Charles Darwin was a brainlet. He was shit at math and openly admitted it...

Charles Darwin was a brainlet. He was shit at math and openly admitted it. You have to be good at math if you want to be considered smart. Thus, Darwin was a brainlet. Biologist are brainlets.

He was actually a brainlet, but since there are vastly more brainlets than smart people in the world, probability dictates that at least a few brainlets will make important discoveries some of the time.

>You have to be good at math if you want to be considered smart
sounds a lot like something a stupid person would say

You don't have to not be a brainlet to influence the world. Take George Bush for example.

politicians are a special case

couldn't you be a math brainlet but a verbal brainmore. or does this forum full of 'tismos only also participate in the STEM circlejerk

t. Christcuck

Math brainmores also tend to be verbal brainmores, but the other way around is rare. I noticed this in university when math students were getting better grades in lit classes than English majors. I'm not sure why this is the case, and granted it's anecdotal, but it might have something to do with math being more g-loaded and therefore drawing people who are just generally smarter than in other disciplines.

Was he a math brainlet or did he just never study

He was supposedly bad in school because he didn't give a fuck. He coulda been smart but lazy

Also biologists aren't brainlets

you're a brainlad

which is like a brainlet but you're a young lad

I just made that up now did you like it y/n give feedback plz

he once remarked how mathematicians seemed to have an "extra sense" and lamented he didn't have it

>typical "I-I'm smart I'm just not good at math!" brainlet excuse

>It's an "user pats himself on the back for being superior to someone despite having achieved nothing himself" thread

Seems like there are a lot of them.

excuse? I said he lamented he didn't have it.

>I'm not sure why this is the case, and granted it's anecdotal

Sounds like you're the brainlet if you're using your small sample group as evidence for something.

Most of the people I know who do maths subjects at university are ultraspergs who can't write, spell, or speak for shit.

He acknowledged it was anectodal you fucking aspie

No, he flat out said it was the case, despite not having a single fact to back it up.

>Math brainmores also tend to be verbal brainmores, but the other way around is rare

Oh no, its another engineer made bio hate thread. Calm down my engi friend, there is nothing wrong with letting the real scientists use their massive IQ to make the discoveries for you to use.
>"b-bad at math.."
Oh sorry bud, I'm actually really good at math, like a lot of other biologists. Now have fun sticking numbers into equations without thinking. I'm off to make new discoveries.

People who think biologists are usually innumerate brainlets ought to take a look at the history of statistics.

>revolutionized biology
>brainlet

Grow up you fucking cunts.

>t. mathematician

SEE

>haha he deducted a model which united all branches of biology instead of digesting already known shit like me, what a brainlet

Sasuga Veeky Forums

So many fish, so little bait
Veeky Forums never ceases to disappoint

At least I'm gainfully employed in my field and not flipping burgers for 8 an hour

I'm going to start using "brainlad" on annoying undergrads.

Apparently not

>You have to be good at math if you want to be considered smart.
Whatever helps you feel superior to others, user.

Charles Darwin was able to discover something that was apparently far harder to understand than Math since geometry has been known for thousands of years before evolution.

>Smarts only depend on Math skill
How does it feel knowing you are more stupid than a 1$ calculator than OP?

Darwin was a NEET and because there were no vidya back then he decided to become a """scientist""" like bill nye

Are you enjoying your Freshmen level math courses big boy?

bill nye knows a lot more about math than biology

Great point OP! Honestly, it just has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory. ;)

Darwin was an alpha male. Betas are attracted to math because you can discover truths without having to leave your bedroom

Us biologists arent brainlets we are math geniuses. We are really great at linear algebra,

>you're an idiot because you use anecdotal evidence so here's my anecdotal evidence to prove you wrong