Why are some High IQ people stupid, but some Average IQ people smart?

>>9048689
cont.


So, from what I've gathered from these people is this.

To me it seems, that critical thinking skills aren't necessarily related to our IQ. And someone who didn't bother to develop them in life will be...well...stupid regardless of his "actual" intelligence. I concluded this based on the fact that those guys used a lot of logical fallacies in their argumentation and probably in their thinking in general.

From what I've seen personally, /sci seems to put too much emphasis on the significance of IQ. There seems to be other important factors at play here along with it which determine how "smart" a person is. Otherwise these brilliant "average" people wouldn't exist. For example there have been very successful P.H.D's with barely above average IQ's. If all normal people were stupid, these individuals wouldn't exist.

Honestly, I see this here on /sci too:
>Someone writes a blatantly retarded post while claiming to have a high IQ.
>Gets called out on being retarded.
>Calls everyone a brainlet in retaliation.

Of course this is the internet and the person could just be lying, but still....I'm sure you've noticed the same thing here on this board.

I also want to mention that I haven't met a "brilliant" person below the IQ of 100. So there definitely is limit after which the person's innate puzzle solving skills and learning capability (basically what IQ is) just isn't enough to become smart.

I think that what I'm saying would be much more clear if you could accurately know the IQ of every person you meet in life. You'd be probably surprised at the results.

In my opinion we're missing something here. And the viewpoint that IQ is the only thing what determines someone's intelligence seems to be simplistic at best.

I'd like to hear your thought on this.

>inb4 brainlet insults
While not a genius I do happen to have an above average IQ. And even if I didn't it wouldn't really change my arguments. Such "insults" only hurt the discussion.

>>9048689
it's almost like IQ is not an accurate indicator of intelligence. It's almost like it measures a metric which is not the end-all metric of intelligence.

>>9048689
Having a logical mind, isn't the same thing as having common sense.

>>9048695
I agree.

I really wish that as we learn more about the human brain we eventually figure it all out. IQ as a measure of intelligence, while being on to something...is severely lacking

>>9048707
But anon, critical thinking skills ARE part of logic.

>>9048689
>accusing people of engaging in conspiracies is a fallacy, moron, I can't believe you would use the conspiracy fallacy.
keep drinking the MSM koolaid, sheep. let the high IQ people do the thinking because you're not cut out for it

sage

wis =/= int

>>9048719
>Common sense
>Critical thinking
Academic critical thinking, yes.

>>9048722
>>accusing people of engaging in conspiracies is a fallacy

I never accused anyone of engaging in a conspiracy you moron. I claimed he believed in famous conspiracy theories. There's a big difference.


You're actually defending a guy that believes in ley liney, chem trails, that you can heal your body with spirtual energy etc.

I know what I'm saying is anecdotal. But c'mon, just the fact that people like that exist, should point out that you need more than IQ to be smart.

>>9048722
Oh wait, I misunderstood your post. Well the rest of my reply is valid though.

>>9048708
I believe it is a fairly good indicator sure, but it is one chapter of a story, not the complete story.

File: genes-environment-choices-500x492.jpg (27KB, 500x492px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x492px

Isnt this just Nature vs nurture?

>>9048771
that would be more "how IQ/intelligence is formed" or "how heritable is IQ/intelligence", not the question of discrepancy in IQ number and smart/dumb people.

To answer your question, intelligence is fairly heritable at like 60-80%, but the environment/choices ultimately shape intelligence, genes just set hard parameters of a minimum/maximum, ie. you could have parents of 160 IQ but if you were malnourished, those genes would never be fully expressed (to their potential if nourishment was not an issue)

>>9048689
IQ doesn't measure overarching intelligence, it measures how well the underlying subsystems can perform certain low level tasks. Having good neurological machinery (in the readily testable functional areas) does not mean the state of the overall system is such that they're coordinated, communicate, and ultimately used properly.

You can have a very, very, stupid system made of incredibly good parts. And that system might never encounter or be composed of the means to pattern itself in useful ways.

>>9048689
You know the weighting system used in RPGs where you make your character traits? Life literally has a similar weighting system.

>>9048929
It doesn't. Some people ultimately allocate far more points than others. Some people's class is multiple classes.

>>9048929

and there's no DM to whine at when your rolls suck

>>9048689
Wisdom does not equal intelligence.

>>9048689
IQ is a single measurement of intelligence, a multi-faceted and complex concept. There are IQ tests that break intelligence down into multiple sub IQs, those tests are fairly informative.

>>9048689 >>9048979 >>9048727

Wisdom [math] \neq [/math] intelligence.

>>9048929 >>9048719 >>9048707

>>9049312
This. WIS is not INT, it's like you've never played an RPG.

File: gordon ramsay.jpg (108KB, 634x815px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 634x815px

>>9048695

but that's retarded you stupid fucking cuck

oh wait Asians have the highest IQs. Nvm I'm ok with it now.

>>9048807
You've convinced me

>>9048689
>>9048692
IQ measures a person's ability to learn, not necessarily their application of it, the amount of knowledge they have, the veracity of that knowledge, or their ability to think critically in terms of decision-making and questioning their preconceptions.

That's to say, a thirty-year-old with an IQ of 100 has a lot more knowledge than and will make better choices than a ten-year-old with an IQ of 160. Alternatively, the 160-IQ individual may have dedicated that learning propensity to something useless like dated technology, conspiracy theories, or maybe even nothing at all.

File: b416e8311f74b511514102e90aebee8e--hairless-animals-silverback-gorilla.jpg (142KB, 736x981px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 736x981px

>>9048689
your personality isn't based on your IQ.

IQ doesn't make you virtuous, or confident, or energetic, or clever. It allows you to recognize patterns faster than someone with a lower score. Woohoo! My IQ is ~145. There, I just swung my dick. That's about all it's good for anyway other than measuring for mental retardation.

The most intelligent people are not the people with the highest IQ scores that I know. The most intelligent people I know are very well-read and if I could describe them in one word, it'd be "clarity". They are humble. (sometimes have aspergers). They have "good" personalities. They are mature, don't let things get to them, focus on what matters, don't waste time, are virtuous and SELF-AWARE... Legitimacy is important too. I've seen very few posts on 4chan that made me think it was by a legitimately intelligent person, and that's out of the sardonic attitude this website encourages, and that is definitely not intelligent at all, but shows some kind of insecurity or carelessness, too vitriolic to take seriously or give any credibility to, and it's a shame. Who cares I suppose.

>>9048689
I believe that you may be onto something there OP, but if you're seriously going to question IQ then I would like to see statistics instead of anecdotes

File: 1500434194382.jpg (32KB, 400x382px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x382px

>>9049738
>oh wait Asians have the highest IQs.

NO! ! !

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ.

>>9048689
>while the literally /x-tier superstitious guy that believes in easily debunkable conspiracy theories had a very high IQ.
how about that

>>9049920
>Woohoo! My IQ is ~145

that's honestly pretty impressive. i didn't like the last 5-10 word problems on that iq test posted earlier so i didn't do them, but i think it's fair that i skipped them since i would have taken a lot of extra time with them and it was a timed test. a couple of the patterns in the beginning tripped me up too, like the rotation involving letters. so i just picked the closest image based on the average "curvature" of the lines. the answer format for the phone question was confusing, so i didn't know what to put there too. i suppose there's no way to see the correct answers though.

also didn't know we were supposed to use a calculator, so i roughed a lot of the math in my head before "cheating" with pen and paper on a couple questions.

it the final score was also pretty generous. if anons are getting about 135-145, that's probably closer to around 110 or 115, since i don't think there are many genius-tier anons here, even though it's likely an above-average population.

>>9048689
IQ is a mental disease.

>>9048689
>>9048692
My experiences tell otherwise. I happen to have a pretty good judgement of people and where they fall in the IQ scale and usually can determine it even from a short talk with them.

>>9048708
There has been no empirical evidence of something that we could define as "being smart" that would not correlate with our current understanding of intelligence.

As long as you discount knowledge and experience from intelligence, which is self explanatory anyway but I just mentioned it just in case.

Even the most (commonly) acceptable 'other intelligence', the "emotional intelligence", has been found to correlate with IQ high enough to remove any need for a differentiation between IQ and EQ.

also pissed that i got that one number sequence wrong. it was +x, /x

WHERE WAS MY ANALYTICAL MIND???

>>9048689
high processing power, bad software

Intelligent people are cursed. They can more easily live inside their own imaginations rather than in the real world, manipulating themselves into feeling pleasant emotions rather than having to work for it.

>>9049920
It seems you're conflating whatever you consider a pleasant and intelligent personality to actual measurable intelligence.

I think that speaks already something about your own intelligence, not being able to differentiate between the two.

A person can well be intelligent regardless of his behavior or attitude and personally I pride myself with being objective enough in my judgement to be able to judge it regardless of my overall opinion of a person.

>>9048689
>defining terms such that the desired result is achieved

are we going to actually discuss this?

>>9050506
I dunno man, I don't think having that sort of IQ makes you a genius. Not even close. An IQ score ~2SDs above the mean doesn't make someone insightful or creative. It helps your creative efforts/insights in their complexity and logical consistency, perhaps.

>>9050497
I did the same thing, what score did you get

>>9050547
>I pride myself with being objective enough in my judgement to be able to judge it regardless of my overall opinion of a person.
you're just a pretentious douche that likes having fap sessions in the form of posts like this. I'm not conflating anything. did using a less common word make your dick fill up? I can already tell what you're about. fuck off.

no, someone cannot be intelligent regardless of his behavior. your "technically" bullshit does not matter.

>>9050651
lol this, i dont think anything that anon posted has any substance other than "look at how smart i am at judging people objectively!".
>A person can well be intelligent regardless of his behavior or attitude
no. a persons behavior and attitude reflect intelligence, always. Stop with this "smart but lazy" meme, smart but lazy isnt fucking smart

File: hardwaresoftware.jpg (18KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x300px

>>9050538
>high processing power, bad software

Intelligence = High IQ = Good Hardware.
Wisdom = High Education = Good Software

You can run shitty software in a good Hardware.
But It's very hard to run a heavy top notch software in a shitty Hardware.

Even if you Hardware is the best (high IQ), if you install shitty software (bad education) then you will get shitty results.

But all we know that when we try to install heavy software (Ivy League level education) such as Autodesk AutoCAD, Adobe Studio or a AAA HD PC game in a shitty Hardware (low IQ person) the software will either run very slowly, crash, fail to install or even don't run at all.

Hardware (High IQ) is a requirement. But the software (wisdom) is also important.

>>9050718
this is a pretty good analogy for genes (hardware) vs environment (software).

File: 1422849652672.jpg (35KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 300x300px

>>9050718
>software (wisdom) is also important.
It is more important. I don't care what your IQ is if you are an idiot. It may as well be 95.

Some people have Toyota Corollas with little engines and they drive 100mph on the highway every day, and they very quickly pass the guy in the powerful Corvette who hasn't driven it past 60mph in his entire life. Your personality is what matters.

>>9048689
As far as I know, iq merely indicates pattern recognition skill which has little to do with abstract reasoning. A guy with a super high iq might be able to solve a rubix cube in under a minute for example but still fall for logical fallacies in debate.

>>9050733
>Toyota Corollas with little engines

the lotus elise comes with a corolla engine and will beat the pants off most cars around a track. not to stretch the analogy too far, but it's more about the weight holding you back.

File: Donald-Trump-Rich.jpg (52KB, 640x356px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x356px

>>9050733
By your way of thinking. Yes there are people very rich & successful (perform well In life) with lower IQ.

Such as Donald Trump. He is clearly very rich. But I would not consider him a smart / intelligent person.

Many Business people are like Him, rich, charismatic, powerful, sly & narcissistic but dumber that most PhDs you met.

While most PhD that are far smarter than Trump yet will never as rich & powerful as this US president. Even earning above $300k starting meme pay through life.

Some genius yet crazy people even choose to stay poor as the Hobo Russian-Jew Mathematician Grigori Perelman which refused the Math Millennium prize.

File: 220px-Perelman,_Grigori_(1966).jpg (8KB, 220x161px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x161px

>>9050807
>Some genius yet crazy people even choose to stay poor as the Hobo Russian-Jew Mathematician Grigori Perelman which refused the Math Millennium prize.
.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman

File: 84b49815060cecaefa1707fa410a5c26--bobby-hill-what-i-want.jpg (24KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x375px

>>9050790
>>9050807
You people are so ridiculous, trying to add your $0.02 or argue against an analogy I wrote while taking a shit. It perfectly explains what I was trying to say. PERSONALITY IS WHAT MATTERS. YOUR IQ IS AN INSIGNIFICANT, VAGUE MEASURE OF HOW QUICKLY YOU RECOGNIZE PATTERNS.

File: doug.jpg (16KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 1280x720px

>>9050820

<--- you

>>9050841
who's that though

>>9050861

fps doug. but i just needed a pic appropriate for someone who types a sentence in all caps.

also, for real? you don't know FPS doug? fucking gen z...

>>9050880
>>9050891
i know FPS doug. i was meaning what are you implying and he told me.

>>9050896
nah, just a pissed-off lookin' face cause you were using caps

>>9050861
Don't know either anon, but I get the feeling he's still dancing and still getting headshots, even if his hands are shaking

>>9048929
What about high IQ Chad. Some have more points available to them.

>>9050985
he lucked out in 2 separate parameters, intelligence and physical attractiveness. It's not that more points were given to him, they were just allocated differently (and more optimally).
Not to claim people dont have different amount of "points", but they are separate distinctions.

File: bellman.jpg (33KB, 402x600px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 402x600px

I won't answer the OP question but I would like to chime in for a bit. There are a million types of skills that go into making a good Mathematician, you may have some Mathematicians who have great technical skill, processing speed with a million bag of tricks, aesthetic sense, question posing skills, and general abstract relationship abilities(hidden insight). Obviously you can see this in the most stark contrast between someone like Von Neuman vs Grothendieck.

It's not as simple as having a high IQ = you are guaranteed to be a good Mathematician.

Online IQ tests (iqtest.dk) have a problem where they measure everything that goes into g, usually it's the case that if someone is good at a certain cognitive skill then they are good at all of them, but there are exceptions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional).

There are certain IQ tests like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale
that are not effected by limitations such as processing speed and working memory, but of course they have to be administrated in real life.

NOT EVERYONE CAN BE A MATHEMATICIAN! It takes a certain type of person and set of skills to become one and it takes much more to win something like the fields medal.

If high IQ doesn't mean you're intelligent, then why is the average IQ of STEM PhDs something like 130-140, which is two sigma above the norm?

>>9051012
no one is saying that high IQ doesnt mean you're intelligent, we are saying it is just one measurable metric of intelligence. That metric happens to be fairly necessary for the environment of a PhD

>>9051019
That's not what >>9050995 is saying, for example.
There also seems to be the misconception that hard work, dedication and work ethic can make up for a lack of talent or average intelligence, which is certainly not true, however I see it posted often.

>>9051051
>There also seems to be the misconception that hard work, dedication and work ethic can make up for a lack of talent or average intelligence, which is certainly not true, however I see it posted often.

this is because many people here suffer from imposter syndrome, myself included. I consider myself "average intelligence", but that's simply not true based on evidence from tests/how quickly i retain information. I think a lot of those people just undersell their own intelligence and attribute their success to their work ethic, dedication, ect. you cannot enter a PhD program (well you certainly cannot complete one) without dedication or work ethic, and you also cannot enter (finish) one with low intelligence. They are both pieces of a larger puzzle

>>9051061
>impostor syndrome
Well, thankfully, IQ is a good way to quantify your intelligence in order to confirm that you're above average.
>attribute their success to their work ethic, dedication, etc
True, I'm just saying that claiming this is all it takes is a harmful lie that shouldn't be perpetuated, since intelligence always trumps work ethic, and that an intelligent person will do what it takes to succeed anyway ("smart but lazy" doesn't exist).

>>9051051
You are truly an idiot if you think having a high iq gurantees you will make a good mathematician.

>>9051066
>>9051051
>Well, thankfully, IQ is a good way to quantify your intelligence in order to confirm that you're above average.
No it isn't. It's a way to compare your entire self to someone else based on how much faster you noticed a pattern compared to them. You are definitely a twat that faps to his own posts.

>>9051071
>completely misinterpreting what I said
You seem to be the stupid one here. A high IQ doesn't mean you'll be a good mathematician, but being a good mathematician implies you have a high IQ.
>>9051073
>No it isn't
So, statistical evidence showing that people who have earned a PhD are, on average, 2 standard deviations above the norm is just anecdotal?
>faps to his own posts
My IQ is average. I'm just stating a fact.

>>9051066
> since intelligence always trumps work ethic
i personally disagree with this. Smart but lazy is not better than stupid but hardworking.

simple fact is, you need both to succeed in a PhD program. Having a bit of one or the other may offset your lack in the other, but someone with low IQ but work ethic wont last, same as someone with high IQ but shit work ethic.

>>9051080
> Takes inductive evidence as fact.

>>9051083
>Smart but lazy is not better than stupid but hardworking.
The former doesn't really exist, in the academic sense. "Smart but lazy" is often used as an excuse for people to justify their low grades.
I've never met an actually smart person who was an underachiever in any relevant subjects.
>>9051088
What are you implying? It's undeniable that academic success very strongly correlates with IQ.
Inductive evidence doesn't necessarily lead to the truth but makes its conclusion highly probable.

>>9051092
im glad you havnt had any experience with the "smart but lazy" type, but they do exist. just not for a very long time, they fail out quickly or master out

File: 5piece-In-2016-a-new-toilet-shoes-or-stool-Crouch-hole-artifact-Squat-toilet-stool-can.jpg (56KB, 591x594px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 591x594px

>>9051080
>So, statistical evidence showing that people who have earned a PhD are, on average, 2 standard deviations above the norm is just anecdotal?
Of course it is. Not everyone with a high IQ is PhD graduate.

Lets get one thing straight anon. Most people have no work ethic at all and don't try. I will take the person that works hard with a good personality, who happens to have a 125 IQ over the 150 IQ that doesn't work hard, and acts like a douche bag because of how smart he is because of his ability to recognize a pattern, and how grand he is because of it.

Most people are perfectly capable, intellectually, if they work hard. Brain plasticity allows you to become a clever, good person if you are willing. Having a high IQ doesn't give you anything. Having a work ethic, even a basic one, puts you above most people. It is absolutely more important. The software is more important than the hardware and I cannot imagine why it'd be the other way around. The fap sessions about how smart we are, I'm not interested in it, and it's all I've seen these other high IQ people do.

Wow, what a use of your hardware. Clearly it's not. Stupid people are stupid because of their personality, inability to accept change, not asking questions, not thinking about shit all of the time... it has N O T H I N G to do with a stupid score on a stupid test that measure your ability to recognize patterns, absolutely nothing, and we already KNOW that. The only people who debate ridiculous shit like that are the ones who like fapping to their high score. It's a joke.

>>9051099
>Most people have no work ethic at all and don't try
begrudgingly i agree with this.

File: photo (1).jpg (40KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 601x601px

>>9051099
IQ fappers fall into two groups

1.) The idiots who look towards fatalism as a way out for their academic failure.
(see incels)
2.) The people who scored high on an online iq test but never achieved anything in life.

>>9051097
>they fail out quickly
People used to tell me I was "smart but lazy".
What this truly means is that you're an early bloomer. The more precocious people like this are, the longer they'll be able to get by without putting in effort. For most of these people though, this ends up with them reaching a point where their precocity doesn't matter anymore, and since they haven't developed a work ethic, they fail, hard.
Precocious isn't always intelligent.
>>9051099
>Not everyone with a high IQ is PhD graduate
No, but as I said earlier, the opposite is true.
You're right about your example.
>Most people are perfectly capable, intellectually, if they work hard
I disagree. Some subjects require a high level of intelligence that hard work, coming from an average person, cannot compensate for.
>The software is more important than the hardware
This is true in principle, and you absolutely cannot make it without a good work ethic. However, intelligent people more often than not have a good work ethic.

Look, all I'm saying is, you're right about the fact that being a hard worker is very important. But if you're not gifted, you can work as hard as you can and never make it.
There are some subjects for which not having a natural aptitude or understanding puts you at a disadvantage. If you're a shitter at math because you have no intuitive understanding of it, it's unlikely that you'll ever get really good at it.

File: homepage.jpg (15KB, 317x327px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 317x327px

>>9051111
Can you prove to me there exists a bijection from the set of people with high iq's and all tenured mathematicians at a good university?

I won't believe you, until you do. I'm not a scientist, I don't rely on induction and statistics.

>>9051117
You mean, can I prove that all tenured mathematicians have a high IQ? Of course not.
>I don't rely on induction and statistics
Statistics are a reliable way to describe a population, though.
If the average IQ for tenured professors is, say, 150, do you not consider that to be an indication that academic success correlates with IQ (but not necessarily the other way around)?

>>9051122
careful, you're moving your goalposts by talking about professors, not PhD candidates. Just saying

File: 469f67a8ef69ff51bd7aaba540b83f39.jpg (188KB, 310x387px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 310x387px

>>9051111
>I disagree. Some subjects require a high level of intelligence that hard work, coming from an average person, cannot compensate for.
We aren't talking about subjects. Nobody in life is spending every hour on some subject. That's way too vague. I'm talking about people. Not everyone is going to be a mathematician or a physicist. Even mathematicians and physicists have the majority of their lives outside of math and physics, and I think to focus on just that is lame.

Feynman had a really, really good personality. His IQ was supposedly around 125. His personality is what mattered. He does not come off as someone with a 150 IQ. He was a regular guy that gave a shit, and that's what put him above these high IQ douche bags that absolutely cannot handle the idea that they aren't as hot as they think they are because of their stupid number.

>However, intelligent people more often than not have a good work ethic.
You're just saying things. they cater to each other, but in no way are they related.

File: 9ihbQol.gif (336KB, 213x199px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 213x199px

>>9051127
>tfw the more i think about this the less sure of how right i am

>>9048689
The solution is that you're retarded bro. You seem to rely entirely on the halo effect. People thought I was dumb because I was a class clown but I still had straight A's. There was another kid who was really smart too who did the same (in fact there were plenty) but his dad was a lawyer and he went to a private primary school so it was more well known that he was smart.

I got a lot of disdain from people my junior year and almost got a perfect on the SAT. Even one of my own friends just decided that they hated me because I didn't try in school but hey I only didn't try because well my school was dumb and I wasn't even in the highest classes because I was poor and my school routinely gave the poor kids the shaft. I came from a pretty diverse little town and it was assumed that all the poor kids were just like their parents. Stupid lazy druggies.

It also didn't help that my parents and even my counselor said I would not be going to good university because I was too poor. I know I'm writing a blog but there are an infinite number of circumstances that can contribute to a person not living up to their potential. I've even been told that I simply look dumb which is probably because I don't always react to the stupid shit people tell me with the facial expressions they were expecting. People are dumb and you're dumb and your whole reality is a facade and you should feel bad

>>9051126
I misread your post when I saw the word "tenured". My point still stands.
>>9051127
I don't really understand what you're getting at. Of course people aren't only defined by their academic pursuits, but that's not really relevant.
We were talking about how hard work leads to success.
Feynman was still one SD above the norm, though I get what you're saying. People aren't defined by their IQ, I never implied that. I simply pointed out how much more likely people in demanding STEM fields were to have a high IQ. That's it.
>in no way are they related
Part of being intelligent is being adaptable, and if you're trying to succeed and are intelligent, you're not going to jack off all day when you should be working.

>>9051142
oh that's not my post, it's another anon's, just helping reduce arguments. you and other anon are really just arguing to argue, im sure you agree more with each other than you disagree

File: tl-horizontal_main.jpg (134KB, 640x434px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 640x434px

>>9051127
>>9051135
fuck it, i'm definitely right after rereading what i said.

>>9051142
>Part of being intelligent is being adaptable, and if you're trying to succeed and are intelligent, you're not going to jack off all day when you should be working.

I know that, but that isn't related to your IQ AT ALL.

tl;dr I hate IQ tests for purposes outside of determining whether you are
>mentally challenged
>average
>above average
I think that it's completely useless outside of this.

These douchebags that post shit like "my 140 IQ makes me smarter than you with your 130 IQ" is a fucking wankfest. I hate it.

>>9051151
I'm replying to anyone that replies to me.

>>9051151
>im sure you agree more with each other than you disagree
He seems to disagree when I say that academic success is strongly linked to IQ, which is the only part I'm really debating.
>>9051152
So what you're really saying is that you don't think IQ and intelligence are strongly linked?
As far as consensus goes, IQ has been shown to be a good indicator of a person's general intelligence, as long as verbal-linguistic IQ is included alongside the logical reasoning part.

File: inktruckcrash030911.jpg (1MB, 4728x3042px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4728x3042px

I dont think people aspire to do things they cannot accomplish unless it is something they misunderstand.

Smart but lazy people lack the resolve to continually pursue or learn from something less stimulating than the available alternatives.

Stupid but not-lazy people are the opposite. AKA Average go-getter. They titrate stimulation, withholding vices and not overindulging until the work is done. With these people there is a very hard line between work and fun.

With smart but lazy people, it is a very fine line, or nonexistent. If they are not having fun, they are not working. This can lead to incredible feats like Minecraft(bad example), or the opposite, whatever the word for that is.

Just my two cents.

File: wpnewman02.jpg (476KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1600x1200px

>>9051156
I'm saying that a good personality doesn't equal a high IQ and I value a good personality much more than a high IQ, as does everyone. I'm saying that the IQ test is a lame, half-baked measure of intelligence.

bad personality = doesn't matter what your IQ is, you're scum and shouldn't exist

good personality = glad to have you

I think the IQ test is bad, that's all, and I don't have sour grapes, my score was very high. I don't put all of my stock into it, though.

Maybe I have an imposter syndrome, or I don't want to accept that I have the hardware and should be pushing it more, or maybe I'm totally wrong.

>always get told I'm smart
>find most of school easy enough, so I never put in any work
>grades start going down in 11th grade or something since I literally did not touch my notes nor listened in class despite choosing the most demanding courses in my country
>be last in my class in 12th grade
>teachers kept telling me about how I had potential the whole time but I didn't listen
I think I'm pretty dumb, but people tell me I'm intelligent. How do I figure it out?

>>9051172
You answered your own question, dumb ass. Stop being a lazy fuck.

>>9051171
Ok, I understand what you're saying. I think you're wrong about the IQ test being bad though.
>as does everyone
Well yeah, of course. We weren't really talking about social relationships but I guess.

>>9051176
No, I just want to know if other people are right when they say I'm smart despite me being an underachiever, or if I'm right when I assume a smart person can't be shit at school, especially high school.
I know I'm too lazy, I'm working on that.

>Some genius yet crazy people even choose to stay poor as the Hobo Russian-Jew Mathematician Grigori Perelman which refused the Math Millennium prize.
I wish they didn't. They of all people need to be greedy, earn a lot of money and pour it into their autistic hobbies. Kind of like Elon Musk, though I would not consider him to be intelligent.

>>9048692
>/sci seems to put too much emphasis on the significance of IQ

And not only /sci/...

Have you ever wondered how people can say how big their dicks are without using the word dick and sounding rude?

This was the answer to this question, and better yet, you could put some papers around your insecurities to reinforce them.

Everyone wins in the end.

>>9051185
you're smart but lazy, which translates to dumb in the real world. I was extremely similar to you, except i lost my grades sophomore year of college. Up to then, i would sleep in class, not go to class, teach myself, ect. It worked really well until i hit a huge wall, a subject (organic) that you couldnt just bullshit with common sense, you actually had to put in effort. Don't let that happen to you. Go work retail for a year, that will give you the drive to not be average.

>>9048785

Anon, gene expression is not decided in just one generation, not even 5 and there is nothing that garantees that you will get the "right" genes or that they won't end up fucked up in the recombination phase.

>>9051185
I highly doubt you are strict average, you could be high-average (since you are posting here and don't seem to be retarded). The only way to know for sure is to apply yourself, it will help you in other parts of your life also.

>>9051197
>you're smart but lazy
That's not a meme?
>sophomore
Eh you still got pretty far
How did you manage to give yourself the motivation to work regularly? I actually failed out of my freshman year of college after graduating HS due to being bored to death by my major (econ).
Now I've enrolled for CS but I don't want to make the same mistake and assume that I'll manage just by using common sense, as you said.
>Go work retail for a year
I've been dicking around this whole year after dropping out last year, and realized I needed to get my shit together a few months ago.

>>9048689
What is a good website to take a reliable IQ test? I never bothered taking such a test, but want to do it now

>>9051177
>We weren't really talking about social relationships
I'm not specifically talking about that either. Maybe just "person" is better to say than "personality"

virtuous, well-read, hard-working, self-aware, focused, humble, caring, all of these things... these are extremely important qualities that, if you don't have, you won't come off as intelligent to anyone.

>>9051203
>The only way to know for sure is to apply yourself
That's what everyone's been telling me but I was too stubborn to listen. I really need to acquire discipline but I don't know how, since I don't even know how to work. Back in HS, "working" meant quickly reading through my notes, looking at an exercise's solution and assuming I understood everything.

>>9051199
i dunno what you're arguing anon. my example was extremely rudimentary to explain the difference, not claiming that example was a real-world one.

File: yU8uH7c.jpg (92KB, 750x1094px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 750x1094px

>>9051205
IF you don't have any intellectual disabilities then iqtest.dk, if you do have some intellectual diabiltieis then probably the WAIS test IRL.

>>9048689
I'm high IQ. I ace most test, beat the senior class when I was junior on the SAT and I blew away the competition when I flirted with joining the military. 99th percentile on the ASVAB.

That said I typically work retail, 99% of my work experience is retail and I earn about 24k a year if I am lucky.

I blame this on my upbringing but am fully aware I do little to change the situation. I am quite comfortable being lazy, and my parents were quite comfortable with it too and never sought to make me try harder than them. They didn't save for college or even make me do my homework. They were losers.

I'm comfortable with a low-income existence, even happy, but more scratch is always nice.

>>9051204
i mean it's a meme on /sci/ absolutely, but it does exist in the real world. But if you don't beak from it, it translates to the same results as not being smart.
>How did you manage to give yourself the motivation to work regularly?
for one, by entering a subject i find personally interesting. two, having dropped out and worked retail for a while made me realize the gift i was squandering, and that life outside of higher education was extremely unfulfilling.

The best advice i can give you is to not force anything. Switching majors was an enormous relief because suddenly studying became effortless, i was actually interested in learning the material, not memorizing it.

im very much a person who needed to fail in order to succeed. I try to help people learn from my mistakes and not make the same mistakes as me. It didnt cost me a lot, only 2 years or so, but still

>>9051209
>ou could have parents of 160 IQ

There.

My point is that it doesn't matter if your parents had an IQ of 160, what really matters if that IQ of 160 was maintained in your familiar genotype, but thats impossible, or at least very hard, people is mixing constantly without taking into account their genetic load and this has been happening for millennia around the globe since H.erectus.

To make IQ as heritable as you are talking you need eugenics.for a very long time(several centuries) otherwise you are subjected to the homogeneity of the genus Homo and the variability of sexual reproduction.

>>9051214
>interested in learning the material, not memorizing it
Good point. Perhaps it's also a matter of learning to appreciate the result of one's efforts as opposed to immediate gratification, which is really difficult.
You sound like a cool guy, good luck for the rest m8.

>>9051225
you're really extrapolating a very simple example of genes vs environment and the role they play shaping intelligence. I agree with what you're saying, but in my example, the assumption is that the 160 IQ HAS been maintained, so it is a heritable trait. Sorry if i didnt specify that. But IQ is still heritable at 60-80%, that's pretty established

>>9051228
i smoke weed for immediate gratification, but at night after im done with everything productive. Good luck with you too anon, hope you find the subject you are most suited for. dont force anything, the more you try, the more you'll burn out later

>>9051197
>work retail for a year
>no qualms with earning a living wage for honest, low-responsibility work
Is there anything wrong with this?

>>9051239
in of itself, absolutely not. But when you are living from paycheck to paycheck, and your savings from a year can be wiped out by a bad fuel pump, it starts to take its toll. the main complain about that kind of work is that there is little job satisfaction in the long term as well as difficulty of saving money/ending a paycheck to paycheck lifestyle.

believe me i tried. but interacting with laypeople constantly, having unstimulating conversation, and constantly feeling like you're not really making much of a difference (and are underpaid) really get to you.

>>9050494
>>9050497

how much more insecure can you get you poor little brainlet

File: wsqni0.jpg (116KB, 480x325px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 480x325px

>>9051248
Fuck off you douche.

>>9051243
>believe me i tried. but interacting with laypeople constantly, having unstimulating conversation, and constantly feeling like you're not really making much of a difference (and are underpaid) really get to you.

I understand. I've worked retail on and off over the last 12 years. I've had the good fortune to take the last 3! years off. No welfare or other people's money taken. Talk about a staycation. I'm going to go back into the workforce soon, and with a three-year gap in the resume... anyway, retail is always my thing. I know how to do it, I'm not responsible for anyone's life or livelihood, and with the high turnover it's not hard to stand out as a good worker.

I wonder if I should ask for $12 in the hopes I'll get $9. Seems low but with no dependents and a paid off car it's doable.

>>9051061
How intelligent do you have to be to finish a PhD*, really? It seems really different from a master's degree.

*in science or math

File: 1488724966657.png (10KB, 250x202px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x202px

>>9051248

not much. wish i had moved along a little quicker and finished it properly to get a more accurate assessment. it said 30 minutes, but i lost track of time and took about 45. never do good work when i feel rushed.

>>9051273
The test posted on the postmortem thread was supposed to be done in an hour, actually

>>9051269
> it's not hard to stand out as a good worker.
it's funny, that statement made me realize that retail wasnt for me. I was seen as an exceptional worker when i was just... doing my job? It's not that i was exceptional, it was that others were unexceptional and i just stood out because i take pride in literally ANYTHING i do, from sweeping to helping a customer. The realization that just doing my job meant excellence spoke volumes to the level of expectation from a retail position. And i did not like that.
>I wonder if I should ask for $12 in the hopes I'll get $9. Seems low but with no dependents and a paid off car it's doable.
it's doable sure, but see my comments about saving; everyone should save, even if you dont want a family/want to die alone playing video games. Medical emergencies are a real thing, so are other emergencies. And holy fuck you dont want to be that guy crowdfunding his stitches when he cut himself on the job...

>>9051270
i dont know anon. I really dont. I feel everyday like my acceptance was a miracle, but it wasnt, i was accepted other places. But definitely not genius level, im no genius, just extremely interested in the subject and am willing to work hard. Concepts stick as well.

>>9051274

the website said 30 minutes. anyone can solve those problems if they stare long enough.

>>9051277
What is your field of research? Did you get into a really prestigious program?
Of course not all PhDs are geniuses, but people make it out to be something you're either cut out for or not.

>>9051281
biochemistry, i dont think it's exceptionally prestigious, but it does churn out graduates who are accepted into industry, as well as academia. Industry especially apparently.
>but people make it out to be something you're either cut out for or not.
they are not wrong. Im looking at a 5 year program, making less money than i did in retail (about 9 an hour vs 14.52), where i am basically a slave to the university. I know and understand this, and have signed my life away for it. In that regard i would say it's not for everyone, many people obsess over status and money, and if you are one of those people, this program would be extremely detrimental for that.

>>9051289
to add, i absolutely love to research and study my field, and to be presented with an opportunity to be paid to study, paid to become more valuable, was a no brainer. I have to keep remembering my stipend also includes a 48k a year tuition which is waived, not just the financial compensation

File: pepe.jpg (141KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1000x750px

>>9051270
Your final exam is doing something no one else has ever done before.

it's probably fucking hard.

I wish more places would hire based on testing instead of degrees, but I guess a degree in addition to being a proof of qualification is a litmus test to weed out the bums like me. I'm not playing ball. I just want in, and I will figure it out. Or I won't and I'll waste everyone's time.

>>9051289
>i dont think it's exceptionally prestigious
Did you have a hard time getting accepted from undergrad (or your MSc if you went through that first)?

Sure, it requires true dedication and commitment.
How about the work you have to do for the research department?
Would you say the hardest part about a PhD is the workload, or the work itself?

>>9051294
>doing something no one else has ever done before.
It doesn't have to be revolutionary though. As I understand it, many theses simply reinvent the wheel, or expand a little bit on existing systems.

>>9051295
>Did you have a hard time getting accepted from undergrad
i mean, i applied to 8 programs and was accepted to 4, 3 PhD and a masters. "Hard time" is just the filling of the applications/getting rec letters/statement of intent really, and that will be easier or more difficult depending on how close to the deadline you are. Definitely apply as early as possible.

But to give you some hope, no it was not hard, it was harder for me to be accepted for an undergrad since i had failed out my first time in college with a 1.87, then transferred to a community college after taking a year or so off (working retail). raised GPA, then applied to a 4 year uni, accepted and raised GPA to 3.55, which is what i applied to graduate programs with. Statement of intent completely addressed the enormous hole in my transcript. I also had 7 years working experience in retail (part-time for 6 years) with a letter of rec from my boss for 4 years, which i know really helped solidify my work ethic/ professionalism, from the admission committee standpoint.
>How about the work you have to do for the research department?
im a 1st year, so not doing research yet, but everything ive heard from other students say it's completely based on your PI. some are extremely anal and demanding, others are much more lenient. That applies to projects, funding, and work schedule. I had some students from lab flat out tell me "DO NOT JOIN THIS LAB"
>Would you say the hardest part about a PhD is the workload, or the work itself?
not sure since not there yet, but from what i hear, time organization, but im pretty good at that already

>>9051294
in my case, for biochemistry, doing something no one else has ever done before is not really that difficult, it's more convincing people that it's significant. Math is probably extremely different. Biochemistry is extremely open ended though, in terms of information to be found out/published

>>9051304
That was really informative, thank you.

>>9051306
sure, keep in mind my experience is pretty limited and may not be representative of anything. But don't give up. If you told me 3 years ago that i would be where i am i would have never believed it was even possible. Never assume the answer is no. Never be afraid to assert yourself appropriately, or to ask questions. And dont be afraid of failure. There is something insanely humbling about it.

feel free to ask me anything else you may want to know, im extremely bored this summer waiting for my program to start. 27 days to go...!

>>9048689
IQ just deals with how easily you can learn and understand stuff, it doesn't have much to deal with being rational, of which IQ can play a role, but plays less of a role than the attitudes someone might have given their life up to that point, or less of a role than studying areas of science that deal with being rational (i.e. decision theory, probability theory, etc). Most people make the same errors when dealing with information (not necessarily the same errors in the same situations, mind you, but the same errors overall.)

For example, a person with an IQ of 130 and someone with an IQ of 90 will both likely fall prey to something like the Conjunction Fallacy (the idea that P(A and B) > P(A) or P(B)), which will lead them to some wrong conclusion, because this cognitive error has more to do with human symbolic reasoning, and less to do with the things that IQ represents (spatial learning/reasoning). Thus, an IQ90 person who has studied some small amount of probability theory and knows that P(A and B) <= P(A) or P(B) will be 'smarter' than the IQ130 (where smarter, here, means they are less likely to make an error in reasoning), even though there is a 40 point difference.

>>9051320
good post anon.

>>9050651
Sorry that a word triggered you so much.

>>9050670
>no, someone cannot be intelligent regardless of his behavior. your "technically" bullshit does not matter.
>no. a persons behavior and attitude reflect intelligence, always.
Yeah, the second time you said the exact same thing, it suddenly made that much more sense. Thank you.

No "technicalities" involved, you're just plain wrong. And being a retard about it.

I can already tell what a stubborn dumb little annoying twat you are irl. Bad personality AND mediocre intelligence, sheesh.

>>9051235
>But IQ is still heritable at 60-80%, that's pretty established
I'm pretty sure it's the opposite of what you're saying that's established.

>>9051334
Neither of my parents are brainlets and me and my brother are certified not brainlets. What is the opposite of a brainlet? We are that.

We have a half-brother who's also certified not brainlet, but he married a fat woman with a nice cunt and had a bunch of kids. Kind of a brainlet move.

I think it's definitely genetic. What you do with it is environmental.

>>9051333
you can tell me whatever you want anon. I dont need to LARP on here, i actually have a degree and industry experience. good luck being smart but lazy.

File: E9A.jpg (8KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 228x221px

>>9051333
>quotes technical
>says things like "you're just plain wrong"
>calls people little
>copies the style of the person he's quoting
did you come yet?

>>9051351
>smart but lazy
Here's another example of the same conflation mistake you made earlier, but now you're conflating my arguments with what you assume me to be like. Since you've created this stereotype of a fat neckbeard in his moms bedroom bragging about his scores, you automatically assume that anyone defending the legitimacy of the scores as an independent sign of intelligence, must belong to that group.

Your inability to separate your emotions from your reasoning leads you to think more of pleasant people than what they really are and vice versa. It also makes you assume that the only reason someone would partake in an argument must have to do with their personal emotional needs (eg to boost ego) and not with objectivity because, being emotionally driven as you are, your worldview is shaped by how everything makes you feel and you assume everyone else to be the same.

File: 1418685241511.gif (3MB, 200x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x180px

>>9051400
savage

>>9051400
>Since you've created this stereotype of a fat neckbeard in his moms bedroom bragging about his scores
what? no one did. You're projecting so hard. Also you're arguing with multiple people, assuming it's 1 person. I dont care what you think anon. Im already established. Keep thinking whatever you want, it doesnt impact me at all.

>>9051407
nope, just obvious samefag>>9051400

File: b9340f559ce17eeb1ec19cd929d55cae--bollywood-actors-arab-men.jpg (63KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 320x480px

>>9051400
Tell me how you really feel.

>>9051412
>it doesnt impact me at all.
That's unfortunately wrong, actually. You're a machine, a signal transducer and manipulator.

It's just mechanically impossible to be unaffected. You're being affected, you just lack the means (and will) to trace back all of the chains that interlock and form your current experience.

People that have this attitude strike me as intellectually dishonest, and very young. Strictly local.

>>9051412
>no one did
Yeah which is why I got what, three responses with references to "smart but lazy"?

I don't really see how there's any projecting even potentially seemingly involved. Sure you know what it means or is that your default go-to reply?

>Im already established. Keep thinking whatever you want, it doesnt impact me at all.
Lol oddly defensive aren't we? Why are you constantly making references to real life. Why's that relevant and what are you trying to prove here?

Either way was nice but gtg, gn ttyl bby.

>>9051430
you're the one who projected the idea that "smart but lazy" means a fat neckbeard in their mom's basement. No one implied that but you. You got some person shit to handle it seems.
>Lol oddly defensive aren't we? Why are you constantly making references to real life. Why's that relevant and what are you trying to prove here?
because you're trying to impress strangers on the internet, which doesnt ultimately matter. Go accomplish something in real life. Well, you could if you werent smart but lazy.

aww are you already done?

>>9051429
you're insanely smart holy shit!

File: 1365252950544.jpg (14KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 251x242px

>>9051429
>You're a machine, a signal transducer and manipulator.
>It's just mechanically impossible
>lack the means (and will) to trace back all of the chains that interlock

File: 12355_5947_2212.jpg (67KB, 306x335px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 306x335px

>>9051429
Cringe.

File: download (4).jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

Is everything ok in here? We got a call about some SICK BURNS.

We have tylenol, tissues and straws for all your butthurt needs.

File: 1498716156886.jpg (39KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x500px

>>9051429

>>9051171
Having a good or bad personally isn't related to intelligence.

A person can be a complete Immoral & Unethical Sly Cold-blooded Narcissistic Asshole.

But this Asshole can still be a Super Intelligent Genius which uses his talent for evil purposes.

Work ethics & good personality means just that someone is a good person. But a good person isn't necessarily smart.
Many blue collar workers have good work ethics but that will never make blue collars smarter than a Math PhD.

IQ is more related to intelligence. A person with high IQ can be very smart but he might be either a good or bad person. Because work ethics isn't related with IQ.

>>9051551
>blue collar workers
>good work ethic
no they don't. they're lazy retards and have shit personalities.

File: calle calle.png (44KB, 348x308px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 348x308px

>>9051556
I'm sorry anon, but you have a terminal illness. It's called being a cynical asshole.

File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (172KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1600x1200px

>>9051566
>filling out a captcha

>>9051578
Damn I need to get one of those for my BMs

File: 1444414652827.jpg (50KB, 639x426px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 639x426px

>>9051578
>that note on the wall

>>9048689
The average people bothered to apply themselves

>>9051435
>because you're trying to impress strangers on the internet, which doesnt ultimately matter
How's that cognitive dissonance working for you?

Tell me more about your experience in the industry. That seemed to really get to me! Maybe add some numbers about your income to really make me feel silly!

File: 3.gif (47KB, 182x174px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 182x174px

Lets say that I have a processor with LNS in base E as FP unit and I want to test its performance with some problems? What woud they be? How would I take advantage of base E (usualy is base 2)?

>>9048689
>the entire premise of the thread is founded on a few anecdotes
>the rest of the posters build upon this with either metaphors or more anecdotes
>no-one is familiar with even the basic research regarding intelligence and IQ, but people still trot their uneducated opinions as valuable insights
Well, I guess that is /sci/ in a nutshell. I don't understand why this board holds itself in such a high regard, I mean how can a group of people shove their collective head so far up their own ass

>>9048689
1. Pattern recognition skills are related to schizotypal personality disorder.
2. IQ tests don't measure argumentation skills.

>>9051320
>90
*108

It's funny cause there are people with PhDs that can't draw a convincing stick figure or even play a musical instrument.

Drawing, painting, music, all requires some pretty amazing levels of coordination and intelligence. You do see many geniuses that are excellent at all forms of art, then some that just can't get the basics.