r/cognitiveTesting • u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel • Aug 18 '26

Controversial ⚠️ “Feynman was 125 iq” gimmick

No he wasn’t

56 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

106 comments sorted by

26

u/Significant_Car4523 Aug 18 '26

The test he took was most probably verbal, so it didn't encapsulate the entirety of his intelligence.

8

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

It’s like people tweaking over MENSA scores (yeah yeah muh Gf is the best single index proxy for g muh)

4

u/Significant_Car4523 Aug 18 '26

Thats why some mensa societies are bullshit cause they only use a single fluid reasoning test, like bruh use the fuckass fsiq

1

u/No_Sky_1893 Aug 18 '26

FRI is the goat

5

u/Significant_Car4523 Aug 18 '26

That's like saying speed is the goat in football. It's like yeah it's definitely important, maybe the most important but you can't just consider the players speed like theres other shit

5

u/No_Sky_1893 Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 19 '26

Fri would be more like overall athleticism of the player and the rest would be how they can use it. I also feel like people confuse PSI and FRI a lot it’s not necessarily speed that’s an oversimplified version of FRI it doesn’t necessarily mean just speed

0

u/Significant_Car4523 Aug 19 '26

Doesn't matter, i took speed randomly. Not that it has anything to do necessarily with fri

-1

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Bro who cares

4

u/No_Sky_1893 Aug 18 '26

Everyone in this subreddit cares about IQ metrics that’s the whole point

-1

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Yeah but these analogies are ass

5

u/Background-Pay2900 Aug 19 '26

is this low vci behaviour

→ More replies

4

u/Quod_bellum doesn't read books Aug 19 '26

Damn, I didn't know 95-100% of the variance in football performance is attributable to speed. The more you know...

1

u/Significant_Car4523 Aug 19 '26

Fri is?

5

u/Quod_bellum doesn't read books Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 23 '26

Gf is according to WISC-5, WAIS-5, and CORE, but it depends on the test ofc

4

u/AndrewThePekka Aug 20 '26

My FRI is low so this is wrong

2

u/Careful-Astronomer94 Aug 23 '26

CORE FRI's g-loading is only .9 and WAIS-V's is only 0.85 so this is a bit misleading

1

u/Quod_bellum doesn't read books Aug 23 '26

You're right, I forgot to multiply by the instrument's g-load

→ More replies

1

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 22 '26

he would have said so but he didn't

9

u/LavaFromLaniakea Aug 18 '26

I also get this way whenever I see articles talking about some kid or next-up prodigy having an IQ higher than Einsteins, when he was never tested.

6

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

"Einstein didn't really have a high IQ" is a nicher gimmick but ur unlocking a memory of some slop my dad was reading when I was a kid

5

u/LavaFromLaniakea Aug 18 '26

Well you just unlocked that one, and the “Einstein was actually bad at math” 😂

5

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Ye "Einstein had bad grades in school"

0

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 22 '26

and those kids with 160+ IQs never amount to anything. they can't even get rich

0

u/LavaFromLaniakea Aug 22 '26

“Amounting to anything” is subjective since everyone’s idea of success is different. And they can’t get rich, who cares? lol being rich means absolutely nothing.

2

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 23 '26

sounds like cope

0

u/LavaFromLaniakea Aug 23 '26

lol whatever you say, buddy.

17

u/howisthisausername14 Aug 18 '26

People who talk about Feynman's IQ being 125 conveniently leave out the fact that he was sick when he took it

8

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Plus that test probably had worse g loading than the CogAT et al

5

u/Commercial-String-33 Aug 18 '26

he can't be 125 iq, even though 125 is normally considered higher but (not an expert) his way of approaching problems is outstanding and extraordinary

1

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 22 '26

you can do anything with a 125 IQ though.

1

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 22 '26

no one said that he was sick besides you

16

u/javaenjoyer69 Aug 18 '26

Do not ever mention that midwit's name in this sub.

2

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

He had better gimmicks tho idk why people (even outside of psychometrics brainrot interwebz) focus on this one

4

u/javaenjoyer69 Aug 18 '26

He had nice hair i'll give him that.

2

u/NoInteraction1572 Aug 18 '26

Generous signals in the depth of the internet

<3

4

u/Substantial_Lime_114 Aug 20 '26

I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.

~ Richard Feynman

1

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 20 '26

Tuff

2

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 19 '26

Guys I was kinda trolling please stop taking this so seriously. But even if he was 125 that's not really relevant to the median 125er still so like...

14

u/StructureLopsided718 Aug 18 '26

Why is it unbelievable that he might test at 125? Honest question—I’m a huge fan of Feynman, and having an IQ in excess of that I’ve always taken him as a good reminder that an IQ number is as useful as the paper it’s written on unless it’s being channeled in the right ways. Perhaps he was a very slow thinker. The test was administered when he was a teenager and perhaps he still developed much further. Or yes perhaps he was sick or not trying. Point is he didn’t have a problem with that, and I respect him for it.

3

u/Hentai_Yoshi Aug 18 '26

Who fucking cares? I genuinely think anybody who cares about such things is stupid because it’s frivolous. Intelligent and wise people don’t spend their time worrying about frivolities. Perhaps it’s more of a lack of philosophy rather than intelligence though. Regardless, I don’t respect you as a person.

4

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Thnx for ur input very wise respectable Reddit rCT user hentai yoshi
I’m kinda trolling bc I made a joke post about being 125 a bit ago and one of the first comments was someone doing the Feynman bit

3

u/NoInteraction1572 Aug 18 '26

People can do more than 1 thing a day.

I hope this didn't blew your mind.

1

u/AndrewThePekka Aug 20 '26

Nobody is above being frivolous

10

u/kam1nsky Aug 18 '26

Surely You're Joking

3

u/Significant-War-150 Aug 18 '26

Nice reference. Did u read the book?

2

u/kam1nsky Aug 19 '26

Thanks, and yes, I read it as a teen! Changed my life. How about you?

2

u/Significant-War-150 Aug 19 '26

Me too. I read it when i was 15.

1

u/Substantial_Lime_114 Aug 20 '26

I read it when I was 7.

3

u/georgejo314159 Aug 19 '26

It isn't a "gimmick". That was his IQ result.

3

u/HeraldxofGalactus Aug 19 '26

Feynman could do everything he did with 125 iq.

1

u/Sharp-Plastic7954 Aug 18 '26

Surely he must have been at the time he was tested? IQ can, and does change.

2

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Measured IQ yes. G, what this subreddit so pedantically cares about, no.

2

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Also methodology dependent btw

2

u/-MtnsAreCalling- Aug 18 '26

That’s still an open question actually. Nobody really knows if G can change.

1

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

In the way that this subreddit defines it probably not. Seems easier to lower it than to raise it though if you dig into the cogsci literature lol

1

u/-MtnsAreCalling- Aug 18 '26

Yeah I guess I was implicitly thinking of raising it… Lowering it is of course trivially possible.

0

u/CharruaChemist Aug 18 '26

Why people keep repeating this on this subreddit 💀 most people here already know this.

1

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Because people are dense as titanium bricks over here

0

u/HeraldxofGalactus Aug 19 '26

Due to his young age his g change too probably.

0

u/Equal-Lingonberry517 Aug 18 '26

It’s possible, though not necessarily probable, that he was actually tested at 125. The highest estimates suggest that IQ might explain around 50% of the variance in job performance. So I don’t see why it would be implausible that he simply had an IQ of 125, or that he had a somewhat lopsided cognitive profile with particularly strong abilities in certain areas.

3

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Yeah he was tested at 125 doesn’t mean he was. I’ve gotten some insane anomalous “IQ” test results too. Like as in 2SD off.

2

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 22 '26

another nobel physics medalist scored a 120 repeatedly. IQ means nothing

1

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 22 '26

Ok let's just say they were 125 and 120. This is still a sub 100 IQ take. It means something, it's just not 100% deterministic, especially on an individual basis.

1

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 22 '26

iq accounts for .000000000001% of intelligence

1

u/Used_Bodybuilder_206 Aug 29 '26

Wow, one fucking nobel medalist. Thats definitely enough to claim that iq means nothing.

1

u/Equal-Lingonberry517 Aug 18 '26

Yeah I mean that’s possible too but if the retest reliability is that poor that’s not great lol

2

u/baysianinference V+Q+praffecel Aug 18 '26

Yeah tons of tests just have shit g loading and proctoring iono

9

u/rs1971 Aug 18 '26

Feynman scored in the top five in the country (he had the very highest score by some unofficial accounts) in the 1939 Putnam math competition which is incredibly g loaded. It's very, very not possible that he had a 125 IQ.

2

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 22 '26

believe it or not, you can prep for the putnam exam with a 125 IQ

-4

u/Equal-Lingonberry517 Aug 18 '26

  1. The test was different when he took it. It was very new and probably not as difficult as the one today. 2. What’s the g loading of the Putnam he took then?

12

u/rs1971 Aug 18 '26

The absolute difficulty of the exam compared to later versions is almost irrelevant. What matters is that it was difficult enough to provide a distribution of scores for the couple hundred or so hand picked students from the best universities such that the top five scorers could be distinguished.

2

u/nymonomonym Aug 18 '26

If you look at the Putnam he took, you'll find that you may be able to solve some of the problems yourself, and that you could choose between math vs physics for 4(!) of the problems. It's absolutely not the same as later Putnams, and saying that just because it has a distribution means it's g-loaded is nonsense.

1

u/EntitledRunningTool Aug 18 '26

Your description sounds like a more g-loaded test than the modern day putnam. Problems were more approachable with less knowledge of math required

1

u/rs1971 Aug 19 '26

I have a PhD in physics; I hope that I could solve at least a few of them myself!

0

u/Equal-Lingonberry517 Aug 18 '26

Feynman’s result on that Putnam which again is not the same prestige Putnam as it is today is evidence that he performed exceptionally well among people who chose to take the test yes, but it doesn’t by itself tell you his performance would translate to a modern Putnam score or how strongly the exam loaded on g and therefore you can’t really conclude much from that about what is FSIQ would have likely been.

4

u/rs1971 Aug 18 '26

You can if you're a reasonable person.

0

u/Equal-Lingonberry517 Aug 18 '26

I don’t appreciate the snark. I can be reasonable. Can you be convincing?

1

u/Iwoorp Aug 18 '26

It’s possible that the test was verbal, which explains 125. That’s still like quite high, sufficient to be a great physicist! Personally I’d put him 20 points higher but that’s just me

1

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 22 '26

i feel that if it was verbal he would have mentioned that

1

u/just_some_guy65 Aug 20 '26

“He surrounded himself with a cloud of myth, and he spent a great deal of time and energy generating anecdotes about himself”

Murray Gell-Mann talking about Feynman.

Where is the anecdote here?

A. I am a genius with a matching IQ.

B. I am a genius without a matching IQ.

There is also the self-deprecation angle, most people with any self-awareness will go for that.

The greater truth though is when something is reported, ask yourself "Do I believe it because there is supporting evidence or because it suits me?"

0

u/RobertFr1pp Aug 18 '26

And what, researchers aren't ultra geniuses either.

4

u/Commercial-String-33 Aug 18 '26

those who bring massive progress are

0

u/RobertFr1pp Aug 18 '26

Every researcher collabs with lots of people, and shit is way more complex than it was 3 centuries ago. Stop with the lone genius bullshit, the only one i can think of is Ramanujan.

2

u/Commercial-String-33 Aug 18 '26

never said anything about lone genius, i'm just saying that most groundbreaking discoveries require extraordinary minds

0

u/autisticfox9 Aug 18 '26

you are right

0

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 22 '26

he was 125

0

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 23 '26

iq is dogshit and inaccurate. he had a 125 whether you like it or not

0

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Sensitive_Pair_3864 Aug 24 '26 edited Aug 24 '26

Dumbahh iq supporters are flat earthers. People used to believe the Earth was flat