Who are these sub-100 IQ professors?

>pic related
all smart people are rich

b-bro, pic related

>pretentious nonsense
exactly. that's why you're not rich

NE KAQUOY MILLONN

Ethics, immigration history, anthropology , religious studies....etc.

Those are your YW

Dopamine mediated goal pursuit circuitry activation induced by subroutines corresponding to resource acquisition ≠ intelligence

I changed 'programs' to 'subroutines'.

>pretentious nonsense

You can't call everything you don't understand pretentious nonsense, user.

why are people deleting their posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

I dont call it pretentious nonsense because I dont understand it

I call it pretentious nonsense because that's what it is

>Biological science
>491 average reading score
Holy shit, I got around their average score for math but I got a 710 on the reading SAT. You need good reading skills to be a good biologist these days, no wonder so many people flunk out of the major their sophomore year

I realized I looked at the wrong major's scores and wanted to amend it

What is the difference between life science and biological science anyways?

Oh, I see.

The dopamine and subsequently glutamate mediated circuitry connecting the orbitofrontal cortex, the ventral tegmental area and the ventral striatum, which receives significantly increased activation upon engaging in any form of goal pursuit, interacting with evolved psychological mechanisms for resource acquisition, is pretentious nonsense?

Why so, user?

Who doesn't have good reading skills?

You're good, very good

...

it is pretentious because you use an inefficient and pompous way to express yourself which reeks of mental masturbation

it is nonsense because you pretend to understand why people get rich and what is good about being rich but are in fact wrong

>it is pretentious because you use an inefficient and pompous way to express yourself which reeks of mental masturbation

>Don't use big words

user, we're on a science board.

Those are scientific terms.

>it is nonsense because you pretend to understand why people get rich

No, I merely explained why smart and rich often do not coincide.

>and what is good about being rich but are in fact wrong

My family is rich and it's nice not having to worry about basic living costs, however I don't have that drive to acquire resources and power like my father and uncles do.

woah dude can you post this on reddit somewhere i'd love to upboat it

>all smart people are rich
There is also the question of integrity and honesty.
Ref literally "the smartest guys in the room".

yeah exactly, you don't understand my initial statement

here a challenge to you: use your brain to figure out what I could have meant

I don't know how reddit works, but ok.

>yeah exactly, you don't understand my initial statement

Which initial statement?

Your first post, or?

>all smart people are rich
let's stop fooling around

this statement is not thoughtless

>all smart people are rich

Well then I did understand it and explained why it is not an accurate statement.

If you want proof that your statement is incorrect then you only need to look at this post:

Here's more info:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman

Also, George Bush is very wealthy as is Donald Trump.

all smart people are rich is not the same as all rich people are smart you dummy

Donald Trump is very smart btw and being good at math is not the same as being smart

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

All smart people are rich means that if you're not smart if you're not rich, or at least, not as smart as you think you are. Other user already posted 1 counterexample to prove your absolute proposition as false. This has to be a troll

>if
remove

>all smart people are rich is not the same as all rich people are smart
Both are wrong. Billionaire dumbfucks, geniuses driving dump trucks, etc.

It is amazing how the only group with no sub 100 IQ people is doctors.

That proves that IQ is simply memorization skill and not a real indicator for intelligence. So with that I can answer your question with

>Who are these sub-100 IQ professors?
People smarter and more succesful than you.

[/thread]

being a math autist does not make you smart

being smart means you have a general competence, not just one speciality

So then make your definition of "smart" clearer next time.

>all smart people are rich is not the same as all rich people are smart you dummy

user, the Perelman example already settled the argument.

You are wrong.

Depending on how the data was collected, a part of these

>the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
this

so if you are truly intelligent you have a general competence which your beloved Perelman clearly does not have

Social scientists ranked 5th
>not biased

>lel if you can't cook, fight like a man, build a house, or kill for venison, or any arbitrary polyvalent human thing that I subjectively come up with, then you're not smart

The stupidest definition of smart, and the most hyper-subjective, not even worth arguing against that definition. In a word, I'm out.

lmgtfy.com/?q=define intelligence

Oh, so "intelligence."

Not "smart."

Or did you expect me to include "intelligence," the google defintion that is, into your definition of "smart."

>general competence
how general are we talking about comrade? just to the point of making money? but bro, if you can only make money, that's not as general as being able to survive in Antarctica, stranded alone.

>the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
But according to your definition of smart, Perelman would be smart, because he is applying his knowledge and skills to math, that is, he's applying his math knowledge and skills to mathematical endeavors.

But then you say "general." Which contradicts the "applying knowledge and skills." But if you're not applying knowledge and skills to many things, like acquiring money, then you're not smart.
You should change it to applying knowledge and skills in a variety of areas, including making money. But even then, that definition is vague, "general" can mean so many things, and you will have to stop some where, where you think is appropriate. If you won't do so, you will have to be truly general, and include all things, in which case, your definition doesn't apply to anyone because there isn't a person who's good at everything. Not only that, but what about the things we don't know about that someone could possibly be good at?

Your definition is wack.

>because there isn't a person who's good at everything.
I mean that there isn't a person who can apply knowledge and skills that he has acquired, too all areas. It's an unrealistic definition.

Guys, there's no point replying; he's an idiot.

260 IQ

>tfw dumb welder

what average IQ does neets have?

[eqn]-\frac{1}{12}[/eqn]

>Plato
>right
Yeah, I think I will side with Dawkins.

Its a matter of perception.

Abstract depth is important, but I agree with Dawkins in the context of people becoming absurdly ideologically belligerent through philosophy, to the point that it doesn't match the intent of philosophy in a western sense. I doubt his intent was criticizing someone like Heisenberg. Dawkins' point was valid, the rest of those fellows on the right have no argument. Especially Krauss.

If you actually understood what academic philosophy involved this wouldn't be surprising to you.

> Social Worker, Below Average SAT Score, Above Average IQ

Does not compute.

NDT really annoys me.

His interpretation of Plato isn't contradictory to anything of modern parlance. All he is saying is that physics is in effect a language to describe the world, the world has no intrinsic physics.

Since 2005 the SAT no longer correlates as much with IQ as it did in the past.

Why? Heisenberg would school Dawkins.

-1/12 is equal to 1+2+3+4+5+... though, which means that for somebody to have -1/12 IQ is actually to have infinite IQ. The number -1/12 is simply a definition which was assigned to that particular infinite series for practical purposes. (Of course, it goes waaaaay deeper than that, but ugh, does that make my head hurt)

>high schoolers thinking theyre hot shit because they watched some pop-math youtube-cancer about the zeta-function
I really, really, really wish you would die.
Slowly

>Who are these sub-100 IQ professors?
profesor emeritus, duh

Or, if I weren't so grammatically retarded: professores emeriti

I take statements like that as a challenge to try explaining these concepts to high schoolers. I mean, if they're made on YouTube and not in an IQ circlejerk thread where he's probably just trying to have a giggle over someone sperging out about it with elitist babble.

what exactly is your problem?

lol