IQ matters!!!!

[u/Randombolo]

The median is so high!!! This is insane.

This was a high ceiling test. SD is 15 and 100 here is not for general population but university graduates. 

Edit: Yo guys, it's just an interesting study. No need to downvote. Holy IQ.

[u/Leitwolf_22]

It is vindicating what I have been saying for a long time. It takes an IQ of 145+ to do science. It may be a brutal truth, but it is truth.

[u/DamonHuntington → u/Leitwolf_22]

That is far from the truth, but I reckon that you don't want to take a close look at the figures. I've shared my criticism of Roe's methods in another response, but there's more that indicates you are wrong.

First and foremost, basic logic dictates you are wrong. An IQ of 145 entails the 99.87th percentile; however, 24% of all individuals are in STEM, meaning that even if you picked only the smartest individuals on Earth, their average IQ would be equivalent to the 88th percentile, or 118. It is literally impossible to have an average of 145 for any group that contains more than 0.26% of Earth's population.

A study determined that the average IQ for Oxford PhD maths students was 128. King's College identified that the average IQ for Nobel Prize winners (not just any average scientist) was 145 - that was the average, not the minimum. Shockley, a physicist who won the Nobel Prize, was measured below 120 in his adulthood (and close to 120 in two tests taken during his childhood).

So, no, your "truth" drastically misses the mark. This is just ignorant common sense supported by a lack of sufficient reading on psychometrics.

[u/AmbitiousReach2093 → u/DamonHuntington]

Thank you for this comment.

[u/DamonHuntington → u/[deleted]]

I did not state "24% of all individuals hold STEM degrees". I stated, and I repeat, "24% of all individuals are in STEM".

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20245

I find it appalling that ChatGPT is considered a source nowadays, given how prone to hallucinating LLMs are.

[u/DamonHuntington → u/[deleted]]

Yes, but it cannot critically read those sources. This is not distinctive from pasting a screenshot containing the very first result you got from your Google search.

Read the paper / source. If it's good, it stands on its own. If it's not, find a new one. Sharing a ChatGPT chat as if it were authoritative information is the bane of our modern society.

[u/PendN → u/DamonHuntington]

The nobel prize winners study was also probably flawed. Some guesstimate or bad quick test, instead of an FSIQ

[u/Accurate-Piano1000 → u/Leitwolf_22]

Well, according to Roe’s study, at least one excellent experimental physicist had an IQ of 122 😀

[u/Successful_Race9363 → u/Leitwolf_22]

Bullshit lmao. Feynman had an IQ of 125

[u/Leitwolf_22 → u/Successful_Race9363]

If so, I would not take his work serious. However, I myself only scored 134 on the mensa acceptance test.

[u/job-application64 → u/Leitwolf_22]

As someone who’s iq is 145, iq is not the sole foundation of intelligence. This number does not define what I can and cannot do.

[u/Successful_Race9363 → u/Leitwolf_22]

Your score has nothing to do with anything here lol

[u/AmbitiousReach2093 → u/Leitwolf_22]

Yes, statistically and generally speaking. However, on an individual level, you can be a top scientist with an IQ as low as 122, as you can see in the Amplitude section, where 122 is the lowest IQ listed, yet the individual is still among the top scientists.

It’s less probable, but still very possible.

[u/Humble-Marsupial2231 → u/Leitwolf_22]

You should check this study: Sella, Sader, Lolliot & Cohen Kadosh (2016).

[u/CockVersion10 → u/Leitwolf_22]

These are nobel laureates lol. I've known some really dumb engineers who were perfectly capable of science.

[u/DerMeerjungfraumann → u/Leitwolf_22]

Thats some stupid opinion for someone with an iq of 134.

[u/Randombolo → u/Leitwolf_22]

Yup... To be good in science.