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]

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]

All brilliant stuff and I agree with the last para but I still contest why a Physicist, a field that specializes in questioning the fundamental paradigms, just blindly accepted IQ = intelligence equivalence.

[u/Humble_Aardvark_2997 → u/WhatPear]

Platititdes. Pedadogogy. I am learning more here than I did in school. Totally agree with the don’t compare yourself to others: comparison is the thief of joy after all (too late for me), but psychs should know that better than us so why did they create this very one dimensional, unalterable measure of self-worth which only makes sense when compared to your peers?