.
cant always tell, but usually

>>5898283
What makes her writing style unique?

>>5899384
She does not use contractions.

>>5899850
>does not

Are you her?

>>5878684
pardon my low IQ, but

> ban IQ thread
> 0.999...=1

wtf are you talking about?

>>5899850
Like Data?