What IQ do you need to be able to truly understand math beyond just having the ability to apply formulas you've memorized?

Skip to content
# What IQ do you need to be able to truly understand math beyond just having the ability to apply formulas you've memorized?

What IQ do you need to be able to truly understand math beyond just having the ability to apply formulas you've memorized?

###

Greater than 130.

So only 1% of people can understand math?

He's being charitable. You need well above average just to "truly understand" even things as simple as your own sensory intake, the world simply does not make coherent sense to most people, and math is no exception.

It's also possible there are higher levels of cognition which would make it even clearer and humans just haven't reached them yet.

Why is that surprising when math has been taken forward by that very 1%?

Slopes on a cartesian plane = 90iq

Integrals = 110iq?

eigenvalues for matrices and just general linear algebra = 120iq

idk. you're a frogposter so it don't matter much.

Anon, intellectuals, especially in this day and age when being an "expert" grants one the ability to rule over others, are some of the worst culprits of 'pulling the ladder up behind them.'

People who value their PhDs understand that the value largely comes from them having understanding which others do not. There are two ways to protect that: either keep learning or cover your tracks.

The amount of times I have poured over writings to understand the deeper derivations of some math, rewritten the proofs and asked myself why such a step was made -- verifying them is relatively easy, but using proof as a method of understanding often not -- only to discover myself an alternative way of presenting it which simplifies it for pedagogical purposes... Encountering this situation again and again has convinced me you don't need much of an IQ to understand advanced math if only it was taught more skillfully.

And I have proven this - I have taken difficult and deep mathematical concepts and proven them to those who were curious but felt alienated by the mere idea; they have thanked me. I do not know if what I have done, simplifying teachings for the sake of my own learning, requires a high IQ or not. On one hand, it took much hard intellectual work from me to digest concepts that far, on the other, the motivation came from my frustration in grasping the topics as presented. I refused to tolerate explanations which were overtly terse and did not well explain themselves. Surely if I had higher IQ or spent more time I could have grasped them as is, but I don't believe knowledge should be presented poorly.

Anyways, everyone in this thread offering you a number is likely full of it. No one really understands what it is like to have an IQ which they don't have. My own methods for learning would still serve me if I suffered a head injury. Understand deeper mathematics and science through the personal motivations of its inventors and history. Reject top-down.

God Bless.

>anyone offering a number is likely full of it

Their number claims are not of stringency but estimations for ones assessed numerical relative in approximating the requirement to understand math through one’s biological capability. The physical mind being the actual inquiry of importance, not the use of a perceived value which is just an aesthetic covering this foundation. If your argument was that you’re below their x values and able to synthesize mathematics anyway, you’d be more compelling. As it stands you prove them right, distilling information requires an adept mind, which is correlative to the theory of general intelligence. It would be interesting to develop a layman’s coursework, IQfy has tried before, other groups as well. If the reduct of your argument is that you can teach intuition, I’d like to see proof.

maximizing the syllable count in your sentences isn't fooling anyone and if anything makes you sound more dumb

Lowercase non chalant to present as aloof, coupled with meta-awareness snark makes you an apparent moron. Frick off, idiot.

Much of the older research papers and texts is much higher quality

These day you have Zhang, Patel and David trying to make a quick buck. Their greed means they will obfuscate any real research.

But you are also part of the problem since you introduced the jungle to a civil society and it turns into this prisoner dilemma where everyone must take the most ape-like greedy approach to put food on the table.

Your global world peace agenda was used against you but it is your fellow righteous man that pays the price of your naievity

This. I find just digging into a topic from using a text from the 50s-70s to be so pleasant. Even advanced topics are just explained much more nicely and intuitively.

I understand the current texts and even what they're doing (typically they're MUCH more careful in their statements), but the older texts just give you the meat immediately. I think mass communication plays into this, you're constantly competing on a global scale and not on a regional scale so you end up being much more careful with your statements.

A lot of math is memorizing formulas. It’s so complicated you have to use formulas a lot of the time.

ywnmi you midwit

Bro just learn Calclulus. That’s most of the backbone to math right there. It’s not hard, you don’t need that high of an IQ. Probably 120.

Source, IQfy loser whose weight is equal to their IQ

Having an IQ of 120 puts you in the top 9% of society.

Well, 9% can be rephrased as meaning those people can correctly call three random coinflips (12.5% success rate). That’s a little challenging, but anyone can learn to be that accurate, by studying. Someone’s IQ is something that can be cultivated to grow higher than the IQ they naturally were given, it’s just that the vast majority encounter reasons to not pursue it, not that it’s impossible to pursue.

If the cut off point for the normal distribution, is that past here “they create math” instead of “they learn math”, then there will be a mirrored cut off point at the other side of the norml distribution desginated for “they cannot learn math” instead of “they learn math.”

An IQ below 100 basically, from personal experience with those kinds of people of IQ 80-90, means they have large difficulty doing simple calculations, let alone being able to learn new things.

But an IQ of 110, from experience, means they can sort of learn math, if its simple enough. Its probably 120 to learn math well; and so, 130 should be (around) when people can create math on their own; and conversely 70IQ is when they cant even add numbers.

>create math

Ummmmm, philosophically I believe that math is discovered, so this entire post is fake and gay.

>formulas

Have you never seen actual math? The math professionals do? Try learning some topology, it should be abstract enough to illustrate the point.

>Not being able to read notation means you aren’t great at math.

Strong disagree. Notation is for the convenience of the writer, not the readers. Mathematics doesn’t necessitate notation in order to be understood.

Maybe I’m not clear. I’m trying to say that formulas have little to do with true mathematics. This means that there is not much “actually” understanding “beyond” formulas, because memorizing formulas gets you nowhere when the mathematics becomes too abstract. You must “actually” understand as a baseline to even do such mathematics. Do you agree with this?

Low IQ post. You don't get what the OP was saying the majority of math performed is formula based or algorithmic. Sure the BODY of math is larger than that, but the majority of math is NOT. You are looking at different sets and couldn't infer what the OP was saying.

I agree. Sometimes, a crucial property of something is defined by a formula which doesn’t ever actually end—is in a practical sense Undefined,—such as the area under the bell curve. In that case, the property has to be personally interpreted in order to utilize it, not memorized with a formula.

about 80

160

as soon as you learn the context math was discovered in, you will understand it - learn history and learn about the people involved and their thoughts on the famous discoveries as they were made

you will discover all math is just our best model, and it closely matches with our innate ability to count

The real problem is knowing enough information in your head and intuition about that information so that you can think about it casually.

This is nearly impossible btw and I doubt most grad students can even do this, most are probably just getting through with great memory.

30, like Poincare.