Is it possible to be smart and suck at math?

>>9028091
>Is it possible to be smart and suck at math?
No.

>>9028091
math's got nothing to do with intelligence. absolutely nothing.
/thread

you should go back and review your algebra, geometry, or even further back then that. A good place to do that is kahn academy.

you should go back and review your algebra, geometry, or even further back then that. A good place to do that is kahn academy

Well kind of, calculus is easy math. Maybe you just don't like math, which is different. If you feel like your brain just "shuts off" when you're studying something that's a good sign that you're studying the wrong thing.
I don't think I'm dumb and yet I would never be able to study linguistics or history, I just can't deal with that kind of thing.

>>9028105
>brain shuts off from boring stuff
>smart
pick one

>>9028109

boring is subjective, lad

>>9028134
If you can't concentrate on something just because you think it's boring, you're a brainlet.

>>9028091
Could be a lack of motivation. Or the fact that uni maths is waay harder than high school maths depending on where you study

>>9028091
>Is it possible to be smart and suck at math?
No, since being smart implies that you are good at solving problems and that you have the ability to understand things, and guess what? Math involves both things.
Don't even try to fagging around "intelligence types" since that is a psychology meme (like if psychology on its own wasn't a meme).

>>9028098
fpbp

>>9028137
>I mine coal all day even though I don't want to
>I am very smart

You aren't alive to chase unpleasant experiences. Obviously there's wisdom in doing things you don't want to do but need to do, but there's also no point in forcing yourself to do something you don't want to do in the long run.

Happy + 30k year > sad + 1M a year

>>9028091
>>9028099
If you are smart then Mathematics (as well as what underlies it: logic and philosophy) will come easily to you. Even if you don't appreciate it beyond surface-level applied mathematics, you would still excel at said part of mathematics. Though I would argue lack of interest in mathematics as a whole, especially the actual structure and theory of it, indicates a lack or limitation of intelligence.

>>9028189
How can one anon misinterpret one post this much?

>>9028091
Standerdized tests are a terrible measure of math skills. What you learn in school doesn't prepare you for actual math problems.

>>9028200
Ez, I remember thinking about that earlier so I was just looking for an opportunity to point that out within realizing it

Humans didn't evolve to look at some fucking numbers. We evolved to analyze fitness information. Everything else we're capable of is an unintended by-product of our evolution.
There's nothing special about being good at math.

>>9028091
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
yes

There's nothing wrong with not liking math, but most people on a science board are going to laugh at you. It's like going to a cars show and asking people if it's fine to ride a bicycle instead.

>>9028862
>psychology
>not a pseudoscience
Don't you have a personality test to take lmao

>>9028091
>People (i.e. retarded normies) SEEM to think I'm smart, pegging me as a "science guy" without me bringing anything up related to it, and commenting on how smart I SEEM.
I think I see the discrepancy

>>9028874
>psychometry
>not the only part of psychology that's highly reproducible and half a shit

If you don't train math you're gonna suck at it, regardless of intelligence.

But if you do train and still suck, then yeah you're probably not very smart.

File: 1496012400081.jpg (48KB, 580x894px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 580x894px

>>9028091
>Is it possible to be good at sports and still suck at weight lifting?
>I'm just looking for honest opinions because I can run a 3.8 second 40 meter dash, but whenever I go to lift weights I can barely bench 180
This is what you sound like

>>9029116
that's a pretty good analogy

>>9028091
Don't listen to anyone in this thread, you can be smart and bad at math—it's just not likely.

>>9028091
Both Darwin and Faraday sucked at math so you can be smart but not good at math

>>9028091
What's the definition of "intelligent" here?

It is really all about practicing. I finished my school this year, and was very bad all the time. But I practiced days for the final exam, in which at the end, math was my best subject. It really is all about practicing, don't be lazy, even if it hurts.

File: Darwin change.jpg (2MB, 1365x1024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1365x1024px

>>9028091
>Is it possible to be smart and suck at math?

Charles Darwin seems like an exception. Darwin probably sucked at math just like most of Biologists. It

However Darwin wasn't a Scientific Genius, just a clever observer. His insight came from just observation. Darwin contribution of Science is undeniable however.

It's very difficult to be/become a Scientific Genius like Newton, Einstein or Von Neumann if you suck at Math.

Mozart, Shakespeare & Michelangelo were Artistic Genius, but They were not Scientific Genius.

Socrates, Plato, Kant, Hegel & Marx were influential thinkers. But they were also not Scientific.

Everybody knows that you can be a Top Artist, Thinker, Biologist, Medical Doctor, Business Man, Lawyer, or Government Officer if you suck at Math. But most of these are Brainlets when compared to the Physics/Math Geniuses.

File: 1491353810434.jpg (41KB, 520x337px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 520x337px

>>9030922
>>9031399
>Darwin
>smart
Brainlets, when will they learn?