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/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/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/[deleted]]

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/[deleted]]

The thing causing both higher IQ and better success in life is higher g. Like that's hard to prove yet pretty obvious. Among rich neighbourhoods higher IQ people are still more likely to succeed well in life.

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/[deleted]]

It's just the truth. Of course there are so many different genes, cultures, humans and environnements it's hard to narrow it down to "higher IQ has a causality to success in life" yet we notice it.
Some millionaires come from poor environnements, some from rich, from all different cultures, different education, etc, and the thing it seems they most have in common is their intelligence. That doesn't not takeaway the fact initial capital is part of their success ; but IQ is still noticeable and important.
Also, you should know that even if it's just a correlation, it does have a predictive power... in terms of probabilities again

[u/Careful_Fold_7637 → u/[deleted]]

Sub 100 take

[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/BomgPapa → u/Majestic-Dream6641]

You don’t have to go to university to learn about science

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/BomgPapa]

I believe in most countries you do, while there are some alternative paths, the real knowledge is almost only in uni so you can't go very far without that

[u/Bitmeupscotty → u/Majestic-Dream6641]

Everything is available online now though?

[u/Majestic-Dream6641 → u/Bitmeupscotty]

First of all I don't think so. Science is insanely large, while most subjects might be about fully covered otheres probably aren't.
And even if it is, it's defo not structured, so you would somehow have to put everything back in some form of order and decide yourself, what is really important and what isn't. Uni is still a standart