>tfw ywn be part of the intellectual elite

>ywn be part even if you are that intelligent
That's true, but at least being very intelligent makes the odds be more in your favor
Yeah I can relate.
>"user you can do anything if you just work hard and put your mind to it!"
This is the worst thing to tell your kid if he's not actually exceptional

Those movies aren't real life. They are power fantasies by beta nerds just like you.

I would argue most fictional media nowadays is power fantasy, that we indulge in because we are all powerless weaklings. The truly smart people don't watch movies.

>geniuses don't exist and their depiction in fictional media must be a power fantasy
>smart people don't watch movies
Substantiate your claims

iktf. It's sobering to realize so much of humanity is far smarter than you could ever hope to be.

You sound like some dense fucker who studied humanities and need to feel better about it
>lyrical, physical, empathetic, emotive, etc
You know damn well those are not real "kinds of intelligence", Gardner is a hack btw

Attached: Kyouko_Kyoko_Kirigiri_Halfbody_Sprite_(2).png (509x520, 254K)

>That's just something for dumb people to feel better about themselves.
>Because being one of the foremost experts in your field is a respectable thing.
>See pretty much any respectable field of science

It feels like you have put way too much value into academic intellect as western society defines it. I recommend you read some of Howard Gardner's writings if you truly want to feel better than your current frame of mind is allowing you to.

this is the nastiest anti-help post that vulnerable user could read

reality doesn't work this way, the winners take all and have high intelligence in all of your categories, user isn't really smart in a hidden way, stop giving him false hope

>you have put way too much value into academic intellect
Right, what else is there? You're seriously implying that the study of serious academic fields isn't the best (and arguably the only) measure of intelligence there is?
There is no such thing as "overvaluing" academics, those fields of study are what allows us to understand the world in its complexity and the people who manage to initiate breakthroughs in those fields definitely qualify as the most intelligent by virtue of their ability to push the boundaries of human knowledge
I stand by what I said, Gardner's theories are lies to make people feel better. There's no such thing as "bodily-kinesthetic" intelligence, that's just called hand-eye coordination and has nothing to do with intellect. Similarly, intrapersonal, musical or V-L "intelligences" as he describes them can simply be tied to pattern recognition and fluid reasoning in general. Interpersonal intelligence just refers to social skills which depend on upbringing, environment, adaptability etc
Lastly I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain why naturalistic intelligence is a downright retarded concept
I don't want to feel better, I want to be better, but it's not possible
But nowadays everyone wants to feel like a snowflake because they failed at school but don't want to admit themselves that maybe their mom lied to them and they're actually not that smart

While Gardner's theory is flawed it still provides a foundation for understanding human intelligence as something greater than a number generated from an IQ test or an analog to computational power in a microprocessor. I'm not saying IQ tests are invalid, mind you, but they tend to do more harm than good psychologically and cause people like OP to doubt themselves and people like to affirm the view that you either win big genetically or just suck. Self-defeatism and pity is going to get you nowhere, so there's no point in patting OP on the back and saying "yeah, you do suck bro. Sorry, enjoy the rest of your shitty life." If what I said is anti-help, then what do you consider help?

I very much relate to this feel
When watching things Im aware that im just consuming things other people have achieved instead of achieving things myself
And that the people involved with the show would have nothing in common with me or people like me
So Ive stopped watching tv aside from bbc nature documentaries

If you were stranded in the woods without help could you survive

i can relate, everything is pointless and devoid of meaning. Ive tried giving myself meaning and goals but it i can just see where it ends up and i dont bother i know i wont feel anything from it. Even tried to artificially psych myself up with those motivational speech videos but it all crumbles down when i realize i dont have wants or dreams or desires to work my bones off to because i see little value in "that promotion", " that gainz", "that new car", "that fine ass woman", "that degree". Like how am i supposed to get anything done like his when i cant help but see the destination and not care about it.

>But nowadays everyone wants to feel like a snowflake because they failed at school but don't want to admit themselves that maybe their mom lied to them and they're actually not that smart

I'm not trying to make OP feel like a snowflake, I'm trying to point out that you can't put such a narrow lens on life and that he has more value and potential than his just intellect, which is technically limitless but may just have less growth potential than a natural genius. It doesn't make sense to me when people give up on themselves just because they can't measure up to the cream of the crop. That's a special snowflake mentality if anything. "I can't be the best so I'll quit the rest."

No, I never learned any survival skills. Your point being?
A caveman likely has more survival skills than your average Harvard PhD but I wouldn't say he's smarter

>"yeah, you do suck bro. Sorry, enjoy the rest of your shitty life."
there's nothing wrong with saying this; even if you're emotionally fragile enough for that phrase to affect you it would hurt less than having an actually intelligent successful guy tell you you're great and smart in a special way, and then turn 360 degrees into his awesome rewarding life while you go back to being a friendless shut-in subhuman worth nothing to nobody

>he has more value and potential than his just intellect,
Objective value? Not really, you're defined by what you're able to do and accomplish. If you mean value in the eyes of my peers that's not relevant
>potential
No, that's precisely the thing I was calling you out on. There's no such thing as hidden potential, a lazy piece of shit who's been told his entire life he could be great if he "just worked harder" is exactly that, a lazy piece of shit, and not some misunderstood genius squandering a nonexistent potential
>people give up on themselves just because they can't measure up to the cream of the crop
What's the point of dedicating yourself to a field of study if you can't be among the best? Why would you spend so much time and energy on something just so you can be mediocre and average?

You're just giving him ways to cope with the fact that he's a retard, literally moving goal posts instead of accepting facts.

>and then turn 360 degrees into his awesome rewarding life while you go back to being a friendless shut-in subhuman worth nothing to nobody
If you'd do this either way then it's a moot point whether someone is encouraging or not.
>Not really, you're defined by what you're able to do and accomplish.
By whom? Who are you being defined by? Yourself? Society? Who produced the criteria you are using, and on what basis?
>If you mean value in the eyes of my peers that's not relevant
This makes it sound like "objective value" is something you came up with yourself then. How does this factor in to the above?
>There's no such thing as hidden potential
You are correct, there is no magic fount of talent hiding in every person. But everyone has potential. Why assume that someone is going to be a lazy piece of shit forever? Why can't they change?
>What's the point of dedicating yourself to a field of study if you can't be among the best? Why would you spend so much time and energy on something just so you can be mediocre and average?
Because you want to? It brings you enjoyment? Happiness? Self-actualization?
Tbh I know actual retards (less than 85 IQ) who have brought happiness to a lot of people and done more with their lives than most fully functioning people do.

If you don't care about "value" in the eyes of your peers then why does it matter if you're among the best. We need average people as well if we want humanity to progress, Einstein had a high school math teacher too

>tried to read Pale Fire today because it influenced the newest Blade Runner movie
>brain is too stupid to understand or enjoy it

Attached: 80c.png (200x226, 18K)

>By whom
My own standards, but it's not like I'm the only one to have those views either. By society and humanity at large, as well, because what you're able to bring to the table factors in to how valuable you are, and being capable of innovating on such a high level is the most important contribution you could make.
Now you're going to talk about mother Teresa or some other altruist and tell me that they brought value to the world while not being a genius, which is true, but their contribution was not empirical in nature i.e. didn't involve expanding on our current base of knowledge
>everyone has potential
And some people's potential is garbage.
People can change but it's likely that someone who's been a lazy worthless NEET for twenty years isn't changing the world anytime soon. If you're too much of a dumb, impulse-driven shit to do something valuable with your time despite first-world opportunities, there's no hope left
>Because you want to? It brings you enjoyment? Happiness? Self-actualization?
I don't like spending time on something that yields no substantial reward. Being told I'm "pretty good but not the best" is not rewarding. It's discouraging and insulting, and it's a waste of my and everyone else's time. I'm definitely being conceited but if my contributions are not going to be top-notch then I don't want to make any.
>why does it matter if you're among the best
Because that's my own definition of personal value.
>We need average people
Yeah well fuck that, I'd rather have someone else than me be average. I can't be satisfied by being a mediocre nobody.

>yeah well fuck that, I'd rather have someone else than me be average. I can't be satisfied by being a mediocre nobody
Well, user, too bad, most people are like that. Either learn to accept it or kys

Attached: bd0a1f16f001a187ff24d025ee237fab.jpg (1080x1080, 95K)

>learn to accept it
How?

No idea, that's why I added the second option too

i have this constant feeling when i watch prison break, i want to be like michael scotfield but im a brainlet, its fucking depressing sometimes

Attached: 415-goingunder-wall1.jpg (653x435, 93K)

No, cos I'm doing a stem degree and intend to do a phd

Yeah I can relate, Schofield's schemes are so satisfying and not even that unrealistic.

this desu i only come here (with my gf) to laugh at you NEET losers

What field are you into?

I have an IQ of 132 give or take but I always have trouble being the "smart" person. I learn very quickly and all but I'm not that good at strategy/planning/creative shit etc. I've never seen the show is talking about but from the way they describe him, the schemes and whatever, I want to be like that. I want to be the person that can get people out of tight spots and situations, or the person that always has a plan.
Is there anyway to train my brain to do this?

in the show they say he has a Low latent inhibition

I'm , sorry I left the conversation but something came up. I think I understand your point of view a lot better especially with
>I'm definitely being conceited but if my contributions are not going to be top-notch then I don't want to make any.
I think it's good that you have such strong personal convictions, but I would say try not to judge others too harshly against that because many people probably don't have the kind of unique drive you do based on whatever factors in their upbringing.
As a psychologist I do agree with the importance of empiricism but I do also find a lot of value in things like the life of mother Teresa (to use your example) and flawed theories like Gardner's that open the door to further thought, discussion, and progress.

But like I said I enjoy conversations like this so thanks for engaging with me on it.

>I learn very quickly and all but I'm not that good at strategy/planning/creative shit
Same here. People seem to think I'm very smart simply because I have a good memory and can recall facts and make connections relatively easily, but I'm absolutely shit at anything that requires planning and long term anticipation (chess for example)
I don't think there's any way to become like this, though.
Honestly LLI seems like a blessing.

>try not to judge others
I don't, I only judge myself when it comes to this subject.
>unique drive
If I had a unique drive I wouldn't be a 21 year old NEET with no degree. It's just that my standards are too high considering my position.
>a lot of value
There's value in what she did on a social/interpersonal level, but it didn't really bring anything more to humanity or improve our understanding of the world. That's not to say her actions were worthless.
>flawed theories like Gardner's that open the door to further thought, discussion, and progress.
Sure but in that case Gardner's ideas are only valuable insofar as they're called out for being inaccurate and used as an example of what not to do. Anything that furthers discussion and research is good but I assumed you thought Gardner was actually right.

if you are smart then you can simply create an intellectual elite

to bad you are a low iq. probably 105 or some shit

Attached: e61.png (680x788, 117K)

Does IQ change with time? I was tested extremely high as a kid but since I'm a retard I think it went down over the years.

i think so, my iq was 96 when i was at primary school now i think its more like 110 but i was always very lazy and never learned

Yea that's how it is. I'm garbage at chess even against people who aren't nearly as smart as me. I think it may be because of undiagnosed ADD or something, as I share a lot of symptoms with that and find that focusing in general is really difficult for me.

>learn very quickly and all but I'm not that good at strategy/planning/creative shit etc
i'm kinda the opposite
i learn shit slowly, mostly due to my disinterest in things (if i'm interested in something i learn much quicker) however i always seem to have an idea or way to get out of problematic situations, plans to make things faster/simpler or just random creative stuff like stories or concepts which people often complemented me on or called me a "moron" for how all over the place the ideas were
i don't really care about iq tests, since i always get rather high scores but i still feel like a complete moron most of the time, however whichever iq you have, as whomever it was who said it said:
>intelligence without ambition is like a bird without wings

no because iq is a joke

>t. low IQ
protip: internet tests are not valid, actual tests are
inb4 "actually I have a high IQ but it is not valid in my irrelevant opinion because bla bla bla"

>Anything that furthers discussion and research is good but I assumed you thought Gardner was actually right.
I think any model of human thought that defines concrete categories is flawed and the result of our brain's need to sort and file every piece of information we process. I do like his theory as a way to talk to others about their ability to make valid contributions to society (not necessarily all of humanity) even if they lack in intellect or academic performance, or even as a way to encourage them to continue improving their intellect. But I'm colored in my views as an educator, hence my bias in this conversation; I do believe every life has potential value at any given time because we are all essentially biological engines designed to do SOMETHING with our energy. And I see it as wasteful when people don't do something (or anything), hence why I push the angle I do in conversation. I feel that until someone is dead, they can still change and do something even if past performance predicts a grim or improbably outlook for success. Failure is the bedrock for success and all that.

>tfw consistently lose against my teenage sister at chess because she's focused and sharp and I just give up whenever I have to use a little bit of brainpower on something that isn't anime
end me

>mfw the only way to stay interested in a chess game is if i'm pretending to be Lelouch

I agree, so you're admitting that the theory's value in your eyes lies in the way it can motivate people but not in its actual validity ("making dumb people feel better" as it was said above)
>improving their intellect
Is there such a thing? Or did you mean knowledge?
>until someone is dead, they can still change and do something
Yeah but that thing won't necessarily be impressive or even noteworthy at all.
You're arguing with absolutes, of course every living being has a biological purpose to fulfill and everyone is theoretically capable of achieving SOMETHING, even if it's making someone's day better by flipping a burger, but I'm sure you'd agree that achievements on such a pathetic level are hard to look forward to when you realize that while you're pursuing that insignificant goal, some Caltech guy is discovering a new field of math.
>ADD
Is it ADD when you find it really had to spend more than a few minutes on a given task, then switch to leisure time, then switch back, etc?
Even when I write reply posts on Jow Forums it takes me a lot of time because I constantly switch back and forth between that and listening to music or some other shit. It's actually the reason why I failed in school too, any little task seemed tedious.

ask me a question and determine my iq based on the answer

Simply based on that post I'd wager it's fairly low
Get tested by an actual psychiatrist, IQ isn't an arbitrary number you can approximate based on how funny your shitposts are

>in the way it can motivate people but not in its actual validity "making dumb people feel better"
I'll concede this, I think we just view people differently in this aspect (if dumb is defined by IQ score). I guess our debate is probably more about what we consider dumb than anything, I know some very intelligent people that I consider dumb because of the way they act or the decisions they make.
>but I'm sure you'd agree that achievements on such a pathetic level are hard to look forward to when you realize that while you're pursuing that insignificant goal, some Caltech guy is discovering a new field of math.
I'd counter that you're dealing in absolutes more than me, as achievement is relative and defined by each individual. I was a math minor in college, so I had to take 33 credits of it including all the proof writing and theoretical jazz stopping just before abstract algebra. So I'm sure I know more about mathematics than the majority of humanity at this point (sadly, since I know hardly anything). That being said I think someone at Caltech discovering a new field of mathematics would be cool. I'd read about it, say 'neat', maybe read more about it if it seemed interesting - but it would not affect me and my goals or how I feel about my own achievements whatsoever.
The feeling I get one of my students freaks out about passing their math test starts jumping around the classroom - I wouldn't trade that for anything. The guy from Caltech? That experience might not generate the slightest twinge of emotion in him. So I'm struggling with the question "how we can objectively define achievement"? How many textbooks are published about it? How much profit is generated as a result of it?
What do you think?

Also, sorry if this was disjointed or hard to read. I kept revising the last bit because I could not think of a way to define achievement for human civilization in specific, measurable terms.

How many sides does a tri-sected square have?

that's not even a question user

>tv producers/directors/writers are intelligent

>How many sides does a tri-sected square have?
four

four?
but only because a square has four sides so i'm taking this as a "trick question" where the only important variable is "square"
otherwise i didn't even know what "trisected square" was until now, figured by the name it's something to do with dividing it into 3 parts but didn't realize it was a problem that dates so long back

Look up the symptoms. That could be part of it.

You got it. Distractors could be 6 (counting the trisecting lines as sides), 9 (separating the pieces after trisecting it), or 3 (focusing on the triangles rather than the square).

>if dumb is defined by IQ score
Not entirely but if your IQ is low there's a fair chance you're not intelligent, outliers exist, I think Feynman's one
>I know some very intelligent people that I consider dumb
Huh?
Making dumb choices or decisions doesn't mean you as an individual necessarily are stupid, choices are circumstantial and some intelligent people fuck up their lives. Again, a guy with an IQ two SDs above the norm is still intelligent in my book even if he's an obnoxious cunt, smokes crack, whatever
>achievement is relative
Everything is relative, in this context who would argue that a burger flipper's achievements could ever be as significant as a research scientist's? You might be able to find a warped standard that you could use as an exception but the point still stands.
>I'd read about it, say 'neat', maybe read more about it if it seemed interesting - but it would not affect me and my goals or how I feel about my own achievements
Good for you (honestly), but I don't get it.
Is it that your standards for personal achievement are low, or that you don't care enough about what breakthroughs in knowledge represent to feel insecure about not contributing to them...? No matter how I spin it I really can't understand how someone wouldn't feel at least somewhat bitter when reading about another person being vastly intellectually superior to them.
I guess we have to chalk it up to something banal and convenient such as having strongly differing worldviews that our respective values can't reconcile
>The feeling I get one of my students freaks out about passing their math test
That in itself is a testament to your competence as a teacher so it does go back to what I was saying though.
>That experience might not generate the slightest twinge of emotion in him
But he'll still have done it. If a guy solves a millenium prize problem, it doesn't matter if he doesn't give a shit about it, he still did it.

Cont.

Cont.

And that alone makes him one in a billion in regards to his capacity to contribute to the advancement of humanity's base of knowledge.
>how we can objectively define achievement
All in all I think the word achievement is not as appropriate as the word competence, given as my obsession with intelligence is more about personal skill than its demonstration. I have a lot of respect for people who are at the top of their field, and that usually comes with its fair share of achievements anyway.
Before you tell me that someone can be the most competent in the world at cleaning toilets, the required effort is a big factor in my eyes, meaning that areas that require just a few years of training to become top-tier at are obviously less important than those that require the utmost dedication, like math or physics.
>How many textbooks are published about it? How much profit is generated as a result of it?
So I guess those are the consequences of that competence I mentioned above, but it pretty much comes down to the same thing anyway. Tell me if I'm rambling, I'm not sure if I made this any clearer.
>I could not think of a way to define achievement for human civilization in specific, measurable terms.
As far as human civilization is concerned that's fairly easy, though the terms might not be that specific. I guess you'd have to look at a given field, and measure how a person's contributions to it have impacted the field in the broadest sense.

Isn't that a bit dumb? A square having four sides is part of its definition, if it doesn't have four sides then it's not a square, by default.

Shit I fit a lot of, if not all, the inattention symptoms (not many of the physical hyperactivity ones though).
I'm pretty sure I have several disorders, I should get a psych diagnosis but I can't bring myself to do it.

>Is it that your standards for personal achievement are low
I have a mixed answer. I strive to be the best at everything I do, whether it's teaching or singing or playing sports, but I also localize it. I know that before I can be the best teacher in the world, I have to be the best teacher in my department, then the school, then the county, then the state, then the region,then the country, THEN the world. But right now I'm focused on what is right in front of me - my department. In other aspects of my life, you could say I'm low achieving. I had a 1470 on my SAT but chose to go to a state college, then left that school and got an AA and a BA, but took 5 years to do it.
So with things I care about (like teaching) or things that give me intrinsic enjoyment (like sports), I am high achieving. With things that are a means to an end (college), I am low achieving. When someone else at my school wins teacher of the year, I'm a little bitter (but also understanding since I've only been doing it 2 years), but when another scientist or mathematician comes out with some breakthrough and I read about it and feel admiration, if anything. So I say all that to reply
>I guess we have to chalk it up to something banal and convenient such as having strongly differing worldviews that our respective values can't reconcile
Yes, ultimately it comes down to this, but I definitely enjoy hearing a viewpoint very different from mine.
>humanity's base of knowledge
>All in all I think the word achievement is not as appropriate as the word competence...
Ok, I think I was misconstruing your focus as achievement rather than this
>Tell me if I'm rambling, I'm not sure if I made this any clearer.
No, I'm getting a better picture.
>As far as human civilization is concerned that's fairly easy, though the terms might not be that specific. I guess you'd have to look at a given field, and measure how a person's contributions to it have impacted the field in the broadest sense.

Continued...
>As far as human civilization is concerned that's fairly easy, though the terms might not be that specific. I guess you'd have to look at a given field, and measure how a person's contributions to it have impacted the field in the broadest sense.
I guess this is the rub for me, because without specific terms it's still hard for me to understand exactly what your parameters are. Could you give me examples of individuals who are at the top of the world due to their endeavors?

>Isn't that a bit dumb? A square having four sides is part of its definition, if it doesn't have four sides then it's not a square, by default.
Yes but user's post was kinda dumb so I went that route haha

feynman still had an iq of 125, which is like 2 standard deviations above average, but still below most geniuses

I think I understand. So you don't really concern yourself with your natural limits and just do your best regardless? I wish I could have that outlook, most people say they think like that but it seems like it takes a huge amount of constant positiveness.
>With things that are a means to an end (college), I am low achieving
You're basically saying that you only try hard when it's about stuff you truly care about, which is respectable anyway. A strong and narrow focus is always preferable to a weak and broad one imo
>when another scientist or mathematician comes out with some breakthrough and I read about it and feel admiration, if anything
Right, that's the part where I lose track of your thought process but it's fine. Viewpoints etc
>I was misconstruing your focus as achievement rather than this
Achievement is a consequence of competence anyway, it's pretty rare to see an extraordinarily talented person have zero achievements in their field of expertise, usually they'd have a few impressive feats simply by virtue of being passionate or dedicated and working on personal projects and such.
>Could you give me examples of individuals who are at the top of the world due to their endeavors?
Terence Tao is one of the best examples for math. When you think of mathematics as a field of study, and ask yourself "who is at the forefront of that field today", his name is among the first ones to come to mind. He's a spearhead of sorts, since even in a community entirely comprised of incredibly talented people (math PhDs) he's still among the best.
There are similar examples for every other STEM-related field, but you get the general idea.

I think he means people who get closeto creating new ways to do things on a given field or redefine the already existing ones. E.g if I am right would be Elon Musk and any PhD on a STEM field.

Yeah that's pretty much it
I guess the starting point where someone starts belonging to the top tier in my eyes is when they've made an unique contribution to their field, so that would indeed be a PhD

get a non-stem phd op

>How many sides does a tri-sected square have?
user how bad is it that i couldn't even imagine this as more than a bundle of words thrown together rather than a geometric figure

yes, there are many types of intelligence
no, lyrical, physical, empathetic and emotive are not one of them

It's not the same. "STEM" in this context is pretty much a placeholder for "any field that's not complete bullshit and backed by the study of actual empirical data"
I'm also so lazy I dropped out of freshman year, so the odds of getting a PhD aren't looking too good right now

mfw in STEM (chem). I want off this ride. I'm too dumb for this shit but I'm about to graduate with the absolute bare minimum shit marks. I should've done something actually interesting and fun, something I could've understood while learning. I just wonder how I'll luck or cheat my way through to get a job then get fired for incompetence or sued to hell after I fuck up.

You don't have to know what trisected means I didn't either to know that a square has four sides, m8

What's stopping you from trying to do something cool?
I'm going for my phd, we'll see if I'm smart enough.
Start walking, you'll hit the wall when you hit it, but don't stop walking till you hit it

Attached: carl-jung-you-are-what-you-do-1.jpg (1200x630, 60K)

You're actually graduating with a chem degree, which is something even if you're not good at it.
Get a cushy job as a lab technician or something.

I already wasted four years trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my life and hopping between various things, eventually settling on NEETdom
At this point if I do get back in college, which is hard in my country if you dropped out, I'll be years behind my peers and I'll probably fail anyway

You can put electrical currents through your head to get smarter

I graduated back in 2016, and I'm starting my first year next month, it's never too late man.
>It's hard in my country
but not impossible. Anything remarkable is going to be hard, but if you have a reason to go through it (a dream) then you will make it through it.
>"Those who have a 'why' can bear almost any 'how'" -Nietzsche

Attached: Big Freddie.jpg (285x177, 6K)

Who's the bigger Mastermind? George Soros or Mark Zuckerberg?

>I think I understand. So you don't really concern yourself with your natural limits and just do your best regardless?
Right. So for example, I play Ultimate Frisbee once a week. It's not much of a sport, but I've been playing it for 7 years now. The first couple years I played I was consistently picked last, but now I'm consistently first or second pick. However I know if I joined a professional league I'd get wrecked. But that doesn't scare me away from being the best in my present circumstance.
>it seems like it takes a huge amount of constant positiveness.
I would say initially, yes. But after a while you just shift to that mindset more than the negative one. I had a mindset closer to yours when I was 18 - I attempted suicide because I felt I would never be good enough for someone I was attracted to. After a few years of counseling and a lot of hard work I'm where I am now, mentally. I still have a severe inferiority complex and downplay all of my achievements, despite trying my hardest to be the best.
>Right, that's the part where I lose track of your thought process but it's fine. Viewpoints etc
I suppose where you look at it as "look at his prestige; I'll never be that good," I look at it more as "look at his prestige; I want it so I better start working on it." I may not reach that level at the same age they did, but I'll get there.
>Terence Tao is one of the best examples for math.
Is there something you identify specifically with him, or is it his general fame and prestige? I'm reading through his bio and while he has a lot of awards and publications I don't envy him at all because I can't see where his work would have a real impact in the world. At that level everything is so far into the realm of abstraction and theory that, to an applied mathematician, it is more math for the sake of math than anything of use. Like, almost self-fellating. I definitely respect his intellect, however.

eh, it's hard to imagine geometry for some people. It's much easier to draw it out.

Attached: squares.png (1152x648, 19K)

You have no idea how much i can relate
I have noticed that my memory (both long and short term), attention span, and even talking skills are plummeting as time moves and i don't know why, i'm getting much slower too.
add that with my lack of willpower and extreme laziness, i can't get anything done, EVER.

TLDR i'm getting slower, dumber and more subhuman by the day and it's the most horrible feel someone could ever imagine.

SOLUTIONS?

>I already wasted four years
>I'll be years behind my peers

Listen man, one thing you learn as you get older is that it doesn't matter at what age or how fast you did something. It's whether you did it or not.

Yeah, I don't want to repeat the "no time like the present" platitude, but think about it:
If you don't start now, then you will ALWAYS be behind your peers.

>one thing you learn as you get older is that it doesn't matter at what age or how fast you did something.
that's not how employers seem to think, when i was still trying to be normal the first thing all of them asked after i sent my curriculum was "oh but how old are you you omitted this information hehe"

This happens to most people after they leave the daily grind of compulsory schooling.
>SOLUTIONS?
1. Find something you are moderately to extremely interested in
2. If it's on a platform like Khan Academy or somewhere else that offers free courses, just start working through it
2a. Otherwise, go to fucking youtube and wikipedia and start learning more about it.
3. Agree on a schedule with your mum or dad or some such person to talk on the phone at a certain time once a day. During the conversation, focus entirely on your speech. Enunciate, speak forward, speak without saying uh or um, etc.
4. Also try something like lumosity or a riddle/puzzle website to get your noggin joggin

Even doing one of these is better than nothing.

OP, I related to you so much so many times through this thread I wish I could just project myself into ur room so we could talk. I was a neet for 3 years and now am a statistics freshman that will likely drop out after having already dropped out from another degree. I think the 1 "insight" I learned in this time is:
- If you decide beforehand an activity has no meaning to you, you can do it just as a way to expose yourself to ideas you would only have while doing something different while not feeling anxious over the possibility that you're wasting time with something that has no meaning and you have no talent for.
Point being that intenttionaly paying attention to something pointless might reward you with a way to something meaninful.
Sry for bad english and a sincere pixel hug.

A 30 year old college graduate looks better than a 30 year old non-grad. It's "this person worked on a degree for 4 years" vs. "this person has been doing nothing substantial for 4 years"

What are you studying?
I suppose you're right, it just feels kind of pointless to start since I've never been that talented in the first place. Barely graduated high school, which is pretty pathetic even though I wasn't trying.
Yeah but do you give a shit about frisbee? It's fun but is it "your thing"? Obviously you'd have to be a nutcase to be obsessed with achieving world-class success at absolutely everything you do.
>I attempted suicide because I felt I would never be good enough
How did you manage to go so far and change so drastically? I mean counseling can only get you so far.
>"look at his prestige; I want it so I better start working on it."
I understand, but that's not always possible. Some people will always be vastly superior and that's the frustrating part. You may not be able to reach that level ever because it's just not something you're capable of doing.
>Is there something you identify specifically with him
Well with him specifically it's pretty obvious, the guy was taking college math at age 9 and iirc he became a tenured professor at UCLA at an age when most people are still working on their master's degree. He's just a genius in the most straightforward and undeniable sense of the term.
>I don't envy him at all because I can't see where his work would have a real impact
I don't know enough about math to tell you if Tao's work could ever see real-world applications but you're probably right. But pure math is still an important area of knowledge and making such important contributions to it is pretty amazing.
>almost self-fellating
It's math, not post-modern philosophy, user
But if it's the abstractness that bothers you, I'd say the exact same things about someone like James Simons
I'd say that depends on what you're doing and how far you want to go

I didn't really try in high school either, which is why I'd like to make up for lost time, and try twice as hard at uni.
>If you do summer school, you can get your degree much faster, which would catch you up to your peers
I'm studying Clinical Psychology. What would you study?

Attached: freudcouch.jpg (647x431, 129K)

Glad to hear someone shares my view on things. What made you choose statistics? Are you naturally good at math or was it just a whim
>intenttionaly paying attention to something pointless might reward you with a way to something meaninful.
True, but isn't it a tremendous waste of time?
Maybe that's too idealistic but it seems that most people default to a certain area of study, get their bachelor's then go on to work a job they don't really like but that pays the bills, just because they didn't figure out what they actually liked and so they'll be eternally mediocre.
I dropped everything I ever tried partly because nothing resonated with me on a deeper level (and of course because I'm dumb and lazy, too).
Unfortunately there's a point where you have to choose something even if it's suboptimal

I don't think there's such a thing as summer school here. Despite all its flaws, you burgers have a pretty flexible higher education system
>Clinical Psychology
Any reason why you chose that over psychiatry?
>What would you study
Right now I'm thinking either CS or EE/CE but I'm not very good at math so I'm not sure.

>Psychology over Psychiatry
Although it makes more money, I'm not interested in prescribing medication (Although medication is necessary for some). Clinical psychology requires me to heal the human soul, while psychiatry heals the biological body.
>CS or EE/CE
Could you translate this to Burgerese?

Computer science or electrical engineering/computer engineering.
>Clinical psychology requires me to heal the human soul, while psychiatry heals the biological body.
I see. I was under the impression that psychiatrists pretty much did both and could establish a psychological therapy practice if they wanted to, maybe I'm wrong.