Why are people who learned in faculties of Humanieties and social "sciences" more dumb / less intelligent than people who learned in the STEM sector?

Status
Closed
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#11
No. The OP is an indicator of a very frustrated person, bitter that he can't convince others of his arguments, so he makes an outlandish statement with no substantiation. However, you do quite a bit of that, don't you. I am not the one crying about others and insulting them. Life must be hard for you. ;) If you are such a hater of soft sciences, why do you continually post on a history forum? Sounds like you are confused.
Life is only hard, who can't prove /support their opinion.

Natural scientists (and electrical ENGINEERS) are more clever than historians and social "scientists".

Modern IQ ranges for various occupations

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blogger/images/iq-prof-women.gif

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/occu-IQ-6.png

As you can see natural sciences belong to the superior occupations.

And of course, we electrical engineers are the best.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,091
Welsh Marches
#12
Additionally, I know people in the hard sciences who cannot properly construct a sentence, let alone a paragraph or report. Also, many are not skilled at the the art of succinctly and effectively orally communicating.[/QU
So why are the scientist on a very high level of esteem in societal/global level? Why physicists and mathematicians come to the mind of common people at first, when they are asked to name a genius?

One of the greatest British historian was A.J.P Taylor, but who knows him among common people? But if you mention Einsten, Gauss Newton.... It is a different level. STEM subjects and their historic stars have superiority in recognition. They are the symbols of clever and intelligent people.
Hm, so Mozart or Shakespeare have less claim to be regarded as geniuses than Newton or Einstein? As to whom ignorant people might first call to mind when asked to name a genius, that is a matter of no great significance. But this is a strange way to approach the question in any case, the question is whether the study of the humanities in general demands less intelligence than the study of the sciences, and you have given no reason whatever to think that that is the case.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,297
US
#13
Life is only hard, who can't prove /support their opinion.

Natural scientists (and electrical ENGINEERS) are more clever than historians and social "scientists".

Modern IQ ranges for various occupations
Exactly your situation here, eh? My IQ is just fine. About 144 when I was tested back in college by a special education student who had to learn to administer the test for her degree. Not everybody is motivated by money. Self respect and respect by others is more important for some, the latter some people badly lacking.
 
Dec 2011
1,290
#14
There are a few studies on this out there, but if you look at them, you will see that while the statement that STEM graduates in general are more intelligent than graduates of other majors, more properly, the line should be drawn between subjects characterized by a higher level of formalization and abstraction and those that not. For example, it seems that biology does not attract as many highly intelligent students as maths or physics while philosophy and economics seem to find more of them. If this is correct, than the answer is simple: intelligence is usually associated with the cognitive capacities to reason logically, recognize patterns, to form abstract concepts from complex phenomena etc. And this is what most STEM fields require from and train their students for.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,091
Welsh Marches
#15
The OP seems to think that there is just one kind of intelligence that can be measured by certain kinds of tests, and seem unable to understand that to be a good historian or good composer demands a different type of intelligence from that required by a research scientist, and that each would probably be incompetent in carrying out one another's work!
 
Likes: Entreri
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#16
Yes, art is not known for IQ. There are/were very famous writers poets composers who were stupid even in primary or grammar school level math..... Just imagine that. Being bad in math, It means 100% certainity that those people are not very clever/ intelligent creatures.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,091
Welsh Marches
#17
Well, I'm pretty bad at maths, and that doesn't mean that I'm stupid, it just means that I'm bad at maths; on the other hand I once met a mathematician who was reckoned to be close to a genius in his subject, and it was almost impossible to hold a coherent conversation with him, one would have taken him for an idiot if one had met him on a bus.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,297
US
#18
Yes, art is not known for IQ. There are/were very famous writers poets composers who were stupid even in primary or grammar school level math..... Just imagine that. Being bad in math, It means 100% certainity that those people are not very clever/ intelligent creatures.
Yet I have met people with little to no formal education who will take some highly educated big spender who is out for a night on the town for all their worth. And I know people who can do complex mathematical equations, but can't get the cap of their toothpaste. Common sense is real. And then there is a social intelligence, if you will, that is being able to relate to others, since human beings are social creatures.
 
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#19
The OP seems to think that there is just one kind of intelligence that can be measured by certain kinds of tests, and seem unable to understand that to be a good historian or good composer demands a different type of intelligence from that required by a research scientist, and that each would probably be incompetent in carrying out one another's work!
What is their importance in the shaping of human history? Many natural scientists shaped the future more deeply than the most famous/infamous and powerful politicians of the WW1 and WW2. Who will care about the existence and of Stalin Mao Hitler Roosevelt Churchill in the 2500AD? They won't be more important for the humankind than the existence some medieval kings in the 21th century.
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
4,833
Wirral
#20
Well, I've studied both a science subject and humanities subjects at university level and can tell you that it's absolute nonsense to claim that one demands less use of the brain than the other. Although I would qualify that by saying that some so-called subjects in the humanities are lacking in intellectual rigour (the saying goes that one should avoid anything that has 'studies' in the title!), and it can be easier in some (not all) areas of the humanities to bump along by rote learning than in the sciences, though not to reach any high level of expertise. It is of course a fact that some people who choose the humanities aren't good at scientific subjects or maths (I would never have made a good scientist because my maths is so bad), but that goes both ways, I have met good scientists who are idiots when it comes to any form of philosophical reflection or artistic appreciation, we use our brain in all kinds of different ways.
I actually have some sympathy with the point made. I studied engineering at Uni and I really struggled with the mathematics. There were great chunks of it that I just didn’t understand. Admittedly the highest level to which I’ve studied the humanities is only university continuing education (approximately first year undergraduate) and there’s a hell of a lot of history that I don’t know but I’m not sure if there are any concepts or ideas that would be beyond my comprehension.
 
Likes: janossyjanos
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions