Do you know of any papers or whatever exploring this? My friend says he scored 147 on an iq test as a kid, wondering if that qualifies as meaningful.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It doesn't. Think of how many child prodigies are touted as the next Beethoven and how many of them end up stacking shelves.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>wondering if that qualifies as meaningful.
it doesn't, scored 150 at 6, 127 at 14 and 141 at 20
iq tests your mood at given day more than anything, just do the exercises in your textbooks if you want big brain
iq is a bullshit psycholoshits invented to feel special
CS probably has the highest IQ variance of any field.
The most advanced theoretical work (the 20% or so of it that isn't machine learning crap) requires megabrain IQ, but even a street shitter can complete a bachelors.
String theory is unironically negative IQ. It's literally untestable pseudoscience. It only exists to peddle tardbabble to the "I Love Science!" losers who read but can't comprehend.
Not something inherent to string theory. There's also non-supersymmetric string theories, as there would be. There's a version of string theory for everyone and everything.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Not something inherent to string theory
inherent to any viable string theory
and every viable theory with SUSY is also a string theory >non-supersymmetric string theories
immediately eliminated by tachyons
there is no viable non-SUSY string theory >There's a version of string theory for everyone and everything.
not quite, there is no string theory for anti-quantum zealots or anti-relativity cranks, among others
but it's not surprising that a (vastly) more powerful theory has (vastly) larger space of models
do you also reject QFT because, apart from SM, it can also produce "bad" models? would you be screaming "QFT bad" before SM was created?
>finance
Finance IQs, like the salaries for finance majors, would be heavily skewed by Ivies.
It's not the degree that drives the IQ for finance, it's the people.
underage cringe kid wanting to iq jerk
>rectum et al
>Rectum, Anus & wiener (1969)
Is this a funny way of saying he pulled the graph out of his ass?
Yes, anon, you got the joke
😀
Good job getting the joke
what is attractiveness
If social science, english, and biology homies were so smart they would have chosen degrees that let you do more than flip burgers
>English and History that high
Literally the only way that's possible is if T25 Lawyers are skewing the average.
> social sciences
> lib arts
> IQ
> comp sci
> attractive
> Correlation: the higher IQ one has, the more attractive they are
You're data is flawed
>Engineers are uglier than comp sci
This is a bullshit graph
bellow all the other actual science and engineering fields of course
>"compsci"
Below biology.
>compsci
Alongside theoretical physics. One might even dare to assert they're synonymous.
Never took an IQ test because I'd be too obsessed with it, but I consider myself dumb as frick, and I have Ph.D. in CS.
same, it's one of those things I never want to know
It's one of those things where if you weren't made to take one as a kid, you don't want to know.
Childhood IQ tests are generally meaningless though, aside from detecting extreme outliers.
Do you know of any papers or whatever exploring this? My friend says he scored 147 on an iq test as a kid, wondering if that qualifies as meaningful.
It doesn't. Think of how many child prodigies are touted as the next Beethoven and how many of them end up stacking shelves.
>wondering if that qualifies as meaningful.
it doesn't, scored 150 at 6, 127 at 14 and 141 at 20
iq tests your mood at given day more than anything, just do the exercises in your textbooks if you want big brain
iq is a bullshit psycholoshits invented to feel special
makes sense. both chem and bio are made for people who can memorize but do nothing else with that information
CS probably has the highest IQ variance of any field.
The most advanced theoretical work (the 20% or so of it that isn't machine learning crap) requires megabrain IQ, but even a street shitter can complete a bachelors.
I would put us around 125+. That seems in the range given the people I have worked with.
fixed it
i meant to post this
String theory is unironically negative IQ. It's literally untestable pseudoscience. It only exists to peddle tardbabble to the "I Love Science!" losers who read but can't comprehend.
>string theory
funny how it turned out to be 100% useless
>ooga booga man cannot see da electron, standard model 100% useless
Name one experimentally verifiable prediction that string theory makes that other theories don't make.
SUSY
Not something inherent to string theory. There's also non-supersymmetric string theories, as there would be. There's a version of string theory for everyone and everything.
>Not something inherent to string theory
inherent to any viable string theory
and every viable theory with SUSY is also a string theory
>non-supersymmetric string theories
immediately eliminated by tachyons
there is no viable non-SUSY string theory
>There's a version of string theory for everyone and everything.
not quite, there is no string theory for anti-quantum zealots or anti-relativity cranks, among others
but it's not surprising that a (vastly) more powerful theory has (vastly) larger space of models
do you also reject QFT because, apart from SM, it can also produce "bad" models? would you be screaming "QFT bad" before SM was created?