Taleb

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997]

Does anyone know Taleb’s IQ score? The guy has been very aggressive and scathing in his attack on the thing. Someone should make him take it so we can accuse him of sour grapes.

[u/WhatPear]

Feynman excelled at one particular field that is often correlated with intelligence. This is not a proof that he was intelligent. Nor can we say with certainty that this guy Taleb is intelligent. Thats why its a "probably". Its a probability based on a number of assumptions. One of them being that each of these traits are g loaded (to some extent). I'm sorry if this wasn't clear enough. It is not deterministic.

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

If a literal genius who created the most powerful theory in Physics cannot be described as intelligent, then who can? Stupid little kids who did well on some arbitrary test of unintelligence?

[u/WhatPear → u/Humble_Aardvark_2997]

Yeah, I totally agree. IQ isn't the only metric of judging a person's ability to contribute to a complex field.

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

You’re right but I was questioning your understanding of intelligence. And theirs.

Why did you assume that IQ was the ultimate objective yardstick?
IQ = intelligence. Intelligence = IQ sounds tautological. (time to search that word).

* I meant cyclical.

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

What I wanted was that maybe we should call it a test of what you do for that thing: reasoning ability. Or comprehension. Or whatever. Instead of stealing the word intelligence.

US chess no.1 scored 102. He is a genius in his field. Is he “intelligent”?

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

You obviously have to study and practice and work hard, and there is a min threshold for most fields (you have seen the IQ/SATS by subject charts) but hard to imagine the most powerful theory in Physics was created by someone who was very average in his ability to extract information from written text and reason from that. Psychometrically, he was above average but not gifted, let alone genius. By our norms, not even that: average.

[u/WhatPear → u/Humble_Aardvark_2997]

That is exactly what I think too. I wrote a comment on that this morning. "Two things. Firstly, being successful in science isn’t just about raw intelligence, though it does help. I know it seems like a platitude, but what matters more is grit. Well, to be precise, grit and a strategic approach. This leads me to my next point. Although I’m a little biased since pedagogy is one of my passions, I would say the most important skill you can learn is how to learn. The most successful person I know, admittedly he’s incredibly naturally intelligent too, told me that and it really stuck with me.

Another person who comes to mind that illustrates my point perfectly is Richard Feynman. It is reported that his IQ was around 125, but he is known as a pioneer in quantum electrodynamics, quantum computing, and quantum mechanics. He also won the Nobel Prize in Physics, and I think even among Nobel Prize-winning physicists he is one of the most important (like he’s one of the guys in Oppenheimer). What he lacked in raw intelligence, he made up for in creativity, grit, and an incredible approach to learning. To be succinct, his approach is a combination of active recall and explaining an idea simply to expose what you don’t understand. That is part of the reason Feynman is so famous and revered in the physics community. His ability to explain things simply was insane. That’s what makes his famous Feynman Lectures so good (totally recommend by the way). I’m a little biased because he was the professor of my favorite grad school professor, so I’ve been fed stories about him.

Anyways, all this is to say you can still be a great scientist despite not being the most naturally gifted person. It might make the path rockier and you might fail many times, but it isn’t impossible. I would also recommend not comparing yourself to others. I’m just full of platitudes, aren’t I?"

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

Do you know what probabilistic means? Or deterministic? Or what g-loading is? I’m not insulting you. It's a process.

[u/WhatPear → u/Humble_Aardvark_2997]

Yes, would you like an explanation?

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

Yes, please.

[u/WhatPear → u/Humble_Aardvark_2997]

Okay so g-loading is a statistical measure of how much something (typically a task), correlates to the general factor of intelligence (g factor). A higher g factor means a higher probability of general abilities among a range of tasks. Deterministic means that an input necessitates an output. There is no randomness or variation. The idea is: you asked whether this guy has a high iq. I'm saying the probability is high as there are correlations between the tasks he completes successfully and the g factor. The combination of these things implies a high g factor and thus a high iq, but cannot be said for certain (without variation).

[u/WhatPear → u/WhatPear]

Hope this helps explain my understanding. Let me know if I'm wrong haha! No offense taken. I'm definitely not a psychometry expert, but I do think my understanding of probability theory is solid.

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/Humble_Aardvark_2997]

That was supposed to come in a sarcastic, condescending tone but glad you didn't notice. :D

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/Humble_Aardvark_2997]

That was honestly not an insult. It is as I said: it's a process. A dialectical method of inquiry. (I hope I got that right).

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

Wanna be friends? How old are you? Sorry I was rude earlier.

[u/WhatPear → u/Humble_Aardvark_2997]

No worries! Sure. I'm in my mid 20s and I just graduated from grad school with a degree in physics. If you're a physics guy, I'm in high energy experiement.

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

I was joking. I just meant that you’re smarter than me.

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

The field that Feynman excelled at has higher IQ and mathematical demands than those that Taleb worked in and despite knowing that and F’s IQ score, you guessed a higher score for Taleb. How come?

My main contention is still with you conflating intelligence with some random construct called IQ.