Is philosophy the only smart people humanities subject?

>Computer science isn't hard, it's just difficult for illogical people.
>t. comp sci major

I didn't say it was hard, I said it requires more intelligence than medical school, nice strawman.

>That doesn't make it not a joke degree

Define what a "joke" degree is, please.

>You're not smart or educated for taking comp sci

Strawman.

>it's easy

It's not hard but it's not the simplest degree ever, at least speaking for my country, there are way easier degrees, I find all humanities to be pretty easy, but I wouldn't call them a "joke" because I like them.

>I didn't say it was hard, I said it requires more intelligence than medical school, nice strawman.
I don't think so unless I'm actually rainman and CS just comes to me naturally. You don't have to be smart for CS, you have to be good with abstraction and familiar with formal logic. I don't consider that being more intelligent than memorizing things and being able to identify things based on that wealth of knowledge.

>Maybe where you live, Murryfat, where I live people easily get jobs with it anywhere

Didn't they have economics classes at your college? Just because something is practical and has a high demand in the labor market doesn't mean it's necessarily intellectually complex or deep (see: plumbers).

CS is essentially like accounting, an easy as fuck technical, practical, and applicable subject that lands you a 'decent' job right out of college. Just don't think you're actually learning anything deep or anything lol.

Computer engineering on the other hand? Now that's some actual shit

>kids actually consider CS to be a challenging major now

holy shit i don't know if millennials are becoming lazier, dumber, or both

CS classes are easier than most of the humanities courses I've taken. What seems to hold people back in CS is people can't into simple abstraction.

CS is the pleb tier of STEM, just like English is the pleb tier of letters and science, and I'm not quite sure which to pick for the pleb tier of humanities.

>it requires more intelligence than medical school,
>im totally not a sperg guys

Some textbook case shit going on right here

It's their defense mechanisms against the reality that they're weirdos who chose bad majors

>pleb tier of humanities
Performing arts

CS is a great major though. Easy major, easy money. Or so I hope. Although I notice a lot of CS people think they're real STEM and above the humanities in difficulty.

>wave forms
pls no stahp it

>CS
>above anything in difficulty

top kek

if you're a CS major and you graduate with less than a 3.5 GPA, literally kys

I just realized I'm not a murryfat and Cs there and here might aswell be completely different courses so it's useless to argue.

CS is not hard, the only thing that might be different in your country is that humanities are below piss easy.

>the only thing that might be different in your country is that humanities are below piss easy.

It's probably that, though seeing how ignorant Americans are on average and how SJW having taking over humanities there I doubt it

>all these people laughing at cs because their shitty community colleges teach programming and dumbed-down math and calls it cs

>go to 40k literal for profit school

>end up in 120 THOUSAND DOLLAR DEBT for meme degree

>pay 10 thousand for community meme degree

yeah, really showed those com fags

>calling degrees meme degrees on a humanities board

>extrapolating IQ directly from SAT scores

great methodology there, faggots.

Learn what extrapolation means before you try to be a smartass

>cs 120

Philosophy is a hard science not a humanity

The reason philosophy majors are associated with a high IQ is different from most other majors. Most majors on the upper-left of that graph require a good intellect to acquire, whereas philosophy does not. The reason that people who obtain the major tend to have higher intellects than other fields is because only the most intelligent of people realize that there's no field of science more important to thoroughly understand and comprehend than philosophy, literally existence itself, whereas less intelligent people shrug it off as a meme or worthless with the idea that it doesn't create a physical product, ironically because they have a poor perspective. Einstein laid down some mad bantz about scientists who disregarded philosophy, look them up.

I wish this were true, but the only branch of philosophy that is a hard science is phenomenology.

>Philosophy 130

I took some philosophy classes in college, a lot of people really struggle with basic logic problems.

History is the second highest BA in terms of verbal IQ, philosophy is right above it.

the issue with understanding basic logic is immense. I have no idea why we focus on mathematics in elementary/middle/high school instead of logic. it's like teaching people how to write words and sentences while strictly avoiding teaching them vocabulary or grammar.

Health professions does not include actual doctors.

I've only seen 2 pretty women worth a damn in a Physics classroom (all-life experience).

t. Physics major

Allot of people enter in philosophy having never been too good at math or deductive reasoning, and are thinking that since philosophy is humanities oriented that it will be more like english. What they don't realize is that anglo-philosophy got taken over by Philosopher-Mathematicians 100 years ago and convinced us all to use their mathematical logic as the basis of our work so that we could escape the dead-end of idealism.

In my school CS, Pure Math and Philosophy students all seem to get along with one another and share the logic courses the Philosophy department offers. I tend to also find mathematicians in courses based on things like metaphysics or medieval philosophy, less so with fields like ethics or political philosophy. From the outside people don't realize the connection, but once you get integrated into the field you start to realize that most of the preconceptions you may have picked up about Philosophy in highschool or earlier are mostly false.

>humanities
>smart
ahahahahaahah
>he couldn't get into CE so he settled for CS
>he took his rage out at successful people over the internet
entry to med school is extremely competitive and as such most most that gain entry are intelligent.
I must say I do find it interesting that your gripe is with the amount of memorization in the degree, despite defending computer science
You're a sperg

(you)

>Almost 130
What. I'm pretty sure I'm much dumber than that.

What the heck are you expected to memorize in CS?

Maybe in the USA where everyone is retarded you're supposed to memorize Java docs because it is some vocational training to become programmers (again, because Americans aren't capable of higher thinking) instead of actual computer science.

>cs is not hard
>can't even solve P=NP?
JUST

That should be true but it's not. Nowadays it's a complete meme because it's treated strictly as a humanities field.
Philosophers should be scientists and scientists should be philosophers.
If you only do philosophy without a STEM field your basically a literature student. If you only do a STEM field without philosophy you're a glorified accountant/codemonkey.

You're*

Maybe in your shit university?
>Americans in charge of education

That's not even a problem. Cs is applied autism

Intelligence is a spook.

>Not doing it for free on a scholarship
>Not going to a free university where you just need to be smart enough to get in
'Mericans have it rough, specially the tards learning some programming on community college thinking they're learning CS.

What isnt?

>The reason that people who obtain the major tend to have higher intellects than other fields bla bla bla bla bla
No, philosophy requires high logical thinking and so do math related subjects. It requires slow and rational thinking, which is measured by IQ.
(But to be honest I'm pulling this out of my ass just like you. I do base it on system 1 and system 2 thinking as proposed by Daniel Kahneman)

Not directed to you, but I find it funny how economics have such high IQs, but the field itself is a mess because they want to be highly logical and rational when humans are not.

The social sciences i.e. sociology and psychology could probably do with some more logical and rational thinking.

>what if all encryption breaks?
>that's not even a problem

Are you saying it's best to double major with Phil? Or perhaps only minor in it?

>I have a crippling inferiority complex towards Americans
thanks for sharing.

Don't get me wrong

America used to be great

>iq
Meaningless.

All sciences are inherently stupid. the majority of philosophy is stupid.
Science is garbage, 'hard science' is about as hard as water.
t. idiot that doesn't understand philosophy.

Sciences are based upon an uncountable number of nonsenses and asspulls, it claims objectivity (impossible), it claims truth (non-existient).
Nope, it's not that at all. Go back to lebdit with your logical positivism.

How accurate is this graph?

>Go back to lebdit with your logical positivism.
Meh, I'm not even into logical positivism.

>humans are dumb so they shouldn't do thing outside of this arbitrary methodology
That's pretty much logical positivism.

Probably minor in Phil and/or study it outside of uni.

Muh anti-everything. Calling everything stupid doesn't make you sound smart, faggot.

IQ-tests do not cover the entire range of intelligence, but because they test primarily logic, it is only normal that philosophy majors tend to have a better IQ.

>iq is meaningless
are you retarded? have you spent even 5 minutes reading about it?

iq is easily the most valid concept to come out of psychology

>muh multiple intelligences
You know that MI is pseudoscience, right?

I have, still meaningless.

All sciences are meaningless.
All science is pseudoscience.

Well I know one thing, I am too stupid to understand you.
>iq is easily the most valid concept to come out of psychology
I doubt it personally, there's no background behind it.
You have this test and it is supposed to measure g. But all it showed so far is a correlation with education.
I could be wrong since I'm writing from memory, but IQ still makes little sense to me.
Cognitive biases seem to make sense to me.

>Math has that many women
Time to switch majors

lol ok

>Sure is edgy in here

>its a "we bash majors" episode

le STEMjerk

children

the only thing that matters is the money you make afterwards

although if you're in any major with

Education actually doesn't impact IQ very much. It is strongly correlated with educational achievement, income, lifespan and pretty much any other positive life outcome.

Health profession is only a tiny percent doctors compared to an army of nurses, record keepers, and data analysts, who all get lumped in.

Feel free to take any non-intro phil class and enjoy the humility.

Economics

>the only thing that matters is the money you make afterwards
Not at all.

the less women there are in a major, the more money you make.

Higher education is vocational training and nothing else. If you go to college to eventually get a job that doesn't 100% require a degree you've been tricked, if you go to college to become an enlightened super smarty essay writer you're an idiot.

and effort required to make such money

spergs (mostly) happen to be smart

Economics is more like a social science.

if u cant make le money off ur degree ur stupid all that matterrs is le money

there is no reason to get a degree except for a money making career, you can read literature and philosophy without going to college

I still do not understand what IQ is supposed to measure other than the g. It would make more sense to me if there was some explanation behind it all. Now it is only g which is supposed to be general intelligence, but what IS general intelligence I wonder.
But I guess I'm a cognitive bias.

Only on Veeky Forums do you have people arguing that it's easier to become a medical doctor than achieve a degree in CS

people with high IQ excel easily in several areas of inteligence (music composition, art, science, philosophy, stem).

the reason that we don't know what IQ is supposed to measure is that we have no idea what intelligence is.

Law

Math has more girls than I would expect

Tfw math girls are the best but they only want platonic relationships

how convenient that all of these are heavily mathematical subjects.
Just took one of these tests (the one in iqtest.com), anybody who does so can easily tell it's first and foremost a measure of mathematical and logical thinking. And that is just that, nothing more. It surely is not the be-all and end-all of mental capacity. Looking at OP's graph, I wager that most people in the upper parts of the graph would do proportianally worse in the bottom parts of the graph than the people in the bottom parts do and vice versa.

what other types of inteligence are worth a shit to society.

let's be real.

kinetic intelligence will make you a sport person.
emotional intelligence may make you into a sales person.

but what else is worth a shit beyond logic and mathematical thinking?

What if IQ does sort of measure g, but not all of it. Say, it will measure whatever one is high on g or low on g.
But somebody with 110 IQ and 150 IQ might have similar g (that 150) but the IQ only measures the IQ stuff. So the one with 110 would have 150 g but not 150 IQ.

And I am not talking of the multiple intelligence stuff. I see it in terms of functions, not in terms of doing.
>but what else is worth a shit beyond logic and mathematical thinking?
How about creativity and tinkering? Not sure about tinkering (perhaps it includes logic) but creativity is helpful. With creativity I mean in the sense of coming up with new solutions, ideas and so on and so on. Not just in the artistic sense but also the technological sense.

high creativity is linked with high IQ.

There are no other types of intelligence. It's all g.

You are entirely ignorant of how courses on these subjects are ideally planned.

The study of them as a sort of mentorship, as well as in dialogue with others, is much more enlightening.

Only garbage universities with big factory lectures are awful for these fields, small universities are not because it functions as instruction and mentorship in a discussion-based class environment.

In fact, the entire basis of the next collection of essays I am planning are based off of something I heard while drunk with the handful of other philosophy majors (and a few people with a passion or minor in it) at a departmental gala.

Basically, I am trying to see if some specifics of love can be considered a posteriori analytical knowledge, and will then attempt to frame this theologically as a way to think of personal relationships to God. All I've read in terms of examples of a posteriori analytical knowledge are somewhat debatable statements, so I feel this could be something great. Then, I think this can be used to justify the respect of all 'beloved beings' because disrespect would be ignoring that beloved being's relationship to God.

Which then, I am hoping can justify the abandonment of humanism for something I want to call 'creationism' for lack of a better name.

I do not know how original this all is, it obviously is based upon the work of another. I am having grave difficulties justifying subjectivism with an objective grounds.

I would have never even thought of this if I weren't forced to retake some lectures that include Kant, and hadn't gone to the gala. I would not be able to rectify this if I were not in dialogue with a class of others and a personable instructor/mentor. I could even speak to the on-site minister for more intimate knowledge on the subject.
>doing things just to appease society

>muh mulriple intelligences
>everyone is a special snowflake in their own unique way

I cut myself reading your post

Edgy

Well guess then that IQ still stands strong. Or better said: g.
>It's all g.
This sounds like reductionism: but what exactly determines g? Neurons? Gray matter? White matter? Size of certain parts of the brain?
Note I have a limited understanding of the brain. I do read casually about it, but that's it.

> Continental philosophy, ladies and gents

I would like to see reported variance as well.

I expect certain humanities/social sciences to have a big spread with dense tails. E.g. political science almost certainly attracts some highly intelligent individuals (think of the mental processing power of top tier lawyers and politicians) but also carries folks who are dumb as rocks.

Honestly, though, these averages look decent. Some majors have a lower floor, so no matter how high the ceiling the average IQ will be dragged down by schmucks (I think this is particularly true for political science and history, but that is anecdotal based on people I have met).

Also
>Reporting an estimator without some error bars or something

I think people masturbate too much re: STEM though. I studied mathematics and there were as many dopes as there were genius spergs.

>Philosophy

People in an ivory-tower circlejerking about irrelevant and non-existent stuff.

value=0