Which major has the smartest students?

what is multi/interdisciplinary studies and why is it so high

Suicide by MDMA overdose is a major?

Gender Studies

This. It really makes you think...

at an average university: physics
At a top university: mathematics

the distribution of IQ amongst mathematics students simply has a fatter upper tail than the distribution of IQ among physics students.

>tfw none of them have mean scores above the 500s in anything

Really puts all the circlejerking in perspective, doesn't it. If you think "X majors are smart" then you're an idiot.

brainlet detected

>chemE smarter than chem

chhaylinlim.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/average-iq-per-college-major/

Sure, but the answer is still physics.

Veeky Forums here, chat shit get banged

>chat shit get banged
what?

Pain, anxiety and extropianism are my life

Hedonism will come when the time is due

>chhaylinlim.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/average-iq-per-college-major/

>wordpress
>not peer reviewed
Into the trash.

brainlet detected

that link uses the same as the first 2-4 posts

git fugin gud

statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/
LMFAO
All the Social "sciences" and Arts students have the lowest IQs.
One of the highest is Philosophy, which has tried to educate the Social "science" and Arts crowd on confirmation bias, fallacies and coherency... but they ignore it and use circular logic.
LMFAO

>that link uses the same as the first 2-4 posts
That doesn't mean anything.
If it's not peer reviewed, .org, .gov or .edu, then it's not a credible source you idiot.

You call me a "brainlet" yet you don't even understand how sources and citations work.
Next post a wikipedia article and tell me how accurate it is because you think it is.

Do you have a legitimate citation?
Answer: No.

>Starts with ad hom
>Second argument is circular reporting/populism
>Third response is dictation

Because your post was stupid, I don't need to respond smartly or trimly to your stupid fucking posts, gtfo of here you faggot dum dum

Economics has an average of 128.

"Because you're smarter than me, I insulted you.
You can't just ask for citations and sources that are credible and peer-reviewed. I don't have to do anything, especially prove my point. My point is right until proven wrong. I don't know what the argument from ignorance or ad hominem attacks are."
^that's you.

Economics being classified as a social science is kinda of odd and has been debated.
It's somewhere between Philosophy, Mathematics, Biology, Neruology, etc... but takes Psychology and Sociology into account.

I've always considered it a subdivision of mathematics intersecting with philosophy due to Game Theory.

The source is in the pictures if you bothered reading the thread.

>The source is in the pictures if you bothered reading the thread.
Again, that's doesn't mean ANYTHING.

Do you actually believe someone saying something just MAKES it true?
Or the first argument is correct because it was the first argument?

You seriously can't be that stupid.
Do you even know what fallacies, biases and deductive/inductive methods are?

I'm not saying "oh I think the first thing is right but the rest it crap."

I'm saying "without proper citation and proof, it's all crap."

-_-

>Anchoring heuristics
^ that's what you're doing, and it's erroneous.
Google it.

>if it's not peer reviewed, .org, .gov or .edu, then it's not a credible source you idiot.
Damn you're dumb
look at go to the bottom of the page

>educational testing services
f it's not peer reviewed, .org, .gov or .edu, then it's not a credible source you idiot.

ets.org

"Educational Testing Services" is not a peer reviewed company.

>ets.org
While a .org, is not peer-reviewed.

You can't just PRESUME it's reviewed.
You have to PROVE it.

Do you never understand how science works?
You're pulling some PT Barnum like bullshit here.
XD

>now I'm gonna pretend to be retarded so then I didn't look retarded previously
>XD
I'm done.

Straw man and a direct lie.
I said prove that it's peer-reviewed.
You can't because I checked all over the site and looked them up online.
They're not peer reviewed.
They collaborate, but they're not peer-reviewed.

You're anti-intellectual and purposefully dishonest.

You're not trustworthy, and that's an infallible fact.

No you are. The discussion at hand wasn't even a scientific one, and you're getting all ass hurt that there aren't peer-reviewed sources for an essentially non-science thread. Is psychology science? because that's what we're basically doing here. IQ is a mostly a psychological phenomenon not a scientific one. There's no other closer way to gaging intelligence "objectively" than using a fucking IQ test.

>Which major has the smartest students?
>Not a scientific discussion

>"I can project emotion onto you"
>"I don't need proof"
No psychology is not a science.
And no:
>"that's basically what we're doing here"
No. No. No.

>There's no other closer way to gaging intelligence "objectively" than using a fucking IQ test.
And you just uses a shit ton of fallacies:
1.) Argument from ignorance fallacy
2.) Presuppositional fallacy
3.) Personal incredulity
4.) Shifting the burden of proof
etc.

You're not old enough for this thread because you don't even understand how facts work.
Facts are not "beliefs one accepts because they believe them to be so."
Facts are conclusions that have undergone rigorous testing via empiricism, deduction, induction, falsificationism, positivism, etc.

"Conjecture is right until proven otherwise" is always irrational.

You think that if you spew a bunch of fallacies at me that that will make you look intelligent for Veeky Forums?
What you're doing is committing the fallacy fallacy. We should probably just work on defining ourselves since you're going to just keep throwing gobbledygook at me in order to hide your own weaknesses.

The essence comes down to whether or not the question OP asked was a scientific one. All you did was assert the opposite, you offered no counter arguments to my post wherein I defined IQ in terms of psychological phenomena. Not only that, but you continued to eructate platitudinous logical fallacies that I in no way committed by taking my stand on the position of whether or not it is the case that " Which major has the smartest students?" is a psychological or scientific discussion. When you come back to me with a better counter argument, then I might take some time in seriously responding to you. Until then, merely spouting the fallacies that you think I committed will get you no where. Point out explicitly what I said wrong, expatiate if you can, use a little thought, and I might too. Until then, I'm gonna watch some House. It's silly watching you throw all these Sesquipedalian words without having an understanding of how those terms relate in the context of the discussion, even if you do understand what those terms mean ( which I think you don't, because if you did, you'd use them in the right context!)

Astronomy mayor reporting in ;)
Seriously though don't do astronomy, I was the smartest in my high school class, now I'm the dumbest. It's not that I'm dumb and I'm getting perfectly fine grades. But these fuckers spontaneously form boltzmann brains around them to aid them in thinking whenever they concentrate in the slightest

Double mayor I'm guessing

>You think that if you spew a bunch of fallacies at me that that will make you look intelligent for Veeky Forums?
Yes.

>You're using the fallacy fallacy
No, I'm not saying you can't be coincidentally correct, I'm saying your argument is incorrect.

Now you're engaging in personal attacks and trying to use proof by verbosity, which is another fallacy.

Questioning fallacies is not the fallacy-fallacy.
Saying you can use wrong arguments and never coincidentally be correct is the fallacy-fallacy... and I didn't do that.

If you use fallacies, and then your argument is wrong, but you can be coincidentally correct.

You have no right to deflect with applying the fallacy-fallacy incorrectly.

Do you have proof or reason for your statements?
Then they're not rational.
I'm not saying you can't be confidently correct, just that your arguments are irrational.

See the left pic for more info about your butthurt anti-intellectual rage.

See this is why I won't continue discussing with you because you're not attacking the content of my arguments, i.e, using the principle of charity. Even if my arguments were fallacious in anyway, you would still be avoiding the essence/content of the discussion. You're being petty my attacking what you perceive is the general logic of my arguments, but perhaps the only reason you're seeing fallacy is because you're trying to find it (this is another ad homiem you will say), and not trying to get into a discussion about the contents of my arguments. I'm not using the personal attacks or ad hominems to defend my arguments or build up my arguments, I'm merely attacking you, but not reaching a conclusion that you are wrong. You should read the fallacies a little bit better.

I will just recapitulate what I was saying in a different way I guess:

We're not actually doing science, I don't hold to the same standards of rigor as a scientist would because the discussion itself presupposes a non-scientific basis, and because the question that was asked is not strictly scientific, I think it follows that the sources we can use to back up our claims can be set to equal standards as the more "scientific" standards. If the latter makes you happier, then fine, but it won't matter that much because we're just exploring psychological phenomena anyway, perhaps if you had your peers review your claims it would make them more justified, but that would be merely entering into a consensus with a communinty that isn't doing science, in that case, its just ad populum. We can still use the scientific method to study non-scientific phenomenon, but they won't ever reach the same certitude as an empirical observation. Intelligence isn't something we can go test in a lab and empircally reduce and experience as something existing outside in the world. If you knew what empirical means, you'd know that intelligence isn't something we can see, touch, taste, or hear.

This is meant for this also cont. from It is something that we can only indirectly interact with, but never empirically interact with. It's more of a subjective state of affairs than anything. It's interesting to note that intellignece has not been strictly defined in any meaningful objective way since the concept first arose, but on the contrary we see basic fundamental concepts in science like gravity and electricity reticulatively defined

>reticulatively
that wasn't supposed to go there, my bad, ignore that word

Saying the conclusion is untrue because it's not been proven is the fallacy.
>That's that fallacy fallacy
Saying the conclusion is unsupported because it's not been proven is not a fallacy.
>That's deduction

No amount of belief supports an idea as true.
No amount of social support supports an idea as true.
No amount of presumptions supports an idea as true.
No amount of a lack counter-evidence supports an idea as true.

Only evidence and reason matter.
- Argument from populism is a fallacy
- Argument from authority is a fallacy
All arguments lacking in direct proof and reason are fallacious.

You provide no proof or reason, therefore your arguments are irrational because they're based on conjecture.
Conjecture is never, under any circumstances, proof.

You use tons of fallacies and when this is pointed out, you use more and then INCORRECTLY cry "fallacy-fallacy!".

Then you claim you can be anti-scientific and anti-socratic and still be reasonable and rational.
You can't.

You're a verbose sophist that uses fallacies.
You're a joke.

You have yet to take a stance on the position of whether or not it is a scientific discussion. If you're not taking a position, I don't know why I'm arguing. The only argument you've made so far is this:

>Which major has the smartest students?
>Not a scientific discussion

This is a waste of time, go check out "Socratic Logic" on amazon.

My stance is the only scientific and epistemological correct one:
Neutral until there is proof and reason.
And all of my arguments have been Socratic.
There is something weird about people like you that use a particular erroneous type of thinking called "something or nothing" thinking.
You can't comprehend not pretending to know, so you think promoting conjecture as proof or rational when it's not.
You then use aggressive "argument from ignorance" arguments and then wrap them up in aggressive "false dilemma" arguments akin to "if you don't give me an alternative, then you're not contributing".
Which is false.
Deduction can be a long process.
It may take many generations.
Being apart of that process and not being "the one" to find the answer isn't meaningless.
You're impatient and anti-intellectual because you think honesty is a weakness.
Your arrogance is your weakness because it proves a lack of intelligent.
The intelligent know when they truly don't know, and they know conjecture isn't knowledge.

I have a PhD in Epistemology, and many of the people that are regulars here are familiar with my comments in these threads.
Being anti-socratic while preaching to me to look up Socratic Logic is pretty hilarious siense you use families and then misuse the fallacy-fallacy.

Your conclusions are supported, therefore there is no reason to think of them as scientific or philosophical.
You're a sophist.

Your conclusions are *UNSUPPORTED, therefore there is no reason to think of them as scientific or philosophical.

[tablet on desktop mode, sorry]

>Economics
>Hard Science

Economics is regarded as a social science because it uses scientific methods to build theories that can help explain the behaviour of individuals, groups and organizations (like all other social sciences). Its not rooted in any objective axioms or laws, It could be a science for sure if it wasn't politicized bs that completely ignored natural laws or sustainability.

>intended
Still pretty interesting though. Never would have thought Chemistry would be that low.

What is physical sciences?

Physics

I am doing a thesis in physical chemistry and it's almost embarrassing when I, who come from chemistry, look at what a girl who is working with me and who did physics is doing. Like, the shit she does blows me out of the water.

Not sure what your implying. ChE can literally do anything a chemist can do can a chemist say the same?

>CS is 124, Physics is 133, Foreign Languages are 119, Social Sciences are 115
This makes a lot of sense. I couldn't handle advanced math & physics, but I make the cut for CS, & can pick up languages like it's nothing. And any dumbass can do Social Sciences - that's why the pay is so shit.