Are people who study math smarter than people who study liberal arts?

[Albertus Magnus]

Are people who study math and math-related disciplines (such as physics or mechanical engineering) smarter than people who study liberal arts? Discuss.

[catfish]

I never got into math much but I did enjoy doing math in school. Math is able to test peoples intelligence better than liberal arts because in math you are either wrong or not and in liberal arts their are more vague areas. But I do think that people can invest just as much intelligent thought into liberal arts as people do in math.

[Albertus Magnus]

Well, it's obvious that the most difficult philosophical treatises are heavily grounded in mathematics, such as Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, so I'm not exactly sure that the level of intelligent thought required for the liberal arts is the same as that for math and math-related disciplines.

On a side note, people often study the liberal arts and liberal arts-related disciplines at universities and colleges because they're too stupid (or too lazy) to study anything else.

[Angler]

In my experience the answer is yes (on average). Quantitative sciences are more intellectually demanding and rigorous than most humanities subjects; e.g., it's a hell of a lot easier to bullshit on an essay than when solving a problem that has exactly one correct answer. People who are attracted to the challenges of rigorous, no-BS thinking tend to gravitate toward subjects like math, the physical sciences, engineering, and computer science. Such people also tend to enjoy solving puzzles and playing games like chess.

When humanities courses are challenging, it's often due to the demands that are made on one's capacity for rote memorization rather than the need to understand complex concepts and solve problems based on first principles.

That's not to say there aren't some really smart people out there who suck at math, as well as some people who excel in math but are otherwise intellectually ordinary. We're talking averages here.

There is some statistical evidence to back up the above generalizations. If we note that GRE scores are reasonably correlated with intelligence, we can look at the average scores obtained by people in various graduate majors. I don't have those stats handy here, but I've seen them. Physics majors tend to come out on top, followed by other quantitative majors.

[Albertus Magnus]

This is the GRE chart you're referring to, compiled from 2002 data:

http://www.arisbe.com/detached/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/grelarge.jpg

Three things strike me about this chart. First, the total scores for the scientific disciplines are consistently higher than those for the humanities and social sciences; second, philosophy has the highest total score of the non-scientific disciplines; and third, the low ranking of education (and public administration) calls into question the seriousness of our culture — and its sustainability.

http://www.arisbe.com/detached/?p=1905

[Angler]

Thanks for finding that.

It's also worth noting that a substantial percentage of Ph.D. students in the sciences in the US are foreigners from places like China and India, so their verbal scores aren't going to be as good as those of native English speakers. If the averages in that chart reflected the scores of native-born Americans only, the gap between students in the sciences and the humanities would almost certainly increase.

[Basil Fawlty]

In my experience the answer is yes (on average). Quantitative sciences are more intellectually demanding and rigorous than most humanities subjects; e.g., it's a hell of a lot easier to bullshit on an essay than when solving a problem that has exactly one correct answer.This is a typical prejudice of science people. It's very hard to write a good essay and BS essays get the marks they deserve. Academic essay writing is a skill that takes years to master.
When humanities courses are challenging, it's often due to the demands that are made on one's capacity for rote memorization rather than the need to understand complex concepts and solve problems based on first principles.Again, this is not true. The skills that the humanities aim at are primarily hermeneutical. A recitation of facts is not going to get you very far, it's the interpretation of the facts which are paramount, assuming one has been able to establish the facts to begin with. If not, then a great deal of focus will be on that task, e.g. understudied areas of history, archaeology etc. A theory of language can be as abstract and complex as anything in the nomological sciences.
For example, to do well in classics you need to master two ancient languages, no easy feat unless you are one of those lucky people who just soak up languages. Ancient languages are much harder than modern because the mentality is far from our own and this is reflected in their structure. Then you have to immerse yourself into a world that is in many ways radically different from your own, sympathetically and to such a degree that you begin to think like an ancient Greek or Roman (I knew a Latinist who had transmogrified into a Roman patrican!). You develop a 'feel' for that world and can then access it it in ways that go beyond the surface of the texts and artifacts that comprise the sources.
There is a tremendous rigour in the humanities which I fear is being neglected by the PoMo, dumb-down, grade inflationary atmosphere that is sweeping over universities in the Anglosphere. The great paradigm which I always take as normative is German scholarship of the 19th century. Take that as your standard and you will see how tough and demanding it can be.
That's not to say there aren't some really smart people out there who suck at math, as well as some people who excel in math but are otherwise intellectually ordinary. We're talking averages here.
I think this is a bit of a stereotype too. Speaking personally, I'm not bad in mathematics yet I just gravitated towards the areas I ended up in. I was initially interested (school years) in theoretical physics until I realised that it did not really address the questions that animated me the most, but I still maintain a lively lay interest in various aspects of physics.

There are stereotypes at the other end, many humanities people regard science types as alienated geeks or mindless number-crunchers, but this too is unfair in many cases.

I suppose it might be easier to swing a mediocre degree in the humanities than in the sciences, I'm not sure. But to excel in either requires intelligence, effort and the kind of rigour appropriate to the discipline. Different horses for different courses.

[Angler]

This is a typical prejudice of science people. It's very hard to write a good essay and BS essays get the marks they deserve. Academic essay writing is a skill that takes years to master.I don't doubt that essay-writing can be challenging, though of course it depends on the topic, how stringent the grader happens to be, etc. I'm just saying that it's typically not as challenging as solving difficult quantitative problems -- a process in which there is zero room for error or even ambiguity in most cases. I'm not saying this because I'm prejudiced, but because (1) I've taken advanced courses in both the sciences and in the humanities, and (2) I've known of many people who were weeded out of the sciences and had to switch to humanities, but I know of not a single person who had to do the reverse.

Here's one way of illustrating the disparity in difficulty. First, try reading a Ph.D. thesis on a humanities topic that's completely unfamiliar to you (but written in English or another language in which you're fluent). Sure, you might find it challenging, and you very well might have to consult references, but I think you'd be able to understand it fairly well. I've done this myself.

Next try reading a Ph.D. thesis on a topic in theoretical physics or mathematics. How well do you think you'll understand it, even if you can consult whatever references you wish? I daresay you'd be able to get through 100 humanities theses on unfamiliar topics before getting through even one quantitative thesis.

Why the difference? Well, understanding complex scientific material requires the accumulation of a hierarchy of background knowledge and skills, the acquisition of which typically takes many years of effort. But that could also be said of the humanities in many cases (at least with respect to rote knowledge). Probably more important is that scientific concepts tend to be much farther removed from everyday experience than humanities concepts (even if the effects of science are all around us). This is what makes science so challenging, and that's why those GRE rankings look the way they do.

Again, this is not true. The skills that the humanities aim at are primarily hermeneutical. A recitation of facts is not going to get you very far, it's the interpretation of the facts which are paramount, assuming one has been able to establish the facts to begin with.Yes, interpretation is central in the humanities. But more than one interpretation is often considered acceptable. That leaves more room for ambiguity and BS, and often it's impossible to prove someone wrong.

A theory of language can be as abstract and complex as anything in the nomological sciences.I'm not sure what you mean by "nomological sciences" -- that terminology is novel to me -- but I agree that linguistics can be challenging to study. However, I would also point out that linguistics can itself be viewed as a rigorous scientific subject, albeit not a quantitative one. It has much in common with some subfields of computer science.

What I'm getting at is that it's rigor that makes a field challenging to study. For example, you cannot really write a poem incorrectly, and your opinion on certain philosophical matters can never be proven wrong. But if you do a mathematical proof incorrectly, you most certainly will be proven wrong. If your engineering project doesn't work, then it doesn't work.

For example, to do well in classics you need to master two ancient languages, no easy feat unless you are one of those lucky people who just soak up languages. Ancient languages are much harder than modern because the mentality is far from our own and this is reflected in their structure. Then you have to immerse yourself into a world that is in many ways radically different from your own, sympathetically and to such a degree that you begin to think like an ancient Greek or Roman (I knew a Latinist who had transmogrified into a Roman patrican!). You develop a 'feel' for that world and can then access it it in ways that go beyond the surface of the texts and artifacts that comprise the sources.I don't dispute any of this. Learning foreign languages is certainly one of the more difficult aspects of study in the humanities, and I'd say it's on a par with the difficulties involved in learning a computer language, math, etc. But it's only one aspect, and it's not always required. (BTW, acquiring at least a reading knowledge of a foreign language is often required for a Ph.D. in a science as well.)

There is a tremendous rigour in the humanities which I fear is being neglected by the PoMo, dumb-down, grade inflationary atmosphere that is sweeping over universities in the Anglosphere. The great paradigm which I always take as normative is German scholarship of the 19th century. Take that as your standard and you will see how tough and demanding it can be.I'm not familiar with 19th Century German scholarship, but unless it has some means for unambiguously separating correct from incorrect ideas, I don't see how it can be as rigorous as science. If it is as rigorous as science, then it arguably IS a kind of science!

There are stereotypes at the other end, many humanities people regard science types as alienated geeks or mindless number-crunchers, but this too is unfair in many cases.It's even more inaccurate than it is unfair. Crunching numbers may be a mindless task, but that's what calculators and computers are for. Knowing which numbers to crunch and how to crunch them is far from mindless. That's why the average mathematician or physicist has an IQ around 140 (in contrast to about 125 for the average Ph.D. across all fields).

There is a grain of truth to the stereotype of scientists being geeky, but smart people in general tend to be somewhat geeky. OTOH, I've seen no evidence that scientists tend to be alienated or anti-social.

I suppose it might be easier to swing a mediocre degree in the humanities than in the sciences, I'm not sure. But to excel in either requires intelligence, effort and the kind of rigour appropriate to the discipline. Different horses for different courses.Sure, stupid and/or lazy people are unlikely to excel in anything, whether that might be the humanities or science. But IMO, to really shine in the humanities requires outstanding creativity more than the sort of intelligence that's the key to success in the sciences. That's not to say that creativity isn't a major asset in the sciences as well. But the way I see it, the humanities are more about creating new ideas and experiences than about solving problems and exploring nature. Just about any physicist can read and understand a great novel, but very few could actually write a great novel.

[Universe-Hun]

Are people who study math and math-related disciplines (such as physics or mechanical engineering) smarter than people who study liberal arts?


Apples and oranges. There is no "right" answer to your question.

[Angler]

Apples and oranges. There is no "right" answer to your question.The following question might clarify the matter somewhat:

On average, which would we expect to be more successful: an expert in the humanities attempting to do expert-level work in mathematics (or physics, etc.), or an expert in a mathematical science attempting to do expert-level work in the humanities?

[Basil Fawlty]

The following question might clarify the matter somewhat:

On average, which would we expect to be more successful: an expert in the humanities attempting to do expert-level work in mathematics (or physics, etc.), or an expert in a mathematical science attempting to do expert-level work in the humanities?The question is meaningless. You might as well ask whether a long distance runner will be more successful in the 100m crawl, or the swimmer at long distance running.

[gooddeath]

Yes, I would certainly say that, in general, those who are in math and science oriented fields are more intelligent than those in liberal art fields. Philosophy, however, is still very demanding despite being a liberal art and I have noticed that most philosophy majors are very intelligent. A philosophy degree on its own is notoriously useless, but if it is combined with a degree in engineering or computer science or some other "practical" field then it can look very good.

I am a computer science major and almost all of the liberal arts classes that I have taken have been laughably easy. I have taken high-level sociology classes that require less than half the effort needed to do well in an introductory programming class. Most of the sociology and anthropology majors that I have met have been very dull minded as well.

I am actually surprised that sociology majors did better on combined SAT scores than psychology majors. I have always thought that psychology was more rigorous and more science-oriented than sociology. I have struggled in psychology courses memorizing all of the different areas of the brain and trying to visualize how neurons work.

I'm surprised that computer science majors are 3rd too, above the engineering majors. I have always thought that computer science was sort of mid-level in difficulty, but perhaps that is because it sort of comes naturally to me.

The higher up in the computer science curricula you get, however, the more you realize how computer science and math are intertwined. Obviously you can be a low-level code monkey and not know anything about discrete math or calculus, but to get into high-level theoretical stuff you need to have a VERY good understanding of math. Cryptography, for instance, relies on a very good understanding of number theory and discrete math concepts. Even developing basic data structures and good search algorithms requires a good understanding of graph theory and concepts like binary trees, breadth-first search versus depth-first, dijkstra's algorithm, etc.

Anyway, yes, most certainly the average math or science major is more intelligent than the average liberal art major. Perhaps it has to do with the cultural Marxists hijacking liberal arts, however, and turning entire majors into nothing more than glamorized propaganda fodder?

[harjit]

I voted yes, not because of a difference in the topics being studied but because of the people who major in them.

Liberal arts areas tend to have a lot more people who aren't all that interested in their major, and just go to university as a matter of course, as something you do after finishing high school.

It's much harder for a person like that to get into (and more importantly, graduate from) a comp sci or engineering program.

[Ixtab]

Philosophy majors have a higher average IQ than mathematics majors, although both are top three with physics majors having the highest IQ.

[Warka]

Philosophy majors have a higher average IQ than mathematics majors, although both are top three with physics majors having the highest IQ.

Can you link us to anything substantiating this assertion?

[DonaldT]

Really tricky question.

It depends on what you classify as 'smart.'

Some of the smartest math guys I know can solve a complicated puzzle, but fail at everything else in life. Math people generally aren't very wealthy or don't have many good relationships. If you consider 'succeeding at life' and 'living happily' as intelligent, then I would regard art students probably more smart.

It's interesting to me that philosophy guys seem to be smarter than the biology guys in that chart.

Also pretty damning that just about anyone can be teachers. No wonder so many of our kids turn to shit and become either communists or anti-racists.

One of the most unsuitable people I know eventually became a teacher. Certainly not worthy of being a role model, that's for sure.

At this stage in my life, I regard someone as 'intelligent' and 'successful' as someone that can lure the most girls.

[Roland]

Can you link us to anything substantiating this assertion?

http://www.thephora.net/forum/member.php?u=4580

[Niccolo and Donkey]

http://www.thephora.net/forum/member.php?u=4580

I think it's a bit broader than that.

[Warka]

http://www.thephora.net/forum/member.php?u=4580

This is very interesting.

[Sluggo892]

Liberal arts degrees tend to be given to people who have a particular mindset/philosophy/political persuasion. Many of the people are very talented and produce much that is valued; however, the fact that much of the coursework and testing is subjective tends to favor people of a particular orientation and a sort of groupthink occurs. People that hold views that don't comply with the general orientation are more easily weeded out of the program by professors that disagree with them. This process weakens the intellectual quality of liberal arts degrees.

Science/math majors complete coursework that has a much smaller degree of subjectivity and personal/political opinions are not a determining factor in passing out grades. This allows the deserving to rise to the top and limits the professor's ability to penalize students that they may have personal disagreements with.

[Baron_Corvo]

There are a lot of very bright arts people, but I think the "entry level" intelligence necessary to get to grips with a course of university level mathematics (pure maths in particular) is higher than that of any other subject I know of.

[Reinhard Heydrich]

We NEED more intelligent people to take liberal arts, because it's populated with homosexual idiots and math flunkies. We need more Actors who have higher IQ's and more artists and creative writers working in the Advertising fields who can think logically. Many of them go into the hard sciences because they are terrified of being surrounded by homosexuals and idiots if they go to a liberal arts school.

[Gruppenführer Glitter]

I think it often depends more on the individual but on average, it seems that those who study math and engineering tend to be smarter and I say this as someone who is very weak at math. I would partially attribute this to the current glut of liberal arts majors in American colleges and universities. While I'm sure there are plenty of people genuinely interested in the humanities, there seem to be a lot of people who are just there to get any kind of 'easy' degree.

I think if universities actually made an attempt to make the humanities a more rigorous field by demanding better writing and thought from students, it would regain some of its prestige instead of being known for its degree mill status. My college roommate was a philosophy major and his essays and term papers were about as thoughtful as the love poetry from an engineer with Asperger's syndrome.

I'm biased though since advanced math has always been a difficult subject for me. At university, I rarely understood lectures from my math professors and had to spend many hours doing practice problems and studying the class textbook(s) in the library before understanding concepts. Even after all of that I would usually just end up with a B-.

[Monty]

People who are attracted to the challenges of rigorous, no-BS thinking tend to gravitate toward subjects like math, the physical sciences, engineering, and computer science. Such people also tend to enjoy solving puzzles and playing games like chess.

It's the grading system. Math and science are harder to grade-manipulate.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

No, because mathematics is primarily a material interest, "counting the world." Counting the sands on the beaches on the endless planets of samsara. What's really intelligent about such a predilection?

Liberal arts students at least get into the worthwhile "whys" of life, study life more broadly, and have more of a chance to get insight into the real nature of reality: Why there are so many sands on so many beaches and what they're really worth. (Nothing.) Math people don't deal with any of the really powerful and complex energies of life: Human emotion, creativity, inspiration, human relationships -- the things that we all really live for, and which are harder to understand.

In math you are basically using your mind as a calculator, which in an abuse of the mind in a way. And using your mind as a calculator does not touch most of the mind's capacities. I think the mathematically-inclined are weak in imagination. And it's imagination, finally, that creates everything -- including all the sands on all the beaches that they uselessly count.

[Blighter]

It's the grading system. Math and science are harder to grade-manipulate.

They may be harder to 'grade-manipulate', but maths tests are mostly just a case of learning and repeating predefined processes. Given reasonable instruction and sufficient practice, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of any reasonably intelligent person to sit down and solve a few equations perfectly. But if we consider some sort of English Literature examination, it should be relatively difficult for a student to fully and faultlessly explore the themes and imagery of some Shakespeare play, regardless of the quantity and quality of preparation allowed; very few people should be able to obtain full marks.

That said, people who study maths and the sciences are more intelligent, on average, than arts students because arts courses are easier, and cater to the dossers and other assorted feeble-minded who are not in further education for legitimate reasons. Bright people are attracted to both areas, but dopes are mostly drawn to the arts.

[Warka]

No, because mathematics is primarily a material interest, "counting the world." Counting the sands on the beaches on the endless planets of samsara. What's really intelligent about such a predilection?

Liberal arts students at least get into the worthwhile "whys" of life, study life more broadly, and have more of a chance to get insight into the real nature of reality: Why there are so many sands on so many beaches and what they're really worth. (Nothing.) Math people don't deal with any of the really powerful and complex energies of life: Human emotion, creativity, inspiration, human relationships -- the things that we all really live for, and which are harder to understand.

In math you are basically using your mind as a calculator, which in an abuse of the mind in a way. And using your mind as a calculator does not touch most of the mind's capacities. I think the mathematically-inclined are weak in imagination. And it's imagination, finally, that creates everything -- including all the sands on all the beaches that they uselessly count.

Math is logic and involves much more than merely counting.

[Felix the Cat]

scientists do not have souls

[Baron_Corvo]

Math is logic and involves much more than merely counting.

Quite. Counting is obviously an important part of mathematics, but mathematics is ultimately about the study of pattern. One of the most important branches of modern mathematics (topology) has few if any numbers at all.

[Baron_Corvo]

They may be harder to 'grade-manipulate', but maths tests are mostly just a case of learning and repeating predefined processes. Given reasonable instruction and sufficient practice, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of any reasonably intelligent person to sit down and solve a few equations perfectly.

It depends on the level. Difficult problems even at school level require more than the rote application of known and rehearsed practices; they take a certain amount of insight and imagination as well.

One example of this is integration by substitution; finding the right substitution in order to solve an integral takes time, previous experience and sometimes a bit of guesswork too. Another one is three-dimensional trigonometry; if you're not careful you can end up with a veritable spaghetti of equations containing sin^4, cos^3, tan^2 etc., and no idea of how to reduce it all to anything worth having. (Yes, I am speaking from painful experience of high school mathematics).

[Vindex]

Math is more left brain smart. Where liberal arts is more right brained smart.

[Delmac]

No, because mathematics is primarily a material interest, "counting the world." Counting the sands on the beaches on the endless planets of samsara. What's really intelligent about such a predilection?

Liberal arts students at least get into the worthwhile "whys" of life, study life more broadly, and have more of a chance to get insight into the real nature of reality: Why there are so many sands on so many beaches and what they're really worth. (Nothing.) Math people don't deal with any of the really powerful and complex energies of life: Human emotion, creativity, inspiration, human relationships -- the things that we all really live for, and which are harder to understand.

In math you are basically using your mind as a calculator, which in an abuse of the mind in a way. And using your mind as a calculator does not touch most of the mind's capacities. I think the mathematically-inclined are weak in imagination. And it's imagination, finally, that creates everything -- including all the sands on all the beaches that they uselessly count.

On the contrary, one of the quickest routes to a conviction of the illusory nature of "physical reality" is to think about the nature of mathematical truth.

EDIT: Also, I would resist strongly the contention that Gauss, Hilbert and Poincare lacked imagination.

[Blighter]

It depends on the level. Difficult problems even at school level require more than the rote application of known and rehearsed practices; they take a certain amount of insight and imagination as well.


Granted, but given prior experience of similar problems and memorisation of the necessary relationships/formulae - which comes with practice - it is possible to perform any examinable mathematically operation flawlessly. This isn't to say that maths is straightforward, just that maths tests are a question of time investment; you practice, and you should do well. On the other hand, it is more difficult to rehearse an attractive writing style and elegant turn of phrase.

[KerguelenExileDissident]

I was thinking about this for awhile. People who are mathematically inclined also share various other traits that I think can best be described as somewhat, "borg-like."

These people are usually good at counting, concentrating, knowing all the intricate parts and memorizing how they work. Said individuals do well at only working and learning, not so much anything else. Due to their brains being more aligned in this manner there is not much room for creativity and innovation because their minds do not think up new ideas. This is because their brains are constantly occupied with work which doesn't allow time to think up new ideas. This can be beneficial in some ways but also stagnant in others.

Asians are very much like this. They simply work for its own sake and they also have very little time for innovation. For example, stories we hear of Asians working themselves to death or playing WOW for 5 days straight is a prime example. It seems like there is little room to ask why, only just to do. They think in a straight line instead of thinking all over. Such people one might say make the perfect worker drone. These people are meant to work not to rule.

I know many people who know how to construct a lawn mower from scratch but have no concept of their surroundings, time, and community. For example, many of these people think that Jesus spoke English, America borders, "South America," and Nazis killed people with blond hair.

[Get with the Pogrom™]

They are smarter in the British sense of the word. They dress better and look nicer cuz dem iz able to afford nice threadz, innit?

[Hund]

Though my degree is in a liberal arts subject, I found my math and physics courses a greater challenge and always figured the people majoring in those subjects were smarter than I was.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Math is logic and involves much more than merely counting.
Oh, it's logic. Wow! Logic is, of course, only one aspect of human intelligence and human awareness. So the mathematician is one who specializes in logic, sort of like a factory worker specializes in pressing plastic seams into seats of an automobile. Or like using a Cadillac only for its heater and cigarette lighter.

[President Camacho]

This is a typical prejudice of science people. It's very hard to write a good essay and BS essays get the marks they deserve. Academic essay writing is a skill that takes years to master.As many have brought up in this thread, however, I don't think the point can be overlooked that grade manipulation is much easier in the humanities; unlike in the concrete world of math the "right answer" in liberal arts is malleable to the will of the instructor.

For example, in a Philosophy 101 class a few years ago my teacher gave me an A for a (IMO) mediocre essay I wrote at the last minute, I believe on Plato’s Republic. The next essay, a reflection on Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, I spent much more time on; I thought it was much better structured and persuasive than the first. But I believe I received a C+ or B- on it. The reason?

I included in my essay a brief reflection on the first few sections of Nietzsche’s essay, during which he introduced Judaism as the “original” slave revolt and identified “Rome vs Judea” as the paradigm through which the revolt against aristocratic ideals should be viewed.

The professor, a Jewish woman who looked like Hannah Arendt and was apparently a fan of her as well, specifically told the class to skip over reading these opening sections. :rolleyes: I was aware of these instructions, and the focus of my essay wasn't some polemic against Jews, but nevertheless I felt it essential that I included material from the verboten sections to put Nietzsche's thesis on firm ground.

She pock-marked my paper with vague objections and references, and wasn’t of much help justifying the grade when I pleaded with her about it.

[Baron_Corvo]

Really tricky question.

It depends on what you classify as 'smart.'

Some of the smartest math guys I know can solve a complicated puzzle, but fail at everything else in life. Math people generally aren't very wealthy or don't have many good relationships. If you consider 'succeeding at life' and 'living happily' as intelligent, then I would regard art students probably more smart.

It's interesting to me that philosophy guys seem to be smarter than the biology guys in that chart.

Also pretty damning that just about anyone can be teachers. No wonder so many of our kids turn to shit and become either communists or anti-racists.

One of the most unsuitable people I know eventually became a teacher. Certainly not worthy of being a role model, that's for sure.

At this stage in my life, I regard someone as 'intelligent' and 'successful' as someone that can lure the most girls.

In which case, Gene Simmons must be a freaking genius;

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/music/musicnews/Gene+Simmons-9862.html

Not that I don't sympathise with the sentiment in theory; the ability to get what you want does correlate with intelligence IMO, and straight men want girls and women (of course). I'd perhaps change it to "the best girls."

[Get with the Pogrom™]

I always wondered how men could run corporations and make billions of dollars and then get devastated financially by his bubble-brained wife in divorce court.

I think most people are tards - just tards in different ways.

[Basil Fawlty]

As many have brought up in this thread, however, I don't think the point can be overlooked that grade manipulation is much easier in the humanities; unlike in the concrete world of math the "right answer" in liberal arts is malleable to the will of the instructor.

For example, in a Philosophy 101 class a few years ago my teacher gave me an A for a (IMO) mediocre essay I wrote at the last minute, I believe on Plato’s Republic. The next essay, a reflection on Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, I spent much more time on; I thought it was much better structured and persuasive than the first. But I believe I received a C+ or B- on it. The reason?

I included in my essay a brief reflection on the first few sections of Nietzsche’s essay, during which he introduced Judaism as the “original” slave revolt and identified “Rome vs Judea” as the paradigm through which the revolt against aristocratic ideals should be viewed.

The professor, a Jewish woman who looked like Hannah Arendt and was apparently a fan of her as well, specifically told the class to skip over reading these opening sections. :rolleyes: I was aware of these instructions, and the focus of my essay wasn't some polemic against Jews, but nevertheless I felt it essential that I included material from the verboten sections to put Nietzsche's thesis on firm ground.

She pock-marked my paper with vague objections and references, and wasn’t of much help justifying the grade when I pleaded with her about it.This anecdote only shows that this woman was operating with standards which do not meet normative scholarly values, or unprofessional might be another way of putting it. There should be no place for this kind of thing and as a student you are entitled to have an essay independently reviewed, especially if the grade contributes to the final degree grade.
In my student career I only ever experienced what I believe was an ideologically biased downgrading once, yet the line I took on many issues was sometimes unorthodox and often contrary to the position held by the lecturer. But then things were different over here in my time, PC and it's underlying ideology was something we only heard about as an affliction of American universities and most of my lecturers and profs were very old school. Generally Ireland is about twenty years behind in terms of various social and institutional innovations. Even now, the version they have embraced in academia, and beyond, is a kind of PC Lite which can generally be ignored without repercussions.

[LeoAlbus]

Yes I think it might be easier to find more intelligent people, or whose intelligence is easier to approximate on average, amongst students who study fields such as mathematics or physics. However, this might also have to do with it being slightly 'easier' to do standardised psychometric testing on people with notable mathematical ability rather than philosophical (allthough one can excel in both, and there can be similar traits of excellence showing).

[gooddeath]

Liberal arts students at least get into the worthwhile "whys" of life, study life more broadly, and have more of a chance to get insight into the real nature of reality.

Wrong. Mathematics is as close to reality as one can get. It is the study of the forms of existence itself. Even the sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, are really nothing but applied mathematics: they are essentially just different ways to put "flesh" on mathematical equations and relationships.

And mathematics requires an INCREDIBLE amount of creativity. Only the very basic maths are just "plug it into a formula and chug away." Mathematics require out-of-box (out-of-the-formula) thinking to come to solutions. It is GENUINE creativity, unlike the "creativity" of most liberal art students who just jot down cliches. Computer science requires extreme creativity as well. And the best part is that the results are verifiable. Maybe some people dislike maths and hard sciences because it can prove pretentious dipshits to be complete morons... Too bad.

The only study that can perhaps wrap itself around math and claim to be deeper is perhaps philosophy, but that really just because philosophy is defined so broadly.

[Savant]

LOL!!! Wow, this thread is the longest running stream of uninformed BS and typographical dog sh!t I have seen in a while! It's one think to not know what your are talking about, but trying to pretend otherwise is quite another... LOL!!

[Warka]

LOL!!! Wow, this thread is the longest running stream of uninformed BS and typographical dog sh!t I have seen in a while! It's one think to not know what your are talking about, but trying to pretend otherwise is quite another... LOL!!

Another No vote, I presume?

[Transcendentally Challenged]

I voted yes, but I believe, study of philosophy shouldn't be disregarded by people, who are more into sciences.

I also believe it is incorrect, lumping logic solely with math - during my studies of philosophy we also had a course in logic. Logic is the primary tool for both, philosophy and sciences.

Finally, to those who seem to believe, that philosophy is about simply talking random garbage out of your head, like a sort of 'essay', I advise reading up on Frege and Russel and analytical philosophy in general - their study of maths and language isn't so easy to grasp, as Angler seems to believe all non-science theses are.

PS: Angler, if you make through more than 10 pages a day of Hegel's Philosophy of Time and actually understand it and be able to recite the ideas in it, I'll bow down before you.

[Rakhmetov]

From my experience, those specializing in math and the sciences are dorks with an unlikable personality. They're smarter when it comes to their area of specialty, but not necessarily when it comes to anything else.

Having said that, math and science are infinitely more useful for society and the world than the highest levels of liberal arts.

[Savant]

I voted yes. In reference to averages, of course. I'd absolutely bet that the average quantitative major has a significantly higher IQ than the average liberal arts major.

Another No vote, I presume?

[Gedanken]

Physics > Math > Women's Studies

[Kodos]

They may be harder to 'grade-manipulate', but maths tests are mostly just a case of learning and repeating predefined processes.

Says someone who has obviously never taken a higher level math or science course. A lot of engineering courses the professors will let you take in a page of notes or even have open textbooks for exams, but they'll feature slightly novel problems and its still incredibly difficult.

It is GENUINE creativity, unlike the "creativity" of most liberal art students who just jot down cliches. Computer science requires extreme creativity as well. And the best part is that the results are verifiable.

I couldn't imagine doing higher level pure math... coming up with proofs is FAR beyond coming up with formulas.

[Savant]

+1. The "just memorizing predifined processes" guy obviously never got past pre calc, and is in no way qualified to talk about what higher maths consist of.

Says someone who has obviously never taken a higher level math or science course. A lot of engineering courses the professors will let you take in a page of notes or even have open textbooks for exams, but they'll feature slightly novel problems and its still incredibly difficult.



I couldn't imagine doing higher level pure math... coming up with proofs is FAR beyond coming up with formulas.

[Kodos]

I meant plugging in formulas not coming up with formulas.

[Blighter]

Says someone who has obviously never taken a higher level math or science course.

Given that this is the internet, you are free to believe whatever you like. However, I have a first class Master's degree in an Engineering discipline from one of the United Kingdom's foremost engineering universities. I was able to excel in mathematical examinations throughout my academic career, because I learnt the requisite patterns, processes and formulae, and then how to apply them as appropriate.

An optimised general approach to any given problem in, say, thermodynamics or mechanics or fluid dynamics, coupled with a fundamental understanding of the subject matter itself, allows for the relatively straightforward solution of any novel variation on a particular theme. The same goes for every maths based discipline that I have any experience of.

The "just memorizing predifined processes" guy obviously never got past pre calc, and is in no way qualified to talk about what higher maths consist of.

On what basis are you more qualified to talk about my qualifications, than I am to talk about higher maths examinations? You know nothing about the former, and I have at least some experience of the latter.

EDIT: Having re-read this post, I don't like the tone of it. Any boastful quality is unfortunate and intentional; I see no way to refute claims about my lack of qualifications, without stating them. The whole dispute is in poor taste.

[Basil Fawlty]

Having said that, math and science are infinitely more useful for society and the world than the highest levels of liberal arts.That's very contentious so you'd need to justify it.

[Gedanken]

My understanding is that "applying" mathematics to other disciplines has really no analogue in the humanities. "Doing humanities" means making original investigations. So what we really should be comparing is making original investigations in mathematics vs. making original investigations in other fields.

[Kodos]

Given that this is the internet, you are free to believe whatever you like. However, I have a first class Master's degree in an Engineering discipline from one of the United Kingdom's foremost engineering universities. I was able to excel in mathematical examinations throughout my academic career, because I learnt the requisite patterns, processes and formulae, and then how to apply them as appropriate.

An optimised general approach to any given problem in, say, thermodynamics or mechanics or fluid dynamics, coupled with a fundamental understanding of the subject matter itself, allows for the relatively straightforward solution of any novel variation on a particular theme. The same goes for every maths based discipline that I have any experience of.

You're full of shit, average grades on a lot of engineering exams are in the 30s, unheard of in the humanities. If people could easily apply the principles to any problem this would not be the case.

[Blighter]

You're full of shit, average grades on a lot of engineering exams are in the 30s, unheard of in the humanities. If people could easily apply the principles to any problem this would not be the case.

I don't know anything about the American grading system - are you saying that average grades are sometimes 30-39%? I can hardly believe this - if it's true, it's pretty appalling. In the UK, anything less than 40% constitutes failure. To obtain first class honours it is necessary to average over 70% across the board. I know people who averaged over 80% in scientific disciplines.

Look, it is not controversial to suggest that maths based problems can be solved systematically. You can program a computer to calculate answers to the large majority of engineering questions; the software will need to be quite complex in many cases, and able to cater for variety and novelty, but this is not beyond the realms of possibility. Of course it isn't, because FEA and CFD and dynamic simulation packages exist in abundance. The mathematical problems that I tackled in exams - mostly practical, rather than pure - could all have been solved in Matlab, had somebody had the will to write a sufficiently flexible generalised code.

Science students are more intelligent than arts students, but it would be extremely difficult to program a computer to accurately review a Turner painting, or describe the emotion in a Shakespeare play, without having it plagiarise. Science is systematic, art is not. Breakthroughs in pure mathematics certainly require creativity and genius, but that is not how students are assessed.

What do you disagree with here?

[Flint Steel]

Yes.
Just as physical exercise makes you physically fit, mental exercise makes you mentally fit. If you stop, you become 'flabby'. I once did six hours a week of maths at university, and during that time I never felt more mentally well, quick, and sharp in my life.

Arts people can do maths as well, like brain training, maths isn't just for mathematicians. The first thing you have to learn in mathemateics though, is each thing builds on something else, and you have to learn progressively.

[Errigal]

Yes.
Just as physical exercise makes you physically fit, mental exercise makes you mentally fit. If you stop, you become 'flabby'. I once did six hours a week of maths at university, and during that time I never felt more mentally well, quick, and sharp in my life.

Arts people can do maths as well, like brain training, maths isn't just for mathematicians. I might start a chain of Brain Gyms, it could be the new jogging.

Well a humanities type might get just as sharp and at the top of his game following the historical paper trail in the archives or translating a novel.

I'd also add that "men of science" can have some of the stupidest political ideas ever presented.

[Flint Steel]

Well a humanities type might get just as sharp and at the top of his game following the historical paper trail in the archives or translating a novel.

I'd also add that "men of science" can have some of the stupidest political ideas ever presented.

Scientists are at the cusp. The space age technology of today, was a scientific advance decades before, and a mathematical advance decades earlier. So a lot of what scientists do today won't make sense to the bovinity until it's packaged.

[Crowley]

The two disciplines in question are two different forms of intelligence. The real question is which of the two are the rarer forms of intelligence in the general population? Probably the mathematical.

[The Dragon's Breath]

This thread is so typical of the narrow-mindedness of many pro-mathematics types.

[Monty]

This thread is so typical of the narrow-mindedness of many pro-mathematics types.

Well, there's two types of liberal arts majors: those who care about their subjects and those who just want to rubbish their way through school. The interesting comparison is between _motivated_ liberals arts majors and parallel math majors.

[Gedanken]

The forms of intelligence are not so divided. It is possible to speak of two fundamental forms - which I call Type I and Type II. They cut across different disciplines.

Type I are the thinkers whose thought is universal, who constantly think about the methods of thinking (and who talk about exactly those "methods" of thought - see Euler, Poincare, G. Polya) and whose thought "imposes" itself upon the particular subject matter. Their ability lies not with a specific subject matter, but with some kind of more elementary activity - such as the ability to see analogies between theories - and the ability to mold whatever problem at hand in relation to that elementary activity. Archetypal cases include Leibnitz (the ability to "formalize"), and Poincare (the ability to "analogize" - applied not just to mathematics but his philosophy of science - in the latter case this worked against him). Euler was one who consciously exploited symbolical analogies (http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/EMIS/journals/SLC/wpapers/s44cartier1.pdf), and the first to unlock the power of the complex function.

Type II are the thinkers who have a specific ability to turn a body of knowledge into a medium in which their minds adapt to, in which thought achives unity with the subject matter. In mathematics, the best example of this are Gauss, Riemann, E. Cartan, who were the best at combining the minute intricacies of the particular case (often dealing with massive numerical computations) with the most grandiose generalizations. They do not need to directly make speculative hypotheses by playing around with analogies, but they directly can draw something from the raw data.

Type I: Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Scotus, Ockham, Kepler, Descartes, Fermat, Newton (as a physicist), Locke, Leibnitz (http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rutherford/Leibniz/intro.htm), Euler, Reid, Kant, Lavoisier, Bolzano, Rowan Hamilton, Grassmann, Babbage, Sylvester, Helmholtz, C. S. Peirce (the (http://books.google.com/books?id=iy76kUCZYb0C) master (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#logic) of (http://www.peirce.org/writings/p41.html) us (http://cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/l75/ver1/l75v1-04.htm) all (http://books.google.com/books?id=NyGsVelOwKYC)), Frege, Husserl, Poincare (http://books.google.com/books?id=9F7bY_ltzxIC&lpg=PA339&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false), Sophus Lie, Cantor, Boltzmann, Einstein (whose real insights were all essentially simple), Weyl, Russell, Whitehead, G. Polya, Tarski, R. A. Fisher, Ramsey (http://www.nilsericsahlin.se/ramsey/index.asp), M. H. Stone, Goedel, Quine, S. M. Ulam (http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9g50091s&chunk.id=d0e473&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=ucpress), Lorenzen (the German counterpart (http://poincare.univ-nancy2.fr/Activites/?contentId=4636&languageId=1) to Anglo-American analytic philosophy - a combination of Husserl, Weyl (constructivism)... and recently Peirce, with Berndt Scherer's dissertation), Gel'fand, C. Shannon, Hintikka (http://web.archive.org/web/20110713113425/http://johnfsymons.com/the%20results%20are%20in.pdf), Langlands, Arnol'd (article (http://basepub.dauphine.fr/bitstream/handle/123456789/6842/polymathematics.PDF) on exactly those "analogies" between theories), Margulis, Connes.

"Bad" or excessive/nihilistic versions of Type I: Karl Marx, Comte, Mach, Neurath.

Type II: Archimedes, Barrow, Hooke, Huygens, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, Cauchy, Dirichlet, Galois, Riemann, Faraday (http://www.greenlion.com/farad-er.html), Clerk Maxwell, Willard Gibbs, Chebyshev, A. M. Lyapunov, Hermite, Frobenius, I. Schur, Minkowski, Hilbert, E. Cartan, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, Hadamard, Brouwer, Besicovitch, Banach, C. L. Siegel (the second greatest in number theory, after Gauss), Heisenberg, Dirac, Kolmogorov (http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Apr1998/pdf/Apr1998p54-63.pdf), von Neumann, Leray, Herbrand, Teichmuller, A. Selberg, Harish-Chandra, Serre, Grothendieck.

One observer made the comparison thus:

"Of all men of the century Faraday had the greatest power of drawing ideas straight out of his experiments and making his physical apparatus do his thinking, so that experimentation and inference were not two proceedings, but one. To understand what this means, read his Researches on Electricity. His genius was thus higher than that of Helmholtz, who fitted a phenomenon with an appropriate conception out of his store, as one might fit a bottle with a stopper."

Type I are the shakers and movers, those who guide the early stages of a science. Those in Type I make far more mistakes (e.g. Poincare vs. Riemann, the latter's intuition never stumbled). Those in Type II are generally more precocious (compare Gauss with Euler or Poincare... but then there are exceptions), see further than anyone else, and whose insights contain the germs of everything that follow.

One is not better than the other.

(I am a bit "out of it" so the above post might not be intelligible; nevertheless iti s more so than the distinction between "foxes" & "hedgehogs" that doesn't make any sense at all.)

[Macrobius]

The forms of intelligence are not so divided. It is possible to speak of two fundamental forms - which I call Type I and Type II. They cut across different disciplines.


Saying of Evagrios, in the work titled 'The Gnostic':


The gnosis which occurs to us from without, on the one hand, attempts by means of words (logoi) to make a test of the materials. The gnosis which occurs from the grace of God, on the other hand, presents the objects to the intellect [so that it sees them] with its own eyes, and the mind (nous), seeing them, admits their reasons (logoi). <Delusion> stands against the first; anger and temper <and those things which follow them> stand <against the second>.


Your analysis seems to be in line with the Tradition of St Clement of Alexandria, his pupil Origen, and his pupil Evagrios. The latter is considered a heretic for following his master in theoria, but is normative for the entire monastic tradition as regards his practike.

[Ryan]

The world is full of morons who are experts in their field. Nothing is more true.


It depends what you deem intelligence at the end of the day.


I've worked with high powered attorneys at major banks that were superb at their specific role for the company yet were completely incapable of managing their inbox or dealing with their office colleagues.

Most mathematics types tend to be extremely role-oriented. They're very good at what they're good at and not much in-between. Most of them lack social abilities on average, which is fine for them usually if they can just manage to graduate and get hired before socially self destructing.

One of the number crunchers who'd come in from California was a math major. She never said a word whenever she visited the company. She simply showed up, did her work, sat at the meeting and lunch completely silent, then left back to Cali. I mean literally my 12 year old brother was less shy than this woman.

Was she smart at math? Yes. Was she smart at social interaction 101? No. She was 31 and not married.

So always keep in mind there are various forms of smart. Is the lonely math major making 75k who's single at 31 plus socially awkward really smarter than the socially active liberal arts major who's married at 28 making 50k? You figure that one out. I'd say the liberal arts major is smarter, but as you can now see, it's all dependent on what you deem the meaning of smart to be.

[Baron_Corvo]

The world is full of morons who are experts in their field. Nothing is more true.


It depends what you deem intelligence at the end of the day.


I've worked with high powered attorneys at major banks that were superb at their specific role for the company yet were completely incapable of managing their inbox or dealing with their office colleagues.

Most mathematics types tend to be extremely role-oriented. They're very good at what they're good at and not much in-between. Most of them lack social abilities on average, which is fine for them usually if they can just manage to graduate and get hired before socially self destructing.

One of the number crunchers who'd come in from California was a math major. She never said a word whenever she visited the company. She simply showed up, did her work, sat at the meeting and lunch completely silent, then left back to Cali. I mean literally my 12 year old brother was less shy than this woman.

Was she smart at math? Yes. Was she smart at social interaction 101? No. She was 31 and not married.

So always keep in mind there are various forms of smart. Is the lonely math major making 75k who's single at 31 plus socially awkward really smarter than the socially active liberal arts major who's married at 28 making 50k? You figure that one out. I'd say the liberal arts major is smarter, but as you can now see, it's all dependent on what you deem the meaning of smart to be.

Some good points here about "various forms of smart," but you're making a lot of judgments about the Californian mathematician here, and assuming that she had a problem. Do you know that she was shy and lonely? She might have just preferred her life that way.

America seems to have a fetish for extroverts, and also an insistence that everyone should couple up and /or get married. It's less like that over here.

[PsychoStick]

Contemporary liberal arts include the study of mathematics, so this question doesn't really makes sense.

[Crowley]

The world is full of morons who are experts in their field. Nothing is more true.


It depends what you deem intelligence at the end of the day.


I've worked with high powered attorneys at major banks that were superb at their specific role for the company yet were completely incapable of managing their inbox or dealing with their office colleagues.

Most mathematics types tend to be extremely role-oriented. They're very good at what they're good at and not much in-between. Most of them lack social abilities on average, which is fine for them usually if they can just manage to graduate and get hired before socially self destructing.

One of the number crunchers who'd come in from California was a math major. She never said a word whenever she visited the company. She simply showed up, did her work, sat at the meeting and lunch completely silent, then left back to Cali. I mean literally my 12 year old brother was less shy than this woman.

Was she smart at math? Yes. Was she smart at social interaction 101? No. She was 31 and not married.

So always keep in mind there are various forms of smart. Is the lonely math major making 75k who's single at 31 plus socially awkward really smarter than the socially active liberal arts major who's married at 28 making 50k? You figure that one out. I'd say the liberal arts major is smarter, but as you can now see, it's all dependent on what you deem the meaning of smart to be.

I agree with every point made here. There are all kinds of smart. Blacks, generally a stupid group, even excel in some departments of smart.

[Warka]

The poll tells the tale. We only have to observe those who voted No to realize the correct answer is indeed likely Yes.

[Impérialiste]

This is another one of these silly questions that I think is worth debating only to debunk the misconceptions inherent with the public having a greater respect for a mathematician over a philosopher, for example - even though almost everyone, for example, who has been interested in my math work seem to think it should be applied to improving the efficiency of communications over practicing math for its own sake.

If you're looking at the set of undergraduate sociology majors at a university compared to the set of undergraduate mathematics majors at a university, it is quite clear that the latter set is more intelligent on average. But the interesting question is why that is.

The reason why is because solving math problems compared to solving sociology problems involves fewer degrees of freedom. Indeed, there are fewer degrees of freedom in solving a mathematics problem than in any other field out there because mathematicians can't approximate their logic within some epsilon of the right answer. Natural scientists can, with physics < chemists < geology < biology respectively with respect to degrees of freedom. And in general, natural scientists < social scientists with respect to degrees of freedom.

Does that mean a professional pure mathematician is smarter than a physicist? No. Does that mean a physicist is smarter than a sociologist? No. Though degrees of freedom can be placed in a reasonably defined ordered set, I don't think the elements of that set are causal with respect to intelligence either.

This is the type of logic that pure mathematicians can understand and grasp in ways that others in almost every other field can't. Why is that?--because mathematicians have to work with subtleties all the time, subtleties in definition, concept, and application. Those subtleties aren't as prevalent in the natural sciences and even less prevalent in the humanities. As a result, the demand for that kind of rigorous thinking isn't as much there in those fields either. But pure mathematicians also assume very naive concepts of logic, and logicians are often more advanced than pure mathematicians in having a broader range of logic. But I don't think logicians have to combat problems with the diversity inherent in a field like abstract algebra or analysis. But analytic philosophers have greater degrees of freedom than mathematicians and natural scientists but fewer degrees of freedom than just about every field in the social sciences.

In general, that retard Magnus is asking a question that can be generalized as such: "Can the elements of the ordered sets be ordered?" Using "degrees of freedom" as my basis to order these sets, the answer is clearly "no". Why?--because degrees of freedom address epistemic certainty and not maximized ability. You'll be hard pressed to not exercise bias if you are to compare the smartest in sociology, music, mathematics, physics, and philosophy.

[Sluggo892]

Contemporary liberal arts include the study of mathematics, so this question doesn't really makes sense.Liberal arts degrees do not include advanced mathematics and science. That is why there are Bachelor of Arts (BA) and Bachelor of Science (BS) degrees. Liberal arts degrees on average require far fewer credit hours in order to obtain a degree. A degree in Philosophy may require less than half the number of credits hours of course study than a degree in an Engineering discipline requires.

That doesn't mean that as a liberal arts major you couldn't take advanced math courses. In fact, one can get a BS with a liberal arts major if the required number of math/science courses are included. In fact, it is not uncommon. It tends to provide employers with some assurance that the student wasn't just partying their way through college. It will just lower your overall GPA.

Of course this applies to the US and (maybe?) not to universities in other countries.

[Impérialiste]

The poll tells the tale. We only have to observe those who voted No to realize the correct answer is indeed likely Yes.

Appealing to popularity is not the way a mathematician would argue. By your logic, Jersey Shore is a better show than virtually every show on TV.

[Impérialiste]

Contemporary liberal arts include the study of mathematics, so this question doesn't really makes sense.

Contemporary liberal arts degrees require, at most, Calculus but more often than not just college algebra. Calculus is child's play compared to the most basic proof class.

I invite you to prove that the sum of two even numbers will always give you an even number. Post the proof here.

[Impérialiste]

Some good points here about "various forms of smart," but you're making a lot of judgments about the Californian mathematician here, and assuming that she had a problem. Do you know that she was shy and lonely? She might have just preferred her life that way.

America seems to have a fetish for extroverts, and also an insistence that everyone should couple up and /or get married. It's less like that over here.

In my opinion, it's because Americans value how much money one makes per year, which is correlated with social affability.

I can't tell you how many times an American has criticized my love for pure, abstract mathematics instead of taking a vulgar, utilitarian engineering route.

[Impérialiste]

This thread is so typical of the narrow-mindedness of many pro-mathematics types.

Their narrow-mindedness is understandable but incorrect. They're the ones hitting the books on Friday nights while business and sociology majors party into the early hours of the morning. But maybe they can expand their horizons by discussing the nature of the "[three]-dimensional homogeneous space-time complex" or something equally retarded.

[Warka]

Appealing to popularity is not the way a mathematician would argue. By your logic, Jersey Shore is a better show than virtually every show on TV.

It's not an appeal to popularity but you, having the assburgers, can be forgiven for missing the joke.

[PsychoStick]

Contemporary liberal arts degrees require, at most, Calculus but more often than not just college algebra. Calculus is child's play compared to the most basic proof class.

I invite you to prove that the sum of two even numbers will always give you an even number. Post the proof here.

What's the point in asking me a question that can easily be answered by a google search?

http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Sum_of_Even_Integers_is_Even
Kinda ruins the whole point of the question.

The people who study mathematics beyond calculus may be on average smarter than the people who study liberal arts simply because there are less of them, but because of the larger number of people who study liberal arts I am fairly certain that the are more people with high intelligence who study liberal arts than there are people who study mathematics all together.

[Kodos]

It's not an appeal to popularity but you, having the assburgers, can be forgiven for missing the joke.

Imperialiste doesn't have the burgers. Not all nerds do. Im curious as to why he voted no though...

[Impérialiste]

What's the point in asking me a question that can easily be answered by a google search?

http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Sum_of_Even_Integers_is_Even
Kinda ruins the whole point of the question.

The people who study mathematics beyond calculus may be on average smarter than the people who study liberal arts simply because there are less of them, but because of the larger number of people who study liberal arts I am fairly certain that the are more people with high intelligence who study liberal arts than there are people who study mathematics all together.

That is a surprisingly weak response, PsychoStick, and I expected more from you than that lazy nonsense.

I asked you that question for a reason. First, of all the basic binary operations, addition is the easiest with respect to intuition. Second, it is clearly a true statement that the sum of two even numbers will result in an even number. So I'm asking you to prove something that is totally true intuitively. You could not do that without looking up the answer - and you probably don't even understand the logic of the proof.

I'm not trying to embarrass you, though you embarrassed yourself with that response. I'm making the point that a lot of undergraduate math problems are 100 times more difficult than that in magnitude, and you couldn't even prove one of the most basic propositions in mathematics. That says a lot not only about the epistemic certainty of mathematical claims but also about the general laziness of a lot of people who study in the humanities.

No one would choose math as a major because it's "easy", but I know a number who have chosen sociology because it's "easy".

I'm not trying to be a prick. I am saying that you totally missed the point of my asking that. Just imagine having to prove something so basic, and you're thinking for an hour to put it on paper. Then, imagine having to verbalize what you demonstrated to others. You would get a good education by reading "Perfect Rigour", a biography on the life of Grisha Perelman.

I can also make another claim. No one in sociology has ever put the brain power and discipline into a sociological problem that Grisha Perelman put in solving the Poincare Conjecture. This was a one-hundred-year-old problem that took Perelman seven years to solve, and it took a few of the top topologists in the field two years to grasp most of it. In fact, Terence Tao admitted to not having understand the whole proof, and he is a rare genius who taught a class on the proof.

The few degrees of freedom in pure mathematics causes its difficulty and causes the field's progress. It's something few in the humanities, like you, can respect.

Furthermore, I found that it's often very hard to tutor a non-analytic person in the humanities because they always want to "think" about their assertions without reasoning it out: what the vast majority of humanities majors do on their exams to get a "B" grade.

I don't think pure mathematicians are necessarily the smartest; I just think it's field has the most epistemic certainty that is caused by the few degrees of freedom of their field. But I do know that to be a competitive pure mathematician requires more discipline than to be a competitive sociologist. This is not an attack on sociology; it's just an understanding of the division of labor.

[Impérialiste]

Imperialiste doesn't have the burgers. Not all nerds do. Im curious as to why he voted no though...

I'm an aspie and have been diagnosed by three different professionals.

I voted "No" because the question is flawed. Epistemic certainty is caused by degrees of freedom, where pure mathematics < applied mathematics and most natural sciences < biology (for example) < philosophy < the humanities < music < art < ethnomusicology, where the inequalities denote a qualitative sense of degrees of freedom when making truth claims. But even though the neighborhoods of the degrees of freedom can be put in an ordered set, the elements of each respective set can't be reasonably ordered across the board (e.g. Grisha Perelman, an element of the pure mathematics set, is not necessarily greater than Mozart, an element of the music set, even though mathematics < music with respect to degrees of freedom). So I contend that the inverse correlation of degrees of freedom is not with intelligence, hence no causality can be established. That is why I voted "No".

[Kodos]

If x/2=n and n is in the set of whole numbers (definition of even), and y/2=m and m is in the set of whole numbers (definition of even)...

((x+y)/2)*2= (x/2+y/2)*2= (n+m)*2 which is 2 times a whole number

2 times any whole number is an even number

[Kodos]

I thought I remember you saying you weren't. On proofs to the extent I did them I was generally very good at them in geometry but very bad at them in pure algebra.

[PsychoStick]

That is a surprisingly weak response, PsychoStick, and I expected more from you than that lazy nonsense.

I asked you that question for a reason. First, of all the basic binary operations, addition is the easiest with respect to intuition. Second, it is clearly a true statement that the sum of two even numbers will result in an even number. So I'm asking you to prove something that is totally true intuitively. You could not do that without looking up the answer - and you probably don't even understand the logic of the proof.

I'm not trying to embarrass you, though you embarrassed yourself with that response. I'm making the point that a lot of undergraduate math problems are 100 times more difficult than that in magnitude, and you couldn't even prove one of the most basic propositions in mathematics. That says a lot not only about the epistemic certainty of mathematical claims but also about the general laziness of a lot of people who study in the humanities.

No one would choose math as a major because it's "easy", but I know a number who have chosen sociology because it's "easy".

I'm not trying to be a prick. I am saying that you totally missed the point of my asking that. Just imagine having to prove something so basic, and you're thinking for an hour to put it on paper. Then, imagine having to verbalize what you demonstrated to others. You would get a good education by reading "Perfect Rigour", a biography on the life of Grisha Perelman.

I can also make another claim. No one in sociology has ever put the brain power and discipline into a sociological problem that Grisha Perelman put in solving the Poincare Conjecture. This was a one-hundred-year-old problem that took Perelman seven years to solve, and it took a few of the top topologists in the field two years to grasp most of it. In fact, Terence Tao admitted to not having understand the whole proof, and he is a rare genius who taught a class on the proof.

The few degrees of freedom in pure mathematics causes its difficulty and causes the field's progress. It's something few in the humanities, like you, can respect.

Furthermore, I found that it's often very hard to tutor a non-analytic person in the humanities because they always want to "think" about their assertions without reasoning it out: what the vast majority of humanities majors do on their exams to get a "B" grade.

I don't think pure mathematicians are necessarily the smartest; I just think it's field has the most epistemic certainty that is caused by the few degrees of freedom of their field. But I do know that to be a competitive pure mathematician requires more discipline than to be a competitive sociologist. This is not an attack on sociology; it's just an understanding of the division of labor.

First off, I never claimed to be a math wiz. I'm currently teaching myself with a pre-calculus college text book. (I'm also reading chemistry, biology, and physics) I enjoy learning, but I'm young and I've got a long way to go.
Yes I could have easily answered the question, but that one was pretty simple. I was just making the point that asking questions to someone on a forum is pointless because they can just google the answer.

[Impérialiste]

First off, I never claimed to be a math wiz. I'm currently teaching myself with a pre-calculus college text book. (I'm also reading chemistry, biology, and physics) I enjoy learning, but I'm young and I've got a long way to go.
Yes I could have easily answered the question, but that one was pretty simple. I was just making the point that asking questions to someone on a forum is pointless because they can just google the answer.

I wasn't trying to embarrass you or show that you aren't a math wiz. What I'm trying to show is how deep you have to dig to prove something with absolute certainty. It's not just a calculation. Proving propositions is a wild experience.

[PsychoStick]

I wasn't trying to embarrass you or show that you aren't a math wiz. What I'm trying to show is how deep you have to dig to prove something with absolute certainty. It's not just a calculation. Proving propositions is a wild experience.

I doubt I'll ever make it to proofs.

[Impérialiste]

I doubt I'll ever make it to proofs.

It just requires dedication and practice. Proofs are hard, but it's not impossible. I've known people who were by no means brilliant who excelled in mindnumbingly complicated fields like algebraic geometry.

[Baron_Corvo]

It's not an appeal to popularity but you, having the assburgers, can be forgiven for missing the joke.

Do you believe in AS now then Prac? You didn't when we debated this before. (I'm a diagnosed aspie too).

[Warka]

Do you believe in AS now then Prac? You didn't when we debated this before. (I'm a diagnosed aspie too).

I "believe in" it inasmuch as it's the affliction du jour, just another temporarily popular flavor of general mental retardation, the largely bogus categorization and minutiae of which I'm really not interested in.

[Baron_Corvo]

I "believe in" it inasmuch as it's the affliction du jour, just another temporarily popular flavor of general mental retardation, the largely bogus categorization and minutiae of which I'm really not interested in.

So you believe in "general" mental retardation, but also that it's pointless to attempt to distinguish different forms of it from one another?

[Warka]

So essentially you believe in "general" mental retardation, but that it's largely pointless to attempt to distinguish different forms of it from one another?

Precisely. Personally, it's well enough to understand that some people are simply retards. I'm really not interested in what type of retards they are or to what degree they are retarded. For a layman such as myself, one's mind either works properly or it's defective. Anything beyond that is for scientists interested in the subject.

[Ryan]

Some good points here about "various forms of smart," but you're making a lot of judgments about the Californian mathematician here, and assuming that she had a problem. Do you know that she was shy and lonely? She might have just preferred her life that way.

America seems to have a fetish for extroverts, and also an insistence that everyone should couple up and /or get married. It's less like that over here.

She was 31 and single as a woman. That in and of itself is statistically abnormal in any society purely based off averages, not my personal opinion. So there's that. But she could barely say one word. If at 31 you can barely say one word at a lunch with your coworkers, that doesn't indicate 'smartness' in my eyes.

This alludes to my point. A raw, honed perfectionist does not equate to smart. Someone who can multitask their intellectualism in correlation with their emotions and social interactions is much smarter in my book. (Ironically, most math majors usually end up having a boss who's a liberal arts major because they are more able to manage their full range of abilities and emotions whereas the math major simply operates on one channel).

[PsychoStick]

It just requires dedication and practice. Proofs are hard, but it's not impossible. I've known people who were by no means brilliant who excelled in mindnumbingly complicated fields like algebraic geometry.

I see what you mean about proofs now. I spent the last 2 hours trying to algebraically prove:

If two lines are perpendicular then M1= - (1/M2)

I have a question about this. Why is a pre-cal book asking me to prove theorems? The second part was to geometrically prove it, but I don't even know what that means.
Fortunately I'm doing this on my own and it's self paced. But then again, because I'm doing it on my own I don't have an instructor or other classmates to ask questions.

About the sum of two even numbers always being an even number; even numbers are always multiples of two, so no matter what two you add you will always get a sum divisible by two. Why does proving that have to go any further than this simple explanation? It seems like anything further is just beating the proverbial dead horse.

[Impérialiste]

She was 31 and single as a woman. That in and of itself is statistically abnormal in any society purely based off averages, not my personal opinion. So there's that. But she could barely say one word. If at 31 you can barely say one word at a lunch with your coworkers, that doesn't indicate 'smartness' in my eyes.

This alludes to my point. A raw, honed perfectionist does not equate to smart. Someone who can multitask their intellectualism in correlation with their emotions and social interactions is much smarter in my book. (Ironically, most math majors usually end up having a boss who's a liberal arts major because they are more able to manage their full range of abilities and emotions whereas the math major simply operates on one channel).

No one is telling you to change the properties of what you constitute as "intelligence", but there are many others. I'm sure she can still perform more g-loaded tasks than the vast majority of the co-workers there. Using a g-loaded basis would be a mathematical way in quantifying intelligence.

Either way, you're not really making a point. And if you are going to use averages, I can say that the average math major can utter more than a word. You're using a statistical outlier - an indication of not being able to multitask sound reasoning with social interaction on some v-bulletin forum.

As for the final part, whether the boss has a liberal arts degree is a non sequitur. My experience has been that people who run businesses tend to be uneducated but have a certain interest toward the bottom line. I once did gigs for a multimillionaire who had "Obama is a Communist" pamphlets on his desk. He really believed that stuff too. Essentially, he's a Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly mark. That tells me he has no critical thinking skills.

[Ryan]

No one is telling you to change the properties of what you constitute as "intelligence", but there are many others. I'm sure she can still perform more g-loaded tasks than the vast majority of the co-workers there. Using a g-loaded basis would be a mathematical way in quantifying intelligence.

Either way, you're not really making a point. And if you are going to use averages, I can say that the average math major can utter more than a word. You're using a statistical outlier - an indication of not being able to multitask sound reasoning with social interaction on some v-bulletin forum.

As for the final part, whether the boss has a liberal arts degree is a non sequitur. My experience has been that people who run businesses tend to be uneducated but have a certain interest toward the bottom line. I once did gigs for a multimillionaire who had "Obama is a Communist" pamphlets on his desk. He really believed that stuff too. Essentially, he's a Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly mark. That tells me he has no critical thinking skills.



But this goes right to the point that you evidently dislike.

If the ultimate desired outcome of 'smartness' in the world is the ability to earn money, then certainly that multimillionaire is 'winning' against the various math majors who happened in on his office.

In other words smartness is comletely based off biases.

Does income earning ability = smart?

Or does math major = smart?



This ultimately suggests that the very concept of a uniform 'smart' is inherently flawed. How else can one explain the numerous 'uneducated multimillionaires' controling legions of math majors?

[Impérialiste]

I see what you mean about proofs now. I spent the last 2 hours trying to algebraically prove:

If two lines are perpendicular then M1= - (1/M2)

I have a question about this. Why is a pre-cal book asking me to prove theorems? The second part was to geometrically prove it, but I don't even know what that means.
Fortunately I'm doing this on my own and it's self paced. But then again, because I'm doing it on my own I don't have an instructor or other classmates to ask questions.

About the sum of two even numbers always being an even number; even numbers are always multiples of two, so no matter what two you add you will always get a sum divisible by two. Why does proving that have to go any further than this simple explanation? It seems like anything further is just beating the proverbial dead horse.

Look up methods for proof-writing. But I'll give you examples. Both of these proofs can almost certainly be done "directly". A direct proof is using established theorems and axioms to verify a result. Most proofs are done by contradiction. I'll give an example.

"If p^2 is equal to 2, then p is an irrational number."

This is an established theorem. The if-then form is a conditional statement. Let that conditional statement be symbolized by "p > q". Here is the truth table for this. (There are four cases.)

(I) P is true and Q is true
(II) P is true and Q is false
(III) P is false and Q is true
(IV) P is false and Q is false.

(I) is always true. Indeed, if you have established axioms, a direct proof would fit under (I). The problem is that being able to prove propositions by definition, theorem, or axiom is not common. They're analytic a priori propositions in the Kantian way. (II) is false. (More on that later). Both (III) and (IV) are true.

(II) is what you want to pay attention to. To restate this, if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, then the conditional statement is necessarily false. Pure mathematics assumes naive set theory and basic logic, so the law of the excluded middle is assumed. Basically, if you negate (II), then you have a true statement. So, let's revisit the proposition:

"If p^2 is equal to 2, then p is an irrational number."

Let P be "If p^2 is equal to 2. . .", and let Q be "then p is an irrational number." This is a theorem that needs to be proven. (II) shows that if p is true and Q is false, then the statement is false. So, assume P and the negation of Q, where both P and Q are true statements. Now, P is true and Q is false. That will give a false statement - or, a contradiction.

Proof: Suppose p^2 is equal to 2 and p is a rational number. (This is a justifiable negation because the negation of an irrational number is a rational number. That seems intuitive, but this does not always work out that cleanly. The negation of an open set is not always a closed set, for example, because a set can be both open and closed, and a set can be neither. On a broader aside, the set of real numbers is equal to the union of rational numbers and irrational numbers. From another perspective, the intersection of the rational set and the irrational set is an empty set. Lastly, let Q denote the set of rationals, and let Q^c denote the set of irrationals, since Q^c is the complement of rational Q.)

Since p is a rational number, then p = m/n where m is any possible integer and n is any possible integer except for 0. (One can write m as an element of integer set Z and n is an element of integer set Z \ {0}, or the set of integers not including 0.) Furthermore, one has derived a contradiction if both m and n have common divisible numbers.

Since p^2 = 2, then (m / n)^2 = m^2 / n^2 = 2. That implies m^2 = 2*n^2. Since we're talking about rationals - and consequently we're talking about integers - then m^2 is necessarily divisible by 2. As a result, m is divisible by 2. Since m is divisible by 2, then m^2 is divisible by 4. (This is true because we're squaring 2.) Since m^2 is equal to 2*n^2 and m^2 is divisible by 4, then 2*n^2 is divisible by 4. Clearly, n^2 is divisible by 2. As a result, n is divisible by 2. Since m and n have common divisors, then p cannot be a rational number. That is a contradiction and hence the assumption that p^2 is equal to 2 and p is rational is a false statement. Henceforth, one knows that "If p^2 is equal to 2, then p is an irrational number" is a true statement.

All proofs by contradictions involve the assumption of p and ~Q.

You can verify the following by playing with truth tables. P > Q is equivalent to ~Q > ~P. I have proven many propositions doing this. In this case, you assume ~Q and ~(~P), which is equal to ~Q and P. ~Q > ~P is the contrapositive of all conditional statements. You can similarly do a proof by contradiction.

A proof by induction is where use a base case as evidence, make a hypothesis at the n level, and then you use that hypothesis at the n + 1 level under the premises of n. I'll give a false proposition.

"n^2 is equal to 2n."

This is clearly an absurd statement, but inductive proofs always involve generalizations of this sort. All of your algebraic properties would have had to been proven on some level inductively at some point.

Base case: I know that 0^2 = 0 + 0. (Just for giggles, skip 1^2 = 1 + 1, since we know this is a negation. But 2^2 is equal to 2 + 2.)

Hypothesis: Because 0^2 = 0 + 0 and 2^2 = 2 + 2, then I can surely reason that n^2 = n + n.

Proposition: Then (n + 1)^2 = (n + 1) + (n + 1).

(n + 1)^2 = n^2 + 2n + 1. The other side is 2n + 2. These two statements are not clearly, so we know this is a false claim in every case. Though if you solve for it, you can see that n is equal to plus or minus 1. Plug in 1 and plug in -1 for n in two cases. Then this verifies that my two chosen base cases are correct.

[Impérialiste]

But this goes right to the point that you evidently dislike.

If the ultimate desired outcome of 'smartness' in the world is the ability to earn money, then certainly that multimillionaire is 'winning' against the various math majors who happened in on his office.

In other words smartness is comletely based off biases.

Does income earning ability = smart?

Or does math major = smart?



This ultimately suggests that the very concept of a uniform 'smart' is inherently flawed. How else can one explain the numerous 'uneducated multimillionaires' controling legions of math majors?

That's a materialistic way to judge intelligence. Suppose one were to use that premise. How does one control for inheritance? Is Paris Hilton suddenly smarter than a professional mathematician? It's a bad argument.

But you are not giving an analysis. You're being intellectually lazy because you're resorting to the very type of relativity that is equally dangerous to arguing that there is only one concept of intelligence.

I gave an analysis. Reason is on my side. I don't have to resort to relativity. It's not my disagreement that the question is poorly framed. A number of judgements can clearly be made that have some truth-value.

[Ryan]

That's a materialistic way to judge intelligence. Suppose one were to use that premise. How does one control for inheritance? Is Paris Hilton suddenly smarter than a professional mathematician? It's a bad argument.

But you are not giving an analysis. You're being intellectually lazy because you're resorting to the very type of relativity that is equally dangerous to arguing that there is only one concept of intelligence.

I gave an analysis. Reason is on my side. I don't have to resort to relativity. It's not my disagreement that the question is poorly framed. A number of judgements can clearly be made that have some truth-value.


No I largely agree. I personally have never been under the impression education or income or wealth denote intelligence, though they can lead to it.

I've met too many ignorant Harvard graduates or socialite scum to ever consider education or wealth to truly indicate intelligence.

[Impérialiste]

No I largely agree. I personally have never been under the impression education or income or wealth denote intelligence, though they can lead to it.

I've met too many ignorant Harvard graduates or socialite scum to ever consider education or wealth to truly indicate intelligence.

That's a matter of social class. People who come from money can do a lot of things with it.

[Baron_Corvo]

Precisely. Personally, it's well enough to understand that some people are simply retards. I'm really not interested in what type of retards they are or to what degree they are retarded. For a layman such as myself, one's mind either works properly or it's defective. Anything beyond that is for scientists interested in the subject.

I don't think that holds any water, frankly. Richard Borcherds is a lot cleverer than I am (he's got a Fields medal in mathematics) and he has a diagnosis of Asperger's. You couldn't really call him a retard.

The thing I find curious about this place though is that although there are people like yourself and Errigal here who openly disparage the notion of Asperger's as a diagnosis, there appears to be a very high proportion of Aspies posting here relative to the general population, so clearly we feel comfortable here.

[Ahknaton]

Appealing to popularity is not the way a mathematician would argue.
What if they were a statistician?

[Warka]

The thing I find curious about this place though is that although there are people like yourself and Errigal here who openly disparage the notion of Asperger's as a diagnosis, there appears to be a very high proportion of Aspies posting here relative to the general population, so clearly we feel comfortable here.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. This place attracts all kinds of weirdos and side show freaks. That they're comfortable here somehow validates them?

[Impérialiste]

I don't think that holds any water, frankly. Richard Borcherds is a lot cleverer than I am (he's got a Fields medal in mathematics) and he has a diagnosis of Asperger's. You couldn't really call him a retard.

The thing I find curious about this place though is that although there are people like yourself and Errigal here who openly disparage the notion of Asperger's as a diagnosis, there appears to be a very high proportion of Aspies posting here relative to the general population, so clearly we feel comfortable here.

Tony Attwood, author of "The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome", argues that people with Asperger's Syndrome have a tendency toward extreme politics for their lack of empathy.

[Impérialiste]

What if they were a statistician?

Is this supposed to be a joke? I can detect your sarcasm.

[Baron_Corvo]

I don't know what you're trying to say here. This place attracts all kinds of weirdos and side show freaks. That they're comfortable here somehow validates them?

To me it suggests a kind of symbiotic relationship between them and the board, where each needs the other. This place thrives on people whose views go outside the normally acceptable limits of discourse, and people with such views need somewhere to post; as has been pointed out on SF, Aspies tend to be more likely to have such views.

I don't think that I or any other Aspie need "validating" in or of ourselves.

And, on a related subject; I'm curious to know how you can be both a Catholic (or any other Christian) and a fascist, as I've always believed that the two are fundamentally opposed. In Christianity, we are all equal in the sight of God and only our spiritual, as opposed to our temporal, characteristics, carry any real weight in determining our value; fascists believe that only certain people are valuable - those who fit a given pre-determined template, such as the blond Aryan or, say, white people in general - and the others should at best be discouraged from breeding or at worst sterilised or even disposed of. It's one or the other, IMO.

[Warka]

To me it suggests a kind of symbiotic relationship between them and the board, where each needs the other. This place thrives on people whose views go outside the normally acceptable limits of discourse, and people with such views need somewhere to post; as has been pointed out on SF, Aspies tend to be more likely to have such views.

I don't think that I or any other Aspie need "validating" in or of ourselves.

Nonsense. The three out and proud self-proclaimed "Aspies" here at this forum - yourself, Kodos and Impérialiste- hold no views "outside the normally acceptable limits of discourse". None of you are particularly racist, anti-semitic, or otherwise bring to the table anything controversial or non-PC. The notion that the success of this forum requires retards babbling about math, wrestling, their Jewish friends from high school and what music they like is absurd.

As for validation, of course you need it, hence embracing "Aspie" as an identity and your tireless defense of it. After all, what would you (along with Kodos and Impérialiste, for that matter) be if not the "special kids" modern society has taught you to be?

And, on a related subject; I'm curious to know how you can be both a Catholic (or any other Christian) and a fascist, as I've always believed that the two are fundamentally opposed.

From ancient Rome to the Reich, Catho-fascism is ideologically sound, rest assured.

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7297/lb8ebz6.jpg

[PsychoStick]

And, on a related subject; I'm curious to know how you can be both a Catholic (or any other Christian) and a fascist, as I've always believed that the two are fundamentally opposed.I don't see how you can be confused on this issue. The church has called for the retaking of Jerusalem how many times at the cost of how many lives? Is it a surprise that they would support a movement that killed off many followers of other religions?

[Aleksei]

They are. Not because math is a more intellectual field than liberal arts, but rather because the latter has decreased its standards to shit.

[Ryan]

Considering people who study math rarely ever hold positions of power and are usually working for someone who never studied math, I'd say it's extremely debatable no matter how you cut it.



The whole concept of math = intelligence relies completely on the notion that math is the sole measuring stick for deciding ones intelligence.

[Ahknaton]

Eamon de Valera was a mathematician before he was a politician, so it's not like math nerds can never attain positions of power. I don't know how common this is though.

[Delmac]

Eamon de Valera was a mathematician before he was a politician, so it's not like math nerds can never attain positions of power. I don't know how common this is though.

I heard China's current ruling class tend to have STEM qualificiations, tho' I haven't checked this.

[Baron_Corvo]

Nonsense. The three out and proud self-proclaimed "Aspies" here at this forum - yourself, Kodos and Impérialiste

There are others, such as (off the top of my head) Ricardo Vega and Mackie. Certainly a higher proportion of active posters here than you'd find amongst the population as a whole.

- hold no views "outside the normally acceptable limits of discourse". None of you are particularly racist, anti-semitic, or otherwise bring to the table anything controversial or non-PC.

I'm not going to contest that one.

The notion that the success of this forum requires retards babbling about math, wrestling, their Jewish friends from high school and what music they like is absurd.

Explain what you mean by "retard".

As for validation, of course you need it, hence embracing "Aspie" as an identity and your tireless defense of it. After all, what would you (along with Kodos and Impérialiste, for that matter) be if not the "special kids" modern society has taught you to be?

A lot of things. I was only diagnosed in my late thirties. But more to the point (and the reason I reentered this thread in order to reply, after seeing one of Alex de Large's posts) is that I think this board has a 'sperg obsession. Do a search on either "sperg" or "aspie" on here and see how many times people use either term in referring to another poster even when not invited to do so. I've even see an admin here (Jake) do it.

It's almost as though you'd have to invent us if we didn't exist.

From ancient Rome to the Reich, Catho-fascism is ideologically sound, rest assured.

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7297/lb8ebz6.jpg

That's as may be, but I'd still say it's an erroneous take on what Jesus was trying to teach. Sorry.

Julian got it right IMO; Christianity is a Westernised form of Bhakti Yoga.

[Basil Fawlty]

That's as may be, but I'd still say it's an erroneous take on what Jesus was trying to teach. Sorry.What is your authority for saying that?

[Baron_Corvo]

What is your authority for saying that?

It's admittedly only my personal opinion (so my authority is slight at best), but see my answer to Prac earlier in the thread;

"In Christianity, we are all equal in the sight of God and only our spiritual, as opposed to our temporal, characteristics, carry any real weight in determining our value; fascists believe that only certain people are valuable - those who fit a given pre-determined template, such as the blond Aryan or, say, white people in general - and the others should at best be discouraged from breeding or at worst sterilised or even disposed of. It's one or the other, IMO."

[Warka]

But more to the point (and the reason I reentered this thread in order to reply, after seeing one of Alex de Large's posts) is that I think this board has a 'sperg obsession. Do a search on either "sperg" or "aspie" on here and see how many times people use either term in referring to another poster even when not invited to do so. I've even see an admin here (Jake) do it.

It's almost as though you'd have to invent us if we didn't exist.

It's not an obsession, it's a long-running joke or a "meme", if you will. It's a sign of the screwed-up times we live in when we've got people who boast of being retarded, as if it's some kind of "gift", so of course such a thing is going to be discussed and disparaged at a place like this.

[Warka]

It's admittedly only my personal opinion (so my authority is slight at best), but see my answer to Prac earlier in the thread;

"In Christianity, we are all equal in the sight of God and only our spiritual, as opposed to our temporal, characteristics, carry any real weight in determining our value; fascists believe that only certain people are valuable - those who fit a given pre-determined template, such as the blond Aryan or, say, white people in general - and the others should at best be discouraged from breeding or at worst sterilised or even disposed of. It's one or the other, IMO."

As has been explained numerous times here (Boleslaw, for one, has covered this topic extensively), blood and soil politics is not at all necessarily incompatible with Christianity.

Julian got it right IMO; Christianity is a Westernised form of Bhakti Yoga.

I wouldn't put much stock in the white Miss Cleo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Cleo)'s take on religion.

[Charlie Robespierre]

It's admittedly only my personal opinion (so my authority is slight at best), but see my answer to Prac earlier in the thread;

"In Christianity, we are all equal in the sight of God and only our spiritual, as opposed to our temporal, characteristics, carry any real weight in determining our value; fascists believe that only certain people are valuable - those who fit a given pre-determined template, such as the blond Aryan or, say, white people in general - and the others should at best be discouraged from breeding or at worst sterilised or even disposed of. It's one or the other, IMO."
That's relevant with the NSDAP certainly. But the attitudes of fascists wouldn't be significantly different from the attitudes and policies in many Western democracies with imperial holdings during that era. Additionally, many fascist or authoritarian governments had influences from Catholic social teaching and Catholic economic principles.

[RuneX2]

The smart people are those people whose Renaissance intellect spans both the hard sciences subjects and the liberal arts. We could learn much from previous eras where the purpose of learning was to get an overall picture of the world, rather than some very specific and specialized knowledge into one narrow subject.

[Basil Fawlty]

It's admittedly only my personal opinion (so my authority is slight at best), but see my answer to Prac earlier in the thread;

"In Christianity, we are all equal in the sight of God and only our spiritual, as opposed to our temporal, characteristics, carry any real weight in determining our value; fascists believe that only certain people are valuable - those who fit a given pre-determined template, such as the blond Aryan or, say, white people in general - and the others should at best be discouraged from breeding or at worst sterilised or even disposed of. It's one or the other, IMO."This is not a fascist idea, where did you get that notion?

Anyway, it is specious to go from equal in the sight of God to equal in secular matters.

[Man of Ash]

It's admittedly only my personal opinion (so my authority is slight at best), but see my answer to Prac earlier in the thread;

"In Christianity, we are all equal in the sight of God and only our spiritual, as opposed to our temporal, characteristics, carry any real weight in determining our value; fascists believe that only certain people are valuable - those who fit a given pre-determined template, such as the blond Aryan or, say, white people in general - and the others should at best be discouraged from breeding or at worst sterilised or even disposed of. It's one or the other, IMO."
I think you're mixing up all sorts of extraneous or secondary elements with the essence of fascism, which involves: an organic conception of the state and nation; 'third way' economics, i.e. a kind of right-wing socialism based on class collaboration rather than class warfare; political decisions entrusted to a strong executive rather than democratic processes; and an official value system of patriotism, collective loyalty, moral order etc.

There's no reason this should be inimical to Christianity, though I don't believe the German and Italian versions are the best examples in that regard. There are plenty of examples of 'Christian fascist' movements, broadly defined, like the Ustasha, Iron Guard, Action Francaise and the regimes of Franco and Salazar.
Julian got it right IMO; Christianity is a Westernised form of Bhakti Yoga.
There's a grain of truth to that, but what's it got to do with fascism?

[Sluggo892]

I found this graph through Steve Sailer's website. It shows that the smartest people study some sort of math or science. The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is used to place students in graduate and business schools in the US.

Razib at GNXP Discover has a good graph showing grad school specialties by GRE scores. Fields that score exceptionally well in verbal and quite well in math include Classical Language, Classics, History of Science, Philosophy, Russian, Comp Lit, and Linguistics. Physics of course does well in math, but is also strong verbally (i.e., no surprise, physicists tend to be smart). Low in math, low in verbal include PE, Criminal Justice, and Social Work.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/01/schematic.jpg

[Schizo]

I think that if man is smart either have high verbal or high mathematical intelligence. The genius people are exception.
That is genetically predetermined. People with high math intellect have dominant right hemisphere and at those with high verbal intellect dominant is the left hemisphere.
"High Math - High Verbal" is result of lots of work and self-perfectioning, yet the one half still will be "weaker" i.e. "lower".

[Schizo]

On the question:
1. Studying smth of course doesn't make one smart!
2. Truly intelligent (smart) people are aware of the fact that there are and other important things in life beside the intellect. Like outward appearance, job, social position...
So even if you're the smartest man on Earth, if you're fat like hippopotamus and work as a male prostitute on the highway the question what you've studied won't be so important for you.

[Baron_Corvo]

Eamon de Valera was a mathematician before he was a politician, so it's not like math nerds can never attain positions of power. I don't know how common this is though.

The only other one I can think of was Harold Wilson (British PM from 1964-70 and 1974-76), who was a statistician by profession. It's certainly pretty rare.

[Hartmann von Aue]

That's an interesting graph Sluggo. Interesting to see that Classical Language majors have a topped out Verbal GRE average.

It reminds me of the fact that CF Gauss originally intended to be a Classicist.

[Macrobius]

Yeah, that's a pretty revealing graph. I was 'high math and high verbal' and chose, in college, to spend most of my time on ... physics, classical languages, pure mathematics, history of science, and philosophy. That is, I simply followed the path of least resistance and went for the upper right quadrant, at the boundary. Meteorology and Operations Research, and a minor in 'Solid State,' have always been keen side interests of mine. Economics and Physical Chemistry when I'm slumming. ;) The proximity of the cluster 'Nuclear Physics' and 'Economics' and 'Statistics' is very revealing -- all late life career choices, and not obviously related. 'Lost my edge a bit, pulled back on the throttle, and played the math card.'

On the other hand, if you draw a line from 'Petroleum Engineering' to 'Entomology' to 'Social Psychology' down through 'Drama,' you will, more or less, outline 'things that have never interested me in the least, or are at best indifferent.' Scary diagram, that.

I suppose the moral is that everyone has their place, given that it is so predictable, and we would all do well to observe our 'station in life' as the old moralists used to call it.

Sluggo: remember that the boundary is a *curve*, and it has more components to it than just Math and Science.... And did anyone else notice they didn't plot 'Afro-American Studies' ;) Strange omission, that.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yeah, that's a pretty revealing graph. I was 'high math and high verbal' and chose, in college, to spend most of my time on ... physics, classical languages, pure mathematics, history of science, and philosophy. That is, I simply followed the path of least resistance and went for the upper right quadrant, at the boundary. Meteorology and Operations Research, and a minor in 'Solid State,' have always been keen side interests of mine. Economics and Physical Chemistry when I'm slumming. ;) The proximity of the cluster 'Nuclear Physics' and 'Economics' and 'Statistics' is very revealing -- all late life career choices, and not obviously related. 'Lost my edge a bit, pulled back on the throttle, and played the math card.'

On the other hand, if you draw a line from 'Petroleum Engineering' to 'Entomology' to 'Social Psychology' down through 'Drama,' you will, more or less, outline 'things that have never interested me in the least, or are at best indifferent.' Scary diagram, that.Yes it is. I went down the classics/philosophy route, but when leaving school I had originally been interested in taking theoretical physics, that is, until life diverted me for a few year so by the time I did enter college, I realised that physics was not quite addressing the questions that really gripped me, yet still remains a kind of on and off hobby interest/busman's holiday resort.

[Macrobius]

Yes it is. I went down the classics/philosophy route, but when leaving school I had originally been interested in taking theoretical physics, that is, until life diverted me for a few year so by the time I did enter college, I realised that physics was not quite addressing the questions that really gripped me, yet still remains a kind of on and off hobby interest/busman's holiday resort.

It would be interesting to correlate the diagram to the medieval theory of the humours, I think. The notion that there are 'two principal components' to human character, which happen to be orthogonal, is hardly original to the US Graduate Record Examination Committee or whatever they call themselves.

I call Choleric (NT) to the upper right, and Melancholic (NF) to the lower left. Sanguine boundary lower right (SP), and Phlegmatic to the upper left (SJ). The 'Asclepius' cluster of healers in the middle is also revealing. The diagram may owe him something.

[Basil Fawlty]

It would be interesting to correlate the diagram to the medieval theory of the humours, I think. The notion that there are 'two principal components' to human character, which happen to be orthogonal, is hardly original to the US Graduate Record Examination Committee or whatever they call themselves.I think I would have intuitively come up with something similar, certainly not as comprehensive, but the bare bones would have been more or less on track.
I call Choleric (NT) to the upper right, and Melancholic (NF) to the lower left. Sanguine boundary lower right (SP), and Phlegmatic to the upper left (SJ). The 'Asclepius' cluster of healers in the middle is also revealing. The diagram may owe him something.I think you're on to something there.

[harjit]

I thought it was funny how business administration, counseling psychology and social work are in the lower left quadrant. :rofl:

I have a deep fascination with stupidity. There are many people who are under-achievers, but I'd be interested in hearing the life stories of genuinely stupid low-IQ people. I wonder what their inner world is like.

[Opus131]

I only took one IQ test (a real one, not one of those fake tests you can find on the net).

I scored a 128, with 133 being the entry level for MENSA according to the test. My verbal score was average, my math score was relatively high while i got a nearly perfect score on the spatial test.

All this has reflected academically, where i excelled in technical or artistic subjects over anything requiring high verbal ability.

One thing i found interesting about the test is that the verbal score was given a double value for the purpose of drawing the overall score. Anybody knows why verbal ability should be considered more important then either math or spatial ability in assessing the final figure?

[harjit]

One thing i found interesting about the test is that the verbal score was given a double value for the purpose of drawing the overall score. Anybody knows why verbal ability should be considered more important then either math or spatial ability in assessing the final figure?
Americans have a strong bias in favour of extroversion. This is not tantamount to high verbal ability, but probably correlates.

[Hartmann von Aue]

Anybody knows why verbal ability should be considered more important then either math or spatial ability in assessing the final figure?

Verbal scores are harder to fudge and better correlated with g.

The old PSAT doubled the verbal score and counted the math score once.

[Macrobius]

Anybody knows why verbal ability should be considered more important then either math or spatial ability in assessing the final figure?

I believe the original purpose of IQ tests was employment screening. If you are a clueless middle level HR employee, and have to pick employees, why *wouldn't* you cherry pick persons who show high skills in the verbal and math dimensions? There are two principal components that matter, and g is just the major axis of an ellipse.

However, I suspect all that such a proceeding attains is skewing the workforce, preferentially, towards a particular personality type.

Angry young men who sit around but are too fat to actually be a threat to the existing management hierarchy, approximately. Ideally, clever ones, but that's secondary.

[Man of Ash]

I call Choleric (NT) to the upper right, and Melancholic (NF) to the lower left. Sanguine boundary lower right (SP), and Phlegmatic to the upper left (SJ). The 'Asclepius' cluster of healers in the middle is also revealing. The diagram may owe him something.
According to the research I've seen, N correlates with intelligence/ academic ability in general, while F/T correlates with verbal/math.

[Macrobius]

According to the research I've seen, N correlates with intelligence/ academic ability in general, while F/T correlates with verbal/math.

Interesting. This makes the 'modern research results' exactly the dual of my intuition.

My intuition placed the hot/cold distinction on the horizontal (verbal) axis, and identified the principal 'intelligent' cross-dimension (upper left to lower right) as 'dry' with wet being upper left or lower right, and dry closer to the g-loaded diagonal.

What you are saying is that the wet/dry axis is primary, and that it trends from lower left (wet) to upper right (dry). The 'hot-cold' axis trends from upper left to lower right, growing 'cold' away from the g-loaded diagonal -- either to the upper left, or the lower right. In short, you make the verbal axis phlegmatic (non-verbal) to melancholic (highly verbal), and present choleric as 'mathematical' and its opposite, sanguine, as non-mathematical. In contrast, I put the 4 humours in the 4 quadrants, on the diagonals, not on the vertical and horizontal axis.

Thus, I say Physics is hot and dry, while you say research supports the notion that it is cold and dry. There is no way to reconcile the two theories, by simply tilting the diagram, say. So deeper reflection work is at principle (the medievals, for their part, took the horizontal axis to represent the introvert/extrovert dimension, making all 'verbal' people simply extroverts. I suspect none of these three reductions of three degrees of freedom to two is entire satisfactory, though all three approaches capture something interesting.

To take an example, I see the INFP 'priest' type as a melancholic healer, a bit of a psychologist, whereas you (or modern research) sees a highly intelligent person interested in the classics, and excelling at verbal skill but not at all at mathematics.

We may need Astrology and the planets to weigh in, in order to sort this out!

[Blighter]

I only took one IQ test (a real one, not one of those fake tests you can find on the net).

I scored a 128, with 133 being the entry level for MENSA according to the test.

Pupils at the school I went to were given formal IQ tests at probably age 13 or 14 - I don't know if they still do it. It was interesting to me at the time that MENSA, nominally a society for the top two percent, offered membership to probably six or seven percent of the year. It wasn't a particularly good school.

I've spent time around several people with "top 0.1%" IQs, and found them disappointingly unexceptional, to the point of actually displaying no remarkable faculty for any kind of intellectual pursuit and being quite slow on the uptake.

My suspicion is that 'high IQs' are sometimes used to butter up bad news. For instance: you have Aspergers, but your IQ is 160; or, you're dyslexic, but your IQ makes you one in ten-thousand! As if to say, you can't read or interact effectively, but don't worry because you're better than everyone else.

[Hartmann von Aue]

I've spent time around several people with "top 0.1%" IQs, and found them disappointingly unexceptional, to the point of actually displaying no remarkable faculty for any kind of intellectual pursuit and being quite slow on the uptake.

My suspicion is that 'high IQs' are sometimes used to butter up bad news. For instance: you have Aspergers, but your IQ is 160; or, you're dyslexic, but your IQ makes you one in ten-thousand! As if to say, you can't read or interact effectively, but don't worry because you're better than everyone else.

It's true that a lot of people who qualify for .1% IQ societies have difficulties.

That being said, the society we live in is not particularly well-suited to giving those people opportunities and outlets for their talents and abilities. The reason the standardized test scores are being downplayed in college admissions is the same as the reason that students at Harvard do so poorly a basic history test.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-09-17-history-test_N.htm

This society really is anti-intellectual in a profound way. The hatred of those with superior intellectual ability on various pretexts (if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?) is promoted in this society among gentiles. Just as crudity and stupid snobbery is promoted among gentiles.

Yes, there are a lot of people who are intelligent who have various weaknesses. And those with lesser IQs are obsessed with pointing that out. I suppose it's only human nature for them to do so.

[Hartmann von Aue]

Another thing to consider:

In a feminist dominated society, it's necessary to take steps to drag down the majority of intelligent men, "nerds" - rather than to build them up.

Because intelligent men so greatly outnumber intelligent women, giving men with high IQs opportunities to reach their potential goes directly against the feminist imperative.

[Hartmann von Aue]

I'll give you an example:

I know someone who taught a GRE preparation course. I outscored him by a hundred points. We were friends, hanged out on a weekly basis.

I asked him if to help me get the job teaching the course, because it was a good job. He gave it to a woman who would never give him the time of day. (not telling me)

For all the talk about "not being able to interact with people" etc - I get the distinct impression that this is often an excuse for mistreating people who are more intelligent but low on the totem pole socially.

[Blighter]

It's true that a lot of people who qualify for .1% IQ societies have difficulties.

What I was suggesting is that that many of these people don't really have .1% IQs, at all. I suspect that it is common practice to tell somebody that they have an exceptional IQ to compensate them for other short-comings, as a kind of confidence boost.

I have met types who were obviously very highly intelligent, but then others who weren't great at maths, or writing, or understanding what is being said to them, or learning new things, or recognising patterns, or following systematic through-threads to their logical conclusions. A psychiatrist once told them that they were exceptional (moments after they diagnosed them with a mental disability), and so all observed intellectual shortcomings on their part became someone else's fault.

[Hartmann von Aue]

What I was suggesting is that that many of these people don't really have .1% IQs, at all. I suspect that it is common practice to tell somebody that they have an exceptional IQ to compensate them for other short-comings, as a kind of confidence boost.

Well if that's true then the standardized test scores IQ correlation charts are completely bogus. (I doubt that)

I think there are lots of people who are told they have higher IQs than they actually have.

I have met types who were obviously very highly intelligent, but then others who weren't great at maths, or writing, or understanding what is being said to them, or learning new things, or recognising patterns, or following systematic through-threads to their logical conclusions.

It's quite possible to be deficient in various learned abilities and have a high IQ.

A psychiatrist once told them that they were exceptional (moments after they diagnosed them with a mental disability), and so all observed intellectual shortcomings on their part became someone else's fault.

I've observed the same mediocrity in a .1% high IQ group, so I don't think it's necessarily a matter of shrinks lying about IQ to make someone feel better - I'm not saying that doesn't happen.

Without proper training, high IQ won't amount to much for most such people.

When we look at the Harvard scores on that history test, we start to understand the dumbing down of society.

Someone like myself isn't wanted as a teacher. In part I think it's because they don't want intelligent people as teachers.

[Hartmann von Aue]

I took that history test at the time the story came out and if I recall correctly I scored perfectly. I certainly never went to Harvard. (my sister was accepted though)

[Blighter]

Well if that's true then the standardized test scores IQ correlation charts are completely bogus. (I doubt that)

I think there are lots of people who are told they have higher IQs than they actually have.

This second sentence accurately represents my opinion.

It's quite possible to be deficient in various learned abilities and have a high IQ.

Yes, but high IQ individuals should be able to recognise patterns, learn quickly, and understand logical processes.

[Angler]

It's true that a lot of people who qualify for .1% IQ societies have difficulties.It's also worth keeping in mind that testing IQ is not like measuring temperature or air pressure. It's not nearly as precise, at least when comparing individuals as opposed to large groups. I once saw a study that stated an interesting statistic: One in four people who take one professionally-administered IQ test can expect to get a score difference of at least ten points when taking a different test.

It's also true that the farther away one scores from the mean on one test, the more likely he'll score closer to the mean on another test. This is known as "regression to the mean." The variances between tests are likely to be magnified for those who score either very high or very low. So someone who blows the doors off one test with something like a 160 is extremely unlikely to score that high on a different test.

Here's a link that demonstrates this. It shows the average scores on different IQ and IQ-correlated tests for various "high IQ societies":

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/hiqsocs4.html

Note, for example, that many members of the Four Sigma Society "only" averaged scores in the 1400s on the SAT and GRE (not IQ tests per se, but there's a pretty high correlation there). Those are solid scores, but in no way do they correspond to IQs above 164. Also note that the two societies with a nominal cut-off of 150 saw several members scoring below 140 on the Wechsler test. Those members must have gotten admitted with some other test(s).

What's ironic about all this is that these mutual-admiration societies, who claim to be only accepting people who score above a certain level, are really not as exclusive as they claim. The reason is that Mensa and other "high IQ" circle-jerks will admit you as long as you've scored above their cut-off on any one of a number of different tests. Statistically this amounts to selecting at a percentile threshold quite a bit lower than the one stated.

The bottom line? IQ is an interesting subject, especially when applied to group differences. But people who obsess over their own IQs are usually either insecure losers or arrogant pricks looking for some "objective" grounds for inflating their own egos. Truly brilliant people are both smart AND creative, and they tend to show it with inventions, novel ideas, and solutions to deep questions and problems. That's a far cry from getting a high score on a test and then waving it around all one's life.

[Baron_Corvo]

Angler's probably right. Fading Light on SF, who claims to know about such things, says that the one intelligence test which is reliable is Raven's Progressive Matrices, which has next to no cultural content and is therefore as pure a test of raw intelligence as you can get. I hope she's wrong; I scored a modest 115 when I took a trial version of it a while back, after only about five hours' sleep though.

[Hartmann von Aue]

The reason is that Mensa and other "high IQ" circle-jerks will admit you as long as you've scored above their cut-off on any one of a number of different tests. Statistically this amounts to selecting at a percentile threshold quite a bit lower than the one stated.


That may well be true.

However, the scores I received on the PSAT, SAT, and GRE were all very consistent in ranges, four out of five within the .1% range. (the first time I took the psat might not be). Do you mean scores on different types of test regress to the mean, or scores on an individual test?

[Hartmann von Aue]

The bottom line? IQ is an interesting subject, especially when applied to group differences. But people who obsess over their own IQs are usually either insecure losers or arrogant pricks looking for some "objective" grounds for inflating their own egos. Truly brilliant people are both smart AND creative, and they tend to show it with inventions, novel ideas, and solutions to deep questions and problems. That's a far cry from getting a high score on a test and then waving it around all one's life.

Sure Angler, but there are plenty of bright people who get a raw deal in this society. That's the reason that the sort of person who wrote the Bell Curve says to get rid of the SAT and that getting into Harvard never got him anything. They are shutting a lot of smart whites out - and objectively speaking - the tests prove it.

[Hartmann von Aue]

I've never been heavily involved in IQ societies and I let my membership in ISPE lapse.

Much of the discussion is rather mediocre.

I don't think they're "mutual admiration societies'" though, not in my experience.

The point is for people with higher IQs to network and get to know each other. I'm not sure they're very effective, but they're not bad things in my experience.

[Angler]

That may well be true.

However, the scores I received on the PSAT, SAT, and GRE were all very consistent in ranges, four out of five within the .1% range. (the first time I took the psat might not be). Do you mean scores on different types of test regress to the mean, or scores on an individual test?I mean scores on different tests, but the PSAT, SAT, and GRE can practically be considered to be the same test. The only real difference is that the GRE verbal has harder vocabulary, but one would expect students' vocabularies to have improved after college. The end result is that people tend to get very similar scores on the SAT and GRE.

[Hartmann von Aue]

There's a big difference between actually performing works of genius and being in the .1%. That's why you're disappointed when you're exposed to people in the .1%.

(There are millions such people on earth after all)

[Angler]

I've never been heavily involved in IQ societies and I let my membership in ISPE lapse.

Much of the discussion is rather mediocre.I considered joining ISPE at one point (or maybe it was Triple Nine?), but after reading some of the online discussion, it all looked like intellectual masturbation to me.

I don't think they're "mutual admiration societies'" though, not in my experience.I could be wrong about that, but my impression of people I know who have joined Mensa has been less than stellar. Most of them seemed eager to stroke their own egos, believing that a high IQ score was an achievement in itself. But where's the beef? The truest proof of ability is producing something novel and useful. Those who developed quantum theory or invented the radio aren't famous for their high IQs, but for their work. No doubt there are people with higher IQs than they had but who never "delivered the goods" by producing anything of value.

The point is for people with higher IQs to network and get to know each other. I'm not sure they're very effective, but they're not bad things in my experience.The thing is, people with high IQs tend to go to school with and work alongside other people with high IQs. If we use the SAT and GRE as surrogates for IQ, the average student in my college and grad programs was in the 99th percentile. Similarly, in my job I routinely work with people who are very bright. It's not as if our conversations are strictly limited to what's work-related, and if we want to discuss something further, we can always do so after work.

The existence of the Internet is another reason why I question the stated rationale for groups like Mensa. Plenty of bright people gravitate to certain discussion boards -- hell, there are some very bright people right here on this one. So if it's intelligent discussion one wants, one can find it very easily on the Web.

All this considered, I suspect most people who are attracted to groups like Mensa are really just seeking bragging rights. I know that's not true of everyone who joins those groups, but it's been my general impression.

[Angler]

There's a big difference between actually performing works of genius and being in the .1%. That's why you're disappointed when you're exposed to people in the .1%.

(There are millions such people on earth after all)Very true, and I think the difference is creativity. A lot of people associate creativity primarily with literature and the fine arts, but I believe it's a prerequisite for innovation in ANY field. Furthermore, although creativity doesn't lend itself to testing the way IQ does (at least not yet), I've read about research showing that creativity and general intelligence have separate neurological bases.

[Blighter]

There's a big difference between actually performing works of genius and being in the .1%. That's why you're disappointed when you're exposed to people in the .1%.

(There are millions such people on earth after all)

I have met exceptional and unexceptional people with high IQs. The difference isn't that one type performs 'works of genius' and the other doesn't. The difference is that one is absolutely on the ball, razor sharp, and when a problem requires logical thought they can apply themselves to it effectively without requiring outside assistance or a thorough explanation. The other type of 'high IQ' person struggles in the same way that a perfectly average person struggles, and then blames the stupidity of the problem itself or the person who posed it for their failure to find a solution.

I don't expect intelligent people to shoot lightning out of their arsehole, but I can distinguish capability from incapability.

[Man of Ash]

Interesting. This makes the 'modern research results' exactly the dual of my intuition.

My intuition placed the hot/cold distinction on the horizontal (verbal) axis, and identified the principal 'intelligent' cross-dimension (upper left to lower right) as 'dry' with wet being upper left or lower right, and dry closer to the g-loaded diagonal.

What you are saying is that the wet/dry axis is primary, and that it trends from lower left (wet) to upper right (dry). The 'hot-cold' axis trends from upper left to lower right, growing 'cold' away from the g-loaded diagonal -- either to the upper left, or the lower right. In short, you make the verbal axis phlegmatic (non-verbal) to melancholic (highly verbal), and present choleric as 'mathematical' and its opposite, sanguine, as non-mathematical. In contrast, I put the 4 humours in the 4 quadrants, on the diagonals, not on the vertical and horizontal axis.

Thus, I say Physics is hot and dry, while you say research supports the notion that it is cold and dry. There is no way to reconcile the two theories, by simply tilting the diagram, say. So deeper reflection work is at principle (the medievals, for their part, took the horizontal axis to represent the introvert/extrovert dimension, making all 'verbal' people simply extroverts. I suspect none of these three reductions of three degrees of freedom to two is entire satisfactory, though all three approaches capture something interesting.

To take an example, I see the INFP 'priest' type as a melancholic healer, a bit of a psychologist, whereas you (or modern research) sees a highly intelligent person interested in the classics, and excelling at verbal skill but not at all at mathematics.

We may need Astrology and the planets to weigh in, in order to sort this out!
Well I've yet to be iNtuitively satisified by such humourous correspondences, but here is how I would divide Sluggo's graph:

http://i.imgur.com/ruJQM.jpg

We could bisect each quadrant according to dominant function:

http://i.imgur.com/jxcOp.jpg

Or go by extraverted, rather than dominant, function, and get the simpler:

http://i.imgur.com/ixlmU.jpg

I'll go with dominant for now, which gives us something like this:

http://i.imgur.com/978wl.jpg

P.S. For anyone who's wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

[Man of Ash]

Actually, this rings truer, going on personal experience:

http://i.imgur.com/7AIVC.jpg

[Allegheny]

I've never been heavily involved in IQ societies and I let my membership in ISPE lapse.

Much of the discussion is rather mediocre.

I don't think they're "mutual admiration societies'" though, not in my experience.

The point is for people with higher IQs to network and get to know each other. I'm not sure they're very effective, but they're not bad things in my experience.

People with higher IQs tend to be better adjusted than those with lower IQs. The trade-off in social functioning doesn't really start to bite until an extremely high threshold, likely somewhere around .05% range, perhaps even higher.

[Allegheny]

Very true, and I think the difference is creativity. A lot of people associate creativity primarily with literature and the fine arts, but I believe it's a prerequisite for innovation in ANY field. Furthermore, although creativity doesn't lend itself to testing the way IQ does (at least not yet), I've read about research showing that creativity and general intelligence have separate neurological bases.

Genius = high IQ + emotional instability (psychoticism) + task dedication, which is why it is so rare. Emotional instability is negatively correlated with high IQ and dedication. If genius were merely high IQ, then we would be inundated with geniuses.

[Opus131]

Genius = high IQ + emotional instability (psychoticism) + task dedication, which is why it is so rare.

Just about the dumbest thing i ever heard. Psychoticism? Where does that even enter as a factor?

Genius has nothing to do with either high IQ, task dedication or any particular psychological pathology. Genius is a metaphysical quality. Things like high IQ are mere facilitators, they do not determine genius.

Weininger got as close to a conception of genius as you can hope to get without taking the absolute into the equation. Perhaps you should read it up.

[Macrobius]

Actually, this rings truer, going on personal experience:


Now those are very thought-provoking.

Leaving aside your and my intuitions, and modern research, the theory is that there are two primary axes, corresponding to brain function -- N/S (the P function) and T/F (the J function). The suffix P or J refers to which is the major axis. Thus, a person who is J must be further out on T/F dimension (in whichever direction) than on the N/S dimension. This implies they can't be simple octants.

Also, the medieval theory tends to confound melancholy and phlegmatic with introverted, and choleric and sanguine with extroverted. Whereas, the MBTI theory treats I/E as a dualism that indicates whether you present your major or minor function.

Finally, the mapping of the theory of temperaments to MBTI usually has the four characters as (NT, NF, SP, SJ) *not* (NT, NF, ST, SF) which would be a simple cross.

Thus, the matter is somewhat complex.