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

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,602
Sydney
#21
Science
at uni level sciences is pretty intense and brain damaging
It does not favor literal communication ,
the interaction use universal symbols and notation in a very rigid manner ,
a falsehood is immediately spotted

Humanities does favor literate expression and one can get away with rote learning and being glib or imprecise
as such it can get infected easily with intellectual rubbish at the undergraduate level
conforming to the lecturer views is a great step forward toward good marks

P.S. " humanieties" ... note to the moderators , could you bounce off any OP which doesn't use good spelling
 
Likes: janossyjanos
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#22
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 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.
What you call common sense, it is called "street-smart" usually with an IQ level between 80 and 100.

My favourit quote about Street smart people: https://www.quora.com/How-do-people-with-IQs-of-60-80-think


"
People with IQ of 60 to 70 usually are very pleasant. They are a bit slow, they have difficulties of understanding things, they take everything literally and they don’t understand abstractions, metaphors, similes or other figures of speech. They can be troublesome if drunk. They usually are unable to learn other languages than their first, and they may have troubles on understanding written text. If I said “Enemy at two o’clock!” they’d look at their watches stupified rather than at ahead right.
A person with IQ of 60 is able to do simple supervised tasks and repetitive routine work. He would never be able to be a leader (with the possible exception of a bully) and certainly not a manager.
Usually the boys with Stanine 1 were assigned to tasks where they could be supervised all the time and they could cause as little damage as possible. Tasks like Oil Sheikh (the janitor who fills the fuel tanks of the vehicles of the garrison each morning), Fashion Guru (the janitor who puts clothes and shoes which arrive from laundry to shelves at quartermaster’s store), Sauna Major (the janitor who warms up the saunas of the garrison) and like.
The bracket from 60 to 80 is a wide one. The difference between 60 and 80 is far bigger than 80 to 110.

Now about the street smarts:
Those with 80 to 95 are true troublemakers. They do not realize they are below average, but they usually are very street smart and savvy. Their behaviour is puerile and obnoxious rather than child-like. They likewise have problems of understanding things, but they are by no means slow nor stupid. They are incredibly anti-authoritarian and their behaviour is often challenging.
+
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,367
US
#23
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.
Yet when you use words such as "dumb" and "less intelligent," broad, sweeping generalizations, you make your premise difficult to prove. One would think somebody in the hard sciences would know that the scientific method requires a hypothesis that can be proven. IQ tests are simply not proof of one's intelligence. It is one predictor, but not the only. Quite frankly, to assume that IQ testing is the sole measure of intelligence is quite amateurish, in my opinion.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,367
US
#24
What you call common sense, it is called "street-smart" usually with an IQ level between 80 and 100.

My favourit quote about Street smart people: https://www.quora.com/How-do-people-with-IQs-of-60-80-think


"
People with IQ of 60 to 70 usually are very pleasant. They are a bit slow, they have difficulties of understanding things, they take everything literally and they don’t understand abstractions, metaphors, similes or other figures of speech. They can be troublesome if drunk. They usually are unable to learn other languages than their first, and they may have troubles on understanding written text. If I said “Enemy at two o’clock!” they’d look at their watches stupified rather than at ahead right.
A person with IQ of 60 is able to do simple supervised tasks and repetitive routine work. He would never be able to be a leader (with the possible exception of a bully) and certainly not a manager.
Usually the boys with Stanine 1 were assigned to tasks where they could be supervised all the time and they could cause as little damage as possible. Tasks like Oil Sheikh (the janitor who fills the fuel tanks of the vehicles of the garrison each morning), Fashion Guru (the janitor who puts clothes and shoes which arrive from laundry to shelves at quartermaster’s store), Sauna Major (the janitor who warms up the saunas of the garrison) and like.
The bracket from 60 to 80 is a wide one. The difference between 60 and 80 is far bigger than 80 to 110.

Now about the street smarts:
Those with 80 to 95 are true troublemakers. They do not realize they are below average, but they usually are very street smart and savvy. Their behaviour is puerile and obnoxious rather than child-like. They likewise have problems of understanding things, but they are by no means slow nor stupid. They are incredibly anti-authoritarian and their behaviour is often challenging.
+
Obnoxious behavior did you say? That's rich. Obnoxious behavior is an OP that trolls and incites because one can not convince others of their arguments on a history website. Now that isn't too smart is it? By the way Quora is not an academic citation and certainly not "scientific."
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,244
Welsh Marches
#25
Science
at uni level sciences is pretty intense and brain damaging
It does not favor literal communication ,
the interaction use universal symbols and notation in a very rigid manner ,
a falsehood is immediately spotted

Humanities does favor literate expression and one can get away with rote learning and being glib or imprecise
as such it can get infected easily with intellectual rubbish at the undergraduate level

P.S. " humanieties" ... note to the moderators , could you bounce off any OP which doesn't use good spelling
On your latter point, it depends, I think, on whether the university department at which one is studying has itself become infected by intellectual rubbish! Many have, alas, and the humanities are of course more exposed to this form of corruption than the sciences. But that does not mean that the humanities are inherently less lacking in intellectual rigour than the sciences. The vital thing is to keep clear of mushy pseudo-subjects.
 
Likes: Rodger
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#26
Obnoxious behavior did you say? That's rich. Obnoxious behavior is an OP that trolls and incites because one can not convince others of their arguments on a history website. Now that isn't too smart is it? By the way Quora is not an academic citation and certainly not "scientific."
It seems You forgot to watch the linked charts at post #11.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,949
#27
Probably because the instruments for estimating this are flawed form the outset.

Never mind, history is a form of knowledge all of its own. Its challenges are different. What it takes to get really good at it are also somewhat peculiar.

And in the end, all these things people in the STEM sector take such inordinate pride in fall in the domain of the historians. Then it's of course a downside that most people in the STEM sector do not have the first inkling about how history as a form of knowledge works.

It actually takes a while, and a fair amount of experience, to work out what you're actually talented at. And the self-congratulatory culture of arrogance cultivated with STEM sector students tends to be a problem in itself, and obscure this. Most of us ARE highly average, whether students of STEM or something else . That doesn't actually answer who manages to do the mostest with the leastest (or mostest) however, but all STEM does in this respect is cultivate an idea of superiority. Like all ideas about "natural aristocracies" it tends to hold up well, as long as you don't actually put it to the test.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,367
US
#30
It seems You forgot to watch the linked charts at post #11.
I was referring to your Quora comment. Those charts simply take one factor into account: IQ, which is not the sole determinant for intelligence. Cite research that says IQ is the SOLE and ONLY determinant for intelligence. Cite research that says cognitive capacity is the only aspect which defines one's intelligence, as in ability to comprehend self, others and the world around them. By the way, I see legal occupations, social workers, teachers, clergy, and creative occupations are literally a few points behind on the IQ test. Do you really think the matter of 1 or 2 points makes that person so much "smarter?" Talk about being tunneled visioned. And those are averages. This still is not be enough to convince everybody of how smart one is on a forum site like this. Am I correct? So,what is the point of your OP?
 
Likes: Linschoten
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions