Daily reminder that Terence Tao didn't go to an elite university to do his bachelors and masters

>implying you had anything worth posting

>political brainlet
>democrat

pick one

dems are probably correct on 99% of today's issues

>unironically aupporting Trump

>only not worth posting because it's stating the obvious

>political brainlet
You're assuming that he's being sincere about his reasoning.

He just knew that his influence would be stronger under Clinton than under Trump, and that he'd probably benefit from showing public support of Clinton even if she didn't end up winning.

Why the fuck would he need public support of Clinton? You can discredit any opinion just like that.

He wouldn't "need" it; it's secondary to the first part.

It's easier to stay in the spotlight when most of the members of your field know that they align with you politically. And if he alienates a few people who can't really do anything to him anyway, so what?

If you want to go to a fancy grad school, it's better to just go somewhere cheap for undergrad, because it'll be easier to impress your professors and lots of colleges prefer to bring in people for their grad school who were educated elsewhere than from their own undergrad program. It keeps them from becoming too insular.

No matter where you go, your professors probably got their PhDs at top universities, so they have connections to recommend you to their alma maters.

Anyway, you can learn the same undergrad-level stuff anywhere.

Nobody writes a fucking essay just to stay in a spotlight of science community when the essay is about politics and not science. Rather than forging a fake opinion it would be easier for him to shut up or just say yes Trump sucks but I am not gonna write a whole essay about it.

I think what OP is referring to is that (and I'm of course mixing this with my opinion), it matters not your education on paper. What truly matters is what you are able to do. No one in the world can tell you what you should know.

>Nobody writes a fucking essay just to stay in a spotlight of science community when the essay is about politics and not science.
You're still in school, aren't you? Writing a short political essay isn't some sort of Herculean task.

And while I'm at it:
>just to
See
>He wouldn't "need" it; it's secondary to the first part.

>You're still in school, aren't you? Writing a short political essay isn't some sort of Herculean task.
It's a completely pointless and soul crushing task if you are doing it to sell your soul and don't even need. And what's worse that the essay is pretty neat. I don't think I would ever bother to write a well thought out essay on something I hate representing a view point contrary to mine. In fact the essay is nowhere near the level of what I would write on my knee in high school and I would always give barely passable work with as little put into it as possible.

You're showing a very strong assumption pretty much without any proof and expecting somebody to falsify it in 100%. There was nothing valuable from him to gain from supporting Clinton besides another handjob from the circlejerk that amounts to nothing. If he is gonna write such a piece it's fairly obvious he is voicing his mind.

Your argument falls apart precisely because he wouldn't need to. You wouldn't suck a man cock if you didn't need to... oh wait.

I said that his reasoning was insincere and he had to be aware of it, not that he secretly loved Trump. And his post -isn't- well thought-out -- it's the academic equivalent of a quick shitpost.

Tao knows that his "proposition" is subjective garbage, because he isn't retarded. Tao knows that his "Tu Quoque Fallacy" bit is just meant to head off the possibility of people bringing up worse stuff about Clinton than what he said about Trump. But since his post is just meant to signal his position, it doesn't matter.

>>You're still in school, aren't you? Writing a short political essay isn't some sort of Herculean task.
>It's a completely pointless and soul crushing task if you are doing it to sell your soul and don't even need.
Again, this tells me that you're a child (more so than the cock-sucking bit). It's easy to do if you're even halfway competent and not a terminally lazy shit.

>Again, this tells me that you're a child (more so than the cock-sucking bit). It's easy to do if you're even halfway competent and not a terminally lazy shit.
I am 20 though and doing my undergrad.

>I said that his reasoning was insincere and he had to be aware of it, not that he secretly loved Trump.
Your opinion on the sincerity of his reasoning is irrelevant. You could maybe point some fallacies but there is nothing to assume the whole thing is insincere.
>Tao knows that his "proposition" is subjective garbage, because he isn't retarded
That's assuming his proposition is actually subjective garbage, and it's not just you being retarded and thinking it's subjective garbage.

It's also funny because he also didn't bring up Clinton's competence in the original unedited argument. Entirety of the argument is perfectly logical and can be summed up as
>wake up people sometimes people don't play 4 dimensional chess by pretending to be retarded and are just retarded
Which is a pretty strong argument.

Offtopic the same can be said about Trump's actual ability to manipulate people. He isn't bad at it, but he isn't great either way. Hillary was a very unpopular candidate from almost every perspective. Another democrat after 2 terms of Obama causing a slight pendulum swing, tons of dirt dug out on her, lack of charisma, poor health, and even the whole backstabbing of Sanders. She was also pretty much the establishment candidate in an era of anti-establishment popularity, which got even worse with the whole Sanders incident. Despite all of that Trump still managed to win by slight margin on swing states and lose popular, which overall means his presidency will be full of people trying to hate on his guts really hard and will be blamed for pretty much everything.

Whether this is you or someone jumping in to mock you, it's about what I expected.

>>I said that his reasoning was insincere and he had to be aware of it, not that he secretly loved Trump.
>Your opinion on the sincerity of his reasoning is irrelevant.
The post I initially responded to called Tao a "political brainlet". Whether he's sincere about his silly reasoning or simply throwing something together and acting in his interests is what determines that.

>>Tao knows that his "proposition" is subjective garbage, because he isn't retarded
>That's assuming his proposition is actually subjective garbage, and it's not just you being retarded and thinking it's subjective garbage.
There's no way that it's anything other than a subjective claim, user. That tells me that this isn't going to register to you for a few years but I'll go for it. I was probably as stupid as you a decade ago. If you aren't -genuinely- stupid, you'll eventually start to notice colleagues who know better say shit that they know doesn't make sense. You'll also notice that this happens when they stand to gain from the result that they're supporting. Soon, you'll put two and two together and realize that the arguments they happen to be using are irrelevant and they're simply posturing and signalling others about where they stand.

I've been watching this shit for years. You're new to it (honestly, you're not even -in- it, if you're still an undergrad), so you're missing the flags.

/thread

>Soon, you'll put two and two together and realize that the arguments they happen to be using are irrelevant and they're simply posturing and signalling others about where they stand.

Not the person you are replying to but is this (quote) basically stating that an articulation of an idea is irrelevant to the weight of an intellectual mind's viewpoint, rather the opinion itself, with regard to their apparent ability, is solely what is important?

Humanity should talk less, imo.

You may find that I struggle with articulation, myself. ^

precisely
i am op btw

i just wanted to give people a little holiday joy and not get to wrapped up around >muh shitty school.

It's where you finish that matters not where you start!

>mathematician benefits from Clinton

He's right though

> He isn't a trump dick rider so he is a political brainlet; however, I was educated on politics through /pol/ memes and inforgraphics because Jewish academia.

Maybe if my childhood didn't involve an absent father and an abusive brother, I'd be as successful as him.

Learning isn't a completion of a series of lectures but a fundamental understanding of them.

Trying to find a solution to a problem that must have a direct way of explaining how it exists is in no way impacted by emotion.

*Converesly, an interest in a field can only serve in positive synergy.

>Trying to find a solution to a problem that must have a direct way of explaining how it exists is in no way impacted by emotion.

You are either a brain-dead normie, or an autist.

2+2=4 regardless if your father has hit you or not

>abortion
>high taxation
>high regulation
>illegal immigration
>obozo

His arguments were really stupid, regardless of who he is supporting.

I can understand why this would be hard for someone who never went to college.
If you don't like any of those things I recommend you move to country that doesn't have any of those. These countries include
-All of Africa
-All of South and middle America
-Most of Asia including India, China, and Russia
Alternately you can visit counties that have these things and see how they turned out. These include
-All of Europe
-Canada
-The USA for the past sixty years
Please if that's what you want it's out there, go get it.

>anti GMOs
>anti nuclear
>denies race and IQ link
>2nd amendment hate
>hates free speech
>anti encryption
>anti school choice
>feminism
>affirmative action
>torture
>surveillance
>TSA
>patriot act

what a retarded thing to say

>Daily reminder he got his bachelors and masters when he was 16
>Daily reminder he became a professor at age 24
It took this brainlet 8 years to become a professor?

what a fucking noob.

>There's no way that it's anything other than a subjective claim, user. That tells me that this isn't going to register to you for a few years but I'll go for it. I was probably as stupid as you a decade ago. If you aren't -genuinely- stupid, you'll eventually start to notice colleagues who know better say shit that they know doesn't make sense. You'll also notice that this happens when they stand to gain from the result that they're supporting. Soon, you'll put two and two together and realize that the arguments they happen to be using are irrelevant and they're simply posturing and signalling others about where they stand.
That's one of the more retarded things you've said. You are relying on your flawed judgement whether the argument makes or doesn't make sense and your subjective judgment whether the person making it knows or doesn't know it. In fact his argument is alright.

You've learned nothing besides a good tool to support your biases. You can define someone as too smart not to understand his faulty argumentation really easily, you're the only judge. You are also the only one who is needed to deem an argument as stupid, and so it's very easy to say someone will profit in some way from taking a side.

How faulty of an outlook on argumentation it is can be seen from how you completely skip posts disagreeing with you about the quality of the argument. Because to fit your outlook on the world the argument must be bad and therefore you take it as an axiom that it's bad and don't even consider the possibility of you making a false judgment.

Yep. Best of all, these people are usually NEETs who never made it past the introduction classes at their community college [spoiler] but go out of their way to flaunt how they were born the """(((""superior race""")))"""[/spoiler]. Do we see a pattern here or should i just call the sore loser expert for an explination?

amazing post

i just dropped out of my elite university so i could be a neet

>probably correct
:)