Do you think we have reached the point at which non-geniuses are incapable of making meaningful contributions to the hard sciences and mathematics? By genius, I mean 145+, not some abstract definition. Do you think that Feynman would just be a nobody prof at some U-State if he had been born in the late 80s?
The Higgs Boson was discovered 5 years ago. Not much has come of it. A brainlet with billions of dollars in funding and giant accelerators is still a brainlet.
Other urls found in this thread:
books.google.com.br
twitter.com
No
Explain yourself shitposter.
feynman was a genius, you aren't
Progress in experimental sciences is made by average folks grinding lab/field hours all the time.
It's only math/theoretical physics that has a cult of genius going on and even there there are plenty of important discoveries by relatively ordinary mathematicians who are just very interested and very dedicated
Feynman was not a genius.
125, king of brainlets.
Also consider the role of pure accident
>consider the role of pure accident
desperate reaching from a brainlet
Yitang Zhang is not an ordinary mathematician.
He was already good when he was young.
>Progress in experimental sciences is made by average folks grinding lab/field hours all the time.
Ok.
>Do you think we have reached the point at which non-geniuses are incapable of making meaningful contributions to the hard sciences and mathematics?
No. Most people don't have an idea of what an ordinary 100-IQ brain is capable of just by focusing.
I for one have an IQ around 120 and devised by myself using only my mind (no notes taken) an algorithm to calculate the day of the week in which a date falls on. That was back in HS when I was on the very vertex of my OCD/depression, so the only thoughts in my head at the time were ways of how I could accidentally die and dates.
IMO there are two kinds of geniuses:
1. The ones who are naturally gifted and have a really easy time learn stuff either from an specific topic or from multiple topics. They are mostly underachievers (they might even achieve something, but they underachieve in the sense that they never live up to their actual potential). Von Neumann is a good example.
2. The ones who are mostly average or slightly above average (and a few gifted) but are so obsessed with a topic that they end up mastering it and creating something new. See Grothendieck and Kubrick for average/slightly above average geniuses and Einstein for gifted geniuses.
That being said, the latter type is a lot more important and powerful than the former.
obvious iq test for him wasnt accurate.
>Yitang Zhang is not an ordinary mathematician.
>He was already good when he was young.
Are you implying that the vast majority of mathematicians were not good at math when they were young?
...
>Are you implying that the vast majority of mathematicians were not good at math when they were young?
They were not and they aren't.
Some people are better than others, get over it.
Not even trying anymore are you
>The ones who are mostly average or slightly above average (and a few gifted) but are so obsessed with a topic that they end up mastering it and creating something new. See Grothendieck and Kubrick for average/slightly above average geniuses and Einstein for gifted geniuses.
Your post ins invalid and you're a special kind of retard.
>not good at math
who learned math the best?
Have you even been a college student?
Nice rebuttal.
>tfw you try to troll but just end up getting upset instead
>Nice rebuttal.
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's enough for me.
Wanna know how I know you are either an arrogant high-IQ underachieving fag or a brainlet with no willpower?
because all of those mensa brainlets are so much smarter than feynman
If a person has an ability to connect things and can keep 10 prior connections in mind, the person has a good chance of a breakthrough .
No, look at Fleming and antibiotics. Stumbled across a major discovery and he wasn't even skilled enough to replicate it.
>I for one have an IQ around 120 and devised by myself using only my mind (no notes taken) an algorithm to calculate the day of the week in which a date falls on
...Modulo by 7?
The LHC was essentially a gamble with nearly no chance of paying off. The predictions holding means we gain no new information. We were betting on the predictions NOT holding, which would lead to a revision of our particle physics theories, which may potentially point backwards at something we missed.
Just a little bit. What I did was basically memorize a lot of dates, knowing that on the next year, the date will mostly fall on the next day of the week. It gets messy when you have to do it inside the same year (some months are "connected" to others) with dates that you didn't memorize.
You wouldn't happen to be recent math PhD would you? I ask because I know a person who was working on this and I was taken aback by what an odd problem it was.
I don't think Einstein could be classified as a super gifted genius either, he is perhaps in between people like Grothendieck and the incredibly gifted extremely high iq people like Von Neumann or Ramanujan. I do not believe that someone with an IQ of 100 could contribute very much at all in mathematics and science, even the average graduates of those subjects have quite a bit above average IQs, especially physics and mathematics. Most genius are both incredibly gifted and obsessed/dedicated. Even Grothendieck, who described himself as less gifted than students around him, probably had a far above average level of intelligence, though perhaps he also had low processing speed, meaning that he processed information slower than others, giving the illusion that he was less gifted than he actually was. Kubrick is irrelevant to OP's question. I can't think of any other geniuses who aren't super intelligent, Feynman probably scored low on the IQ test because of the verbal portion and the test had a low ceiling on the mathematical section. He taught himself advanced mathematical topics when he was 15 and had an unprecedented score on the princeton mathematics admissions test. He had the highest score in the country on the Putnam test. His mathematical "IQ" is probably multiple standard deviations above the mean, i.e 145+. OP probably thinks that IQ tests are completely infallible measures of intelligence and that everyone who has a full scale IQ lower than him is a brainlet regardless of what else they have achieved. In that case my mother is smarter than many extremely influential scientists out there; she was tested at 160.
No. I am still at undergrad level.
ITT undergraduates slinging shit each other about things they have no idea about. I bet OP has never picked up a crayola crayon in an attempt to advance mathematics, yet he seems to be the expert on it.
>He taught himself advanced mathematical topics when he was 15 and had an unprecedented score on the princeton mathematics admissions test. He had the highest score in the country on the Putnam test. His mathematical "IQ" is probably multiple standard deviations above the mean, i.e 145+.
Maybe he had a lower verbal and a higher mathematical score because he wasn't really interested in activities that are mostly verbal and very interested in activities that involved mathematical reasoning. He seemed to be your average rich kid (he was a jew after all) that was groomed from an early age once his interests were well defined. The difference from him and other people that he knew since a very young age what he wanted to do.
>The difference from him and other people that he knew since a very young age what he wanted to do.
The difference from him and other people that he knew since a very young age what he wanted to do.*
The difference from him and other people is that he knew since a very young age what he wanted to do.**
Jesus christ, I'm a retard.
Looks Ellis and You practically contradict their abstract with the first sentence of their paper
Also we cannot forget creativity, which I do not believe can be measured with significant validity, and nor can we ignore luck. Someone with reasonably above average "giftedness" in their subject area and general intelligence (1-2 standard deviations from the mean, definitely on the higher end of that if we are talking about physics and mathematics), who also has creativity, is capable of much more than some one who scores a ridiculously high amount on an IQ test and who is incredibly gifted in one subject area, like Kim Ung-Yong who was solving differential equations when he was 5 and supposedly had tested with an IQ of 210. IQ is important, and a high-ish one is necessary but not sufficient for being a genius. Of course having an extremely IQ can only help, but I do not believe you have to be Von Neumann to contribute something important to a subject area. Though perhaps you should consider biology instead of mathematics or physics.
Just because intelligence is not 100% biological does not mean it is not there. You cannot change your raw, fluid intelligence much after age 18 (though it does naturally decrease once you start to become very old).
the OP asked an absolute question ("are all non-geniuses incapable of this?")
when you ask a question about every member of a set, any exception is a meaningful one
that's why it's usually dumb to ask those questions
...
>mathematicians aren't good at math
around half of all mathematics majors are female
You see their mission isn't to do science, it's to promote science AND to promote their own influence on society...
which is why we see the first quoted citation in the first paragraph of their write up for the winners, who did correctly win for theoretical contributions, referring to the first paragraph of Ellis and You's paper which they immediate retract from in the first paragraph of the body of their paper.
>You cannot change your raw, fluid intelligence much after age 18
Yeah. But most people there are decently educated and have a good nutrition develop their brains enough so they can do (almost) anything. Like I said previously, it comes down to how much you can focus on something.
That was almost 100 years ago you illiterate brainlet.
It was unintended and could just as easily been discovered in 2017.
That's my point. Passionate people overwhelmingly make better inventors and students than superior intelligence.
Feynman had no faith in IQ tests before he took one. Based on his general attitude I'm guessing he half assed the test just saying the first thing that came to mind
>most people there are decently educated and have a good nutrition develop their brains enough so they can do (almost) anything
citation needed, my dealings with most people have tended to show that this is not true at all, and my IQ is not even extremely high.
also, you said that Feynman had a high mathematical IQ because he was very interested in mathematics and mathematical activities (note: it is most likely the other way around, although focusing on activities that require abstract mathematical reasoning probably would have increased his fluid ability to some extent as his mind was still young). Most people do not partake in such activities when they are younger. my statement was to say that after 18 your fluid intelligence is more or less set in stone, so average people, while educated to a certain degree, have not developed their intelligence in the same way Feynman did and thus are not capable of doing what he did, even with obsession and dedication.
>It was unintended and could just as easily been discovered in 2017.
No. Shut up. Not arguing you because your reading comprehension is so low I will be misunderstood.
It probably had a low ceiling on the math section, like someone else said. Not really his fault.
It might not even have had a maths section. I have taken an IQ test and got a similar score but they excluded figure weights (the quantitative reasoning subtest), which I am not even sure existed back then, and my matrix reasoning score (general pattern recognition + inductive reasoning, I think) was much higher than my full scale score, Feynman probably scored very highly on that particular subtest. It had no number pattern subtest such as this one: similarminds.com/intelligence-number-door.html either, Feynman probably would have solved problems like this with ease.
Are you this much of a dick to everyone? Nothing wrong with what I said aside from proposing against your argument.
FYI the recent quantum entanglement proof of concept was performed entirely by university students. If Quantum computing is indeed possible the potential is astronomical.
You can stay on Veeky Forums and be rude to people for no reason though.
Go cry some more, faggot.
underrated
>underrated
Stop saying this word mongos.
yes
this
Depends: what do you mean by meaningful? I have multiple papers in prestigious math journals with a lot of citations. Have probably met most people in my field and talked math/coauthored with most people in my field. So I like to think I have at least made a small contribution. But my IQ is only 125.
thats pretty good
if you re not a larper congratulations you bettered the world
But what were the subtest scores?
Fuck I hate this fucking board jesus fucking christ
why does every other thread have to be some guy self-conscious of his intelligence posting about brainlets? hur dur dur muh brainlets not smart like me hur hur can we just fucking talk about science and not sulk in our perceived inadequacy by constantly and pointlessly blabbering about intelligence
We really need to ban undergrads.
>mathematics
>contributing anything
I met a guy with a 172 IQ once. He was basically a different species. At any rate, he said his main concern is the collusion of irrelevant institutions like government. He's in aerospace, so I guess that makes sense.
You come here to blow of steam not actually learn anything.
The highest iq person I've ever met was a hardcore primitivist. It seems to be really common in high iq people from my experience.
Was he schizophrenic and polish?
1/2
In contrast Johnny borrowed (we must not say plagiarized) anything from anybody, with great courtesy and aplomb. His mind was not as original as Leibniz’s or Newton’s or Einstein’s, but he seized other people’s original (though fluffy) ideas and quickly changed them in expanded detail into a form where they could be useful for scholarship and for mankind. He rightfully deemed that this was clever people’s duty and their fun, so he was not worried that he was not credited with all his due by the general public or the newspapers (the latter he held in what sometimes seemed Prussian disdain). One of the professional ways in which he wrung more than twenty-four hours’ work out of a twenty-four-hour day was to get the boring research on some projects done by collaborators whom he enthused by gasping that they were famously expanding their own original ideas
2/2
The great glory from Einstein’s dreaminess, which can also be called his closer touch with the cosmos, was that he had marvelous flashes of irrational intuition that changed the direction of scientific progress; Johnny amiably envied these because Johnny could never be irrational himself.
“For Von Neumann,” said his assistant Paul Halmos, “it seems impossible to be unclear in his thought expression.” Although “we can all think clearly, more or less, some of the time, Von Neumann’s clarity of thought was orders of magnitude greater than that of most of us, all the time.” Halmos was probably thinking of Einstein when he likened some scientists to the creator of the Great G-Minor Fugue, while adding in his next sentence that by contrast “Von Neumann’s greatness was of the human kind”.
A big advantage to mere humans is that one can one can develop them from nursery on. Among the several million babies born this month, it is plausible that there will not have been any Einsteins or creators of the great G-minor Fugue. But it is genetically almost certain that there will have been some who could become capable of thinking in the towering level of Johnny’s concentration, intellect and mind.
>Into the trash.
>He was basically a different species.
What does that even mean?
Ignoring the IQ shitposting:
>Not much has come of it
There's still a tonne of results coming out of the LHC, analysis of full run 2 data will be happening next year. Beyond that upgrade of LHCb should mean more accurate constraints on CKM gamma angle within the next few years, which should set very strong contraints on new physics and could be very interesting in its own right. That might not be the kind of headline grabbing physics that the Higgs discovery was but it is still important science.
When really high IQ people go mad, they go unbelieveable mad because their logic makes them go very deep into their ideais.
why?
Me too. believe me humanity would be better off if we just scrapped it all and went back to the stone age.
For the same reason, I destroy most of my art. I like the idea of starting over. The work to me - the process - is more valuable than the end result.
Humans developed agriculture because the instability of the Earth's climate made it impossible to sustain a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on much of the planet (read about the Mesolithic). Stone age lifestyle was nothing more than a death sentence in many regions of the planet, and jerking off to vulnerability in the face of nature is not wise, it's foolish. We left the stone age because we had good reason to do so.
If you worked in netsec you would be a primitivist too.
>The Higgs Boson was discovered 5 years ago.
well you see ackshully they still don't know which particle that one was. Could be Higgs but could be G or zeta
please be in london
Feynman's books speak for themselves, sometimes people clarify better than others.
Big pure maths contributions have been generally drained and because of group theory faggotry it takes 8 hours to go through a paper instead of 1 because of all the nested theory applications and the assumptions held within them.
All the computational sciences, as you might imagine, are thriving though.
Physics research is currently at the particle level and shilling for corporate 3 page summaries of their 0.2% better invention functionality that does something in space, while other physicists are learning how to nonlinear math properly for extra credit.
Engineers are so gay even patents can't help them anymore, so better to contribute via math/physics outlets or learn to AutoCAD for the rest of your life.
Also, the LHC gives years of research by their experiments. Particle physics is not an organized area, and it is constantly updated. Just because you're a retard doesn't mean they are. But yeah it is a waste of billions of dollars so fuck you and your mother.
>Grothendieck and Kubrick
it can't be that difficult right?
convert all days into numbers from a starting point, like start with Jan 1st, 2017 as day 1. then February 3rd would be the 34th day, or 33 days later. Jan 1st is a Sunday, so Sunday = [0].
33 mod 7 = [-2]. So it's a Friday