Tfw 108 iq brainlet, should i kill myself? No philosophy, no computer science for me as i will drop out eventually...

what i posted is working, i mean maybe its not prettiest but its working
you mean
[code]
function diffArray(arr1, arr2) {

var array = arr1.concat(arr2);
if (arr1.length>arr2.length) {
return array.remove(arr2);
}
return array.remove(arr1);

}
diffArray(["andesite", "grass", "dirt", "dead shrub"], ["andesite", "grass", "dirt", "dead shrub"]);
[/code]
in theory its a good idea, but result is "array.remove is not function"

IQ really doesn't mean anything OP
I'm in a STEM major and I'm shit at CS so don't think your algorithm solutions are indicative of all your abilities
and remember, even if you're a self proclaimed smartie, it doesn't mean anything if you sit on your butt doing nothing. keep putting in effort and testing yourself and you'll get better

still waiting for your code, blease

yeah, you would have to use a double for loop, giving it an O(n^2), seemed easy in theory probably wasn't as obvious as I thought.
It's just some kind of compulsory response seeing a challenge.

>tfw 147 IQ
>learned programming at 13
>dropped out of CS because hated all the math
>killing it in philosophy

Man how are you guys so fucking bad at CS. Just hash the first array, then iterate over the second array hashing, removing any duplicates. The output is just the compacted hash table.

Two for loops and a .elements() call on the HT.

that gives the union not the difference

I'm a psych major and now and again I have to do IQ tests with people.
The most difficult part is always interpreting it with them. Quite often some subtests or even the mean are in the 90s.
It's really not significantly different from being in the 100s, but it's always like I just told them that they are mentally handicapped. Even when I test them against an academic sample, which means they are still above average.

I'm starting to develop the opinion that people shouldn't get to know their actual scores. Just their "ranking" via SD or something like that.

Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125 and look how much he achieved in the field of physics, J.D. Salinger's was 104 and he was a beautiful writer. Don't be a defeatist.

Your ability to recognize numerical and visual patterns has little bearing on success when it comes to the humanities. If this is what you're interested in, work hard, read constantly, debate your ideas and learn from others. I've seen people worse than you excel.
t. 150 IQ English Lit major.

I really shouldn't say "worse than you," that's not correct and I apologize. You have the potential to do extremely well, many high IQ people waste their lives in a constant state of nihilism and self depreciation.

>physics
Irrelevant field.

IQ is psychobabble bullshit.

Did you score low?

Are you that faggot from Veeky Forums yesterday? Jesus, man, calm down.

Don't think you understand the definition of psychobabble there, bud.

what am I doing wrong?

function diffArray(arr1, arr2) {
var newArr = [];
var concArr = arr1.concat(arr2);
var currItem;
var sliceArr;
var index;
for (var i=0; i

What language? I'll do it in java if you don't answer >:)

Doing major in CS and minor in Philosophy, Philosophy honestly feels a lot like CS with less rigor. Both ultimately about abstract problem solving

>using javascript outside of web

you really are a brainlet

No you didn't read my description properly you mong. You remove elements when you find a collision. This is a literature board pls learn2read.

write curly bracet after if statement for once

Permission is bloodless
Ambition is senseless
Don't make a wrong move work with a purpose
You win or you lose
Imitate a slave
Don't make a wrong move learn from experience
Don't be useless
Waste is obscene don't make a wrong move
Learn from experience
Don't make a wrong move

is this peterson simulator

Might as well be.
youtu.be/t7Dp9WNgX08

Whats wrong with being slightly above average? Did you think that you were a special mesiah or something? You need confidence and work ethic my man. Work on your coding instead of whining about having slightly higher IQ than the average man.

nvm, I'm that was retarded, that wouldn't give

took me a whilte cause like this person says, I never use js outside web dev (mostly react). What a dumb language

I think it runs optimally, which is (O(2n)), which I wrote at the bottom of the pic. It's assuming that the inbuilt js function .hasOwnProperty hashes into the object at constant time (which I'm pretty sure it does (although again, dont really know much about js, as it is a dumb language)).
Lmk if anyone can think of a faster way of doing it

whoops, forgot solution

Also OP, the fact that you're listening to JP in the first place is pretty stupid.

However, just because your IQ isn't high, it doesn't mean you can't do CS. CS honestly isn't that hard, except for the rigorous math. If you actually think CS is reasonably fun, or think problem solving is fun than you can do it if you make yourself sit down and practice and work through fun practice problems like the symmetric differences array problem posted somewhere above

>what am I doing wrong?
not posting it in code tags for one. oh wait, we're not on /g/. you know what you should do then

yeah that makes sense

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.100.1.101-108
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/512011
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9408796
just three random articles. there's a lot more

this. intelligence is obviously far from being the only important factor when it comes to success in any field

nah

>It's assuming that the inbuilt js function .hasOwnProperty hashes into the object at constant time (which I'm pretty sure it does (although again, dont really know much about js, as it is a dumb language))
that's implementation-dependent of course, but we can safely assume O(1). JS is not that dumb. it's just a bit quirky. with typescript it actually becomes pleasant to use

terrible bait.

idk my formal logic class was pretty hard. like half the class dropped

but yeah the rest of it's pretty straightforward. philosophy being classified as in the humanities is pretty dumb to me. i'm just saying i've bullshitted my way through english papers before, but you can't really bullshit your way through a philosophy paper (if you have a good professor)

Higher than you; still trash.
I do, bud. Go shove a brick up your ass, bud.
It is, psychology, like all 'science' is for idiots.
>anything i dont like is le bait

'formal logic' is bad philosophy. Half the class realized that.
Furthermore, one cannot 'bullshit through English papers' unless you have a just-out-of-school tumblrcunt of a teacher.
Only the worst of a field can be called a 'humanity' because the worst of everything is inherently is humanist. The sick ideology is so massly popular that it is a determiner of merit.

then you got to do a comparison with every element already in the hash increasing the complexion

>tfw 128 IQ white male with an incredible hatred of genre fiction

Casual reminder if you read genre fiction your skin colour is that of shit or you're a woman which is basically the same thing intelligence-wise.

>'formal logic' is bad philosophy. Half the class realized that.
ah, the "analytic philosophy is bad" meme. never understood it

>one cannot 'bullshit through English papers' unless you have a just-out-of-school tumblrcunt of a teacher

fair enough, i only took intro level english classes and encountered a fair amount of them.

You never understood it because you're a teenager and are incapable of anything but hero-worship. You wouldn't think anything is wrong if they were fucking you in the ass, either.

I'm nearly 30 and am published. I've received Bs on all of my English papers so far, despite spending at least two dozen hours on all of them. These were all intro-level English courses and ~6 page papers, and one sonnet. Incredible pains went into writing and refining. It's not a reflection of the field as a whole that dumbasses will enable dumbasses like you, it's a reflection of the poor state of so many American universities.

> never understood it
It's a rhetorical statement, but I'm going to respond anyway. Picture explains it.

>it's a reflection of the poor state of so many American universities.
sure. that makes sense. all i can really claim is that the philosophy department at my school is better than the english department

now explain why analytic philosophy is bad without resorting to ad hominem

elaborate.

>ad hominem is bad
Explain this nonlogically or refrain from using loaded terms.

attacking the character or motives of people who were involved in analytic philosophy (or the people who study it) without explaining why the methodology itself is wrong is retarded

can't really without this devolving into a shitstorm, but I guess, why not:
Most big problems in continental philosophy disappear when using reductionist methods. And the common critique of reductionist methods is that it doesn't feel right.

Gives the impression of not "getting it".

>Most big problems in continental philosophy disappear when using reductionist methods.
But that's an entirely different school, how is that relevant here?

If you want to critique logical positivism or something then just do it, why can no one fucking give a straight answer when I ask that question on this board? Have you even read any analytic philosophy?

>tfw under 150 iq brainlet

That's not an explanation, that's you calling somebody you dislike retarded.
The notion that methodology alone is subject for critique is a begging of the question. Those of value and taste also ought to be remembered. But to target all three: analytic 'philosophy' follows the traditions of the worst philosophers, making their same mistakes, and making a whole bucket of mistakes based on the same old assumptions. Imagine a man in the night, in a flat field that spans beyond where the horizon would be if it were day, and always is beyond the horizon. Is it fair to say that he is 'moving forward' simply because he is moving? Perhaps there is a way out somewhere, but how can he find it in the night, or even know where he is in reference?
Secondly, the 'philosophy' itself stinks of incredible pretense, moth balls, and Earl Grey. Analytic 'philosophy' is nothing more than a load of *nglos upset that they don't have an empire anymore. And, despite claims, Am*rica is the ideological child of Br*tian.
Finally, I've never seen a person interested in the subject that wasn't a STEM reject. Somehow, these turds couldn't even make it among the Big School of functioning retards and dull foreigners.
Reductionism is invalid because it inherently perverts. You aren't 'reducing' like you would water, where whether it is a half-cup of water or a full-cup, it is still water. You reduce like a sweet sauce, where it begins complex, but as it reduces, it burns. Then, you spiteful *nglos have the gonads to claim that you're correct.

continental philosophers makes the "analytical philosophy is bad" meme.

In my experience they do it because they don't get it.

I tried to explain the origin of the meme.

>they dont get it because i said so but i get that le stupid SJW philosophy is LE BAD because im LE SMART

i thought you were the other guy and were somehow arguing that analytic philosophers don't get continental philosophy.

i'm just confused because i haven't really red a substantial critique of analytic philosophy in the same way i've read critiques of continental philosophers. peter unger is the only one i know of that really has attempted to critique it

on this board it's just retards like saying that it's bad because its full of LE STEM virgins or something

>I DONT LIKE WHAT YOUR POSTING SO YOUR LE RETARD HAHA
Fuck off you illiterate twat. I explained, several ways, now either shut your barely-adolescent ass or handle it.
'formal logic' my ass.

reductionist response:
and continentals are invalid because it inherently perverts. You aren't 'responding' like you would logically, where one statement is the result of the previous one and it's still the same argument. you respond as you do metaphorically, where your critique is valid, but it lacks connection to the original problem.

The way analytical philosophy tries to rebuild the world is from the bottom up. You get one thing in order consistently and then you build complexity on a solid foundation, rather then get indefinitely stuck on the same problem because you're compelled to face it all head on all the time.

>logic is good because i said so
So this is the power of autism...
>the bottom up
Why is this correct?
>uses a metaphor to explain
Oh, you're just an idiot. No wonder you cling to a lame rehash of enl*ghtenment 'philosophy' but with modernism.
>solid foundation
Prove your axioms with a stronger foundation: using nonlogic and noncontingence. No assumptions, or I'm getting my katana.

hi i'm 73 IQ

are you questioning logic?

>strong foundation

you are clearly a fucking retard who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. feel free to stop replying any time. maybe use the time to actually read some of the works you're shitposting about

>>logic is good because i said so
>So this is the power of autism...

an entire school of philosophy taken down by an user on Veeky Forums. incredible

>IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME THEN YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARD WHO CLEARLY HASNT READ THESE BOOKS
Stop advertising your propaganda, faggot.
READ THE POST, I EVEN INCLUDED A PREFACE, YOU SPERGS LOVE THAT
Oh but wait that means actually putting an effort into reading instead of engaging in a nodding-fest. Hmm... yes... I... agree... logic is self-evident... YES.S...

Child, you're attacking the form and image of my arguments instead of their content. Doesn't that sound like something that you criticized earlier? Oh wait, that means being logically consistent instead of clinging to an image of 'le smart Logic and Reason Man [with a big cock]'! Can't actually believe things, now, that means putting an effort in!

Still no argument. Do you sincerely believe yourself to be 'logical', when you cannot even defend logic, or rebute? My katana, Ōkinakuroiinkei, is almost ready. You must hurry!

>Child, you're attacking the form and image of my arguments instead of their content. Doesn't that sound like something that you criticized earlier?
yeah it does, i've clearly given up on having an actually argument with you since you don't want to have an argument. so i just defaulted to ad hominem (which is the only thing you've done the entire time)

>HURR YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY LOGIC SO THEREFORE WE SHOULD DO WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT AND ANYTHING GOES

and you're claiming analytic philosophy is bad, jesus

tell me why modus ponens is justified

isn't justified***

>BLAHBLAHBLAH I DONT HAVE TO ARGUE EVEN THOUGH I CLAIM TO STAND FOR THIS
Justify your 'strong foundations' or go back to /r/eddit
>modus ponens
Because my ponens is modus. Prepare yourself.
Either justify yourself or actually start reading the texts you've claimed you've read (and something fucking contemporary). Why do you children get so upset when somebody is critical of your nonsense? Because that means doing more than head-nodding? Lazy *nglo.

MARGARET, GET THE EARL GREY.

>>Because my ponens is modus. Prepare yourself.
okay it was bait the entire time, thank god.

you're still a fucking retard though, and just saying that something is wrong isn't an argument. kill yourself

also realize that you're literally saying math itself is wrong if you can't accept certain axioms. the law of self identity is literally fundamental to math
if you genuinely think that we can't conclude from "if two things are equal to the same then they are equal to each other" and "the two sides of this triangle are equal to the same" that "the two sides of this triangle are equal to each other" then you're literally retarded and so is anyone who writes off logic. there has to be a point where you can't continue justifying or else there would be an infinite regress

I guess I'll bite. It's a leap of faith, I agree, but without logic there is no way to discuss anything. Without logic every measure of less or more correctness disappear.

How can you have 147 IQ, like analytical philosophy and dislike maths? Maths is pure logic.

>anything that i dislike formally is just le meme!
Fuck off. Is this what you idiots call 'rigour'? Holy fucking shit.
I'm not making an argument, you haven't made an argument. Until then you're getting the fucking tip of anarchism right up your asshole.

Stop fucking ranting about how I DARE CRITICIZE LOGIC AND REASONS, THE FOUNDAAAAAAAAAAATIONS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION! THE GREAT GIFTS OF GREECE AND ROME!
Stop rejecting the conclusions of your ideology. Either go balls-fucking-deep or don't try at all. You claimed you have 'strong foundations', now present them or fuck off.
>I MUST BE CORRECT
Actual autism, right here. Refusal to admit one's limitations. Just admit what you already know: that all truth-judgements are value-judgements. There are ways to discuss without resorting to sickeningly Newtonian logic. You idiots call yourself 'modern' but are stuck in the same traps that 'philosophers' have been falling into for thousands of years.
No, you will not escape it with 'muh strong foundations' if you cannot even justify your foundations. Refer to my first allegory, about the man in the night, in the flat field.
Both are trash mate. Math is pure ideological logic. Pure nonsense.

I study mostly continental philosophy.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

i just posted an entire extremely specific response as to why it's genuinely retarded to not "believe" in logic. you responded with more ad hominem and "CHECK OUT MY METAPHOR BRO"
your fucking metaphor is meaningless. engage in the argument or fuck off

>Math is pure idological logic

holy fuck this has to be bait

>Math is pure ideological logic. Pure nonsense.
I'm not used to Veeky Forums shitposting. How can you believe something so impactful for humanity to be nonsense?

>I CANT READ SO YOUR DUMB
Are you ESL?
>it's meaningless
Because you have actual autism.
Your 'response' was a nonresponse, demanding that I first assume your position. You're an upset child. There is no argument here, just a little boy (you) flailing over me not giving you your racecars. ZROOM ZROOM! TIME TO ABANDON GR**K LOGIC!
>holy fuck this has to be bait
Yes, clearly anybody that disagrees with you in any radical way is just baiting you. HOW DARE ANYBODY STRAY FROM MY FORMULA. ZROOM ZROOM I ACCELERATE IN REVERSE!

There's quite the difference between Newtonian logic and logic all together. I'm quite the critic of Newtonian world view myself, or rather the Newtonian world view as the only possible one.

I think your allegory of the man in the night was accurate.

effeminate man are drawn to continental "philosophy" like flies, because it lacks rigor, rationality, and is built upon meandering, captivating prose, appeals to emotion and cults of personality: it's like poetry, but it doesn't rhyme
masculine men choose the analytical tradition

your ohh great metaphor is retelling of plato's cave made by "foundation" you hate so much

>muh utility
Fuck off

Fuck you, pretentious prick.

Your logic is Newtonian logic, all logic is.
>IM A REEEEEEEEEEEEL MAN LOL XD
You're an impotent teenager. You lack rigour and rationality. You cannot even defend your methodology.
It's not a retelling, it's a 'thought experiment'. Don't you spergs love that stuff?

'muh utility' is pretentious. Mathematics is 'impactful to humanity' in the same way that a nuclear bomb is to a city.

nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger bad analogy nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

>implying maths is ''useful''

The reason that it's a science, and beautiful and worth pursuing, is that the study of maths, like the study of philosophy, is an end in itself and not necessarily practical.

Oh look, a whole load of ideology. Bury your wig already, Charles.

>The reason that it's a science, and beautiful and worth pursuing, is that the study of maths, like the study of philosophy, is an end in itself and not necessarily practical.
Which I don't deny. I was only making a point to why maths isn't nonsense, which is a ridiculous claim in itself.

Kevin McDonald thinks you should call people Jews instead of niggers. Thank you for your attention to Kevin McDonald's thoughts on this matter.

Nigger.

> all logic is newtonian
> your logic is logic is as well.
> therefore your logic is newtonian

No it's not, Newtonian logic have a set of axioms, connected to empirism which all logic, part of which you used to refuse me with, don't share.

Don't speak for me, whore.
Are you fucking illiterate? I said Newtonian logic, not Newtonian Logic. Your logic is Newtonian, your logic is not Newtonian Logic. Do the autistic have difficulties discerning the difference between?

...what does he mean by this...

I know. That guy is high on his own farts, like all of us on Veeky Forums.

Come on user, listen to Kevin McDonald. It's very important that you do, ok?

Ok but have you heard about Kevin McDonaldian Logic?

Are you illiterate?