Why do people accept the fact that there are natural differences in height which can largely be attributed to genes, but the moment we start talking about intelligence it becomes about hard work, do a majority of people actually believe that intelligence isn't determined to a large degree by genes or is it a vocal minority?
Regardless of whether IQ measures intelligence or not there seems to be a strong correlation between academic success and your IQ, so it's measuring something, For instance my IQ is below 100 and i'm 5'4, people find it normal to discriminate based on my height, but i see people claim there are no significant differences in intelligence.
>>7994298
>height is genetic
When will this meme end?
>>7994302
Man it hurts.
Was hoping for more input than >>7994302
>>7994302
She should hit an anatomy class.
>>7994298
>but the moment we start talking about intelligence it becomes about hard work
I never encountered this desu. Most people are pretty realistic about what level of school/work they can do etc
>>7994298
Because intelligence measurement based on IQ can be 'increased' by training or environmental factors like better education, more intense studying habits, etc.
Height can't change if you try hard enough.
That said, nobody here denies that intelligence is largely (but not completely) determined by genes. It's just that quantifying it and attributing values based on genes vs environment is extremely complicated.
The issue comes when talking about race fa.m
>>7994530
The latest meme going around in the american education system is that everybody has the same mental ability if they try hard enough. I actually bought into it for a few years because I had some classmates that seemed like shining examples of those who were not smart, but could succeed do to hard work.
I learned this year that it was a big sham, and these people actually cheated on just about every test they ever took in a math or science course. The revelation shattered my view of intelligence :( .
>>7994298
but anon, height is also influenced by environment
>what is gene expression
>what is malnutrition
>>7994298
We have no real way of meassuring intelligence.
IQ tests only tell how good you are at doih IQ tests, which surely do require logical thinking and stuff, but you can increase your IQ by simply practicing IQ tests.
However everybody agress that people like Einstein or Newton were one of a kind geniuses that just can't be achieved by hard work.
>smarter than 95% of my classmates
>finish high school with great grades, relying only on my intelligence, hardly ever making an effort
>working on my undergrad degree
>physics
>try to pull the same shit here
>get endlessly raped, mediocre grades, failed a class even
Moral of the story? Intelligence IS determined by genetics, but you high intelligence doesn't necessarily equal high academic achievements or anything, really. It just means you have to work slightly less than your dumber peers.
Of course this is a general case. I mean, there are potatoes and super geniuses for whom this doesn't apply.
Tl;Dr: There ARE differences in intelligence but they are irrelevant in the long run, and nothing beats hard work.
>>7994564
Or simply put
Intelligence only shows what your cap is.
No point in debating about how important your intelligence is if you're to lazy to work to achieve your maximum.
A lot of intelligent people are afraid to work hard precisely because they are afraid of their cap and fear that it's not as high as they think
>>7994571
but many children are neglected by their parents and eventually dumbed down that way.
>>7994598
Well there is some substance to the whole as long as you have an IQ of 120 you can do pretty much any science thing you want.
>>7994903
My IQ is about 120 and I struggle with calculus.
Linear algebra is incredibly easy though, even more advanced LA is easier to me than calculus.
>>7994298
Because "I'm a special snowflake" comes from the head, not from the feet. If you assault the brain with facts, that's where you get people to be the most defensive.
>>7994298
>intelligence
Define it well.
>>7994564
>There ARE differences in intelligence but they are irrelevant in the long run,
They are very relevant you idiot. Average IQ of a nation determines their ability to function and prosper. There are genetic differences in IQ too.
>>7994564
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep11713/
Genetics is more important than any other variable.
>>7995890
Not even that useful. You would probably want to optimize for educational attainment as it would include things like grit, focus, and determination naturally.
>>7994298
Height is pretty much constant while intelligence is situational, varies with time and otherwise difficult to treat with much rigor.
>>7995952
>You would probably want to optimize for educational attainment
It's like you don't respecting the subjectivity of the meaning of life at all. And you call yourself a rationalist?
>>7995953
It's because the brain is still so unknown and humans have a natural bias towards spirituality or delusion when it comes to our free will and self importance.
>>7995956
The meaning of life is to survive. Maximizing and optimizing is necessary to survive or be dominant enough to continue expanding.
One society is romantic
One society is pragmatic
Romantic society is happier and pursues sub optimal paths
Pragmatic society is unhappy but pursues optimization and gains military power
Pragmatic society kills everyone in the romantic society and takes their resources.
Survival again is the all powerful motivating factor.
>>7995966
>to survive
No, that's the *FUNCTION* of life. Life has been surviving since it crawled out of the much eons ago. Humans are different; we don't have naturalist instincts the way literally every other mammal does. We create our own meaning, our own environments, economies, functions, and goals. We do a hell of a lot more than acquiring basis sustenance. Only a fraction of our population actually devotes their time to cultivating basic needs.
>Maximizing and optimizing is necessary to survive
>what is a fitness function
It's like you think evolution is a Pareto efficient system. (Hint: It's obviously not.)
Incidentally, you just argued that we should kill all pragmatists, because they can't appreciate anything of value in human society or culture and thus exist in a manic state of false value iteration.
>>7995987
>since it crawled out of the muck
I ought to be much less muchier.
>>7995987
You are starting from a completely false idea of free will.
>>7994298
Because intelligence in society has exploded across the board but people aren't suddenly becoming giants, retard.
>>7996029
This has shit all to do with free will. You can argue for romanticism purely from an emergent standpoint. Go tell the asshole you're consulting with that his shit is fucked and he ought to kill himself.
>>7994298
the ability to work hard is genetic
that's what they conveniently don't tell you
having drive and never giving up is something not everyone has. They lack the innate stamina.
>>7996032
>intelligence has exploded
[citation needed]
We're completely dependent on technology and even the brightest among us can't do mental math the way our grandparents could.
>>7996041
>completely dependent
Whose kool-aid have you been drinking? The prevalence of information in technological society is so great that virtually anyone can become skilled if they have even the slightest curiosity to learn. The fact that we haven't all gone Phi-Brain savant isn't evidence that we aren't getting better at harvesting our innate species-wide intelligence.
>>7996029
>completely false idea of free will
I don't think free will has been disproven yet.
Suicide is a prime example of free will, you can't inherit "self-termination" from your genes... well I suppose you could if suicide benefited your kin via kin selection... but plenty of young people kill themselves without any kin.
>inb4 variations in thought are random and you write off unique personalities as being purely random.
Truth is you can disprove anything if you constantly move the goalposts. Most people can vouch for their own free will, they can act logically, act illogically out of spite to prove their free will, or they can choose not to act at all. None of these actions have anything to do with survival, thus the act is attributed to free will.
>>7996052
>None of these actions have anything to do with survival, thus the act is attributed to free will.
Best explanation yet. Thanks based anon.
Fuck off EY-wannabe pseudohivers.
>>7996052
Belief in God argument.
It's pointless. There is no known mechanism that could lead to something like free will. At most you get random unpredictability but nothing like some soul guiding the neurons.
It's completely subjective to say "I feel like I have free will."
>>7994540
why does the word even exist
>>7996059
>Belief in God
Free will isn't even remotely on par with Pascal's wager. Your ignorance of potential causes is not a valid refutation of "I feel like I have free will." To say it is subjective is to say you're an idiot with a viewpoint so narrow that it would dismiss the stars themselves for being too far away to study.
Feelings exist, no matter how pragmatic you guys pretend to be. Go back to LessWrong and learn a thing or two about romanticism.
>>7996066
Because people are really good at telling things apart.
>>7996070
You are too stupid to bother with any more.
>Suicide is a prime example of free will, you can't inherit "self-termination" from your genes... well I suppose you could if suicide benefited your kin via kin selection... but plenty of young people kill themselves without any kin.
Anyone of mediocre intelligence will find your logical ability a joke.
>>7996085
>Anyone of mediocre intelligence
Good thing this is /sci/. Pro tip: I wasn't that anon.
If you think this argument was about persons, you were wrong.
>>7996088
It was just beyond stupid. Suicide existing does not prove free will. It's actually very deterministic and linked to specific personalities and diseases like depression.
There is no evidence to suggest an unknown force interdicts into reality to make someone commit suicide.
What mechanism do you even supposed creates free will in a human? The brain does not obey physics?
>>7995987
>we don't have naturalistic instincts
When hungry, you will want to seek food. When horny, you will want to seek pleasure. When hurt, you will want to stop the pain. What more proof do you need that we do, in fact, have instincts? Don't bring up disorders, and don't make the argument that we can ignore those instincts; all mammals and many other animals can do that, too.
>>7996041
I can solve indefinite integrals and transform matrices in my head faster than I can find a device capable of doing it for me, and I am not at the top of my class in an under-funded American high school. Don't pretend to be autistic.
>check /sci/ last 5 times
>all 5 times, the top/most recent thread has been some "muh high iq" circle jerk
>close tab immediately
you guys really should consider suicide for shitposting this hard
![determinism-prints[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BdZ3Fq5.jpg "determinism-prints[1].jpg")
>>7996070
You free will cucks are nothing more than closet spiritualists. In order to suggest a concept like free will, you have to insert the claim that there is something paranormal and out of the boundaries of the known physical realm that makes us different than all the other matter in the universe that is known to abide the deterministic laws of casualty. Which makes you a religicuck and there your argument falls apart.
>>7996107
Determinism is more of a cuck viewpoint than free will.
>>7996108
explain yourself fruitbowl
>>7996112
Because you literally believe in predestination and you call others religicucks?
Does your belief in determinism mean you have no choice in whether you want to be a massive shitposting faggot on 4chan like you are currently? Kill yourself my man.
>>7996118
humans make choices the same way an AI in chess makes choices. So technically, we do weigh various possibilities in our brain and think about the choices, but this is just a natural process any algorithm would take.
Most of our brain activity is subconscious anyways.
So you do feel like you are making choices and in some ways you do. But it's purely deterministic.
>>7996120
>humans make choices the same way an AI in chess makes choices
[Citation needed]
>>7996095
>It was just beyond stupid
No it wasn't. Either you explain why and what parts you thought were stupid or you haven't refuted even the slightest detail. I agree with that anon completely and I'm honestly not sure how you don't see the logic behind it.
>an unknown force interdicts into reality
God dammit. So you ARE fundamentally retarded. Good to know.
Free will and determinism are not counterposed. They can easily coexist. There is no philosophical barrier separating the two concepts.
>>7996098
What you listed are animal instincts, not naturalist instincts. My fault for using an alien category there.
Nature is a cloud of chemical processing that most animals have to adapt to. We don't. We adapted to fuck with nature, for better or worse. We still have individual animal instincts, but we've lost a lot of the more raw chemical awareness that help other species survive.
>>7996101
Haven't read the thread, but it seems like it's more about genetics than most IQ threads ever were.
>>7996118
closet religicucks like yourself dedicate every outcome happening in the world to your invisible skydaddy.
Contrary to that, determinists state that the action-reaction chain that all matter abides by is a byproduct of the properties of matter which can be observed, measured and proven by mathematics.
Now go be a free willy cuck elsewhere fuccboi
>>7996122
Not sure I understand naturalistic instincts, care to explain?
>>7996120
>Most of our brain activity is subconscious anyways.
No, wrong. Consciousness burns so "hot" in our brains that we literally have to shut it off every 2:1 hours to survive and continue functioning. Only in our sleep state can it be said that the primary bulk of our brain's metabolic activity correlates to some kind of "subconscious" (dream-like) state.
You're spouting complete bullshit without any kind of source whatsoever. Who put you up to this? Why are you posting on /sci/ today? What, exactly, do you think you're supposed to accomplish here?
>>7996120
>same way an AI in chess makes choices
True as that may be, AI systems are vastly less complex than the human brain. We factor emotions, empathy, and other factors we don't consciously recognize into our decisions, which our most cutting-edge AI are incapable of.
>>7996128
It's great you go against common knowledge.
Conscious mind is mostly estimated at under 10% of brain activity.
>>7996127
I just did. What part didn't you understand?
Depression is a symptom not a disease to the anon that wrote this I can't quote atm
>>7996134
Buying toilet paper isn't a decision, it's a habit. All our real decisions are made with conscious information.
>>7996135
>under 10% of brain activity
Oh my god I can't believe you actually cited that rumor statistic. You are literally a brainlet arguing with what might as well be a god from your reference frame. AI are primitive as >>7996134 notes.
You? Your "knowledge"? Is anything but common.
>>7996138
That has literally nothing to do with this dialogue. /sci/ is not a valid target of social justice because /sci/ doesn't advocate abuse in the first place. This is probably the comfiest active board on here.
>>7996041
>even the brightest among us can't do mental math the way our grandparents could.
Arithmetic isn't math, you fucking halfwit. This is like saying that Chinese students trained to manipulate an imaginary abacus are geniuses with huge IQs.
Besides the obvious fact that what was considered a 100 IQ back in the day is now regarded as being much lower when compared to modern IQs (severely so, depending on how far back you go), there has been a wealth of research on the subject. One of the popular explanations for why humans are so much more intelligent now than people 30, 40, 50 years ago were is that modern humans think in abstractions. Essentially we have developed so many abstract mental machinery that arguments that would've been difficult for people to follow years ago are now ridiculously trivial to the layman.
>>7996066
Because people really like to run
Especially niggers
>>7996124
nice shitpost idiot
>>7996156
Not that anon, but...
>shitpost
More like bait.
>idiot
0/10 insult.
Your post was pointless.
>>7996156
typical closet religicuck getting BTFO after having to confront with reality
>>7994298
correlation/=causation
I love how, for economists, all humans are interchangeable units.
>Birth rate dwindling ? Let's import third-world subhumans !
>What, it doesn't fix the economy, in fact it's making it worse ? Mmmh... Oh i know, we need more immigration !
They are either laying the groundwork for either collapse of technological civilisation, or genocide.
I don't know about you, but both options aren't really appealing ( though genocide is obviously better ).
>>7994298
Electrical engineering major here, barely taking calc 2, physics and linear algebra this semester.
I am just coming to terms with the fact that my intelligence is limited to my genetics.
I am stuck in a rut. I always do hw and I still end up doing terribly at tests even though I felt well prepared the night before. I think my standards are too low for myself.
How do I set the bar higher and at the same time motivate myself to work more?
Or is it just my genetics that keep me back?
I hate to make excuses.
Who else struggling in STEM pretty badly here?
>>7996189
Well obviously your capacity to gauge when you are ready, which is genetic, is shit.
So don't trust it, and study one more hour than you feel is necessary.
>>7996170
wew lads it's getting /pol/ in here
>>7996219
I AM SILLY
>>7994541
>a small skewed sample of individuals made me conclude the null hypothesis was true
Haha, okay.
![jared-fogle[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wfeFbBA.jpg "jared-fogle[1].jpg")
>>7996219
> this will do the trick
>>7994298
>height is largely from genes
Is mostly about adequate nutrition. And because statistics says so. The heritability of IQ is around only ~0.5, then you have to prove causation.
>if genes cause one thing they must cause everything
>>7994541
It's true within the education system. The curriculum is piss easy, people just don't pay attention/do enough exercises.
>>7996170
I know you browse /pol/ because that has nothing to do with OP and it's rambling about politics. And you saw that post on /pol/ about how the world GDP would double if borders were opened.
For all your talk about being redpilled you're as emotional and fact denying as the rest. According to the economist it's because labour mobility would allow everyone to have optimal jobs, ie an EE major works at an electronics firm overseas and a third worlder takes his place at McDonald's in the US.
>>7996265
What, there is no shortage of excess labor in the US. Unemployment is already high.
The liberal economic policies have been an objective failure for the citizens in western countries.
Ultimately humans are bound by their ability but this is never considered in economics, a vastly simplfying assumption doing everyone a disservice.
>>7996279
>liberal economic policies
You can always spot the /pol/tard by how they use the prefix "liberal" to mean "anything I find unfavorable"
How the fuck is outsourcing a uniquely liberal policy?
>>7996297
> everyone respects libtarded morons except for /pol/
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
>>7996305
go away /pol/
>>7996308
> spamming SJW meme shitposts
go away /r/eddit
>>7996311
>One post is spam
>>7996308
> people are stating their opinions
> i better call them obnoxious
are you serious ? are you honestly getting triggered by reading opinions ? internet must be a challenging place for you.
>>7994571
>thinking malnutrition is only when you starve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition
>Malnutrition or malnourishment is a condition that results from eating a diet in which nutrients are either not enough or are too much such that the diet causes health problems.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malnutrition
>the unhealthy condition that results from not eating enough food or not eating enough healthy food : poor nutrition
>>7996279
>there is no shortage of labour in the US
There is overseas. Those unemployed are more likely to find jobs if the job market is global rather than local. And with the growth of overseas economies there'd be new markets to supply goods and services too.
If you mean "liberal" as in "free market" it is on the whole quite beneficial.
Economics came up the idea of labour value. What the hell are you talking about? Economics can give a numerical number to your worth.
>>7996328
There are even more unemployed globally and the market value of labor is even less. Which is why a chinaman you pay pennies.
Thanks for showcasing the traitorous nature of liberal economic policies.
>>7994558
If I close my eyes its not real!
>>7996297
Outsourcing and insourcing both derive from globalist thought and internationalism which are firmly liberal beliefs. When you preach equality this is the guaranteed outcome.
>>7996339
You are a capitalist and he is a communist. His liberal economy helps everyone and not just America, you should prioritize American interests but allow free trading between nations.
>>7996328
Your dreamy worldview would make sense if all the nations supported liberal economy and not trying to profit their own country but they don't. The capitalists in America is an obligation to balance off the capitalists in other nations. America is just better at capitalism than everyone else.
>>7996339
That would be correct if there was only one job and everyone did. Like I said before, people will find more optimal jobs on the whole if they are finding jobs on the global market. It's a no risk, only gain scenario on the whole. Assuming that every job market is perfectly filled which is a statistical impossibility, nothing happens. But it isn't. There are shortages of nurses in England, too many programmers in India, too little doctors in Zimbabwe et cetera.
The rule of thumb is everyone is capable of producing more than they consume. That's how profit is generated. Immigration waves are associated with economic booms. Early 1900s America for example.
>>7996346
I don't have a worldview, it's specifically about jobs. If both countries open borders they are within the context supporting a liberal economy.
>>7996351
>on the whole
No, it's literally a net loss for the first world and a net gain for the third.
Like I said, there are upper limits of human ability and there is a steep decline in labor value, the result is simply further saturating the labor market and devaluing americans.
Truth is there are simply too many people.
Economic expansion in the US happened when physical labor still had significant value and there was free land to be taken. Different circumstances, like I said economists don't take into account the necessary specifics.
>>7996358
liberal economy doesn't mean simply allowing to cross-trade between nations. You can still do business with others and be a capitalist. Pretty much like the American-Chinese economy
>>7996358
>liberal economy
stop spouting off about things you have no idea about, /pol/, it makes the rest of your board look very stupid
>>7996374
Learn to real you imbecile libtard. You're calling another libtard /pol/. Which is pretty evident to show you that don't know what you're talking about.
I mean I know you're a SJWtard but reading is a basic rudimentary skill for fucks sake.
I think if you're smart but don't work towards anything, a stupid person who works hard will achieve more. In any field.
>>7996362
There will be short term loss in wages esimated at 20% as captial flows are directed towards the emerging third world markets, but will end once their markets are developed. Then we will have entire new markets to export things to.
I don't mean offense when I say you have a narrow knowledge of economics. The labour supply and demand you're talking about is about specific industries aka microeconomics. If you're talking about the entire economy, aka macroeconomics, a larger labour pool is better. Broadly speaking, you forgot to consider that migrants would buy goods and services, thus creating demand.
There aren't too many people. The upper limit of production is irrelevant as long as it's more than they consume. Every human is capable of producing more than he consumes, especially with the necessary tools. Even if a migrant has no skills and picks fruit in a field, he still creates more than he consumes, thus is a net gain for GDP.
Yes, that is true, but it's the same situation then and now, just less severe. Suboptimal employment. Too little people can work the right jobs.
>>7996374
Liberal as in economic liberal. Not left wing or whatever it means in the US.
I browse /pol/ to argue.
>>7996393
stop replying to retards
>>7996379
> /pol/ is only for people who aren't liberals
Pot calling the kettle etc etx
>>7996389
Again your entire theory is based upon the belief that each person can contribute something which is not true.
There are upper limits to the quantity of jobs in each area and there are physical bounds to the abilities of people, which you don't take into account.
It's not an issue of people taking the right jobs, its that the jobs the people are capable of are not worth anything because there are too many people, automation will only make this worse.
The ony result of economic liberalism is averaging the standard of living of the world, it's an absolute loss for western countries as the last 30 years has demonstrated.
>>7996413
It's an obvious mathematical fact that people are net producers. If people were net consumers the GDP per captia would be negative. The GDP per captia in North Korea is even positive.
Possibly people in certain situations are unable to contribute but this is because of market inefficiencies. This is why during recessions unemployment skyrockets although the real value of the person remains the same.
The upper limit of jobs is almost always not the actual number of jobs. This is because you have shortages and excesses of workers in the local market. Imagine if Japan had too little English teachers and the US has too many. Everyone gains if English teachers move to Japan. English teachers in the US get paid better than Japan has their jobs filled. There's no way people are worse than when they started.
The economy is not static. Your idea that a million unskilled labourers will pour into America and undercut wages is only temporary. Once wages rise in third world countries so will those in America, which is why I said a 20% decrease in wages. And after than you'll have entire markets wanting goods to to buy. Do you have any idea how much of an economic boost thay is?
The only actual reason against it is wage stagnation. Ultimately employers have much more negotiating power so wages for unskilled labour tend to not grow proportionately with GDP. But in absolute terms their wages still rise.
This thread has been completely derailed by /pol/tards. The topic i wanted addressed was that people with higher IQ achieved more academically than those with lower IQ, since some people don't want to accept that IQ is a measure of intelligence, let's say it's not, wouldn't the fact that differences in IQ seem to yield different levels academic success warrant the assumption that IQ measures something that is largely innate whether or not it's intelligence?
>>7997000
>higher IQ achieved more academically than those with lower IQ
That's not strictly true; not the way 2+2=4 is true. You can talk about averages and make some very rough probabilities, but there is no formal method for linking IQ test performance directly to achievement, not least of all because there's no universal definition of "achievement".
If you are 5'4, it is an indisputible fact that you cannot touch a basketball hoop without jumping. If you have an IQ of 85, there's no proof that you can't become a CEO or a physicist.
>>7997084
You're not really answering the question. If you want me to link papers that look into academic achievement ( finishing college etc.) and IQ i can do that, the most interesting studies on IQ are on twins separated at birth, the point is that there is a strong correlation.
>>7997112
>strong correlation
>>7997112
Correlation doesn't imply a certainty, nor a causal relationship.
For example, I don't really score well on IQ tests because I have an Autism Spectrum Disorder. When I was a child, I didn't even answer to any subtests because I was unable to follow instructions and because the test didn't interest me. I also had my IQ tested in my teens, and it wasn't great.
However, I always did very well in the academic disciplines which interested me, and continue to do so up to the present day.
Now, I program advanced ANN and reinforcement learning software in my free time for normies to mess around with, and I programmed lots of other software (ranging from viruses to game mods which had hundreds of thousands of downloads) when I was a kid.
IQ is by no means a certain way to determine whether someone will be able to achieve some level of education. Most people misunderstand and misuse it, even many social workers and those in the "soft" sciences.
>>7997112
Correlation is useless for anything beyond politics unless we can use it to find the mechanic by which IQ leads to "achievement".
>>7997122
this is why you test a hypothesis with a different cohort from where you first found the pattern.
If you tested that correlation over the next 5 years, or the previous 5 you would almost certainly find very little correlation.
On hte other hand any paper published in a worthwhile journal is going to test a hypothesis on a different set of data from that which you first did the exploratory data analysis, removing the possibility that it was data-snooped by chance.
So bringing that up as though that this is a problem with all correlations is moronic.
>>7997191
the mechanic is that peope with higher IQs are better at inferring patterns , which makes them better at understanding concepts and processes and so better at working out how to solve problems with their brain which makes them better at school and most high-earning careers.
>>7997237
Can this assumption be falsified? If not, then it isn't science. It's junk, like some other "great" inventions of psychology (ex: Freudian psychoanalysis).
>>7997208
I'm pretty sure you will find a very strong correlation between the number of drownings and ice cream sales. It doesn't mean that one causes the other.
Psychology is still far from being considered a worthwhile science. Virtually the only successes that it had came from the behaviorist school. Most theories in psychology are simply not falsifiable and therefore not science. Any of their exogenous variables can be easily manipulated to prove basically any statement.
manlets are truly the worst. If youre below 6 feet youre forever a brainlet. Women don't want your genes.
>>7997250
sure it could be falsified. you'd just need to find large numbers of people who scored between 125-145 and yet terrible at understanding concepts and processes and working out how to solve problems.
>>7997273
You seem too stupid to understand the significance of
>this is why you test a hypothesis with a different cohort from where you first found the pattern.
>If you tested that correlation over the next 5 years, or the previous 5 you would almost certainly find very little correlation.
>>7997398
His point was that ice cream sales and drownings are both strongly correlated with warm weather.
Correlation is not causation, to quote a meme.
>>7997297
Are you a manlet?
>>7995876
Mine is 126 and I struggle with basic fucking trigonometry... Maths just isn't my thing.
>>7996139
In order to do something you must first decide to do it; the action must initiate in your brain somewhere, either consciously or unconsciously, or you just won't do it. Obeying a habit is an unconscious decision that your brain makes based on the fact that you have done the action many times, and probably need to do it again.
>>7996041
>Completely dependent on technology
[Citation needed]
>>7996189
>Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its entire life believing it is stupid.
- Albert Einstein
>>7998112
I doubt Einstein knew much about genetics.
>>7994298
it's a core part of their belief system that everything is equal, and therefore only racism can explain disparate outcomes, they can't think about it factually because their emotional reasoning kicks in
just look at how this faggot suzuki reacts to empirical data based reasoning. he demands Rushton be fired for daring to look at reality and comment on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY
>>7994541
the only ways to equalize tests are to make them so easy that everyone passes, or so hard no one passes
>>7996170
pretty much
>>7996219
don't refute him, just label him, good scientific work there, your prof must be so proud
>>7996265
you haven't proven him wrong though, have you? what would you call the deliberate importation of tens of millions of foreigners into every country that belongs to one race, to the extent that that race becomes a dwindling minority in ALL of its lands?
>>7996308
did he trigger your PTSD? need your blankie and your safe space?
heaven forbid that your firmly held religious beliefs should be challenged in any way. lets just all agree that you are super duper enlightened and never question what we've been taught. THAT'S HOW TO DO SCIENCE!!
>>7996328
>Economics can give a numerical number to your worth
economics isn't even a science
for gods sake, they even claim inflation is GOOD!!
kek, let's transfer value from savers to borrowers, GOOD PLAN!
>>7996351
yet importing tens of millions of shitskins depresses wages? you might be fine with that if you don't care about your own people
>>7996389
>Then we will have entire new markets to export things to.
that we can't compete in because of our high green electricity costs, other regulations, and lack of slave level labor
>>7994541
Lol.. You must be in high school if this is all it took to "shatter" your conception of intelligence.
I think some people inherently learn things faster than others, but hard work and perseverance will allow you to overcome most obstacles. I had friends in college that were essentially a year ahead of me in terms of understanding, but the moment I understood a concept I could walk circles around them in terms of explaining how I came to my conclusions.
You whiny bastards need to stop using your "i.q." to rationalize a poor test mark. All this means is that, in the worst case scenario, that you were unable to master a concept in an amount of time dictated by the term length of a college. What if you understand it a month after the exam? Are you still stupid?
There could be many reasons as to why you couldn't master something in a short amount of time: insufficient background information, poor study habits, or simply the fact that it takes you more time.
If you enjoy what you're doing then you should be willing to a) learn the necessary background information, and b) readjust your study habits as needed to ensure you don't repeatedly make the same mistakes.
If you don't enjoy what you're doing, then fucking stop, and dedicate your time to something that you don't mind struggling with.
jesus christ...
>>7996574
>obvious mathematical fact
>people are net producers
Clearly you do not understand what math is, and what math does.
>>7995876
what about for instance the hessian matrix then?
it's just an example of using calculus in linear algebra, but my point is that you shouldn't make wide walls between fields of mathematics which are very commonly used together. when you actually apply mathematics, it won't matter, you will just have a problem which have to be solved.
so learn calculus, it's unavoidable and basic, if you are considering a science career.
>>7998780
When people get all PTSD MAXIMUM TRIGGER about religious shot, it makes me really want to plant burning crosses with 7 pointed stars on them in their front yards
>>7997250
No, it's a definition.
>>7994537
Height can be changed, but not on Earth
>>7996100
>faster than I can find a device capable
I too used to only have access to a ti 30
Everyone is cooking with the same water and the sooner you add some shit into your pot, the better the flavour will be later on.
That doesn't mean that you can't get flavour later on, it probably just takes a little more time and effort.
>>7999315
what?
>>7994298
Everyone believes in evolution until it comes to people
>>7994530
>I never encountered this desu
You obviously don't come here very often then
>>7999485
He's a retard who thinks making an analogy makes him right.
>>7999315
>>7996574
Yes, clearly flooding the labor market will magically create more demand for labor.
Especially considering automation.
There are upper limits on peoples abilities, most people are becoming economically obsolete because the baseline standard for value, which is physical labor is now so little.
Economists are delusional, or maybe they are just payed by the rich to promote their demonstrably wrong theories which just happen to fatten the wallets of the rich.
>>8000350
>Yes, clearly flooding the labor market will magically create more demand for labor.
but anon, that's not true
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams<
Ideologies cant deal with truth.
Hence we have to pretend the widespread failure of all African populations the world over is some sort of coincidence.
>>7996121
>Denying the laws of physics
Yea nice arguing.
