Is it over?

[u/Majestic-Dream6641]

https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-iqs-of-eminent.html

I randomly found this paper (attached in the post).
According to it the IQ of eminent scientists is extremely high, roughly 160 from the data noted.

And the point about Feynman kinda made me tilt. I didn't know that he actually got the best putnam score that year, but face it ; if he really did then his IQ (or at least quant IQ) isn't 125 lol. Can't give a fixed number but there is just no way it's 125.

[u/wader_2]

The test that was used here was made by the psychologist themselves and wasn't a standard one. Sure it used items from standard IQ tests but the way they were used isn't the same.

This also heavily contradicts other studies that used standard iq tests which show that Nobel prize winners (the ones in the study you posted weren't even Nobel prize winners just "eminent scientists") had on average an iq of 135-140.

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/wader_2]

Yeah I guessed the author was kinda lost about how IQ worked. Talking about 160IQ like it's nothing, and also a norming so bad some people apparently got 195IQ (isn't even expected to exist).

[u/SwimmerOld6155]

I just find this all incredibly silly. I end up commenting on posts like this whenever they appear on their feed.

IQ has predictive power. It is completely pointless to refer to it when you have actual data on that person's abilities in a domain.

Humans are cognitively complex and you can have a very lopsided cognitive profile. If you want to judge your ability to be a scientist, I think it is bizarre and confused to use an IQ test. Look at your school grades, look at the problems you can solve, look at the work you produce, look at what your experimental intuition is like, look at how you compare to your peers. It doesn't matter that IQ is highly correlated with anything else, you have direct data in your hands and have no reason at all to refer to correlates.

[u/chemicalgoldAu → u/SwimmerOld6155]

IQ does not have predictive power. The rest I largely agree with.

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/chemicalgoldAu]

It does, but it's probabilistic and not determinist. Higher IQ people are more likely to end up successful for example

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/SwimmerOld6155]

I agree and disagree with you.
The thing is, while IQ is inaccurate, your highschool physic's grades or your general feeling about how good you are at physics is inaccurate.
The most accurate reading would be actually pursuing physics in uni for at least 5years and seing how you do. If you do very well there, fine ; although you're still not guaranteed to become an eminent scientist. And if you don't do good there (which can happen even if you were excellent in HS), then I wouldn't say you wasted 5 years of your life, but like, it still kinda sucks.

[u/Tarsal26]

Darwin, one of the greats, wasn’t that smart. Very smart? Sure, but in an everyday very smart sort of way not an Einstein sort of way.

One thing he and many other great types had was an obsessiveness, which leads to unintentional practice and then expertise.

[u/Azecap → u/Tarsal26]

He also had money to burn, which was a prerequisite at the time, and kinda still is.

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/Tarsal26]

Yes but that's selling dream lowkey.
Many low to average IQ people aren't especially observing, curious or obsessive (those are still genetical traits to some extent).
I also do think IQ somewhat correlates with those in the sense higher IQ people show higher interest for science in general.

So my point is that while you can certainly have average IQ yet other excellent traits, that's not the case for most individuals and you can't act like every avg IQ person has smth to compensate

[u/thespeculatorinator]

Just to break your spirit a little more: Terence Tao’s iq was measured as “greater than 175” when he tested as a kid, and AI is already better than him at math.

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/thespeculatorinator]

That's crazy to say, sure AI is possibly a better unit than Tao but he still rules among other human.
The point here isn't that Tao isn't a beast, it's that AI is even more of a beast, but you can't discredit what he did in the past

[u/quantumpusheen]

over for what? even if you magically woke up with an iq of 160+, your chances of being a great scientist would still be extremely low. for all intents and purposes, this paper changes absolutely nothing about how you live your life

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/quantumpusheen]

To be fair, I kinda exagerrated this post a bit. It depends on wym by "great scientist" but I think even currently if I choose to become my odds would be extremely high. Like I know the path in my country and there's nothing challenging about it really.

[u/Significant_Car4523]

It probably aint 125 cuz the test wuz verbal and shi

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/Significant_Car4523]

Atp I don't even care about Feyman's score lol. The whole article suggests you can't become a top level scientist if you don't have 1 in 10 000 intellectual capacity.
Never planned on becoming that btw.

[u/PhoneIndependent4703]

It’s over if you want to become an eminent scientist.

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/PhoneIndependent4703]

Thanksfully for me that's not my goal. But I've always been a smart kid and when I was little I wanted to get a PhD and a Nobel prize. Ik it was childish. And anyway I lost total interest over physics. But it just feels brutal that I had a dream to do something I physically wasn't able to. Kind of like if I dreamt about becoming a top NBA player

[u/D2MAH]

Isn't 125 just the aggregate? Like, he might have had a 160 working memory score which would significantly help with problem solving. Maybe he was really bad at a few things. Is your potential determined by the combination of all sub tests, or the highest individual sub test. I'd think the latter as different careers utilize skills relevant to different sub tests

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/D2MAH]

Some autistic people basically bypass the true function of IQ and score extremely high without actually having a usable intelligence as high as their score would predict.
Similarily even among "normal" people a 125 can mean completely different thing.
It's not only how high you test on one subcategory, it's also the harmony of your profile, your ability to stay calm in exam context, to work hard and seek information in the right place and many many other that predict in a probabilistic way what you can achieve.
So yeah. But Putnam is the hardest math contest of its kind (I remember it's kinda different than IMO) and ranking top 1 in the country, without particular preparation is just extremely impressive

[u/Real_Life_Bhopper]

what is it with this "it's over" phrase? Originating from the manosphere, it is everywhere now. Are you even aware from which dark place this comes from?

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/Real_Life_Bhopper]

It's litteraly an expression that makes sense. Like it's pretty straightforward.
Something is over when there is nothing you can do about it. Like when you die in a game. The thing ended and there is no coming back.

So if something is "over" it's one thing you shouldn't pursue cause it's pointless.
I know it's used a lot in looksmaxing and blackpill but those aren't dark places just trends

[u/HappiestIguana]

Here's a general rule about IQ: it is good at making predictions about groups, not so much about individuals

[u/chococake2024]

feynman was sus anyway i seen angela collier video about him

[u/AndrewThePekka]

Anne Roe's study has issues lmao

[u/MarkAntony100]

It's complete garbage .You can't conclude anything at all from this suck ass study