Teempakguy:
wow . . . what does "high-end genius" mean?
i'm assuming that this means your IQ is somewhat High.

fine.

but in actuality, the statistics aren't on your side. throughout history, the smartest people have being physicists and mathematicians.

one thing i don't understand though. how do you do it? how do you manage to limit yourself to one specialized course? i'm a low end genius and i find it extremely hard to stay on one subject. hence i try to study the ones that encompass a wide range of subjects. like physics. mechanical engineers are limited to things that move and things that are on earth. what about the sun, the moon, celestial objects? what about strings, what about electrons, what about programs, graphics, how do you shut your mind to all that?

and also. in another of your posts, you implied that money is an important factor in determining intelligence. why and how on earth would an high-end genius think like that? i almost can't fathom it.

mechanical engineer signing in here.
I have to say, how you included programming and graphics under physics totally beats my imagination. I do both of these things, not because i'm an engineer, but because i was enthralled by those fields. I used to have a wider variety of topics that captured my interest like genome sequencing, cloning, and some more crazy, other-worldly stuff. But at a time, i realised that i'd have to major in only a few of them, so i picked engineering as my main study, then graphics and programming as hobbies.
My point is- the fact that you are interested in a large range of topics doesn't make you smarter nor does it make an engineer less capable of taking on physics. My study of mechanical engineering was born out of my love for tinkering and my fascination with cogs and wheels. Nothing there about smartness.
And again, about the part of your write up i put in bold, timonski never said anything of that sort. What he meant by that post was that, despite the 'obvious' smartness of a physicist, engineers are paid more(citing Nigeria as the case study used). Note: the word obvious is in quotes :p
so it's either you're trying to make the dude feel bad for claiming genius OR it's just a plain misunderstanding
Cc: dekatron darkhorizon and every other physicist who feels the need to mess with engineers :p

Incorrect:
mechanical engineer signing in here.
I have to say, how you included programs and graphics under physics totally beats my imagination. I do both of these things, not because i'm an engineer, but because i was enthralled by those fields. I used to have a wider variety of topics that captured my interest like genome sequencing, cloning, and crazy other-worldly stuff. But at a time, i realised that i'd have to major in only a few of them, so i picked engineering as my main study, then graphics and programming as hobbies.
My point is- the fact that you are interested in a large range of topics doesn't make you smarter nor does it make an engineer less capable of taking on physics. My study of mechanical engineering was born out of my love for tinkering and my fascination with cogs and wheels. Nothing there about smartness.
Cc: dekatron darkhorizon and every other physicist who feels the need to mess with engineers :p

hey!

i didn't include the bolded in physics oh! i was just asking him how as a high-end genius, he can shut out amazing stuff like that.

now, as you said, your love for engineering was born out of your love for tinkering and your fascination with cogs and wheels. THAT isn't intelligence. that's INTEREST. there is a guy over on youtube. he goes by the name collin furlize. he isn't an engineer, but his projects beat that of any engineer. pakingzzz is a mathematics student. look at what he does.

in the end, my conclusion that physicists are smarter is not from a personal opinion, but rather from statistcal analysis.

more interesting though, philosophers are often smarter than physicists.

and hey! why'd you have to call dekatron nah.

Incorrect:
mechanical engineer signing in here.
I have to say, how you included programming and graphics under physics totally beats my imagination. I do both of these things, not because i'm an engineer, but because i was enthralled by those fields. I used to have a wider variety of topics that captured my interest like genome sequencing, cloning, and some more crazy, other-worldly stuff. But at a time, i realised that i'd have to major in only a few of them, so i picked engineering as my main study, then graphics and programming as hobbies.
My point is- the fact that you are interested in a large range of topics doesn't make you smarter nor does it make an engineer less capable of taking on physics. My study of mechanical engineering was born out of my love for tinkering and my fascination with cogs and wheels. Nothing there about smartness.
And again, about the part of your write up i put in bold, timonski never said anything of that sort. What he meant by that post was that, despite the 'obvious' smartness of a physicist, engineers are paid more(citing Nigeria as the case study used). Note: the word obvious is in quotes :p
so it's either you're trying to make the dude feel bad for claiming genius OR it's just a plain misunderstanding
Cc: dekatron darkhorizon and every other physicist who feels the need to mess with engineers :p

okay, the thing is, we're not arguing here about one field being better than the other. the op simply asked which course had the smartest s participants. and to be unbiased, we all know physics wins. we can't keep arguing this. more smarter people are in physics than are in engineering. this doesn't make the course any better.

okay fine, if it makes you feel any better,

1. engineers are on average more hardworking.
2. engineers commit more to their academics on average.
3. engineers are practical people.
4. of course, more job opportunities.

i was actually happy when i saw timonski claim he was a genius. but then Got disappointed when he said that stuff about money. i initially wanted to fight him. but then thought otherwise.

hehehehehe. i'm feeling very uneasy by this thread eh.
i really don't like pitting people against each other. BUT!

let's end this once and for all.

below is the link to a chart of modern iq ranges for various professions. and i've highlighted a screenshot of what's actually going on. the numbers on the bottom of the chart and above it are IQ figures. as you can see, the average iq for physicists and mathematicians is genius. while the average iq for engineers and engineering related courses is . . . well . . . average.

www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx

Teempakguy:
hey!

i didn't include the bolded in physics oh! i was just asking him how as a high-end genius, he can shut out amazing stuff like that.

now, as you said, your love for engineering was born out of your love for tinkering and your fascination with cogs and wheels. THAT isn't intelligence. that's INTEREST. there is a guy over on youtube. he goes by the name collin furlize. he isn't an engineer, but his projects beat that of any engineer. pakingzzz is a mathematics student. look at what he does.

in the end, my conclusion that physicists are smarter is not from a personal opinion, but rather from statistcal analysis.

more interesting though, philosophers are often smarter than physicists.

and hey! why'd you have to call dekatron nah.

you seem to forget that it takes a certain level of smartness to follow up on your interests. I had a childhood friend who was also interested in robotics, guess what, he's studying law. I was interested in coding, computers and graphics. I taught myself almost everything i know about coding starting from Qbasic to html, though i had a little help from my elder brother who is a bad ass coder. Did i forget to mention that most of his coursemates couldn't write one line of code even if their lives depended on it??. If i had decided to go with computer science as my main course and have engineering as a hobby, i bet you'd still say it has nothing to do with being smart.so also, pakingzzz could have chosen engineering as a course and had mathemnatics as a hobby. Doesn't matter which way you twist it. Even as a mechanical engineer, i dabble into electronics engineering a whole lot with the end product being a house full of used electrical components, stepper motors and arduino micro controllers.
garfield once said, you dont have to know everything to be smart- just enough of everything to sound smart.
But my main points are still summarised in the first two lines of this post.

Incorrect:
you seem to forget that it takes a certain level of smartness to follow up on your interests. I had a childhood friend who was also interested in robotics, guess what, he's studying law. I was interested in coding, computers and graphics. I taught myself almost everything i know about coding starting from Qbasic to html, though i had a little help from my elder brother who is a bad ass coder. Did i forget to mention that most of his coursemates couldn't write one line of code even if their lives depended on it??. If i had decided to go with computer science as my main course and have engineering as a hobby, i bet you'd still say it has nothing to do with being smart.so also, pakingzzz could have chosen engineering as a course and had mathemnatics as a hobby. Doesn't matter which way you twist it. Even as a mechanical engineer, i dabble into electronics engineering a whole lot with the end product being a house full of used electrical components, stepper motors and arduino micro controllers.
garfield once said, you dont have to know everything to be smart- just enough of everything to sound smart.
But my main points are still summarised in the first two lines of this post.

good points here.

i understand your need to defend your course, but alas, statistics speak for themselves.

Teempakguy:
hehehehehe. i'm feeling very uneasy by this thread eh.
i really don't like pitting people against each other. BUT!

let's end this once and for all.

below is the link to a chart of modern iq ranges for various professions. and i've highlighted a screenshot of what's actually going on. the numbers on the bottom of the chart and above it are IQ figures. as you can see, the average iq for physicists and mathematicians is genius. while the average iq for engineers and engineering related courses is . . . well . . . average.

www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx

get a broomstick bro, then measure the length of the bars for both engineering and physics, you'll see that they're of about the same length. The only difference being in their positions which is due to some other factors which they considered, not only IQ, as you can see that the chart is divided by some vertical lines.
.
.
.
.
.
And lastly, get me something that applies to nigerians. You can't compare the average nigerian physicist/engineer with a physicist/engineer in UNIVERSITY OF WINSCONSIN-MADISON, WINSCONSIN

Teempakguy:

okay, the thing is, we're not arguing here about one field being better than the other. the op simply asked which course had the smartest s participants. and to be unbiased, we all know physics wins. we can't keep arguing this. more smarter people are in physics than are in engineering. this doesn't make the course any better.

okay fine, if it makes you feel any better,

1. engineers are on average more hardworking.
2. engineers commit more to their academics on average.
3. engineers are practical people.
4. of course, more job opportunities.

i was actually happy when i saw timonski claim he was a genius. but then Got disappointed when he said that stuff about money. i initially wanted to fight him. but then thought otherwise.

you know this arguement is not based on which course is better, yet you provided a chart that puts many other things(like meritocracy, cognitive ability and sources of occupational success) besides IQ into consideration??

Incorrect:
get a broomstick bro, then measure the length of the bars for both engineering and physics, you'll see that they're of about the same length. The only difference being in their positions which is due to some other factors which they considered, not only IQ, as you can see that the chart is divided by some vertical lines.
.
.
.
.
.
And lastly, get me something that applies to nigerians. You can't compare the average nigerian physicist/engineer with a physicist/engineer in UNIVERSITY OF WINSCONSIN-MADISON, WINSCONSIN

dude . . . why are you being biased about this nah.
it's not about the length of the sticks. or bars. it's about where they start and end. and of course, the percentiles. the lines you said divided them.
also, we're comparing the courses. not the courses in nigeria. it's a general thing.

Incorrect:
you know this arguement is not based on which course is better, yet you provided a chart that puts many other things(like meritocracy, cognitive ability and sources of occupational success) besides IQ into consideration??

i ignored those aspects. i only focused on the IQ aspect which was required by the op. if you actually study it, engineering is actually more successful commercially than physics. you'd have to know exactly what you're doing to be a physics student because it has next to no commercial value.

Teempakguy:
dude . . . why are you being biased about this nah.
it's not about the length of the sticks. or bars. it's about where they start and end. and of course, the percentiles. the lines you said divided them.
also, we're comparing the courses. not the courses in nigeria. it's a general thing. i ignored those aspects. i only focused on the IQ aspect which was required by the op. if you actually study it, engineering is actually more successful commercially than physics. you'd have to know exactly what you're doing to be a physics student because it has next to no commercial value.

haha, i'm not being biased , far from it. Just that i find the issue of IQ to be subjective and also depends on the induviduals and geographic area. For example, You can't compare mech engine in india with mech engine in nigeria. For one, the iq and calibre of people who opt to study it in both countries can't be the same. Even though physics, along with engineering and medicine are still at the top of the list when it comes to iq tasking courses. There's no evidence to prove in it's entirety that physics is more iq tasking than the other two.so in this case, everybody bases his/her arguement on facts and figures available to him/her. I hope you understand my viewpoint.

Incorrect:
haha, i'm not being biased , far from it. Just that i find the issue of IQ to be subjective and also depends on the induviduals and geographic area. For example, You can't compare mech engine in india with mech engine in nigeria. For one, the iq and calibre of people who opt to study it in both countries can't be the same. Even though physics, along with engineering and medicine are still at the top of the list when it comes to iq tasking courses. There's no evidence to prove in it's entirety that physics is more iq tasking than the other two.so in this case, everybody bases his/her arguement on facts and figures available to him/her. I hope you understand my viewpoint.

exactly.

1. the very idea of intelligence is undeterminable. we cannot actually determine someone's true intelligence.

2. physics isn't IQ tasking. it doesn't "require" more IQ to be successful in it. the thing however, with physics is that the very concept of it promotes thinking. like timonski himself said, physics requires abstract thinking. engineering doesn't, really. physics is the home of unsolved problems, discarded theories, and thought experiments proven wrong. this is the testament to the very nature of physics. thought. some of the topics that require thinking in engineering are in fact physics problems.

3. I understand your viewpoint. nevertheless, i want you to understand mine. physics is the home of people with curiosity for the universe's secrets. engineers make things. physicists think things. and it's readily apparent what field attracts more intelligent people. most physicists intend to become professors in the long run. such is not the case for engineers. they are more usually thinking of making money. the fact that you are intelligent, doesn't mean that your course is the home to intelligent people.

4. physicists on average are more intelligent than engineers on average. however, in every case, there are exceptions to the rule.

Teempakguy:
exactly.

1. the very idea of intelligence is undeterminable. we cannot actually determine someone's true intelligence.

2. physics isn't IQ tasking. it doesn't "require" more IQ to be successful in it. the thing however, with physics is that the very concept of it promotes thinking. like timonski himself said, physics requires abstract thinking. engineering doesn't, really. physics is the home of unsolved problems, discarded theories, and thought experiments proven wrong. this is the testament to the very nature of physics. thought. some of the topics that require thinking in engineering are in fact physics problems.

3. I understand your viewpoint. nevertheless, i want you to understand mine. physics is the home of people with curiosity for the universe's secrets. engineers make things. physicists think things. and it's readily apparent what field attracts more intelligent people. most physicists intend to become professors in the long run. such is not the case for engineers. they are more usually thinking of making money. the fact that you are intelligent, doesn't mean that your course is the home to intelligent people.

4. physicists on average are more intelligent than engineers on average. however, in every case, there are exceptions to the rule.

your second point- by agreeing that physics is not iq tasking, you also agree to the fact that it doesn't need smarter people to learn it(you just need to be motivated and own a brain), right??
To your 3rd point- LOL @ physics attracting professors and engineering attracting money-minded people. Personally, i think the reason why there are more professors in the field of physics is their inability to practice. So they just strive for the highest academic level and end up as professors. Once in a while, a bright chap amongst them wins an award for some 'life changing' theory.
But as an engineer, why would i be concerned with teaching when i can practise and still be paid good money for doing it?? I think any sane man existing in the Nigerian economy would pick the later.
And on your 4th point- i comment my reserve.

Incorrect:
your second point- by agreeing that physics is not iq tasking, you also agree to the fact that it doesn't need smarter people to learn it(you just need to be motivated and own a brain), right??
To your 3rd point- LOL @ physics attracting professors and engineering attracting money-minded people. Personally, i think the reason why there are more professors in the field of physics is their inability to practice. So they just strive for the highest academic level and end up as professors. Once in a while, a bright chap amongst them wins an award for some 'life changing' theory.
But as an engineer, why would i be concerned with teaching when i can practise and still be paid good money for doing it?? I think any sane man existing in the Nigerian economy would pick the later.
And on your 4th point- i comment my reserve.

no one is ever going to win this argument. is there?

Teempakguy:
wow . . . what does "high-end genius" mean?
i'm assuming that this means your IQ is somewhat High.

fine.

but in actuality, the statistics aren't on your side. throughout history, the smartest people have being physicists and mathematicians.

one thing i don't understand though. how do you do it? how do you manage to limit yourself to one specialized course? i'm a low end genius and i find it extremely hard to stay on one subject. hence i try to study the ones that encompass a wide range of subjects. like physics. mechanical engineers are limited to things that move and things that are on earth. what about the sun, the moon, celestial objects? what about strings, what about electrons, what about programs, graphics, how do you shut your mind to all that?

and also. in another of your posts, you implied that money is an important factor in determining intelligence. why and how on earth would an high-end genius think like that? i almost can't fathom it.

How do I shut myself to those stuffs?
Well, during my primary/secondary school days I gambled and played video games from close of school till late night. The pleasure I derived quenched whatever desire I had for knowledge. And as such I am already used to not being a bookworm.
N/B: philip Emeagwali and kim nyu yong are engineers. Cheers

timonski:

How do I shut myself to those stuffs?
Well, during my primary/secondary school days I gambled and played video games from close of school till late night. The pleasure I derived quenched whatever desire I had for knowledge. And as such I am already used to not being a bookworm.
N/B: philip Emeagwali and kim nyu yong are engineers. Cheers

philip deserves no mention here.
kim nyu yong, i know not.

also, video games are boring to me. my thirst for knowledge is unquenchable.

but that's just my personality. it has nothing to do with my intelligence. i'm an INFP/INTP hybrid.

Teempakguy:
philip deserves no mention here.
kim nyu yong, i know not.

also, video games are boring to me. my thirst for knowledge is unquenchable.

but that's just my personality. it has nothing to do with my intelligence. i'm an INFP/INTP hybrid.

WTF?!! Winning eleven, Pro evolution soccer, fifa, grand theft, god of war, are boring? Of course, they become boring if you are repeatedly bashed :p

timonski:
WTF?!! Winning eleven, Pro evolution soccer, fifa, grand theft, god of war, are boring? Of course, they become boring if you are repeatedly bashed :p

hahahahaha.
nice one!

actually, what really happens is, when i play a game, i repeatedly notice details, things that could be made better, mistakes, defects, and other stuff like that, and i actually focus on how to create my own version of the game without the defects. which eventually prevents me from enjoying the game. my entire family knows. there is no one day we watch a move that i don't criticize every scene.

how can you enjoy games if you're such a damn critic.

Teempakguy:
no one is ever going to win this argument. is there?

haha, me thinks not cap'n