OC. Prove me wrong

Engichad here,
physicists are cucks

All those are true for me except my hands are a little shaky.

Wrong, because chemists can't be chads.
>needs confirmation for his choice
Engineer detected.
pic related
>less bitches
>more brainlets

>math
>very high IQ and nearly 50/50 male/female
sweet

Never would have thought philosophy majors have higher IQs than math and engineering majors.

There is a fair chunk of math and engies who lean more on the creative side and do problem solving and design. IQ is more about pattern recognition and being a stickler for rules, which applies philosophy pretty strongly.

There's not a whole lot of math in the biology cerriculum, but since you buy your own books for the courses you're taking, you can just buy some books that includes a lot of math and biology.
amazon.com/Mathematical-Ecology-Populations-Ecosystems-Pastor/dp/1405177950
bookdepository.com/Foundation-Mathematics-for-Biosciences-Jackie-Willis/9780273774587?redirected=true&utm_medium=Google&utm_campaign=Base4&utm_source=DK&utm_content=Foundation-Mathematics-for-Biosciences&selectCurrency=DKK&w=AF4ZAU99NPZRHFA80C8YAFFK8&pdg=kwd-309308959119:cmp-805635049:adg-40204722405:crv-191433898730:pid-9780273774587&gclid=Cj0KCQiAlpDQBRDmARIsAAW6-DPLIQdzy9bkPc9CTdokkn6H16rP-pcASvkNjwzv69y2sYHUTQVopV4aApdZEALw_wcB
bookdepository.com/Mathematics-of-Evolution-and-Phylogeny-Olivier-Gascuel/9780198566106?redirected=true&utm_medium=Google&utm_campaign=Base6&utm_source=DK&utm_content=Mathematics-of-Evolution-and-Phylogeny&selectCurrency=DKK&w=AF4ZAU99VTUV24A80C8YAQLY&pdg=kwd-309526196374:cmp-805635049:adg-40204722405:crv-191433898730:pid-9780198566106&gclid=Cj0KCQiAlpDQBRDmARIsAAW6-DPavJwBav0e4-FB_wAeATetpUYk3WGjXsm3-faYzNnbcwEwnifpNa8aAsD2EALw_wcB

maths is higher on the plot than philosophy is
Although both are below physics and astronomy

This always surprised me tbqh

>Still a second rate mathematician

Ouch

This is because of two things
1) Math is for any gender
2) Math is for the intellectual elite

> Implying you or anyone else actually does that

Op's meme attempt isn't funny but it's mostly accurate. I started off as a bio major and was chem by graduation, it took an extra year because of the major switch but it was worth it. It's all true.

Yeah it is sweet
When I'm deciding what I would enjoy I always make sure that lots of women enjoy it
Looks like hunting and weight lifting and fucking girls are all out of the question
I'm gonna go watch the big bazooper, it looks SWEET

Religious chicks are always into math for some reason.

>mfw i can do Philosophy, Math, Physics, Engineering, and CS all competently
>mfw i can pass biology without ever reading the text-books
>tfw the meme is not a meme

Thats because Math is proof of the structural nature of the universe. Structure implies order, order cannot be derived from chaos, therefore some ordering force needed to have been involved in the creation of the universe. Many people believe that force to be God, some kind of thing that came before the universe, set its laws into order (despite the improbably outcome) and then fucked off or something?

Whatever, essentially math is proof of God so you're bound to find religious mathematicians, same for Physicists and Philosophers.
Once you get to CS and Engineering things become a bit more wonky, with alot of agnostics and some atheists.
social workers are almost always atheistic communists though, which explains why they are the lowest IQ.

Pic related is my guess of the religiosity distribution. Note that there is alot of overlap between differet groups especially in the engineering/CS zone.

I found it really sad whenever my peers complained about organic chem, I loved it and even TA'd it. But, don't talk shit about my flies, homie. Animal models are cool.

t. biochem.

Unscientifically, I think that this is a terrible guess. When the people are smart and educated enough, the population in question is less religious (Europe), and this even extends to academics in the sciences and elsewhere, I would bet a dollar.

That said I am biased as I studied both math and philosophy in school, and although I hold certain unironically platonist views about math, I am a full-on fedora in my interior view of the world. I would go as far as to say that the older I get, the more I hate the idea of god. So I might just be an outlier.

Math-oriented people do tend toward a certain primitivism, though, and this isn't just a Kaczynski meme - this "primitivism" might encompass the religiously-oriented to some extent.

>When the people are smart and educated
>((((Europe))))
>durr, lets let in these vioelent foreigners bringing over their repressive religion. Durr, jihad is not islam, islam is peaceful.
durr.
>Smart
>Europe
>"Terrorism is a part of living is a city" - European "intelligent" leader
>Smart

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_model

- the basis of physiology which brings in hot AMERICAN girls too (antichrist of /sci)

- get to see what happens in real life not test tubes like autist neckbeard chem majors sitting under da hood all day

>Math-oriented people do tend toward a certain primitivism
as do the religious. That is because, at the heart of everything, lies some simple base philosophical concepts and abstractions. My explanation of why the prevalence of religiosity is normal in mathematical fields can be seen as the ordered universe argument for the existence of God, because much like how one deduces from simple information, the way in which a man was murdered at a crime scene, in a similar way one can deduce the presence of a greater being from the world around them. Could they just be seeing things which are not there? Sure! Would it be just as foolhardy to assume that there is no greater being? YES!
Agnostics, for better or worse, are academically honest since they know that it is impossible to directly observe God (if he exists) but admits that one can come to conclusions based on their interpretation of the indirect data for his existence (the universe). Ultimately the decision comes down to whether one chooses to interpret the data, and how they interpret it. Until someone gains access to direct proof there is simply no way to verify any claim, so then it merely comes down to whoever has the most solid logic behind their reasons (for which Gnostics and Christians are the majority(if you are interested, read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or anything by G.K.Chesterton. Better yet, read the literature of the church fathers if you really want to delve into Christian philosophy(apologetics))).

Also, know that the meta-study that claims Atheists have a higher IQ on average, was riddled with all sorts of errors and problems. Any socio-psychologist would blush at the chaotic mess that is that study.

Anyways, i'm done my rant now so i'm going to sleep.

I never understood why biofags always complain about ochem, considering that it's the probably the only chemistry that would require skills of rote memorization, something that biofags are good at. I guess some people just find it boring and dry.

>DDURRR, THING A BAD, THING B GUD
Stop being a simpleton.

Bio beta detected

>When the people are smart and educated enough, the population in question is less religious

More like when people get busier and have more options to sink their time with; they spend less time reading books, being religious, or anything else that requires longer attention spans.

>I am a full-on fedora in my interior view of the world. I would go as far as to say that the older I get, the more I hate the idea of god.

I am so sorry.

From /g/ with love.

Math is far more likely a byproduct of the necessary synthesis of language and early conceptual representation done by the brain. Hardly a "proof of god."

>not posting the webms that come along with it

>eating meat of any sorts
you want to get colon cancer or what ?

I would agree with you if it were not applicable.
Math represents concepts of reality, not the other way around. It is A posteri knowledge, exterior to the human mind. For that reason it cannot be argued to be a construct of the mind. Sure we use symbols and language to convey the concepts, but the concepts are hardly ever if ever constructed from our minds.

For example, simple arithmetic was used by shepherds to keep track of their heard of sheep. They would use a stone to represent every 10 sheep. This can be done on paper too, 10 is a set of symbols representing a value, yes, but it is hardly a construct of the mind so much as a representation of a very real thing.

And for these representations to be so orderly: 1 + 1 = 2, for there to be order in this thing we represent with symbols, should be proof of the universe being ordered. And if the universe is ordered, there must be some cause for the order.
p -> q
q -> r
therefore p -> r

>And if the universe is ordered, there must be some cause for the order.
Does there have to be a prior cause? And does this have to be an exterior being?
This is not an inference you can make with any certainty.

>Does there have to be a prior cause?
certainly if the law of entropy is consistent. As time moves forward, entropy increases. If i have a system that has reached maximum entropy (a concentration equilibrium of 2 gasses) then for the gasses to be seperated requires there to be a force acting on the system. Likewise for the universe except with Quantum Field Theory and the potential energy of the different quantum fields, and the nature of the forces themselves. Assuming there was a point when there was no energy in the system (the universe), which i will call the 0-point, at this 0-point, energy from an external source ouwld need ot be provided into the system to provide the potential necessary for the quantum fields ot go to the energy levels neccessary for the forces to operate as they do.
But i'm getting into 9 levels of abstraction here so to simplify: order does not come from chaos, so an external agent is neccessary in order to reduce entropy in this system, and since this universe is ordered and not chaotic, yet is moving towards chaos (implying a descent from order) then it seems logically valid that some ordering agent was present prior to now which did order the known universe.

>And does this have to be an exterior being?
yes. If i have a mixture of 2 gasses dissolved together, the gasses in the system will not order themselves and seperate into 2 distinct gasses, an outside force (like a pump or something) must act on the system in order to reduce entropy in the system.

tl;dr - There has to be a prior cause, and this cause must be external to the system it is acting on.

I also really, really hate Chesterton so I won't be doing that. I've ranted about him on Veeky Forums more than once. He constantly does simple inversions with his aphorisms and passes it off as being clever, funny, insightful when it's none of those.

spare me, keep it to yourself.

What about C.S Lewis?

I haven't heard much from chesterton but heard he was a good read, lewis i have read from and his logic is fucking solid, a really nice listen too.

Lewis I bet I could actually read. I wouldn't expect to agree with anything of course but I could stomach it.

There's just something about Chesterton that really, really pisses me off. It's his sentimentality, or something like it.

>There's just something about Chesterton that really, really pisses me off. It's his sentimentality, or something like it.
maybe you don't get his subtler inferences, or his way of going about things is a pet-peeve to you?

Tell me how you feel about this:
youtube.com/watch?v=XBp8M8M4DMs

>"like robbing a bank, or worse still, working in a bank!" - G.K Chesterton

I see no problem with the man, he has wit. Mind detailing what it is about him that you find so obnoxious?

That's just it though—he doesn't.

I can most succinctly answer your question with a short youtube clip, by way of comparison: Chesterton: The Sphinx, from Mystery Men (even the cape):

youtube.com/watch?v=GuUopTPgjOI

"he who questions training, only trains himself at asking questions" - is this what you meant? because it makes sense. Its just apretentious way of saying the obvious: dont trainand ask question, only think you'll be good at IS asking questions.

"when you care for what is outside, what is outside cares for you" - actually a pretty stupid sentence.

so you're problem is the phrasing of inversion itself, which seems smart but really is jsut pretentious? I can see how that is a problem, mind quoting some times Chesterton does it?

"the point of communism, is that it tries to reform the pickpocket, but forbiding pockets!"
Doesn't seem like anything pretentious to me user. Quoting some lines that bothered you would be a good way to clairify your issue.

I have a theory about that.
I noticed that "math major" also include people who are in teaching programs. At least in my school they seem to make up an overwhelming part of the overall major.

Meant to reply to

Some of it is accurate, especially when you get into evolutionary or (most of) ecology. I thought about taking pchem this semester but all I really needed was biochem.

t. Microbiology undergrad.