Why is it that STEM attracts more intelligent people than the humanities? Is there any literature regarding this?

Why is it that STEM attracts more intelligent people than the humanities? Is there any literature regarding this?

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/10154775
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It is difficult to finish them as well. The morons that are given a free ride in so many more open minded, free thinking fields are weeded out before they get anywhere in STEM.

The kind of intelligence measured by IQ tests is most useful in STEM fields

this, iq test are mostly made for mathematical and spacial intelligence

There are several fields of the humanities that aren't doing all that bad in that pic

Art Subjectivism lowered the skill floor of the Humanities to the point that it openly accepts the lowest common denominators while STEM maintains a meritocratic barrier to entry.

As opposed to what? Emotional intelligence?
I'm an IQ skeptic, but the flaws are not in the premise.

the best authors have high IQs. Look at nobel prize winners

I don't even know non-fiction on the subject, but here is another table
I can say that perhaps creativity might need IQ up to a point but higher IQ means less creativity, or so some scientists think so (not all by the way)

yes? and verbal intelligence and the like?

What criteria do these "best authors" fits? do you have any reliable result of the tests that they conducted on them? what kind of tests?

>nobel
oh you are just memeing

authors who are acclaimed by many different sources, no matter how parochial

>IQ estimated from average GRE scores
fucking USELESS approximation

Your IQ is the measurement of your ability to shape and form the people and their world around you. IQ tests take these abilities and scatter their roots across puzzles designed to expose these thought patterns.
So unless you want IQ tests to genuinely consider Astrology and Religion, they test for more applicable mental faculties. Emotional intelligence is meant to be learned when you're younger through your parents. Which is why the only emotionally stable/focused career paths are psychology and philosophy. Even literature is more angled to interpretation and social application when studied.

So with all these social stigmas surrounding the humanities, they become niche. They're "one shot, one opportunity" careers that will either carry you by the neck through life or you'll be the next Rowling or Nietzsche. The STEM careers all promise and nearly guarantee more than a stable life and career that doesn't hinge on getting lucky. Everyone needs homes, vehicles, or ways eat and survive that an engineer can always build or theorize. Not everyone needs emotional guidance.
I'd say people like Nietzsche or Shakespeare and Einstein or Pythagoras are all equally intelligent, it was just the social applicability of their intelligence that separates their acceptance.

Sounds a bit like pub philosophy desu

GOD FUCKING DAMN IT.
Are you seriously posting this terrible "graph" again?

Why is this list visualized as an x-y graph? There is no second axis of data! Look at all that useless white space! Such a pathetic appeal to the aesthetics of correlating x-y data! Surely no one would want to look at this in a simple list!

Whoever made this graph is either some kind of pathetic opportunist hoping to trick us into thinking his graph shows more than it does, or they are an imbecile, or perhaps some kind of masochist who enjoys the idea of wasting infinitesimal amounts of bandwidth and electricity.

Intelligent people innovate what's in their arms reach from an early age, which happens to be the computer. They simply have no reason to stop from there.

9gag philosophy desu eh there's truth to it

It's arranged this way so that it forms a clear comprehensive picture instead of a 3000x100 scrolling-fest full of labels, you hopeless retard.

nietzsche honestly makes people on this board so much dumber than they have to be.

Salinger had an iq of 104

Absolutely this

I think IQ is pretty important but it doesn't measure values like creativity or intuition or emotional intelligence, and I don't think you can measure types of creativity or talent because they're to unique to the holder and I think by nature probably don't map onto a linear or one dimensional value.

because IQ is just logical thinking. You can be a history prodigy because you can learn it. You can't learn complex mathematics with only hard work, you need genetics for that.

>Average physics major just below genius

How about no

Adding that I am a 102 IQ dumb faggot who is at the top of his class in history, geography. People call me smart, but that's because I use a lot of "smart" autist words and I know a lot about many different topics. Yet I completely suck at physics and stuff.

>children are being educated by brainlets
Why is this allowed

Agreed.
99% of STEM are complete idiots. Mind of wheels and iron, nothing creative, nothing novel, no regard for exploration, experience, or thought outside of charts and numbers. And yet they call the Humanities pretentious.

I think high STEM type intelligence is just a case of autism in many cases; a very narrow bandwidth type of intelligence with as you say no creativity or exploration, partly because that very type of thinking necessarily has to remain strict and narrow, whereas creativity is something closer to the mental structure of a schizophrenic (wide bandwidth, unexpected, novel, 'wrong' connections and associations, crossing wires, etc)

>he believes in Emotional Intelligence
Gross
Aesthetics arise from pursuit of and adherence to Logic, it's a societal trend that has pushed the mathematical away from the expressive and killed the Polymath.
Abandoning aesthetics in value of solely logic leads to mathematical nihilism wherein all loses value by reduction to chemicals, just as abandoning logic in favor of solely aesthetic leads to narcissism and undefinable subjectivist nonsense

>You can't learn complex mathematics with only hard work, you need genetics for that.
This is an /r9k/-tier fantasy. You only learn math through hard work. Beyond a basic threshold genetics only affect how fast you can learn.
t. master's in math

I can't spot where you base this on.
However, you'll find that their is actual research suggesting this. I think it is too early to make conclusions but it is a major interest of mine.

Check this out:

bbc.com/news/10154775

>He found highly creative people who did well on tests of divergent thought had a lower than expected density of D2 receptors in the thalamus - as do people with schizophrenia.

>The thalamus serves as a relay centre, filtering information before it reaches areas of the cortex, which is responsible, amongst other things, for cognition and reasoning.

>"Fewer D2 receptors in the thalamus probably means a lower degree of signal filtering, and thus a higher flow of information from the thalamus," said Professor Ullen.

>He believes it is this barrage of uncensored information that ignites the creative spark.

>This would explain how highly creative people manage to see unusual connections in problem-solving situations that other people miss.

>Schizophrenics share this same ability to make novel associations. But in schizophrenia, it results in bizarre and disturbing thoughts.

It's widely agreed that preference in STEM fields is linked to certain brain structures, which can arise from genetic disorders, but also occur about as much as you'd expect in the regular range of genetic variance.
It's hard to say if the same is true of those preferential to the Humanities, in part because the means to measure such preference is nebulous, and in part because the delineation between the prodigious and average has been heavily blurred by social trends for about as long as the scientific interest in delineating the two has existed.

>science doesn't require creativity
Oh boy

Of course its real groundbreaking realizations do, but how many scientists actually have the kind of mind for that. STEM people are mostly just engineers in a sense, they're just working within what's already established.

>they're just working within what's already established
So do most humanities people - what is your point? Innovators and geniuses are rare everywhere.

I'd be interested to see studies on the connection between STEM and autism rates. As someone who lives near the Cal Berkeley Campus, and thus not that far from the Silicon Valley either, I encounter that demographic a lot and there is definitely a much higher rate of autism than I've ever seen anywhere else.

Whereas, conversely, being in the art community, I believe this to be pretty accurate as far as artists go. It's a completely different type of 'intelligence' (if you can even call it intelligence, exactly) on a completely different type of spectrum.

I don't think STEM attracts more intelligent people so much as Humanities attracts more dumb people

Social "Sciences" will always be the bottom barrel though

Generally, yes, but the arts (the less political usually) tend to operate across oblique vectors that suggest that that kind of divergent thinking is more fundamental to art itself, even if one certainly also builds from past forms and ideas to an extent. Whereas there's much more need for stricture and correctness in STEM.

>I'd be interested to see studies on the connection between STEM and autism rates.
See the cousin of Borat, Simon Baron-Cohen