"I'm smart but I am bad at math."

File: 1476273623028.jpg (216KB, 605x763px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 605x763px

>I'm not a "math person"

Not even meming, I can't take seriously anyone who says this. If you're bad at math, you're not smart, even if you've managed to convince yourself you are.

Maths is the epitome of rote learning to be taken over by computers.

Enjoy your waste of time.

>>8805025
Is this true? I'm taking my first proof based math course this summer and I was excited

>>8805025

>not understanding math past basic calculus

skill in math is mostly knowledge, not intelligence

>>8805046
Of course anon, everything you read on 4chan is strictly true.

>>8805059
This only applies to the undergrad calculus circus, anything beyond requires serious analytical skills.

>>8805046
It's complete and utter shit. It requires a ton of creativity and will probably never be automated. Computers can solve equations quickly, but reducing problems into those equations, they cannot do that. They also can't discover new areas to explore and certainly can't prove these things on their own without explicit programming (inb4 "M-m-muh 4 colour theorem" guess who programmed that computer to evaluate all those cases...MATHEMATICIANS)

>>8805046
It's extremely true. As processing power gets stronger and stronger and coders get smarter and smarter computers are capable of handling more and more complex problems, usually figuring them out with simple addition and subtraction.


>Other operations, such as symbolic integration, can be even more complex, but the basic concept is usually the same: reduce the complex problem into simpler ones, and compute.

File: izwWQ.png (27KB, 328x328px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 328x328px

>>8805079
lol there's still tons of integrals that computers have no chance of solving, it still takes geniuses like Cleo

>>8805083
>>Other operations, such as symbolic integration, can be even more complex, but the basic concept is usually the same: reduce the complex problem into simpler ones, and compute.

One day to be a mathematician all you will need to do is compartmentalize a problem so a computer can compute it. That day is rapidly, rapidly approaching.

I'm not smart but I'm not bad at math

>>8805079
>computers will be capable of solving calc problems we have been solving since the 17th century
Wow, math PhDs BTFO.

Also, I read somewhere that computers could only prove tautolgies which are the useless types of mathematical truths.

>>8805079
>>8805100
Computers can't tell which results are useful. You need to give it some direction, and to do you need someone who knows some math.

>>8805059
Sure you can memorize anything you'll be tested on and pass. This is true for anything, just memorize anything anyone could ask you and you're set. But actually working out problems on your own in the basic math like analysis or algebra can be challenging. Proving things can be done without any memorization outside of the definitions and that's what makes math different for testing intelligence.

File: Apu apustaja.png (51KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 657x527px

How can I get good at math? Whenever I try to sit down and work on anything more complicated than basic algebra my mind just goes blank. I had to cheat my way through high school.

>>8805129
Well, math is pretty large and has many methods. What are you good at visualizing in your head?

>>8805129
dumb frogposter

>>8805131
Only fond memories or things I desire. Everything else manifests itself as a dull flickering image in my mind's eye.

>>8805023
People are good at different things anon. It's perfectly possible to be a smart accomplished person while not knowing much about fields other than the one you're trained in. One of the worlds best neurosurgeons thinks the pyramids were created to store grain.

>>8805083
Cleo fascinates me. Is it a team? Is it computer aided?

Spooky shit

>>8805129
Try to understand what you are doing instead of just memorizing rules.

>>8805023
I get that in most cases this statement just means they are some snowflake that didn't try in pre-calc, but there are definitely smart people that don't know math. I guess it really depends on what you consider 'smart'

>>8805214
The ability to predict the future given the relevant data.

>>8805023
define smart

>>8805129
What kind of math do you want to become better at?

>>8805023
If you are talking about basic algebra, then yeah - knowledge needed is very low to understand it.
If you tell me you were bad at solving basic problems then I have the right to at least doubt your effectiveness in choosing the most logical course of action.
A lot of more advanced math simply isn't studied in most field, not STEM, of course. You can't expect someone to care about it if they don't specifically go in STEM.

But there again, there could be way too many causes that aren't related to your intellect
>shit teachers
>shit textbooks
>discouraged by initial failures

>>8805016
Can you source that image for me senpai, Google image search I'd showing up nothing.

>>8805461
Second season of KonoSuba.

>>8805067
Not really. At the undergrad level, you can rederive pretty much everything from basic principles and really master everything.
At the graduate level, there is so much material to cover and so many papers coming out all the time that you can't rely on your sole analytical skills. Your memory then becomes a very important tool (of course you need skill to make sense of all that new stuff and keep it in your head without actually working through it).

>>8805023
Don't lie to yourself. No one, including you, is smart.

>>8805016
To you is anyone who isn't a math major bad at maths?

>>8805016

Now now, artists have a certain type of intelligence that isn't quanitifiable from STEM... Yet intelligence does not equate to being smart. I have seen many intelligent people act completely irrational.

File: 1369677160288.jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

>>8805016
>Knowledge = Intelligence
Fuck off, regards /lit/

>>8805023
You're not smart Anon you have autism, that's the only reason why you're good at remembering numbers. When it comes to every subject that isn't Physics or math you turn SPED instantly

>>8806232
What's the difference between knowledgeable and intelligent?

>>8805023
Smartest person I ever met was shit at maths. Though I think it was due to a lack of interest rather than ability. Still, having a 165 IQ and winning several national history contests is impressive.

>>8806243
An intelligent person is naturally deductive. He knows how to use logical thinking to draw parallels to current situations, think Sherlock Holmes. A knowledgeable person is someone who has through repetition learned something and who can now apply that knowledge. Intelligence is inborn, knowledge isn't. Then again it takes certain people to be really good at math just like it takes certain people to be good at sports, music, language, philosophy or art. To say that all of them except the mathematician lack intelligence or smarts is not only terribly stupid and arrogant but it's also far from really. It would be like me saying that you're a retard for not being able to play all of Bach's Goldberg variations. I know that you all are very autistic so this might come as a shocker, but every individual is different.

>>8806243
Intelligence comes from Intuition+Logic
Those help you gain new knowledge quicker.

>>8806287
Solving cases like the Sherlock Homes ones leans on abductive reasoning(or basically gaining new information based only on "results", or hints&evidence, in this case), that is indeed a better way to show intellect than say, winning a national history contest like >>8806245 said

>>8806299
Forgot to add...
Normies are impressed by someone showing a bit of knowledge about a subject and react with "wow, how intelligent/smart!" but this is wrong as the right definition would be "knowledgeable".
So yeah, if normies call you that - you most likely just know more than them in a certain subject.

>>8806310
Exactly. Being good at history doesn't make you a super genius, it just means you can pay attention when reading.

>>8805016
It's true.

>>8805023
LMFAO no. Some people are good at certain things that other's can't do, and vice versa.

>>8805379
This actually. Every single math teacher I have had up until my junior year in high school was mediocre at best. Luckily enough I got a decent teacher then and now in my senior year I have a pretty good teacher. I'm even starting to find it fun, something I thought wasn't possible in a million years.

>>8805016
Despite many of these other posts talking about not having to know theoretical math as a requirement to be intelligent, you have to remember that people who say this are literally complaining about high school level math, AKA algebra and geometry.

You'd be surprised how little deductive resoning most people have and how incapable of solving simple problems without being outright told what to do by someone else. Most of these people also hate computing simple math problema just because it's taxing.

File: Graph_of_sliding_derivative_line.gif (868KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 400x400px

>>8806342
History doesn't require intuition nor logic, just raw memorization skills.
Yet most historians are thought to be "smart".

More basic math does require some intelligence.
Indeed, I doubt people who claim to be smart and can't even in basic math - not calculus or anything, just fucking being bad at basic math. And I don't mean making calculations in your mind, of course.

>>8806355
My math teachers so far have been all decent except in the last 2 years of high school. She got bored and a bit depressed, expecting us to just memorize everything without explaining concepts or showing us what the fuck a derivate was, for instance.
I got curious after some time because I was teaching math to a friend and pic related blew my mind, I never was able to understand this in high school because of said teacher, despite being able to calculate them

>>8805025
okay, wolframalpha can more or less solve every problem the average student tries solve in their progression of math classes but there is a skill in knowing what to tell it to do

>>8806372
Thanks for the 2 (You)s homie. Yeah basic math does require intelligence, but I doubt all that many people have trouble with basic math. I seem to have an inborn talent for probability though. During my junior year of high school I barely passed most of math, but probability I managed to scrape up a B in. Even the teacher was surprised.

File: 1484785798458.jpg (92KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x1024px

>>8805016
>used to be like that
>go to uni and apply myself
>turns out math is easy as shit and you just have to invest some time and I was bad at it because I didn't pay attention or study
Math is pleb shit, 99% of which can(and is) done by computers, faggot. To my observation, the average mathfags is just a hardworking brainletto that lost his life to memorizing and learning something that can be done by a refined piece of sandwitched rock in a fraction of the time. If you're not in the top 0.0001%, youre basically useless. Having superior pattern recognition is where it's at. (inb4 muh IQ). I'd trade 1000 pleb undergrad mathfags, learning """really hard""" calc III for a single slightly-higher-than-average-IQ popcsci layman that can actually string a coherent sentence.
>mfw a greasy, nolife lolwhatiseployment puremat subhuman exists within a 1000 AU radius of me

>>8806509
>Math is pleb shit, 99% of which can(and is) done by computers
are you implying that numerics isnt a discipline of mathematics?

Because a lot of mathematicians spend there time trying to solve mathematical problems on a computer.
And incidentally that is something computers can not yet do really well.

>>8805016
But OP, there's nothing wrong with that statement

>>8806509
>realize that calculus is piss easy
>conclude that all math is like that

good work on your reasoning, you must be really great at math

>>8806509
>He thinks people think clac 3 is hard
Only normies and retarded udndergrad. Guess what? No self respeccting mathematician thinks that´s hard.

>>8806509
>mfw a computer scientist speaka

>>8806372
>History doesn't require intuition nor logic, just raw memorization skills.
That's what you think.

History need a ton of memory, yes, but also an extremely methodological spirit and lots of rigour.
At least, good history.

>>8805016
Yes and? There are many people in my field (earth science) who are poor at math. There is no need for them to be extremely good at math but saying they're not smart is foolish.

>>8806583
Most mathematicians utterly despise computational tasks and while they would easily do them, they usually understand why peope struggle.

Ask a mathematician if which they think, of Calc 3 or Abstract Algebra, is more tedious. They'll all answer Calc 3.

>tedious doesn't mean hard!!!
It means it's hard to work on it and to be motivated, which explains why people struggle.

Math is basic pattern recognition. If you suck at math you are a failure of a human being.

>>8805129
Get a sub for the great courses plus. Start with algebra 1, then 2, then precalc, then calculus 1, 2, and multivariable.

Get a torrent for the book they are using (not the included workbook) and do ALL the odd problems for each section.

I failed out of community college but now I'm starting grad school for physics thanks to them

File: 1486488403085.jpg (8KB, 250x232px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x232px

>>8806625
>failed out of community college

>>8806604
Elaborate.
All you need to do in history is simply learning and remembering stuff that happened, there is no intuition or logic involved in reading something and saying "Oh, this happened"

>>8806585
**codemonkey

>>8806649
No.
You don't need to just learn that x and y happened, you need to connect the dots and try to draw an explanation, connections, notice differences, similarities, comparisons to past, present, and (possible) future.
You need to learn how to quote efficiently and make good use of source materials. You need to spot apparent contradiction, and find a 3rd party document to either resolve the contradiction or at least explain it.

History is much more than narrating things, it's connecting things together to explain what happened, the hows, the whys.

>>8806372
>pic related blew my mind, I never was able to understand this in high school

Funny, it was the opposite for me. It was so obvious that I doubted myself that that what they were talking about was actually a tangent line to the curve because everyone was making such a big fuss about it so I figured I must have not thought hard enough about it, but nope. I remember then asking them about tangent planes and then tangent cubes and other shapes and the teacher just gave me that look they always gave me like, "Shut the fuck up." That was a common experience for me in school because I always thought about math geometrically and NO ONE ever made the connection between geometry and anything outside of geometry and even the teachers were always amazed.

Really sad because now that I'm an adult I realize that this isn't because I was smart, I'm not I'm really average, it was just because math education is so horrible in modern times and people actually think geometry and algebra and calculus are "different" subjects.

I'll still never get over the look on his face. Good times. That was pretty much every class really. Always asking questions I wasn't supposed to be asking yet.

>>8806614
>>8806658
>History is much more than narrating things, it's connecting things together to explain what happened, the hows, the whys.
And why? You aren't trying to figure out something studying history, that's if they ask your theory about a past event.

>>8806663
You were smart enough to understand that.
I am like you here - always automatically linked math and geometry... I mean, my mind sees is as perfectly logical and easy now to understand why the derivative of x^2 would be 2
The point is that I didn't grasp the geometrical meaning of derivative because my teacher didn't explain it at all, just gave us definitions and functions to derivate.

>>8805016
How much math does one need to know to be considered smart? Do I need to learn Inter-universal Teichmüller theory?

>>8806677
>You aren´t trying to figure something studying history
Why do you say such hard statements of a field you clearly don´t know anything about.

>>8806686

Not how much, how good you are at it, and then how much better you are at applying it than all the other people who are good at it. Don't listen to the grad students circle jerking over their ivory tower mental masturbation. No one cares about categories until you're working with dynamic systems or managing millions of lines of code. No one cares if you can understand IUTT until you can apply it to something very large, very tiny, very far away, very fast, or some combination of them all.

When I was majoring in philosophy the smartest person I knew there was a Math major. Eventually I realized the difference between math and philosophy is that the first mostly deals with clearly defined concepts while the latter deals with ill-defined concepts from natural language ("freedom", "truth", "being", "God"). While you can must use logical reasoning in both, only math has a clear-cut answer to whether your reasoning was correct or not. So, basically, you can easily fool yourself into thinking you're intelligent if no one can decisively tell you're wrong.

>>8805023
this.

math is the only 100% bullshit free subject. unless you were taught math terribly and never tried to correct it (which makes you a brainlet in its own regards), only brainlets are "bad at math".

>>8806686
Some analysis and some algebra. Like the material out of Rudin and Herstein. They're both very important to math as a whole and once you understand them well they aren't hard. Unlike other topics which will stay hard no matter how much you know like algebraic geometry.

>>8806700
It's very hard to judge how "good" anyone is at basic math. You can measure how long it takes them to solve a set of problems, but that isn't really testing their intelligence since they could have seen the problems before and remember how they're done. Even then, basic math is still just basic math. Plenty of people can and have done it before so it can't be very difficult in a broad sense.

>>8806663
Unfortunately high school math teachers don't know any math beyond the basics. They're almost always the worst of people majoring in math since the people who were good at it moved on to academia or actual jobs if they learned how to program.

>>8806722
>It's very hard to judge how "good" anyone is at basic math. You can measure how long it takes them to solve a set of problems, but that isn't really testing their intelligence since they could have seen the problems before and remember how they're done. Even then, basic math is still just basic math. Plenty of people can and have done it before so it can't be very difficult in a broad sense.

Mmmmmm... I think we all know when someone is good at math, even if we don't want to admit it. It is true that someone can know the answer already, but most of the time, especially in math classes which are usually smaller, we already know which type of person is the one who would need to rehearse their answers before the test and which has never read the textbook and is just answering the questions logically. Just because there's someone who rehearsed doesn't make the other guy "not good." We all know who they are and what they are capable of.

File: brain.jpg (199KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 400x300px

>>8805016
>tfw good at math but even better at other subjects/fields

>>8806699
Because of arrogance. Many STEM people believe they know everything and thus anybody who specialized in something not STEM is stupid.

>>8806739
Yes but we can't really know whether they've seen the material before. They could just be saying they haven't looked at the book. That's why it would be a poor test for intelligence. Higher level math has the advantage here in that you can ask very obscure questions which people have definitely never seen before unless it was their field of expertise.

File: 1583.jpg (12KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 251x242px

>im really smart, i just don't try

>>8805016
If you have inflexible thought patterns you are pretty much a retard that will achieve nothing.

Getting good at math is a serious time requirement so if you have other interests it becomes practically impossible to acquire any sufficient math knowledge.

Learning some basic math is nothing special either and anyone can do it in a small time frame. But that knowledge is hardly necessary in most cases.

>>8805016
Well, it seems really difficult for /sci/ to believe it, but there are people like that. Although people who are good at math tend to be smart, not all smart people are good at math. This is sets 101. You should know this.

>>8806800
The people who say this are referring to highschool level math. Every smart person can do this level of math.

>>8805016
Anime makes you a degenerate.

>>8806824
This

>>8806809
Not really. I know quite a few smart people in humanities that just can't do HS-level math. I pity them when I see their inability, but that changes on other instances when I see that they are truly smart, but are unable to do math because they never bothered to even start to try to understand it.

Just to clarify - it highly depends on the school you choose(you sure don't do analysis in every HS, do you?), but generally it's still basic math.

Personally I did derivatives and integrals in EE, but I don't think it was basic at all.
Also noticed I skipped set theory, but it was incredibly easy to learn it by myself in small time

>>8805023
yes, but that person could be pretty resourceful on other things, like managing a business and make a living out of it. You have people on this board that majored in physics and work office and receptionist jobs.

>>8805016
I don't like to think of myself as intelligent I really don't like to think of myself as above anyone. However people often accuse me of being intelligent. "David" they say accusingly "You're quite intelligent". I enjoy many things others consider to be mentally taxing. I did only get just over 70% in math. Ive never felt the urge to get any better at it even though I'm well aware I'm capable of doing so. It just doesn't interest me. I'm far more interested in history and the less math involved sides of physics and astronomy.

>>8805016
smart
>having or showing a quick-witted intelligence
/thread

>>8806625
"Sub" what?

>>8805229
Define define

What would be smart?

>>8806716
.99~=1 both conceptually and realistically. No bullshit.

>>8806841
>can't understand it
ftfy

>>8805016
Multiple intelligences. I would consider an intelligent person to be athletic, sociable, emotionally stable, good at math, writing, reading, and music. This is immensely rare and as much as this may hurt you, my guess is that you're good at math and that has no practical application outside of your career/education. The odds of you discovering some new mathematical theorem and contributing to the world as we know it is infinitesimal. Math, to me, is the repetition of information that was designed by man in order to explain basic phenomena like what happens if I lose 2 fingers to frostbite? Will I still have 10 fingers? No? Fuck? I'll only have 8? Fuck. Quite honestly the most intelligent people that ever existed were philosophers who set up the basics of logical reasoning for mathematicians to come in and fuck it all up with numbers.

3rd year Math Major here.

>>8808608
>Multiple intelligences

You're a brainlet.

>>8808608
If you believe you'll never do great things then of course you won't

File: 1491452612480.png (17KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 650x650px

>>8808608
>Multiple intelligences

>>8806287
>Intelligence is inborn, knowledge isn't.
What?

>>8806716
See
>>8805138
and
>>8806758

>>8806716
>math is the only 100% bullshit free subject
Math is terribly formalist, unintuitive, and terribly computational for the most part.

Don't get wrong, I love it, but I understand people not liking it.

>>8805084
I look at some integrals and think there's no way a computer can do that

>>8808726

Math is only unintuitive if you've learned it from shitty professors.
Also, the only kind of math that's largely computational is the kind of math that normies are impressed by like basic calculus, ODEs, linear algebra, etc. "Average Joe" doesn't even know what the hell analysis, topology, abstract algebra ARE.

>>8805016

I'm dumb for the most part but pretty good at math.

>>8808640
>>8808642
>>8808656
3 subsequent replies verifying the existence of multiple intelligences.

>>8808608
At base intelligence is highly dependent on the amount of connections between things you can create in your brain and the size of your working memory.
Final component is being able to efficiently find patterns within the massive amount of information you're handling.
Most people are pretty good at this pattern recognition though, and it's just their working memory that's lacking.

It doesn't really matter where you apply your skills, you will still be intelligent if you are intelligent.

>>8808726
All of those are reasons why it's bullshit free. Well defined systems, rigor, and computation are all objective and do not rely on interpretation or feeling.

>>8806287
The two overlap tho you fucking imbecile

>>8810011
The issue here is that some information simply isn't stored or you fail to miss more abstract connections if you are too stupid to think about more than your eyes are perceiving

>>8805018
they can hold that belief and be just as good whenever they try.

what they could mean is "i dont like math"

>>8805138
>>8805214
Yeah, but there's a difference between not knowing much math and being bad at math.

>>8806240
>"remembering numbers" has anything to do with being good at math
wew lad

>>8810175
>do not rely on interpretation or feeling.
Which is why some people can be very intelligent and struggle with it.

>>8808852
Basic math can be easily intuitive.
University level is intuitive if you're wired for it.
Advanced level is a nightmare, as you've said.
>Let's imagine a 126 dimension sphere

>>8806287
>Then again it takes certain people to be really good at math
Yeah, people who ''know how to use logical thinking to draw parallels to current situations'' aka smart people.

>art
Creativity + muscle memory

>language
Knowledge

>sports
In a discussion about intelligence, lol. Kill yourself.
Muscle memory

You need to be smart to be good at math or philosophy, but not for the other things you've listed. OP's point still stands.

>>8811191
>creativity isn't intelligence

>he thinks sports is just "muscle memory"
Why are STEMfags so obnoxious ? I'm betting 5€ you're an undergrad too.

>>8806245

> I'm smart because I do good at competitive history

ok

How do I get good at math? I have pretty profound autobiographical memory issues and for some reason mathematical methods seem wrapped up in that. Every year in highschool I relearned how to do every grade level of math up to that point and within a few months of graduation I was forgetting how to divide properly. I learned it again for college but I forgot again.

Am I fucked?

>>8811504
no. math is hard work. you don't learn if you don't work. it's not like other disciplines where you can just bullshit unprepared

>>8811511
>it's not like other disciplines where you can just bullshit unprepared
This is so fucking true. I was mainly wondering if people had tips for the chronically forgetful as to how to make it stick. Just practice each step 2-3 hours a day?

>>8810753
>Yeah, but there's a difference between not knowing much math and being bad at math.
I don't think Mozarts knowledge of Mathematics has any bearing at all on whether or not he can be considered a genius. Asserting that someone needs some arbitrarily level of mathematical talent before they can be considered smart sounds retarded.

>>8811514

Do all the problems in the book

>>8811191
Language is not only about knowledge. Like chemistry, it relies heavily on memorization, but also has a huge overlap with logical reasoning. You can't say it's easy for a westerner to comprehend russian grammatical rules, for instance.

>>8811263
Not even that guy, but sports IS just muscle memory. You don't think a lot when you want to hit a ball, you just do it. It requires a good neurological development, but it's not intelligence.

>>8811276
> I'm smart because I do good at competitive math

ok

>>8811518
>Asserting that someone needs some arbitrarily level of mathematical talent before they can be considered smart sounds retarded.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Mozart was a genius. His intelligence was very concentrated on music, so he didn't "need" to know math to be smart. Most people aren't geniuses like him (I'm pretty sure his genius was more general at first, but as he discovered his passion for music, it cristalized in it, so by "genius" I mean "having a deep drive to learn and practice something", which most people don't have), so establishing a threshold for mathematical knowledge to assess intelligence seems at least reasonable.

File: 1486514824752.jpg (88KB, 864x576px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 864x576px

>>8805016

Except when people say "I'm smart but I am bad at math" they actually mean is:

>I can't follow BEDMAS or solve trivial algebra problems that I should have learned about in high-school, but I was too busy getting stoned, or slacking off playing video-games to bother, and the shitty public school system let me glide through because it was too much of a pain to fail me. BUT, what I can do is recite a bunch of useless knowledge about popular TV shows, have shitty, surface level debates about politics and philosophy, and opine endlessly about "quantum physics" and how it just proves how mystical the universe is.

>>8811579
>establishing a threshold for mathematical knowledge to assess intelligence seems at least reasonable
It doesn't really and it doesn't take much to understand why. Replace "mathematical knowledge" with "Biological knowledge" or "programming knowledge" or "artistic knowledge". Just because you place mathematics on a pedestal doesn't mean it's the be all end all and it's more reasonable to respect individuals for the things they excel at rather than tipping your fedora at someone who is a successful business owner and saying "Yeah but do you know how to solve a linear equation?".

>>8805025
>anthropomorphising computers
people like you are the problem

>>8806716
>>8805023
>>8805016
I would genuinely kill every mathematician who was incapable of advanced physics, chemistry, programming, arhitecture.

I do not need an army of angry coping autists who aren't good at anything else but being walking calculators who pretend they're hot shit because they can solve a basic equation through some retarded loophole like most algebra retards do.

1 + x = 1,000,000
Well obviously x -1 = 9.. NO
You are going to sit there and count every single number, you little useless shit.

>>8811565

When is the last time someone made a break through in history using nothing but their own brain?

>>8805016
It's called being a linguist.

>>8811590
Math knowledge is more elementary and important on day-to-day tasks than biological, programming and artistic knowledge.
It is really deep down, aside from chess, the rawest activity logic-wise one can do, with some fancy symbols to be applied to real life.

>>8811689
I'm not talking about being useful, I'm talking about being smart. If you wanna bring usefulness into the topic, you might as well disregard much of mathematics.

>>8811770

Right now you are shitposting on a precision mathematical instrument designed using applied math.

I wasn't even trying to invoke usefulness to the argument. It doesn't even change the fact that serious math can be done using only one's brain.

>>8811770
>Math knowledge is more elementary and important on day-to-day tasks
The fact that the vast majority of people have low mathematical literacy refutes that. How could people function when 50% of them don't even know basic algebra?

>>8805016
I'm good at math but I'm pretty stupid.

>>8805023
I fucking hate myself. Its all genetic and who you marry. But nowadays that considered taboo because people are stupid have to retarded to even seek to improve themselves.

File: 1471989621247.jpg (81KB, 720x579px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 720x579px

>smart
>bad at math
pick one

>>8811263
>lol, look at me kicking this ball I'm so fucking intelligent
Yeah, you're fucking retarded, I got it. Why are brainlets like you so obnoxious ? Stop trying to rationalize your own lack of intelligence.

>buh mah creativity
Yeah, anon. Artists are the most intelligent people, on par with scientists.
How about we send you to Mars on a rocket made by artists, you twat ? They're creative therefore intelligent, they'll find a way to get it right eventually.

>b-b-but making art requires another form of intelligence which I've just invented right now which won't help you in STEM for some reason huehueehuehuehueue

>>8805016
>but
you mean "and"
therefore not "smart"

>>8811565
>sports IS just muscle memory
It's also vivacity, initiative and reading a situation.

>>8812039
You must be 18 years of age to post on this site.

File: Pepe maga.jpg (42KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 512x512px

tfw shit at phyics and calculus, amazing at chemistry/biology

>>8805016
>I'm straight but I make the same repetitive threads over and over again
oh wait you're op lmao #boom #rekt #roasted #savage #annihilated

>>8812199
>MAGA hat posting from a brainlet
wow i am shocke

>>8812210
new computer i have very few pictures saved

>>8812188
>It's also vivacity, initiative and reading a situation
Unless you mean chess, reading a situation on a sports match isn't something that requires a lot of brainpower.
Also, vivacity and initiative have nothing to do with intelligence, but with personality.
>inb4 if you are smart you have initiative
The "smart but lazy" meme is a thing, anon. If you don't have to apply yourself to solve problems using your brain, you are likely not gonna apply yourself to anything else.

>>8811813
>The fact that the vast majority of people have low mathematical literacy refutes that. How could people function when 50% of them don't even know basic algebra?
That's why anyone who has more mathematical understanding that the vast majority of people and applies their knowledge outside of academia has a lot more success than most people.
There is a reason most billionaries are either economists or engineers.

>>8808345
To state or set forth the meaning of a word, phrase, etc.

>>8806232
>thinking math requires knowledge
>went to school for 10 years
>not knowing basic general knowledge
>smart

>>8812188
>no argument
Not a surprise

>>8805023
Beethoven was bad at math.

>>8805016
Bad at math or bad at calculation? I went from bottom 20% to the top 10% in math classes after it became more about how to do a problem and not just mechanical calculation. Most people who say that are people who got bored and hated the later and because of that never got into the former.

>>8805047
>>8805078
I watched some documentary about math and there was a Columbia math professor discussing this with other mathematician. He was deeply concerned that in the future there would be no need for mathematicians, just computers doing all the math work. So it's not that obvious, dear undergrad students.

>>8806791
This anon is very wise; his post is right in the bull's eye.

>>8812039
So Shakespeare, Bach, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Tolstoy and Mozart are not intelligent?

>>8808608
I don't care about the practical application of the things I want to learn. So fuck off.

>>8806649
>be historian
>memorizing stuff that happened
>suddenly someone doubts that something happened

what do?

>>8805016
Did this image get deleted?

Do mods actually come to /sci/??

I'm 140 IQ and struggle with counting change
But then I had to do a math course in uni and learned math from scratch pretty fucking fast so its likely some smart people avoid math like the plague but they are actually good at it POTENTIALLY

>>8811565
>but sports IS just muscle memory

you are retarded and clearly practice no sport or just weight lifting like the monkey you are.

Honestly reading this thread makes me realize the dire situation US is in. If you guys are attending top unis (hope not) and are the intelligentsia of the country it's no wonder educated liberals seem so retarded: they are.

Look memester you could train 5 years in BJJ and try to memorize every lock guard etc and I guarantee you wouldn't beat a white that has learned to think correctly about the human body in rolls.
Have seen guys elaborate traps I couldn't see coming. Sadly this translates as boring as fuck fights in top level Jiu-Jitsu because they just do the safest shit, since everything else has too many possibilities behind every subtle movement to risk being finished because of that.

File: me.jpg (55KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 900x900px

>>8812450
140 IQ, I'm CIA.

>>8812448
Yeah, but the pic wasn't even porn or anything. Pretty retarded if you ask me.

>>8805016
>What is linguistics?

>>8812485
>3 digit IQ.

Pleb.

>>8811588
>needing anything else than going to class in order to understand and ace high school math.
You nerd faggs are also retarded. Have fun doing my tecnical work while I solve fundamental problems and fuck your wife.

File: thatword.jpg (655KB, 1273x688px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 1273x688px

>>8814279
>You nerd faggs are also retarded. Have fun doing my tecnical work while I solve fundamental problems and fuck your wife.

MFW aliums would rather glass earth than be cucks to a pleb tier computer.

>>8806791
it's not that they don't have the knowledge - it's that they couldn't if they tried. that's what they mean by saying "I'm bad at math".

>>8805023
I know people who are really good at conceptualizing math and doing proofs but suck at applying it to numbers. Does that make them dumb?

>>8806677
>I mean, my mind sees is as perfectly logical and easy now to understand why the derivative of x^2 would be 2

can you explain why you now see it as easy?

>>8814388
>good at conceptualizing math and doing proofs
i would consider this more important than applying it to numbers

applying it to numbers is what computers are for

>>8814591
Applying it to numbers is what engineers are for.

>>8814591
I mean it's stuff like forgetting to carry negatives or saying that 9×8 is 63 instead of 72. He suffers from psychosis or some shit.

His math grades suck but he's really good at physics and proofs. Very strange lmao.

>>8811710
linguists are generally good at math.

File: UBYe0Dl.png (297KB, 532x450px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 532x450px

>>8805016
Anyone that thinks "math = smart" is a complete meme. Math is literally the epitome of a class that revolves around effort.

Literally *anyone* can continue doing practice problems and will eventually get the material. It's all about effort. Someone that doesn't do the problems or learn the formula is obviously never going to get it. The "math=smart meme" is just a way for people that try to feel smart

>>8814658
>practice problems
>math
>he thinks what he learned in school is math
ehehe

>>8814663
You are an idiot, that is the foundation for all of math.

This is why nobody likes Engineers or Math majors; You're all a complete meme and/or are illiterate.

>>8814667
>that is the foundation for all of math
No it's not. It's a dumbed out primitive version of math, that was invented more than 9000 years ago.

>>8814672
Can you say something not cringy please? This is why everyone thinks you're a meme..

>>8814658
>math is just memorization and practice
>but people who can't do math aren't dumb
At least one of these statements must be false

>>8814680
>cringy
>meme
>posts meme images
Come on now, you're the meme

File: 269efbe2487740f6b6e23b2cfb66af9b.jpg (40KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x480px

>>8805016
Civilization exists because some people are great at some jobs while other people are great at other jobs and both types of people decide to work together.

If everyone was great at everything, there'd be no need for civilization.

>>8814689
I'm posting memes on 4chan you dolt, the difference is you legitimately speak like this irl lmao

>>8814682
>follow a formula
>look at me I am smart!!!!

File: 1490591928813.jpg (54KB, 400x562px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 400x562px

>>8812224
>reading a situation on a sports match isn't something that requires a lot of brainpower.

Not really. The goal is to score, which is essentially a series of solving problems. You need to keep of the track of your team relative to the other, the weaknesses of the other team and individual players and their habits. What play they might run and the way to disrupt it. Who's guarding where you want to be i.e the rim and if you can beat them. Who's doing well and who isn't on your team and the other. The time left on the clock and the proper way to solve the problem with the time given.

Doing all of that with limited time and pressure requires focus and thinking. And it can require creativity. Exploiting strength/height advantages and throwing the ball in the hoop doesn't really require too much thought, but sports require you to think fast and solve the problem in many situations, which is basically a big part of what intelligence is