anal prolapse

they have street smarts. and emotional intelligence

>>8670998
I think anyone who actually puts in effort can learn how to do math. It might take time, you might fail and have to retake classes, but I don't think it's impossible.

For me the biggest designator of smart/not smart is not whether someone is good at math. I mean it's possible that someone took interest in other subjects and decided to study those.

That said I hate more than anything someone who won't even bother to learn something they need to know and they just write it off as "hurr I can't do that I'm bad at math"

>>8670998
>who cannot do math but is still capable of using logic and reasoning in other contexts.


I think that it is reasonable but only b/c said person may have never even tried to learn math above a high school level. And high school level math is often just bad teachers forcing you to memorize a bunch of rules without any type of proof, so logical reasoning doesn't really come into play.

>>8670998
I consider myself smart yet am only just reteaching myself algebra (after life sent me down the labor path for a while). Granted I am grasping all the concepts fast and know how to work a lot of logic in my head naturally. But still, it's just algebra. Granted I have a history in math being in gifted in primary school and AP in mid to high schools winning regional math competitions. But again, low level shit. Can't say where I stand in this discussion considering I don't know the first thing about trigonometry or calculus or anything beyond, but I'm on the path to conquer the maths.

>>8671042
Haha algebra. Stupid

>>8670998
What do you call "smart" and "good at maths" ? Does a good musician or writer count as smart ? In that case, yes, I have. Although they just might not have had the chance to study it or might have been taught terribly.
That being saif, I don't think maths is not a universal measure of "smarts", whichever way you want to look at it (unless you define smart as "good at maths", in which case there is no reason to be having this discussion)

>>8671017
>>That said I hate more than anything someone who won't even bother to learn something they need to know and they just write it off as "hurr I can't do that I'm bad at math"
found the undergrad who never has done math.

>>8670998
Lot of people don't care about math.
It's a boring language that they don't have an interest in.

The question of whether somebody COULD learn math is different from whether they DO. motivation is an extremely important factor.

>>8671049
Working on it

>>8671167
I think he means when people just refuse to learn anything that resembles math even when it's necessary for something.
I've had this problem before, and the best approach in my experience is to repeat it ad nauseam until they give in.

>>8671169
This. On one hand, math "skillz" are a a metric of how "smart" a person is because it's 100% abstract; but on the other it's only if good at math -> must be smart, doesnt go the other way. Someone could have an extraordinary mind and just not give a shit about math. And specially people who consider ourselves ""smart"" wont waste time in something we dont care about.

In case OP wants to say a thing about me being smart or not: studying CS/Software engineering here, always got to national (arg) finals in math competitions, never won shit because too lazy to put in the hours of work.

>>8670998

OPie, what pisses me off is how society seems to not only accept innumeracy, but even finds it funny.


Imagine your friends ask you to read a menu at a restaurant, and you go "eh, you guys do it for me, I've never been good at dumb ol English hahaha!" Would it get a laugh? Fuck no, people would look at you like you're full tard, and rightfully so.


But when you have the same group of fuckhead friends at the same restaurant and you say "you guy's figure out the bill and tip and I'll just pay it, I always sux0red at math hahahah!" it gets a laugh from everyone and even sometimes a "yeah me too!"


Why is innumeracy funny but illiteracy not?

>>8671309
>>Why is innumeracy funny but illiteracy not?
because people think that numbers are more elementary, which makes them real ("lol there are 2 trees before me, so the number 2 exists outside of my mind I swear, mind blown'') and not being able to count does not jive well in liberals society where liberals have been hyping science as progress and truth, for the last 3 centuries.

not being able to read is classified by liberals as a defect of their liberal education for the plebs (libtards think that you get smart & emancipated from the dumb religions by reading books, and they love to claim they invented the press), while not being able to count is just being dumb, but being good at numbers is already being a non normie (lol I am not a nerd) and people think that being good at math is being good at counting (which is just what the liberal entertainment industry shows each time they show a ''math genius'')

>>8671345
where are the proofs

>>8671347
define proof

>>8671348
proof: a set of facts which endow truth to a claim through contextual linkage

>>8671352
wow baby, looks like you just came out of a epistemology course

how do I put a fact in a set ?

>>8670998
If you're so smart, where is your money?

>>8671355
just give em one of these

[[fact1,fact2,fact3],[fact4,fact5,fact6]]

>>8671357

In the hands of niggers and spics

>>8670998
Absolutely. I've met a number of people like this. They were good at things like history, politics, philosophy, etc. It's very common.

>>8670998
See Lovecraft. He stopped pursuing astronomy because he was unable to learn higher math, but was a prodigy.