Who are these sub-100 IQ professors?
![1429810518229[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tCiqOOZ.jpg "1429810518229[1].jpg")
>>8205633
> philosophy
>>8205642
Problem?
>>8205642
I'll just leave this here.
>>8205647
None on the right, except perhaps Dawkins, are even serious scientists who have contributed anything important
>>8205647
The only contradictory statement in that entire image is the one made by Bill Nye.
None of those quotes clash with one another, apart from everyone vs Bill Nye the meme scientist.
Those two Dawkins quotes are unrelated and therefore their use here is misleading.
>>8205628
>Natural science, going past 130
>Legal occs, also going past 130
What then about people with a double degree in science and law?
t. Patent agent
>>8205633
>pic related
all smart people are rich
>>8205668
b-bro, pic related
>>8205672
>pretentious nonsense
exactly. that's why you're not rich
>>8205668
NE KAQUOY MILLONN
>>8205628
Ethics, immigration history, anthropology , religious studies....etc.
Those are your <100 professors.
>YW
>>8205672
>>8205678
why are people deleting their posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
>>8205681
I dont call it pretentious nonsense because I dont understand it
I call it pretentious nonsense because that's what it is
>>8205633
>Biological science
>491 average reading score
Holy shit, I got around their average score for math but I got a 710 on the reading SAT. You need good reading skills to be a good biologist these days, no wonder so many people flunk out of the major their sophomore year
>>8205683
I realized I looked at the wrong major's scores and wanted to amend it
>>8205686
Oh, I see.
The dopamine and subsequently glutamate mediated circuitry connecting the orbitofrontal cortex, the ventral tegmental area and the ventral striatum, which receives significantly increased activation upon engaging in any form of goal pursuit, interacting with evolved psychological mechanisms for resource acquisition, is pretentious nonsense?
Why so, anon?
>>8205687
Who doesn't have good reading skills?
>>8205696
You're good, very good
>>8205698
>>8205696
it is pretentious because you use an inefficient and pompous way to express yourself which reeks of mental masturbation
it is nonsense because you pretend to understand why people get rich and what is good about being rich but are in fact wrong
>>8205707
>it is pretentious because you use an inefficient and pompous way to express yourself which reeks of mental masturbation
>Don't use big words
Anon, we're on a science board.
Those are scientific terms.
>it is nonsense because you pretend to understand why people get rich
No, I merely explained why smart and rich often do not coincide.
>and what is good about being rich but are in fact wrong
My family is rich and it's nice not having to worry about basic living costs, however I don't have that drive to acquire resources and power like my father and uncles do.
>>8205696
woah dude can you post this on reddit somewhere i'd love to upboat it
>>8205668
>all smart people are rich
There is also the question of integrity and honesty.
Ref literally "the smartest guys in the room".
>>8205712
yeah exactly, you don't understand my initial statement
here a challenge to you: use your brain to figure out what I could have meant
>>8205722
>all smart people are rich
let's stop fooling around
this statement is not thoughtless
>>8205726
>all smart people are rich
Well then I did understand it and explained why it is not an accurate statement.
If you want proof that your statement is incorrect then you only need to look at this post:
>>8205677
Here's more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
Also, George Bush is very wealthy as is Donald Trump.
>>8205750
all smart people are rich is not the same as all rich people are smart you dummy
Donald Trump is very smart btw and being good at math is not the same as being smart
>>8205757
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample
All smart people are rich means that if you're not smart if you're not rich, or at least, not as smart as you think you are. Other anon already posted 1 counterexample to prove your absolute proposition as false. This has to be a troll
>>8205766
>if
remove
>>8205757
>all smart people are rich is not the same as all rich people are smart
Both are wrong. Billionaire dumbfucks, geniuses driving dump trucks, etc.
>>8205628
It is amazing how the only group with no sub 100 IQ people is doctors.
That proves that IQ is simply memorization skill and not a real indicator for intelligence. So with that I can answer your question with
>Who are these sub-100 IQ professors?
People smarter and more succesful than you.
[/thread]
>>8205766
being a math autist does not make you smart
being smart means you have a general competence, not just one speciality
>>8205774
So then make your definition of "smart" clearer next time.
>>8205757
>all smart people are rich is not the same as all rich people are smart you dummy
Anon, the Perelman example already settled the argument.
You are wrong.
Depending on how the data was collected, a part of these <100 iq professors might be just old people who got dumber with age, but are still teaching/working at uni
>>8205628
Social scientists ranked 5th
>not biased
>>8205785
>lel if you can't cook, fight like a man, build a house, or kill for venison, or any arbitrary polyvalent human thing that I subjectively come up with, then you're not smart
The stupidest definition of smart, and the most hyper-subjective, not even worth arguing against that definition. In a word, I'm out.
>>8205795
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+intelligence
>>8205804
Oh, so "intelligence."
Not "smart."
Or did you expect me to include "intelligence," the google defintion that is, into your definition of "smart."
>general competence
how general are we talking about comrade? just to the point of making money? but bro, if you can only make money, that's not as general as being able to survive in Antarctica, stranded alone.
>>8205804
>the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
But according to your definition of smart, Perelman would be smart, because he is applying his knowledge and skills to math, that is, he's applying his math knowledge and skills to mathematical endeavors.
But then you say "general." Which contradicts the "applying knowledge and skills." But if you're not applying knowledge and skills to many things, like acquiring money, then you're not smart.
You should change it to applying knowledge and skills in a variety of areas, including making money. But even then, that definition is vague, "general" can mean so many things, and you will have to stop some where, where you think is appropriate. If you won't do so, you will have to be truly general, and include all things, in which case, your definition doesn't apply to anyone because there isn't a person who's good at everything. Not only that, but what about the things we don't know about that someone could possibly be good at?
Your definition is wack.
>>8205824
>because there isn't a person who's good at everything.
I mean that there isn't a person who can apply knowledge and skills that he has acquired, too all areas. It's an unrealistic definition.
>>8205667
260 IQ
>tfw dumb welder
what average IQ does neets have?
>>8205900
[eqn]-\frac{1}{12}[/eqn]
>>8205647
>Plato
>right
Yeah, I think I will side with Dawkins.
>>8205941
Its a matter of perception.
Abstract depth is important, but I agree with Dawkins in the context of people becoming absurdly ideologically belligerent through philosophy, to the point that it doesn't match the intent of philosophy in a western sense. I doubt his intent was criticizing someone like Heisenberg. Dawkins' point was valid, the rest of those fellows on the right have no argument. Especially Krauss.
>>8205642
If you actually understood what academic philosophy involved this wouldn't be surprising to you.
>>8205647
NDT really annoys me.
>>8205941
His interpretation of Plato isn't contradictory to anything of modern parlance. All he is saying is that physics is in effect a language to describe the world, the world has no intrinsic physics.
>>8206107
Since 2005 the SAT no longer correlates as much with IQ as it did in the past.
>>8205941
Why? Heisenberg would school Dawkins.
>>8205926
-1/12 is equal to 1+2+3+4+5+... though, which means that for somebody to have -1/12 IQ is actually to have infinite IQ. The number -1/12 is simply a definition which was assigned to that particular infinite series for practical purposes. (Of course, it goes waaaaay deeper than that, but ugh, does that make my head hurt)
>>8206416
>high schoolers thinking theyre hot shit because they watched some pop-math youtube-cancer about the zeta-function
I really, really, really wish you would die.
Slowly
>>8205628
>Who are these sub-100 IQ professors?
profesor emeritus, duh
>>8206449
Or, if I weren't so grammatically retarded: professores emeriti
>>8206422
I take statements like that as a challenge to try explaining these concepts to high schoolers. I mean, if they're made on YouTube and not in an IQ circlejerk thread where he's probably just trying to have a giggle over someone sperging out about it with elitist babble.
>>8206422
what exactly is your problem?
>>8205653
lol
