People good at math = smart ones?

Seriously now.

The only intelligent people I know are the ones that are good in math. Every professor I had in my life, either in anything math-related or not, was (I eventually got to know) good in math.

So this brings me one old idea, that isn't as wrong as people thought. IQ tests really tell how intelligent someone is, it doesn't matter what other people say about the existence of other "intelligences", it's bullshit. The only intelligent conversations I ever had were with people with high IQ. So fuck the other ones.

Do you people agree?


PS: What do you guys think about this idea: an alien invasion that tests everyone's IQ and kills everyone below 120?

Sounds good to me. Ofcourse i'm in the portion that survives ironically enough.

Well, first we should probably state what intelligence is.

1) Most importantly, it's ones ability to reason and problem solve.

2) Secondly, it's a persons ability to remember and learn.

Now there's many other things that make up intelligence, but these are the two biggies.  IQ tests are very good at testing these two things.  So yes, usually people who score high on IQ tests usually are pretty bright.

However, these two things, although import, make up maybe half of what I would call "intelligence".  Espescially if we're talking about conversation.  One of my best friends fails completely at math, but out of anyone I know he has the best head on his shoulders.

There are different types of intelligences.  IQ only measures a person's logical/mathematical, and perhaps spacial (some touch on linguistic, most don't).  All the other types are completely overlooked. 

Artistic - Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.  And it's because we're intelligent.  The spacial awareness and creativity are not gauged by IQ

Bodily-kinesthetic - I know you nerds don't like to admit it but it takes brain power to do what athletes and highly coordinated people do.

INTRAPERSONAL - This is huge, and is not indicated by IQ in any way.  You have no idea how many math "geniuses" I've spoken to who were complete morons when it came to this and common sense.

The reason many people with high IQs are smart in all categories is because of the g-factor.  However there are exceptions to every rule.  For every "stupid" person I've met who was incredibly interesting to talk to, I've met a genius who was a complete douche bag.


TL;DR- There are many intelligences, and IQ tests fail.

>Artistic - Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.  And it's because we're intelligent.  The spacial awareness and creativity are not gauged by IQ

What is beautiful art to you? Do you call modern "art" real art?

Cause I don't, those stupid fags make some drowing that they, and the only other - instructed by them - persons, apreciate. Saying something that doesn't make sense (AT ALL) and acting superior to others as if it did is a stupid thing to do, and that goes to post-modern artists too (there was a xkcd comic about that).

>Bodily-kinesthetic - I know you nerds don't like to admit it but it takes brain power to do what athletes and highly coordinated people do.

That isn't intelligence, it takes concentration. Any animal can do stuff like that, that's not a human privillege, therefore, not intelligence.

>INTRAPERSONAL - This is huge, and is not indicated by IQ in any way.  You have no idea how many math "geniuses" I've spoken to who were complete morons when it came to this and common sense.
>The reason many people with high IQs are smart in all categories is because of the g-factor.  However there are exceptions to every rule.  For every "stupid" person I've met who was incredibly interesting to talk to, I've met a genius who was a complete douche bag.

Ok, now maybe you said something that I can consider being valid. But as you are saying: "geniuses" are incredibly interesting to talk to (taking away the loosely stupid ones) and "non-geniuses" are stupid (again, taking away the exceptions)

I rest my case.



tl;dr- the guy above said the same thing that I (the OP) did, xcept he didn't realise it, IQ tests ftw

>>4

"Cause I don't, those stupid fags make some drowing that they, and the only other - instructed by them - persons, apreciate."

Of course modern art fails, all those people have low artistic intelligence.  It still doesn't disprove the fact that creativity is a form of intelligence.  Not just in art either.  In music, and hell even science and engineering, creativity plays an important part and IQ tests don't measure it.

------------
"That isn't intelligence, it takes concentration. Any animal can do stuff like that, that's not a human privillege, therefore, not intelligence."

Intelligence isn't limited to humans.  Nearly anything with a brain has at least a minimal amount of intelligence.  But there is no way that you can claim a guitar great like Joe Satriani isn't more intelligent when it comes to controlling his movements in an intricate way.  It's not just concentration, its concentration on a great many things at once.  Computing more information in an instant than another person can.

-------------
"Ok, now maybe you said something that I can consider being valid. But as you are saying: "geniuses" are incredibly interesting to talk to (taking away the loosely stupid ones) and "non-geniuses" are stupid (again, taking away the exceptions)"

Yes of course many geniuses (read: IQ above 130~) are interesting to talk to.  But my point was that many people who register as below average intelligence on an IQ test are not only more interesting than those geniuses, but they're more successful in life because their intelligence is high in other ways.

IQ tests are somewhat relevant because they do give a rough idea of someones general intelligence.  However, they can't account for individuals who simply have a weakness in the narrow field that it tests in.

IQ tests fail.

You can try to deceive all you want, people still know, deep down, that the only intelligence is human IQ intelligence. Other intelligences were created (perhaps by the geniuses) to keep the other ones satisfied with themselves...

When you said about art, I can agree. Da vinci did some awesome art, and he was an engineer.

All the best artists are good in math. Hell yeah in music too. Classic music is at least 60% math.

And I can be around people with low IQs for a long time and be ok with it, but for an engaging conversation, high-IQ is a pre-req.

IQ tests ftw.

>>1
Not all my most intelligent friends are great at math, but they probably are capable of being better at math if they tried.

Generally, math -> intelligence, but intelligence -/-> math

IQ tests test moar than just math (not even sure how much math is tested), so hard to say.

Other "intelligences" might exist, but they probably don't contribute much to good conversation.

No alien civilization would ever do that.  People with IQs over 120 make bad slaves, and their own people are probably far smarter than 120 IQ.

>>5
Dictionary.com:
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit. 
3. the faculty of understanding. 
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information. 

Creativity is important, but it =/= art, and it certainly does not belong in any of these categories.

Dexterity takes some amount of mental acuity, but it also =/= intelligence by these definitions (maybe 2, but only after a stretch).  By this standard, all Olympic gymnists, Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, et al, are geniuses.

Genius =/= success at life.  phailing @ life is moar common than you think.

"their intelligence is high in other ways" -> "they are moar capable in other ways"

>>7 No alien civilization would ever do that.  People with IQs over 120 make bad slaves, and their own people are probably far smarter than 120 IQ.

I was thinking about doing it just for laughing at it and thinking of how much of a better society it would become (or be proved wrong otherwise).

If I had the power to do that to an unknown civilization and/or planet, I know I would.

>>7

Guy from 3 & 5 here.  I was working my own interpretation of what intelligence really is, since there really isn't even a set definition.  I describe intelligence one's ability to perceive, comprehend, learn from, and act on information.  So using this definition,  I feel dexterity is an intelligence.

You're right that creativity != art.  I got to wrapped up talking about paintings and swayed from my main point, which is that creativity is a fundamental part of intelligence that IQ tests completely ignore

Also, don't think that just because I believe in multiple intelligences I agree with the "God made everyone equal, and everyone has their talents ^_^" b.s.  Some people are just stupid in every way.

>>6
"And I can be around people with low IQs for a long time and be ok with it, but for an engaging conversation, high-IQ is a pre-req."

The reason your saying this is because people with high IQs usually know a lot of stuff, which makes exchanging new ideas more enjoyable.  However IQ and knowledge don't necessarily go hand in hand.  Some people are just plain ignorant, even though their intelligence gives them the potential to be very educated.

Basically what I'm working at here is that when you're having a conversation with someone, you're looking to gain their wisdom.  Although IQ has an effect here (it is a decent mark of a persons g-factor) wisdom and knowledge are not dependent on IQ at all

This is retarded,people who are good at math,are good at math,
people with high IQ good at solving logic puzzles.
To deduce their overall intelligence based just on this,its like
judging people by chess rating.

>>6
I've heard that there's a connection between music and math, but I don't know why.  I'm personally terrible at music, but I'm not too terrible at math (despite my other recent humiliating thread).

>>8
I guess it would be amusing for the lulz, but their civilization would eventually collapse, with nobody willing to flip the burgers.  Then again, if they're that smart, they might find a consistent way to take turns.

>>9
It seems that you're just generically defining intelligence as one's ability to use their brains to a large extent.

Creativity is nearly impossible to measure.

Unfortunately, some of those ppl stupid in every way are not yet eligible for Darwin Awards.

Wisdom and knowledge usually require a lot of experience, which comes with age (at least before Alzheimer's eats it away).

>>10
You bring up a good point.  Where exactly does chess playing belong?  It certainly requires logical reasoning, but that doesn't gurantee a win.

I would just make it, my I.Q. was rated 123 on a day I felt sick

>>1
>The only intelligent people I know are the ones that are good in math.

Obviously, IwiiPa/x, because in all your replies you define intelligence to be proficiency in math.   Then when you ask if people agree, you tell them that your definition of intelligence is infallible and that they are idiots for suggesting otherwise.  As >>3 points out, a more universal and encompassing definition of "intelligence" is:

"1) Most importantly, it's ones ability to reason and problem solve.

2) Secondly, it's a persons ability to remember and learn."

To these points I would add:

"3) A person's ability to generate novel ideas."

What about businessmen, investors, chemists, biologists, doctors, lawyers, other such professions requiring a high degree of study, and even comedians? Though not necessarily mathematical nature, these fields inspire creativity and novelty and this has been repeatedly demonstrated for millenia.  Not every important discovery or creation in civilization has been the result of pure mathematics or physics, (although much of it has), so attributing intelligence only to the mathemeticians is not in accordance with those three points listed above.

(also don't care if this is troll thread, pure mathematicians need to get out of the clouds and realize they aren' the smartest out there or else they would be paid more than 60,000 per year.)

blah, that should read:


Though not necessarily mathematical in nature, people in these fields exhibit creativity and novelty in their work, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated for millenia.

>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.
>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.
>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.
>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.
>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.

Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion

>>13
>What about businessmen, investors, chemists, biologists, doctors, lawyers, other such professions requiring a high degree of study, and even comedians?

I guess these people are ok in some ways yes, but keep in head that I thought about the 1st post while I was on the pc and my brother was watching a Jay-Leno-ish tv show with a comedian telling his story of life. Just plain stupid.
So I'd take out businessmen, investors and comedians from your list.

>Though not necessarily mathematical nature, these fields inspire creativity and novelty and this has been repeatedly demonstrated for millenia.
Lets see, doctors (they have math in their course), lawyers, chemists (that HAS math in it, you know?)...

and well, if you take the fact that lawyers are a somewhat philosophical work, then we might agree. But then again, the best philosophers were outstandingly good at math.

Science and math are not absolute, to declare such would make you unscientific. You box your self in, and you lose the main focus of these fields and that is to learn and discover.

What about artists and musicians? What about there are intelligent people in all walks of life.

>>19

What ABOUT artists and musicians?

>>20
What ABOUT ABOUT?

>>21

I see you've played Knifey Spoony before.

wow you people must have the worse social lives ever.

>>1
Then what happens to the autistics, who have created some of the most incredible artworks imaginable, and a few of which are so intelligent it defies belief. I'm damn sure on an IQ test they wouldn't get jack.

well, autists would probably cry and poop in their pants if they saw aliens

I've had this classmate in my upper math classes (diff eq, analysis, etc.)  She really knew her stuff but she wasn't really intelligent outside of math.  Oddly enough her reasoning skills were complete shit

>>26

It's a chromosome related issue

>>26
she sounds hot

IQ tests set the average population intelligence at 100, and raw scores are adjusted to IQ scores so that they fit a normal distribution. Even if you killed all the people currently below 120, you'd just end up with a new scale centered at 100. I imagine the aliens would have to start over and over again and keep killing until there was no one left, because the last person would by definition have an IQ of 100.

If one was to kill off the less intellegent, than smart people would be the only ones left to do labor that machines can't yet automate. Stupid people free smart people to do more important things.

>PS: What do you guys think about this idea: an alien invasion that tests everyone's IQ and kills everyone below 120?

Terrible idea. Not only because of what >>29 said, but also because then you'd be stuck with intelligent people working shit jobs like a janitor. As much as you may not like it, the world needs stupid people to perform menial tasks such as janitorial positions, flipping burgers, etc.

people who are good at math tend to bullshit less

>>29
I'm pretty sure the original intent of the question was not to exterminate humanity, but to cull those currently below IQ 120, without regards to their IQ afterwards.

eugenics is dangerous and shouldn't be attempted.

Oh, that's real nice, you asshole, kill all those who don't conform to your little definition of worth. What if some other idiot wanted to kill every fat person? Every "ugly" person? Oh, I don't know... how about blacks? Jews? It's idiotic ideas like yours that eventually give rise to slaughter. Who the fuck cares if they're stupid? Are you gonna tell me you'd shoot your mom just because she can't do math? You make me sick.

>>35
Serious business.

the OP was just saying something that would be funny if it happened, asshole.

I'm waiting for this to turn into a pissing contest about who has the highest IQ. I get a laugh out of comments like:

"IQ doesn't make you smart, I have an IQ of 184 and I still forget to pick up my laundry ~kthxgenius"

..It's coming..

>>34
Nothing wrong with eugenics, as long as you don't force people.

As for killing idiots, there's that bash quote about taking the warning label off of everything...

Or maybe we could start a new nation, and only smart people would be allowed in?

What does IQ test though?

And what, except that warm and fuzzy feeling, would the smart people gain from all of that? Low-IQ people aren't all in all impeding the high-IQ people, are they? There's no shortage of food, and intelligent/educated people on average get more money. Smart people are a lot better of now than they would be if we reduced the population by 90% by whatever method.

As have been mentioned, high intelligence is not directly associated with skill in farming, design, humor, and a zillion other things. Many intelligent people enjoy, say, art, or food, made by unintelligent people. If you don't find people that do those things good conversation partners then don't talk to them, but there's no rational reason to wish them away.

Take >>38
Why would you want to live in that wonderful nation of overqualifiedness? How would it be any better than a smart-people-only city, or just you moving together with a couple of smart friends?

Psychopaths typically have above-average IQ, so you'd get a much higher concentration of those.

As for the implications for 4chan...