How did a man with only 125 IQ make such contributions to physics?

File: 89 KB, 814x545, Richard-Feynman-rubber-bands.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:13:34 2013 No.6068061 [Reply] [Original]

How did a man with only 125 IQ make such contributions to physics?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:14:36 2013 No.6068065 What would be preventing him?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:16:28 2013 No.6068070 Intelligence is overrated

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:17:29 2013 No.6068073 >>6068070 > IQ is overrated FTFY

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:18:58 2013 No.6068075 >>6068061 The ability to write and store data renders IQ useless

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:19:59 2013 No.6068077 >>6068073 >implying IQ doesn't measure intelligence

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:20:28 2013 No.6068080 He worked hard. Work ethic has a much stronger correlation to success in academic pursuits than IQ. source: me

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:21:58 2013 No.6068082 >one shitty IQ test >somehow a definitive "intelligence" measurement top lel

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:21:58 2013 No.6068083 >>6068077 >implying it does

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:24:59 2013 No.6068092 By being among the smartest people ever to study physics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:25:27 2013 No.6068095 >>6068077 Yup, I'm implying exactly that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:31:28 2013 No.6068108 >>6068061 Probably because he loved physics more than most people. He also didn't listen to pseudo-scientific bs like IQ.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:34:57 2013 No.6068111 File: 453 KB, 1200x1026, 77490.209280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6068082 Excluding the fact that you used quotation marks, THIS.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:48:27 2013 No.6068127 I'm wondering if most of the previous generations of theoretical physicists could even fit into the latest generation, given the current reliance on heavy computer simulations, and the penchant for absurd propositions like strings, branes and the like.

Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:53:27 2013 No.6068137

>>6068127
>absurd propositions
Quantum mechanics and relativity were both considered absurd.
By all means criticise the lack of evidence for string theory - I would have to agree - but you cannot call a theory so mathematically sound "absurd". It simply isn't, and your kind hold all science behind.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:54:28 2013 No.6068143 The simple answer is that the IQ test in question was flawed either by design or in execution. That does not mean that all IQ tests are flawed and that they mean nothing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:58:59 2013 No.6068149 >muh IQ OP, doesn't know about creative elegance in logic. It's IQ fuckers like you, that will have nothing else to look forward in life, so you make a pseudo scale to measure your autism.

Anonymous Fri Oct 4 15:15:58 2013 No.6068192

Because you don't have to be a super-genius to do things. Feynman was plenty smart, and perhaps more importantly, had excellent people-skills. He was witty, well spoken and had a knack for introducing people to advance concepts without making them feel stupid about themselves while listening to him.

Violent Simians Guy Fri Oct 4 15:44:58 2013 No.6068249

>>6068137

Yes, GR and QM were both considered absurd at the time, and to a certain extent they still are, but it's hard (if not rationally impossible) to argue with hard experimental results to 6+ digits of precision... as both GR and QM have delivered to us consistently.

What's absurd about ST and all this multiverse crap is the singular lack of evidence... even, I daresay, the intentional lack of evidence. 'Strings' of tortured spacetime that are 20 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton? That's patently absurd, and perhaps even *deception* given its undetectability by any imaginable equipment. Keeps the PhD mills rolling out product, I've noticed.

J'accuse! That's what I'm saying.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 15:58:29 2013 No.6068285 >>6068077 >implying it doesn't measure a small part of it

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 15:59:57 2013 No.6068286 A man so retarded he outsmarted NASA with a glass of cold water.

Anonymous Fri Oct 4 16:08:28 2013 No.6068313
File: 50 KB, 300x300, 39b756a21eb3b497e12834c0d8a0747e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6068080
And he hates elitism, hates rules and dishonesty.
He just explores the world like any kid does before they are schooled. What does it count then? Is he lazy or working hard?

Anonymous Fri Oct 4 16:44:56 2013 No.6068421
File: 139 KB, 650x560, ndgt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6068313
>And he hates elitism

OP, that's why he scored 125, he likely wasn't even trying. He had a reputation of being a gigantic troll even before the internet.

Feynman was critical of the national academy of sciences - he resigned because he thought they were pompous faggots who spent all their time talking about who was eligible to join their gay little club. No doubt he saw high IQ societies like Mensa in the same light, just a bunch of autists with inflated egos.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 05:22:18 2013 No.6069537 >>6068421 >he likely wasn't even trying He was trying very hard and it shows.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 05:26:47 2013 No.6069542 Because IQ is a crock of shit.

Anonymous Sat Oct 5 05:37:17 2013 No.6069567

>>6068421
To be fair, that's an accurate assesment. You can roughly gauge how successful an intelligent person is to be in life by how proud they are of their IQ score; a high-IQ individual who thinks that number makes him better than everyone else is likely to do much worse in life than a lower-IQ individual who doesn't care about bragging rights. (This is also because people who are really proud of their scores on a test, IQ or otherwise, haven't had many other accomplishments to be proud of.)

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 05:43:19 2013 No.6069578 Twf, I have same IQ as Feynman. Always asked myself why does this man like intuition more than autism and seems IQ explains it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 05:47:17 2013 No.6069584 >>6068061 I really wish that this could lead to the end of all the cancer threads about Jacob Barnett and such.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 05:50:19 2013 No.6069589 >>6068082 IQ seems to correlate with what we call intelligence, but it's a very rough correlation and there are certainly other factors.

Anonymous Sat Oct 5 10:20:26 2013 No.6069912

>>6068061
a 99% chance of winning a game does not assure you to win, a high IQ does not give you a 100% to solve problems that matter, or all our problems would have gone by now, all that matters is doing something that others don't, with an sufficient IQ, >115 is still good enough, also IQ measurements would vary from test to test and get better as you get used to difffent tasks, also you can train for them, which in the end makes the reliance of those tests quite small

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 10:27:27 2013 No.6069919 >>6068061 Hard work and dedication.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 19:05:32 2013 No.6070872 dawg the skills and temperament needed to succeed in basic research are not really measured by IQ. The successful researchers I've seen are very sharp in that regard, but they are also creative, patient, dedicated, and hard-working.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 19:37:33 2013 No.6070964 His wife did all the work.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 06:26:39 2013 No.6071714 >>6070872 >creative, patient, dedicated, and hard-working All of these traits are predicted by IQ.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:01:16 2013 No.6071966 >>6071714 lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:12:18 2013 No.6071981 >>6068061 125 IQ (Image quality) ? That's pretty good, what engine did he use?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:17:18 2013 No.6071989 I don't believe feynman actually got anything right with his probability thing. In fact I know he was wrong. It's because he was a charismatic popular figure who could come up with garbage so convoluted in a field that was vaguely understand.

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:32:19 2013 No.6072012
File: 25 KB, 430x322, monkey-thinking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6068061
>implying he wasn't wondering about harmonic oscillators for Lorentz-covariant bound states when some entitled asshole pretending to be XIX century gentleman gave him some papers with silly puzzles and riddles he designed and considered relevant to anything.

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:34:49 2013 No.6072015

>>6069589
No you're making an error here. You assume there is something we call intelligence, that there is one thing we think of. In reality we tend to just be referring to our general experience of someone's ability to perform a wide range of mental feats, with no particular ordering or separation based on types of feats. The human brain looks very little like anyone's concept of intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:36:49 2013 No.6072019 >>6071989 >field that was understand

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:44:49 2013 No.6072036 >>6071714 BS

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:48:19 2013 No.6072042 >>6072019 then who was feynman?

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:48:49 2013 No.6072041

>>6071989
> I don't believe feynman actually got anything right with his probability thing.
> has no idea what feynman did.
> probably a troll
Anyone can come up with garbage in their esoteric field.
He's celebrated because fellow quantum mechanics researchers celebrate him.
Feynman diagrams help describe a completely indescribable field.
Not to mention everything he touched turned to gold.
Fucking Midas of the post Einstein age

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:49:19 2013 No.6072043 >>6072041 yeah his feynman digrams are amazing shame he didn't fully understand the implications of them. Ironic really.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:51:48 2013 No.6072046 >>6072043 Newton didn't fully understand the implications of the three laws of motion and Einstein laws of GR and SR. What the hell is your point?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:53:18 2013 No.6072047 >>6072046 That most physics courses taught today are filling students minds up with incorrect theories?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 11:59:50 2013 No.6072061 >>6068249 SHUT UP YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING! I TEACH AT STANFORD, MAYBE YOU'VE HEARD OF IT DIPSHIT SMARTER THAN EINSTEIN -lenny

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 12:01:50 2013 No.6072064 >>6072047 > incorrect theories or models that eventually break. This is in every scientific field, and shows up way too often in physics.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 12:05:19 2013 No.6072069 >>6072064 so you see, we have to educate the people of the internet that their precious pop sci knowledge is flawed

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 12:07:50 2013 No.6072070

>>6072041
his autobiographies filled to the brim with humblebrag probably helped his fame along too

he was smart and a great teacher (feynman lectures are great), but by no means modest, despite his protests to the contrary (like the IQ one). If anything, claiming a lower IQ than whats considered "genius" while contrasting them with your accomplishments makes you look better.

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 12:09:19 2013 No.6072076

I scored a 148 when I took it. It doesn't mean shit to me. I went to a good school in highschool and I had kids who would brag about their high IQ scores all the time. Given that I didn't care, (and was pretty lazy in class) they would act like pompous pricks and try to "teach" me or say ridiculous sarcastic shit and be surprised that I understood or made fun of them back. IQ means shit. Your IQ is the equivalent to writing a good paper because you did everything your English professor told you too. And the actual smart kid is the one who said "Fuck the proper heading, I'm writing a good story". Yet he gets a C+ for not following the rules.

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 12:11:49 2013 No.6072077

>>6072069
Ah...but it's not just pop-sci.
Newton's laws are some of the worst offenders.
Most pop-sci kiddies couldn't name any of his laws however.

I like Feynman for being a total maverick, breaking into safes, state diagrams for a hexaflexagon, and Feynman diagrams.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 12:42:50 2013 No.6072147 >>6072019 Vaguely understand* >>6072042 The same guy who was phone.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 13:01:21 2013 No.6072185 >>6068061 Because physics is a fuck-easy field once you get past the bloated vocabulary. Just look through physics papers on the arxiv. Most of it is just talking heads bullshit. They're basically just philosophers with a voltmeter.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 13:03:21 2013 No.6072189 >>6068249 >20 times smaller than a proton is absurd! >goes back to using standard model that assumes electrons are points >le smug face And string theory predicts gravity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 13:15:49 2013 No.6072210 >>6072185 nice

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 15:17:43 2013 No.6072357

>>6068061
His IQ was probably higher than 125. He got a perfect score in math and physics in the entrance exams for graduate school at Princeton, which no one had done before. That's not something that someone who is not extremely intelligent does.

IQ is a pretty good measure of intelligence, or at any rate the best we have. The test Feynman took could have been weighted toward verbal abilities, or any number of things could have thrown off his score.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 15:29:29 2013 No.6072379 Hard work and luck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 15:49:21 2013 No.6072415 Because he rightly identified IQ as a totally useless measure. Feynman got 100% on all the math competitions he ever took. His life revolved around math and physics and he didn't believe the BS about IQ determining your mathematical aptitude.

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 15:50:51 2013 No.6072416

>>6072357
>IQ is a pretty good measure of intelligence, or at any rate the best we have

there are a lot of different IQ tests, and they are used mostly to search for developmental disorders. AKAIK only in America IQ tests are used to tell how intelligent adults are.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 15:51:51 2013 No.6072420 >>6072416 >only in America IQ tests are used to tell how intelligent adults are. This is wrong. We do it in Europe too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 15:54:21 2013 No.6072427 >>6068061 Here you go most of it is common sense but he brings up some interesting statistics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 16:01:21 2013 No.6072436

>>6072420

In which parts? I'm from Spain, and I have friends studying in France and Italy and I didn't know about it.

Also, for Americans (or the Europeans that use it), how relevant is IQ? If you want to exist a top tier college, would you need to pass an IQ test? If you want to apply to a PhD program? Or is it just /Sci/ circlejerk?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 16:03:24 2013 No.6072438 >>6068061 >IQ is the sole determinant of intellectual capability, hard work counts for nuffin. And this is why /sci/ is the dumbest board on 4chan.

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 16:46:58 2013 No.6072507

He did nothing all day but think about physics and chase tail with some occasional bongo drumming on the side. If his wife came in the room and broke his chain of thought when he was thinking about physics problems he would beat her.

Sauce: Google the FBI files on him released in a freedom of information request

Anonymous Sun Oct 6 17:09:58 2013 No.6072573

>>6072436
I can confirm what this guy is saying, i study in Italy and i've never heard about of IQ tests used with scholastic or academic purposes.

>inb4 u have low IQ then IQ is shit
I made 3-4 pretty "serious" tests in the past, and i got around 135-140. But, seriously, IQ is a game and nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 06:05:16 2013 No.6073494 >>6072573 >i got around 135-140. But, seriously, IQ is a game and nothing else. Deploying ignorant and unscientific falsities on a science board does not increase your score but instead poisons it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 06:16:52 2013 No.6073508 The sad thing is there are really people who actually think like this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 06:24:54 2013 No.6073525 >>6073494 But IQ tests still are a game, because you can learn it and become better at it with time while still not beeing more "intelligent".

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 12:45:32 2013 No.6074049 >>6073525 That's the point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 13:31:24 2013 No.6074136 >>6068061 Because he didn't take the results of his IQ test as a death sentence. Einstein was smart as fuck and wasted most of his last 30 years on what amounted to nothing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 13:34:56 2013 No.6074148 >>6072041 Polymer Chemistry, for one, is heavily indebted to Feynman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 13:44:54 2013 No.6074181 >>6071989 >his probability thing What are you talking about? Do you mean the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics? If so, that isn't something of Feynman's creation - it is known as the Born rule.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:09:24 2013 No.6074475 >>6068061 Is this considered low?

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:44:56 2013 No.6074551

>>6068061
I'm tired of all of this IQ fetish. Why is it that people now a days think that IQ is the ultimate form of knowing how smarter is someone?

Just because you score high on some arbitrarily made test doesn't mean that you are actually smarter.

Iq tests measure nothing. Counting neurons in somebody's brain is a far more trustable method.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:46:54 2013 No.6074556 >>6074475 For a physicist it is very low. >>6074551 I can understand your frustration, but please keep your anger over having scored low to yourself. Your emotions do not invalidate scientific units of measurement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:50:57 2013 No.6074567 >>6074556 Iq tests are a completely unreliable method. They do not do the job. Scoring high on an IQ test only means that you are good are taking IQ tests, nothing else. Prove otherwise and you might get a reward.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:52:55 2013 No.6074569

>>6074556
It's funny how you defend a test that Feyman scored lower in than you yet you know that he was much,much smarter than you and he accomplished a lot more than you ever will.
But please keep telling yourself that there's a test out there that makes you feel smarter than Feynman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:52:55 2013 No.6074570 >>6074556 you sound like a right tosser

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:56:26 2013 No.6074574

>>6074567
>Iq tests are a completely unreliable method
They are very reliable.

>Scoring high on an IQ test only means that you are good are taking IQ tests, nothing else.
Just like being measured high on a ruler only means the object was measured high on a ruler and totally doesn't mean the object is long, amirite? Or like getting a high value on a scale doesn't mean the object is heavy, it only means the object is good in getting a high score on a scale? /sarcasm
If you reject objective scientific measurement tools, you are wrong on a science board.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:58:26 2013 No.6074579

>>6074569
Yes, I am smarter than Feynman. My IQ is higher than his. Just like I can lift more than him or run faster than him. I don't understand how you got to the ridiculous misconception that intelligence implies revolutionary ideas or achievements.

>>6074570
What does that even mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:58:29 2013 No.6074578 >>6072061 I taught at a stanford elementary. There is like 20 of them around the country. Very common school name.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 16:59:54 2013 No.6074580 >>6074574 great analogies /sarcasm

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:04:24 2013 No.6074592 >>6074579 means you're probably a wanker

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:06:54 2013 No.6074595 >>6074580 The analogies were accurate. If your IQ wasn't on Feynman level, you would of understood them. >>6074592 I am not.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:08:24 2013 No.6074602

>>6074574
It's a scientific method, but it does not measure intelligence. IQ tests just measure a specific form of intelligence, namely: the intelligence of scoring in an IQ test. Some people will score higher, some lower, but people are not bidimensional or unidimensional.

People who score lower in IQ tests are not intelectually inferior. It just implies that people with a higher IQ have a higher IQ.

Also you are saying that the method is scientific, and that is completely correct, but what is forgotten is the conceptual misconception between IQ and intelligence. They are not the same. IQ tests are unreliable when it comes to measuring actual intelligence, mainly because there are many forms o intelligence, as much as there are human needs and urges.

Through the process of natural selection our intelligence has been broadened, not narrowed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:08:24 2013 No.6074607 >>6074595 I was about to say how can someone arguing over the merits of IQ tests not see the irony in using such idiotic analogies?

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:11:55 2013 No.6074612

>>6074579
I just find it funny how you, an individual with a relatively 'high intelligence' according to a test made to discern the extreme retarded from the normal, actually think you're smarter than Feynman. Do you actually believe you're more intelligent than Feynman because of that test? He had a lower IQ than you and you think the IQ test is valid so your answer has got to be yes.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:12:25 2013 No.6074613

>>6074602
>It's a scientific method
*THE scientific method.

>IQ tests just measure a specific form of intelligence
They define the word "intelligence".

>the intelligence of scoring in an IQ test
Sure, just like rulers don't measure length, they only measure meters, amirite? Lenght has to be multidimensional and only applying a ruler would be silly, amirite? /sarcasm
Please learn how scientific measurment works.

>people are not bidimensional or unidimensional.
Irrelevant because IQ tests don't measure people, they measure intelligence. Other skills are other skills and have their own names.

>People who score lower in IQ tests are not intelectually inferior
They are. If you cannot complete the sequence 1,1,1,1,1,1,... you are objectively less intelligent than someone who can.

>the conceptual misconception between IQ and intelligence. They are not the same.
IQ is the scientific definition of intelligence.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:16:56 2013 No.6074617

>>6074607
Analogies are also tested in IQ tests. The fact that you fail to see them only confirms my hypothesis. The only reason you are against the scientific notion of intelligence is because you scored low.

>>6074612
I am more intelligent than Feynman. My IQ more than one standard deviation higher than his.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:18:55 2013 No.6074620 >>6074617 No I "see them", it's just they're wrong. Do you have some sort of condition?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:19:56 2013 No.6074623 >>6074620 >it's just they're wrong. They are accurate. >Do you have some sort of condition? Yes, I do. It is called "very high intelligence".

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:23:25 2013 No.6074634

>>6074613
>They define the word "intelligence".
Specify the definition.

>Irrelevant because IQ tests don't measure people, they measure intelligence. Other skills are other skills and have their own names.
Then again, what intelligence? there are many forms of intelligence.

>They are. If you cannot complete the sequence 1,1,1,1,1,1,... you are objectively less intelligent than someone who can.
False. What if a person doesn't use numbers? What if someone has only seen letters in his life? What if that person is completely adapted in his society and his environment even though he cannot complete the sequence?
According to the "ruler" (the IQ test), yes, that person is objectively inferior, but the ruler you are using is a very narrow one. The tool, therefore, doesn't do the job. and has to be either improved or abolished.

>IQ is the scientific definition of intelligence.
Then again, no it isn't. That is literally the same as the following: "centimeters are the same as length". It's non-sense.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:27:25 2013 No.6074641

>>6074634
>Specify the definition.
Take an IQ test and figure it out on your own.

>there are many forms of intelligence.
There is only one form of intelligence. Other skills have their own names. Renaming them would be silly, unnecessary and unscientific.

>What if a person doesn't use numbers?
Every non-retarded person learns to use numbers.

>What if someone has only seen letters in his life?
This is not possible.

>What if that person is completely adapted in his society and his environment even though he cannot complete the sequence?
A lot of mentally retarded persons are integrated in our society.

>is a very narrow one. The tool, therefore, doesn't do the job. and has to be either improved or abolished.
An appeal to emotion is not an argument. Science is objective and doesn't care about your opinion.s

>That is literally the same as the following: "centimeters are the same as length".
They are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:29:25 2013 No.6074650 >>6068061 being able to connect imagination with intelligence is a more important skill than just being smart.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:39:55 2013 No.6074669

>>6074641
>Take an IQ test and figure it out on your own.
Do you know how to discuss? that is not a definition of intelligence. Neither it is obvious that someone can derive a definition from an specified experience.

>There is only one form of intelligence. Other skills have their own names. Renaming them would be silly, unnecessary and unscientific.
And what is that form of intelligence? You haven't delivered a proper response. Where is it that form of intelligence? Why is it that all neurons look the same, for example, if there is some kind of qualitative difference among cognitive skills? What are those other skills that you talk about? What are their names? Why would it be silly, unnecessary and unscientific?

>This is not possible.
Implausible, not impossible. Anyways, it is a thought exercise. An analogy.

>A lot of mentally retarded persons are integrated in our society.
Most of them not fully integrated.

>An appeal to emotion is not an argument. Science is objective and doesn't care about your opinion.s
It is not appeal to emotion. It's just how science works. every time a model is flawed it has either to be modernized or it has to perish. As IQ tests do not do the job of measuring anything other than the ability to solve IQ tests, they should disappear, at least as they are today.

>They are.
Centimeters are not the same as length. They are just a human convention made up in order to systematize the collective acquisition of knowledge.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:40:24 2013 No.6074675 [DELETED]

>>6074641
How about you take this IQ test and explain to me why you scored incredibly lower than 100? I can already predict you scoring somewhere between 50-70 aka "inferior intelligence". I am not the person you were speaking to, but you sound like a complete moron and I bet you couldn't even score anything close to that which you believe you can.
www.iqtest.com

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:48:25 2013 No.6074697

>>6074669
>Do you know how to discuss?
Yes, I do.

>that is not a definition of intelligence.
Why not? Because you don't understand it? I guess that means you are not very intelligent.

>And what is that form of intelligence?
Everything tested on an IQ test.

>Where is it that form of intelligence?
In the brain.

>Why is it that all neurons look the same, for example, if there is some kind of qualitative difference among cognitive skills?
Is this a subtle qualia troll?

>What are those other skills that you talk about? What are their names?
I do not know what skills you were referring to. It was your claim, not mine.

>Why would it be silly, unnecessary and unscientific?
Because they have their own name and definitions, just like intelligence has its definition.

>Anyways, it is a thought exercise. An analogy.
An impossible scenario is not worth considering. Also you do not understand what an analogy is.

>It is not appeal to emotion.
Your "argument" literally was "I don't like it".

>It's just how science works. every time a model is flawed it has either to be modernized or it has to perish.
The model is not flawed. You cannot point out a single flaw other than "it hurt muh feelings".

>IQ tests do not do the job of measuring anything other than the ability to solve IQ tests
Just like a ruler does not do anything other than measuring how things score on the ruler. Or a scale does not do anything other than measuring how things score on the scale. Please learn how scientific measurement works.

>Centimeters are not the same as length. They are just a human convention made up in order to systematize the collective acquisition of knowledge.
Is this a "u cannot know nuthin" philosotroll? We measure length in meters or an equivalent system. That's how science works.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:54:26 2013 No.6074712 >>6074697 Did you even have to resort to name-calling to produce a counter-argument?

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:09:26 2013 No.6074746

>>6074697
>Why not? Because you don't understand it? I guess that means you are not very intelligent.
You don't seem to be either.

>Everything tested on an IQ test.
Your definition has to be broadened.

>I do not know what skills you were referring to. It was your claim, not mine.
Creativity, being able to postulate complex physic theories, being able to write a sonnet, etc. There are many "skills" that do not fit on the narrow definition of intelligence that you are giving.

>Is this a subtle qualia troll?
No. Please explain the qualitative difference between an intelligent brain and a dumb one given that they both weigh the same.
Please notice that this example also implies a very narrow definition of intelligence.

>Your "argument" literally was "I don't like it".
I didn't wrote that.

>The model is not flawed. You cannot point out a single flaw other than "it hurt muh feelings".
I didn't wrote that.
What is is that you like to misinterpret facts so often?

>Just like a ruler does not do anything other than measuring how things score on the ruler. Or a scale does not do anything other than measuring how things score on the scale. Please learn how scientific measurement works.
Human cognition is different. It can be very unstable, it can vary a lot, it can depend of a lot of external factors. Emotional ones are some of them, but not the only ones.
Not because the definition of intelligence has been defined means that it was defined rightly. The model is flawed, because it does not consider every factor that can impact the final result.

>Is this a "u cannot know nuthin" philosotroll? We measure length in meters or an equivalent system. That's how science works.
We can also measure it on feet or isangas, like the ancient macedonians. That is not the point and (if you were smart) you would have noticed it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:12:26 2013 No.6074755 >>6074675 I took the test but I did not receive an email. >>6074712 This is 4chan. Deal with it.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:18:24 2013 No.6074771

>>6074746
>Your definition has to be broadened.
Why? There is no reason.

>Creativity, being able to postulate complex physic theories, being able to write a sonnet, etc. There are many "skills" that do not fit on the narrow definition of intelligence that you are giving.
You just called them by their names. There is no reason to rename them as "intelligence'. Intellgience already has a scientific definition and it does not include these skills.

>No. Please explain the qualitative difference between an intelligent brain and a dumb one given that they both weigh the same.
Read a neuroscience textbook.

>I didn't wrote that.
You used an appeal to emotion.

>What is is that you like to misinterpret facts so often?
Your opinions are not facts.

>Human cognition is different.
We are not talking about human cognition, we are talking about intelligence. Do you have a problem with the English language?

>The model is flawed, because it does not consider every factor that can impact the final result.
What model? We are talking about a scientific definition. A definition is not a hypothesis.

>We can also measure it on feet or isangas, like the ancient macedonians.
That's why I said "or an equivalent system". Work on your reading comprehension.

>That is not the point and (if you were smart) you would have noticed it.
You are moving the goalposts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:33:22 2013 No.6074810 >>6074806 I did not receive anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:33:25 2013 No.6074806 >>6074755 >I took the test but I did not receive an email. You don't need one, you just need to save the sample certificate you received. Or at least screencap your score

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:38:05 2013 No.6074822

>>6074771
>Why? There is no reason.
there are plenty of them.

>You just called them by their names. There is no reason to rename them as "intelligence'. Intellgience already has a scientific definition and it does not include these skills.
The ability to solve IQ tests fast and accurately is not intelligence. It is just one form of intelligence that happens to be measurable with modern tools. By most standards, definitions and usages completely socially unadapted autist kids that score 250 in IQ tests are not intelligent.
Intelligence is a far broader concept than "everything tested on an IQ test." for most idioms and languages.

>Read a neuroscience textbook.
What will i see there that i don't know already? Why do you think that it would be relevant for the discussion?

>You used an appeal to emotion.
I said that the model was flawed and i pointed out why. If anything you seem to be the one who is emotional here.

>Your opinions are not facts.
Opinions can coincide with facts though. Just as any opinion.

>We are not talking about human cognition, we are talking about intelligence. Do you have a problem with the English language?
Cognition is relevant to the definition of intelligence, so yes, we are talking about cognition. Just as we are talking about politics in a fairly indirect way.

>What model? We are talking about a scientific definition. A definition is not a hypothesis.
The model that according to you measures intelligence.

>That's why I said "or an equivalent system". Work on your reading comprehension.
And i gave you equivalent systems. You seem to have as many problems as i in reading comprehension.

>You are moving the goalposts.
But it truly wasn't the point. The point wasn't that nothing can be known. The point was that IQ tests are just a measure of a very narrow form of intelligence and that a determined score in an IQ test isn't the same as intelligence.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:45:05 2013 No.6074838

>>6074822
>there are plenty of them.
Yet you cannot even name one.

>The ability to solve IQ tests fast and accurately is not intelligence.
It is the scientific definition of intelligence.

>Intelligence is a far broader concept than "everything tested on an IQ test." for most idioms and languages.
Scientific terminology doesn't care about your colloquial usage of the word.

>What will i see there that i don't know already? Why do you think that it would be relevant for the discussion?
You asked a question. Reading a neuroscience book would answer your question.

>I said that the model was flawed and i pointed out why.
You pointed out that it hurts your feelings. And it is still not a model, it is a definition.

>Opinions can coincide with facts though. Just as any opinion.
Yours don't.

>Cognition is relevant to the definition of intelligence, so yes, we are talking about cognition. Just as we are talking about politics in a fairly indirect way.
You are moving the goalposts again.

>The model that according to you measures intelligence.
It is a definition, not a model, and it is academically accepted. You can keep arguing against science, but we won't change scientific methods of measurement just because they hurt your feelings.

>And i gave you equivalent systems.
I never asked for them. Do you have a problem with communication? Are you suffering from any kind of developmental disorder? Please let me know. If you dont' know the name of your dysfunction, please ask your mom. She will remember what the doctor said.

>The point was that IQ tests are just a measure of a very narrow form of intelligence and that a determined score in an IQ test isn't the same as intelligence.
As explained several times ITT, IQ is the scientific definition of intelligence. Other skills have their own names and their own tests. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:47:35 2013 No.6074843 High IQ is holding in your brain many pieces of information and all their inter-relationships at once. Clear thinking and discipline are just as important.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:48:35 2013 No.6074856 File: 23 KB, 248x239, lkj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6074623 >more intelligent than Feynman >lives with momma and has no money >browses 4chan >more intelligent than a noble prize winning millionaire Physicist

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:50:35 2013 No.6074862 >>6074856 Those are very nice projections. Thanks for letting us know of your insecurities.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:57:34 2013 No.6074881

>>6074838
>It is the scientific definition of intelligence.
It is just one definition of inteligence. There are many others, just as scientific.

>Scientific terminology doesn't care about your colloquial usage of the word.
Good to know.

>You asked a question. Reading a neuroscience book would answer your question.
Explain.

>You pointed out that it hurts your feelings. And it is still not a model, it is a definition.
Even if it hurts my feelings, my feelings are not relevant to the discussion. Yours aren't either and you have been showing them over and over again.

>Yours don't.
Expand

>You are moving the goalposts again.
Yes i am. I think that the definition of intelligence that you are offering is inherently flawed because it lacks complexity.

>It is a definition, not a model, and it is academically accepted. You can keep arguing against science, but we won't change scientific methods of measurement just because they hurt your feelings.
I'm not arguing against science. I am presenting scientific arguments against the definition of intelligence that is excesively narrow.

>As explained several times ITT, IQ is the scientific definition of intelligence. Other skills have their own names and their own tests. Deal with it.
The word is being misused.

Interesting to notice that you didn't care to respond about the following:
>Just as we are talking about politics in a fairly indirect way.
Maybe you consider that people with higher IQ are also superior than people with lower IQ and therefore deserve more rights and/or property. Let us know please.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 18:59:08 2013 No.6074891 >>6074810 Then do it again, is it seriously that hard?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:05:05 2013 No.6074908 >>6074675 This is the best IQ test I've taken for a while. Surprisingly accurate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:05:36 2013 No.6074910 Low Hanging Fruit.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:05:37 2013 No.6074907

>>6074881
>It is just one definition of inteligence. There are many others, just as scientific.
The others are not scientific. They are made up by people who - for emotional reasons - refuse to accept science.

>Explain.
You asked for the neurophysiological differences between intelligent and unintelligent people. This is a question of neuroscience and should be answered by easily accesible academic literature.

>Even if it hurts my feelings, my feelings are not relevant to the discussion.
Then why do you keep using appeals to emotion?

>Yes i am.
You admit moving the goalposts?

>I think that the definition of intelligence that you are offering is inherently flawed because it lacks complexity.
A definition should be as simple as possible. Occam's razor.

>I'm not arguing against science. I am presenting scientific arguments against the definition of intelligence that is excesively narrow.
"Hurr durr it's 2narrow4me" is not a scientific argument but only an appeal to emotion. And by arguing against scientific definitions you are arguing against science.

>The word is being misused.
Which word?

>Interesting to notice that you didn't care to respond about the following:
>>Just as we are talking about politics in a fairly indirect way.
Why do you even post this red herring fallacy? We are on /sci/, not on /pol/. Do you want to distract from the debate you are losing?

>Maybe you consider that people with higher IQ are also superior than people with lower IQ and therefore deserve more rights and/or property. Let us know please.
How is my political view relevant to this objective science discussion? Your overuse of fallacies is an insult to the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:07:35 2013 No.6074912 >>6068286 What's the backstory you're referring to here? The challenger incident? I never heard a story involving Feynman and a glass of water.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:11:05 2013 No.6074922 >>6074908 >Surprisingly accurate Not really accurate if you have taken it once before, or you just simple practice taking IQ tests.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:12:05 2013 No.6074923 >>6074922 *simply

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:16:41 2013 No.6074937 >>6068061 MAYBE. Just maybe. He took the test on a bad day? Oh no wait, its because IQ tests are bullshit. This from someone of a high IQ.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:19:36 2013 No.6074943 >>6074912 Yes, challenger. Sticks rubber in ice water, shows something happens, supposes that it was relevant. Turns out it was the exact reason.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:26:35 2013 No.6074953

>>6074907
>The others are not scientific. They are made up by people who - for emotional reasons - refuse to accept science.
Why are they not scientific? what do they need to satisfy in order to be scientific?

>You asked for the neurophysiological differences between intelligent and unintelligent people. This is a question of neuroscience and should be answered by easily accesible academic literature.
Then explain the difference.

>Then why do you keep using appeals to emotion?
When did i appealed to emotion in order to back up an argument?

>You admit moving the goalposts?
I did move the goalposts. That has been the objective all along: to show that the skill that IQ tests measure is just too narrow.

>A definition should be as simple as possible. Occam's razor.
Occam's razor is not some kind of universal truth. It is a suggestion.

>"Hurr durr it's 2narrow4me" is not a scientific argument but only an appeal to emotion. And by arguing against scientific definitions you are arguing against science.
It's not too narrow for me. It's too narrow. And how is it that i am arguing against science? i am arguing for the improvement of science.

>Which word?
Intelligence

>Why do you even post this red herring fallacy? We are on /sci/, not on /pol/. Do you want to distract from the debate you are losing?
I want to now if you see the real implications of the position that you are defending. Clearly you don't care about them.

>How is my political view relevant to this objective science discussion? Your overuse of fallacies is an insult to the scientific method.
It isn't specially relevant to the discussion about intelligence, but it is relevant. Consider what i said about politics as if written on another post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:34:04 2013 No.6074967 >>6074937 Then how do you know how high you're IQ is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:34:36 2013 No.6074966 >>6074943 What happens exactly?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:35:06 2013 No.6074969 >>6074967 *your Goddamn, I'm having a bad day

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:35:35 2013 No.6074968 >>6074966 nm found it http://www.fotuva.org/online/challenger.htm

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:39:06 2013 No.6074982

>>6074953
>Why are they not scientific? what do they need to satisfy in order to be scientific?
They need to follow the scientific method and to be peer reviewed.

>Then explain the difference.
I told you to read a book. A book will explain it to you much better than a 4chan post.

>When did i appealed to emotion in order to back up an argument?
I every single post of yours.

>to show that the skill that IQ tests measure is just too narrow.
"Too narrow" is an appeal to emotion and not a scientific argument.

>Occam's razor is not some kind of universal truth. It is a suggestion.
Razors are used in science. Read the wikipedia article about the scientific method.

>It's not too narrow for me. It's too narrow.
It is not too narrow. Your value judgements are irrelevant to science.

>i am arguing for the improvement of science.
Changing definitions just because they hurt your feelings wouldn't be an improvement.

>Intelligence
Intelligence is defined rigorously by IQ tests.

>I want to now if you see the real implications of the position that you are defending. Clearly you don't care about them.
How is this relevant?

>It isn't specially relevant to the discussion about intelligence, but it is relevant. Consider what i said about politics as if written on another post.
Why do you make off-topic remarks?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:47:08 2013 No.6075011 >>6072357 This. Feynmann was a fucking genius, who cares if he threw an IQ test once.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:53:04 2013 No.6075028 >>6068061 >not being a genius and tanking your IQ test intentionally >post-1900

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 19:56:06 2013 No.6075035

>>6074982
>They need to follow the scientific method and to be peer reviewed.
In which way your definition of intelligence follows the scientific method and why is that definition superior to any other definition?

>I told you to read a book. A book will explain it to you much better than a 4chan post.
I will keep asking you: what are the qualitative differences between the brain of a dumb person and the brain of a smart one?

>I every single post of yours.
Is lying a logical fallacy? i think it is.

>"Too narrow" is an appeal to emotion and not a scientific argument.
It is not if it is backed by consistent data.

>Razors are used in science. Read the wikipedia article about the scientific method.
They are not universal truths. They are suggestions and they are used as such in science.

>It is not too narrow. Your value judgements are irrelevant to science.
Yours aren't either. Saying that it isn't too narrow is an appeal to emotion too if you don't give the consistent data to the matter.

>Changing definitions just because they hurt your feelings wouldn't be an improvement.
Humans are irrational beings. Language is irrational too. We humans use reason as a way to justify irrational acts. Your definition of intelligence, even if it is a definition that has internal coherence, isn't less irrational.

>Intelligence is defined rigorously by IQ tests.
According to the language that you are using, yes it is, but the definition that you are using is only useful when you are trying to define one ability, namely: the ability of doing IQ tests.

Anonymous Mon Oct 7 20:01:34 2013 No.6075051

>>6075035
>In which way your definition of intelligence follows the scientific method and why is that definition superior to any other definition?
It is not "my" definition. It is the academically accepted definition.

>I will keep asking you: what are the qualitative differences between the brain of a dumb person and the brain of a smart one?
Go read a book.

>It is not if it is backed by consistent data.
You did not post any data.

>They are not universal truths. They are suggestions and they are used as such in science.
They are logical rules of inference.

>Yours aren't either.
I did not post any opinions. I only posted facts.

>Saying that it isn't too narrow is an appeal to emotion too if you don't give the consistent data to the matter.
You made the claim. It is your burden of proof.

>Humans are irrational beings. Language is irrational too. We humans use reason as a way to justify irrational acts.
Meaningless philosobabble.

>Your definition of intelligence, even if it is a definition that has internal coherence, isn't less irrational.
It is the objective scientific definition.

>According to the language that you are using, yes it is, but the definition that you are using is only useful when you are trying to define one ability, namely: the ability of doing IQ tests.
That ability is what we call intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 20:32:48 2013 No.6075142 >>6074595 >would of yeah, because we are the ones with below average cognitive ability.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 20:56:28 2013 No.6075199 >>6068061 He had shitty verbal intelligence and off the charts non-verbal intelligence, hence his physics accolades.

>>	SciDropout Mon Oct 7 21:00:56 2013 No.6075206 Society values talent. Society does not know what to do with genius.

>>	i r smrt PotatoMan_Trisomy21 Mon Oct 7 21:40:58 2013 No.6075277 >>6069542 >posted by PotatoMan_Trisomy21

>>	PotatoMan_Trisomy21 Mon Oct 7 21:41:28 2013 No.6075280 >>6072043 >>6072046 ITT: >implying implications

>>	PotatoMan_Trisomy21 Mon Oct 7 21:43:28 2013 No.6075283 >>6072076 >I scored a 148 when I took it. What are you doing now? 125 here. Struggling through engineering

PotatoMan_Trisomy21 Mon Oct 7 21:45:58 2013 No.6075289

>>6072357
Why does everyone in this thread have such a hard time differentiating between VERBAL and NON-VERBAL IQ? It is the classical division on the scores, not one of the new "different kinds of intelligence" BS. Richard Feynman had an extremely high non-verbal IQ.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 21:57:29 2013 No.6075318 File: 307 KB, 500x219, d49.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6075199 >>6075289 >verbal vs non-verbal I have extremely high non-verbal AND extremely high verbal IQ. That makes me smarter than Feynman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 07:17:08 2013 No.6076279 >>6075289 >Richard Feynman had an extremely high non-verbal IQ. [citation needed]

Anonymous Tue Oct 8 09:33:59 2013 No.6076481

1/2

Lets talk about the ingredients that compose a genius.

The best book I have ever read on the subject is this one:

Before the Gates of Excellence: The Determinants of Creative Genius

http://www.amazon.com/Before-Gates-Excellence-Determinants-Creative/dp/0521376998

In short, although a high intelligence coefficient is necessary, it is not necessary that it be absurdly high, but just a little above average. The majority of /lit/ posters, for example, have an IQ that it is in the spectrum of some of the great genius of history. The great geniuses usually had similar personality traits, that motivated them to spend hours and hours and hours, days and days and days working and improving themselves. Great geniuses are a mix of genes (just good genes, a little above the average – being the average today around 100 IQ points) + creation + specific features of personality beget by the life experiences and genetic material of the child.

All great geniuses were ambitious and had broad desire to be recognized and admired for their work; all of them they also had obsessive personalities and thought that they creative jobs were the main function of their lives.

Anonymous Tue Oct 8 09:34:57 2013 No.6076483

>>6076481

2/2

Another interesting point: although the child who becomes a genius in the future start his career in the specific area of activity in a playful manner (playing with musical instruments, drawing for pleasure, reading for pleasure, etc.), in the future the conscience of their own emerging talent (the child or teen realizes his ability in the field and starts thinking on the possibility of achieve fame with his work) makes the chosen activity becomes not just a pleasurable hobby, but an terribly stressful and overwhelming obligation. The great geniuses often had to work without having the slightest desire to do so (all writers relate the difficulty of having to sit all day, in a routine, and fill the paper with significant literature). Even Einstein, when he worked on the theory of general relativity, eventually was tormented by stomach pain, nausea, anxiety, tachycardia and tremors. The anxiety and fear of failure are constant companions of geniuses, and also the constant dissatisfaction with oneself. The moments of pride and joy are quickly dissolved into new ambitions.

It is also a common feature of geniuses that certain feelings, mainly of respect or value, are wanted but not provided in childhood (sometimes this is even imaginary: the child receives attention and love, but not the enormous amount of attention and praise that it commonly desired). The huge ambition that they have is, in a way, a response to not receiving all the admiration they wish they had received when they were children and teenagers. Genius are generally very proud of themselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 10:24:59 2013 No.6076555 File: 141 KB, 1066x725, 1372797093919.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw I purposefully did an IQ test wrong and still got 74 IQ What a load of shit

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 11:11:27 2013 No.6076598 Does anyone knows how to find the area of a triangle with roots sides?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 11:13:56 2013 No.6076601 >>6076598 Like one side is the root of 26. The other one is root of 20 and the other is root of 13. What should i do? I did the Heron theory, but i get a complicated operation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 11:22:56 2013 No.6076617 >>6076601 >>6076598 Guuuys

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 11:32:28 2013 No.6076637 >>6076617 square each side find its hypotnuse tan(???) ??????? unsquare

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 11:47:26 2013 No.6076665 Because all the people with high IQs aren't physicists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 12:04:56 2013 No.6076685 >All these people that scored 95 - 105 >IQ is bullshit!!!! top kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 17:16:38 2013 No.6077363 >>6076665 This.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 19:09:36 2013 No.6077635 >>6068061 Imagination. >who would have thought of kid like drawings were important to the study of QM i.e. Feynman diagrams

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 02:19:09 2013 No.6078529 >>6076598 I don't think anyone on this board has a PhD in trigonometry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 02:20:40 2013 No.6078531 you forgot to factor in time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 02:40:52 2013 No.6078564 >>6076598 1/2 base x hight

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 02:50:53 2013 No.6078577 >>6068421 i've laughed well and good everydamn time i look at that pic. thanks

Anonymous Wed Oct 9 03:48:00 2013 No.6078620

>>6074838
>It is the scientific definition of intelligence
Is it? The concept of intelligence existed before we developed any sort of IQ test. That's exactly why we made them, because we had a vague idea about intelligence, and devised a system to measure it. That doesn't mean the measurement system we created can't have flaws.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 03:55:00 2013 No.6078629 >>6072043 > yeah his feynman digrams are amazing Niggas dunno about muh AMPLITUHEDRON >>6072076 That one maximalist young rebel >>6072189 )))) 3.5 / 10 >>6072420 I hear about this for the first time in my life. 28 yo though >>6078577 newfagg

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 04:45:16 2013 No.6078665 >>6075051 It always shocks me how people on blue boards cant see through even the most painfully obvious trolls. I cant believe that guy kept responding for that fucking long. What the fuck

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 04:51:17 2013 No.6078670 Because his intelligence was way higher than his IQ

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 06:38:11 2013 No.6078772 >>6078665 Some people just have nothing fucking better to do, i suppose

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 07:46:32 2013 No.6078854 >>6068061 Apparently IQ tests don't measure your ability to excel in QM

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:23:12 2013 No.6078879 The standard deviation in IQ tests is 15. That means feynman could be anywhere from 110 to 140.

Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:29:13 2013 No.6078886

>>6068061
>>6068077
http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Oddly enough the high IQ nations are also nations that rank fairly high in the OECD educational stats, while the low IQ nations are nations that well... basically don't have education. Almost as if there is a correlation there.

In general IQ tests are very flawed, autists and savants are a good example. While they often rank really far up in IQ tests, people would rarely consider them truly intelligent. While memorizing telephone books of the last 3 decades certainly is impressive, but calling it intelligent would be like calling a computer a genius.

On top of that, a German or Dutch group of students that were speicifically trained for IQ tests and took multiple tests over a period of a year have reached IQs as high as 165. Trying to find the source.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:33:11 2013 No.6078890 >>6078886 It's the other way around. Savants and autists tend to score lower than they're really worth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:36:12 2013 No.6078892 >>6078879 Not understanding SD >>6068061 This is bullshit, that was his predicted IQ from when he was in highschool, which, if you knew much about Feynman, didn't pay much attention to tests because he was figuring shit out.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:37:12 2013 No.6078896 >>6078892 >Not understanding SD I'm not?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:37:42 2013 No.6078895 >>6078892 Also this >>6072012

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:39:41 2013 No.6078899 >>6078890 My girlfriend's nephew is an autist. He got 167

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:43:11 2013 No.6078904 It's not about your IQ, it's all about how well you use the resources available to you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:53:21 2013 No.6078919 >>6078899 It's an exception. Just look at Kim Peek. 98% memory accuracy and he had an IQ of 87.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:55:19 2013 No.6078925 >>6078629 >claims to be 28 >his written language is more infantile than the spoken language of a toddler with brain damage You are lying or suffering from a severe developmental disorder. I seriously it's the former.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 08:56:50 2013 No.6078927 >>6072189 >string theory predicts gravity ad hoc

Anonymous Wed Oct 9 09:05:50 2013 No.6078937

>>6078896
SD is is for percentiles, not how much of a difference your score could be. A score of say, 130, is a score of 130, that's just what the score is. The SD of using say 15, would mean that score is 2 standard deviations from the norm of 100. Which would put the person into the top 2%ile.

>>	0110100001101001 Wed Oct 9 09:26:51 2013 No.6078967 >>6078665 People on non-blue boards would do the same, but they tend to get distracted by something to fap to before it gets too out of hand.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 09:40:51 2013 No.6078995 >>6078937 Ah I see. Well it seems kinda pointless though, to state the same thing in multiple ways. And how do you factor the accuracy of IQ tests anyway, obviously the scores variate a bit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 17:47:37 2013 No.6080037 It is an unsolved problem in cognitive science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 18:02:36 2013 No.6080078 >>6072189 >And string theory predicts gravity. You mean some of 10^500 string theories predict gravity? Oh my.

Anonymous Wed Oct 9 18:25:06 2013 No.6080147

>>6078995
The score varies on the human, and while there are factors, such as mood, sleep, drunk (me) etc, that can lower and heighten someones score, their intelligence wont change much unless they go out of their way to improve it in many areas.
But I agree, defining something repeatedly is pointless unless trying to figure out something philosophical. We've come to a point in time where actual content is replaced by a larger lexicon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 13:14:12 2013 No.6081599 >>6078904 >it's all about how well you use the resources available to you. How do you quantify this skill?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 13:25:56 2013 No.6081615 >>6068061 >Implying IQ means a damn thing The concept was invented by eugenicists and it is highly flawed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 13:27:25 2013 No.6081619 >>6074613 >IQ is the scientific definition of intelligence You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It's well accepted that IQ is flawed because it is very limited in the fields that it tests.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 13:30:26 2013 No.6081624 >>6081619 It tests the fields it is supposed to test, i.e. intelligence. Your emotional rejection does not change this fact.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 13:39:43 2013 No.6081635 >>6072064 Every model is wrong, but some are useful.

Anonymous Thu Oct 10 13:42:12 2013 No.6081638

>>6072436
>Also, for Americans (or the Europeans that use it), how relevant is IQ? If you want to exist a top tier college, would you need to pass an IQ test? If you want to apply to a PhD program? Or is it just /Sci/ circlejerk?

Huge /sci/ circlejerk. No institution asks for your IQ scores.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 15:30:30 2013 No.6081814 Faineman is overrated by pop sci consumers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 15:41:01 2013 No.6081844 being energetic/vibrant person >> being smart person in many cases. being energetic and smart = genius (proportions may vary)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 15:48:02 2013 No.6081868 >>6081814 whatever they say about him, he made significant contributions to his field.

Anonymous Thu Oct 10 15:54:59 2013 No.6081883
File: 5 KB, 279x181, fox (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6081844
I completely agree
love of science, dedication, hard work > shitty test that "measures" intelligence
>Also you can be the most brilliant person in the world but if you can’t talk to people or get your ideas across the intelligence is wasted.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 19:47:11 2013 No.6082486 your IQ can be high, you can be "smart" but if you cant see truth or blind yourself to realities that dont fit your ideas, your just as dumb as the rest of them

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 21:04:15 2013 No.6082620 >>6081814 You fucking kidding me? Do you even quantum electrodynamics and high energy physics?

Anonymous Thu Oct 10 21:16:47 2013 No.6082649

Richard Feynman was
1. dedicated
2. innovated
3. could "sell" his ideas. Explain them easily and quickly to any audience.

These are literally the only three things that matter in life.
It's why Edison is better known than Tesla. Tesla was an autistic prick who had a superiority complex while Edison actually explained his products to people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 22:13:33 2013 No.6082765 >>6068127 > Hurr durr I'm too stupid to learn physics so it's absurd.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 22:21:03 2013 No.6082780 >>6068061 Because self efficacy you piece of shit. IQ don't mean shit if you got spirit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 22:23:02 2013 No.6082784 >>6068421 So they were like /sci/

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 22:36:48 2013 No.6082807 >>6068061 Surely you're joking, OP.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 22:42:19 2013 No.6082819 >>6069567 THIS. Autists who gush on about their super high IQ score only do so because they haven't achieved anything meaningful in their pathetic lives.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 22:45:18 2013 No.6082830 >>6072357 >His IQ was higher than what the test measured >Because IQ is a pretty good measure of intelligence If that's not confirmation bias then I don't know what is. IQ test failed to match up with his achievements yet you are still defending it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 10 22:49:18 2013 No.6082839

>>6082649
>Tesla was an autistic prick who had a superiority complex
And this is why neckbeards worship him to this day. Tesla is the perfect embodiment of every autistic nerd's dream to be a complete sperglord yet become very successful through being smarter than everyone else.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 11 09:03:23 2013 No.6083315 >>6082620 Quantum electrodynamics is high school physics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 11 19:49:17 2013 No.6084217 >>6082819 Define "meaningful".

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 12 11:39:48 2013 No.6084944 >>6082830 IQ was never supposed to measure achievements. Intelligence =/= achievements

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 12 16:56:23 2013 No.6085538 My father has an IQ of 151 and is a trucker. He hated academia of all sorts because it just didn't make sense to him. Some people just have an academic drive that means they're working on problems all day, and that's what they live for.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 12 17:06:23 2013 No.6085567 >>6068061 Grinding.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 12 17:25:57 2013 No.6085620 >How did a man with only 125 IQ make such contributions to physics? The question is wrong, i.e., Feynmann did not have an IQ of 125. cf. goo gl/zUAgU7

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 12 17:27:57 2013 No.6085627 >>6076555 74 IQ means you are retarded? That's exactly what I would expect when doing it wrong.

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 17:28:58 2013 No.6085630

ITT: People making claims about IQ without knowing anything about it.

I will therefore repost introductory material. Hopefully, a few of you will learn something.

Intelligence research is much misunderstood and is controversial within the general public. Most of the misconceptions that people have are due to them simply never taking the time to read anything about the subject. Not even the base minimum of reading the relevant Wikipedia articles. Below I have listed three some papers and books on the subject that I consider introductory. These explain what IQ is, what intelligence is, what the g-factor is, how to measure it, and why it matters with many examples.

-

Very short (10 pages)
Gottfredson, Linda S. “Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography.” Intelligence 24.1 (1997): 13-23.
alturl com/i7cwx

-

Longer (54 pages)

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.
alturl com/rq8ur

-

Useful follow-up to the above (21 pages).

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15(1/2), 25-46.

alturl com/p5xht

-

More politically correct version of Gottfredson 1997:
Neisser, Ulric, et al. “Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns.” American psychologist 51.2 (1996): 77.
alturl com/62d4f

-

Longer and sociologically focused

Robert A. Gordon. (1997) Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context. Intelligence, Volume 24, Issue 1, January–February 1997, Pages 203–320.

alturl com/zwxa9

-

Light introduction to basic concepts. Useful for those not strong in math.
Deary, Ian J. Intelligence: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Intelligence, a very short introduction
alturl com/kwe8s

-

Very long and technical (660 pages)
Jensen, Arthur Robert. The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.
alturl com/g6jjh

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 18:05:08 2013 No.6085678
File: 1.19 MB, 3000x2691, Is-there-such-a-thing-as-one-general-intelligence.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>IQ seems to correlate with what we call intelligence, but it's a very rough correlation and there are certainly other factors.

Fullscale IQ x g correlation is very strong, usually >0.9.

>dawg the skills and temperament needed to succeed in basic research are not really measured by IQ. The successful researchers I've seen are very sharp in that regard, but they are also creative, patient, dedicated, and hard-working.

IQ tests measure mostly intelligence. They don't measure temperament nor are they meant to do that. That would be introducing bias in the testing.

>No you're making an error here. You assume there is something we call intelligence, that there is one thing we think of. In reality we tend to just be referring to our general experience of someone's ability to perform a wide range of mental feats, with no particular ordering or separation based on types of feats. The human brain looks very little like anyone's concept of intelligence.

You are very wrong. Pic related.

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 18:10:08 2013 No.6085681

>>6072436
Most countries have IQ tests for the military draft. And for good reason. In the US it is illegal to take in people who score less than 80. And they don't normally take people who score <85 either. They tried doing that once to see the results, and they were as expected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 18:13:08 2013 No.6085684

>>6073525
>But IQ tests still are a game, because you can learn it and become better at it with time while still not beeing more "intelligent".

That's not what "game" means. Yes, you can practice the tests. No, that won't make you smarter. You are just fucking up the measurement, just like you can do in physics or whatever hard science you like.

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 18:23:37 2013 No.6085699

If you've never read the book Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman, then do so immediately. To answer OP's question, he was able to conceptualize ideas better than anyone else, and for that reason was able to simplify the problems down to a solvable level(See Feynman diagrams).

Also, Richard Feynman is the ideal role model and everyone should strive to me more like him.

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 18:42:10 2013 No.6085727

>>6085684
>No, that won't make you smarter.

if by the mechanism of neuroplasticity you improve your ability to think on your feet and perform certain abstract thought exercises then that's exactly what it is meant to measure.

we're not born with all the connections our neural network will make use of in life already made.

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 18:57:09 2013 No.6085755

>>6085678

As far as g score goes,yYou can certainly administer tests in a variety of fields and then try and find some covariance in scores. But there are certainly many elements of our neurology that combine to influence our ability to test well.
The translation between a one dimensional metric given by a test score, and aptitude in what the test is being modeled for, is uncertain.

It's not uncommon for us to identify one person as intelligent yet slow, or another as able to think on their feet but lacking in focus, or another as able to be focused on single task but otherwise unmotivated to perform.

Yet by their very nature, tests require a combination of critical thinking aptitude, focus, motivation, and ability to think on one's feet to perform to the full potential of one's intelligence will allow for.

IQ tests are, at the end of the day, psychometric tests, not neurologic or genetic tests.

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 19:08:38 2013 No.6085776

>>6085727
>stating obvious things about neuroplasticity

Okay, but it doesn't work to increase intelligence. If you train on one test, you won't get better at unrelated tests. There is no transfer, and thus no true ability gain. No one has demonstrated a way to increase intelligence so far.

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 19:11:38 2013 No.6085781

>>6085755
>You can certainly administer tests in a variety of fields and then try and find some covariance in scores. But there are certainly many elements of our neurology that combine to influence our ability to test well.

Of course. Author Jensen mentions quite a few in The g Factor, chapter 6.

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 19:20:53 2013 No.6085800

>>6085699
>Also, Richard Feynman is the ideal role model and everyone should strive to me more like him.

An egotistical asshole obsessed with what people think of him and chasing tail, who beat his wife and "pranked" people like a /b/tard all the time?

Is there olives in it? Sat Oct 12 20:40:58 2013 No.6085940

>>6068061

IQ test provides a poor at best assessment of an individual's intelligence.

The guy was bright and had a serious hunger for knowledge. He never stopped asking questions until the day he died. He was never satisfied with any of the answers he found. So on and so forth.

Again, seriously, it's 2013 and the average dunce is still under the assumption that the IQ test is the be-all end-all measure of one's intelligence and/or worth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 12 20:43:28 2013 No.6085947 >>6085800 He also fucked around while his wife was on her deathbed

Anonymous Sat Oct 12 20:45:58 2013 No.6085953

>>6085940
>Again, seriously, it's 2013 and the average dunce is still under the assumption that the IQ test is the be-all end-all measure of one's intelligence and/or worth.

It's more like the other way around. The average dunce thinks intelligence cannot be measured, does not exist, is not measured well by standard IQ tests, is not good at predicting things etc. These are the mainstream and wrong beliefs, not the one experts hold. Educate yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 12 20:51:28 2013 No.6085966 >>6085953 There is absolutely no argument possible that says IQ measures intelligence that is not in some way tautological. It's predictive power does exist however.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 04:38:14 2013 No.6086575 >>6085966 I refer you to: >>6085678 which I made just before. IQ tests measure primarily g. That is why they are called "intelligence tests", because they measure (surprise) intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 05:04:19 2013 No.6086583 >>6085953 The problem is that you can be good or bad at the test itself. First time I did an IQ test it was like 95. Most recent was 135. I'm probably about average intelligence.

Anonymous Sun Oct 13 10:33:58 2013 No.6086914

>>6085966
>There is absolutely no argument possible that says IQ measures intelligence that is not in some way tautological.
Just like there is no argument possible that says centimeters measure length that is not in some way tautological. Go figure. Scientific measurement is simply a matter of definition.

>It's predictive power does exist however.
*its
A quantitative measurement is not supposed to have any predictive power. A quantitative measurement is not the same as a theory. Does length have predictive power? Does mass have predictive power?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 16:21:30 2013 No.6087726 since the day i was born i knew i was smarter than richard feynman. thanks for the proof.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 20:46:54 2013 No.6088341 >>6087726 How much smarter than him are you?

Anonymous Sun Oct 13 22:50:47 2013 No.6088542

>>6085678

This is what I've suspected for some time. Almost everything about human performance can be measured using known tests and the accepted methods simply get more accurate instead of redefining metrics.

Feynman had an IQ of 125 at the time he was tested (old standards of intelligence), but maybe it was because his intelligence was so far from normal. "Do you have a map of the cat?" is what he asked when learning feline anatomy. Think about that for a second. That almost sounds retarded, but is subtly brilliant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 23:21:11 2013 No.6088610 125? You are nothing but a shit-machine.

Anonymous Mon Oct 14 04:46:38 2013 No.6089184

>>6086583
These anecdotal reports prove nothing. What matters is the statistical analysis, and they show that standardized tests have stable scores, measure g well, and predict all kinds of things.

>>6088542
>This is what I've suspected for some time. Almost everything about human performance can be measured using known tests and the accepted methods simply get more accurate instead of redefining metrics.

Yes.

>Feynman had an IQ of 125 at the time he was tested (old standards of intelligence), but maybe it was because his intelligence was so far from normal. "Do you have a map of the cat?" is what he asked when learning feline anatomy. Think about that for a second. That almost sounds retarded, but is subtly brilliant.

This isn't true. Read the link I already posted about that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 14 05:09:03 2013 No.6089198 High IQ is NOT necessary for having good works on physics. And there is more, high IQ is NOT sufficient for having good works on physics. /sci/ will never learn this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 14 05:13:33 2013 No.6089204 Because IQ has roughly +/- 20% of accuracy.

Anonymous Mon Oct 14 07:30:33 2013 No.6089374

>>6089198
Yes it is. Increasingly complex problems have a floor effect such that anyone under that level will never solve the problem. Physics is a study that involves very difficult problems and as such people who insufficient intelligence will never solve them.

Perhaps the requirement for getting a bachelor at a mediocre university is not above 100, but getting a Ph.D. at an elite university will not be possible for someone with a g of 100.

>>6089204
This doesn't even mean anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 14 18:36:13 2013 No.6090354 How did the guy even learn reading with such a low IQ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 14 19:14:40 2013 No.6090433 >>6085800 exactly

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 02:40:25 2013 No.6091156

>>6089374
I disagree.
One can solve complex problems without being too intelligent. How? Diving the problem on steps and working hard. Perseverance.

Americans are obsessed with this IQ nonsense. Science is not only about smart guys doing smart things. Someone who want to be a scientist, must (I'd say) love science. The rest is a consequence.

Consider the following: Pick a normal citizen and give him a college problem on physics or mathematics and some books. He has to solve it if he want to earn two thousand dollars. There is no time limit. Will he solve it? Probably not.
Now, tell him that he will earn one million dollars. Better, tell him that he will be killed (convincing him) if he fails.
Don't underestimate willpower.

I think you guys would like to read this:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/11/12/164793058/struggle-for-smarts-how-eastern-and-western-cultures-tackle-learning

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 02:46:54 2013 No.6091162

>>6091156
>One can solve complex problems without being too intelligent. How? Diving the problem on steps and working hard. Perseverance.

You ignored my point about floor effects. No one denies that hard work is a factor too. Let me make it clearer for you. You will never, ever no matter how much you try make a retarded person (IQ 60) pass a class on quantum mechanics at a decent university. It is not possible.

>Consider the following: Pick a normal citizen and give him a college problem on physics or mathematics and some books. He has to solve it if he want to earn two thousand dollars. There is no time limit. Will he solve it? Probably not.

A normal (IQ 100?) citizen might be able to do that. Presumably, he isn't allowed to get help in your example, otherwise it is a trivially easy task.

>Americans are obsessed with this IQ nonsense.

They are in fact not. Media people are obsessed about denying science about it. The irony is that they at the same time accuse people of placing too much weight on it! See also: >>6085953

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 02:58:44 2013 No.6091168

>>6091162
Oh, I understand what you meant now. I agree with you, though it doesn't go against what I said previously, I meant that one doesn't need a high IQ (not a sufficiently high IQ) to do something. That is, one, at most of the times, doesn't need to be above average.

>They are in fact not
Strange. /sci/ and the link I posted made me think that way.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 03:03:44 2013 No.6091171
File: 829 KB, 150x250, 1381709315213.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

IQ tests are all about independence of knowledge.
They're all "in the moment", abstract questions.

Physics and mathematics are not entirely dependent on intelligence because the have a knowledge base.

IQ tests are bullshit anyway, you can actually get better at them with practice. 125 was what he got in high school.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 03:55:19 2013 No.6091218 >>6068061 >How did a man with only 125 IQ make such contributions to physics? Have you followed a physics course recently? It takes a retard to think their reasoning is sound.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 04:09:00 2013 No.6091228 >>6091171 yet despite your theory on how the world works, physicists still almost universally have high IQ. Science describes observations not philosophy of feelings. You are just spouting your philosophy.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 04:45:53 2013 No.6091269

>>6091168
>Oh, I understand what you meant now. I agree with you, though it doesn't go against what I said previously, I meant that one doesn't need a high IQ (not a sufficiently high IQ) to do something. That is, one, at most of the times, doesn't need to be above average.

Presumably this claim is not data based. There is however plenty of data about this. I read one study that reported the entire range of scores in relation to various jobs. The topmost jobs did not have anyone below about 100. Topmost jobs being things like college professors.

However, I can't seem to locate the study. I don't recall which one it is, but the table is the same as the one in Gottfredson 1997, except that it includes ranges as well.

>Strange. /sci/ and the link I posted made me think that way.

Most /sci/ or any other 4chan board threads that involve IQ includes hosts and hosts of deniers.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 06:16:33 2013 No.6091361

>>6091228

there is no proof whatsoever that IQ measure anything of relevance.

people that have high IQ's are good at solving IQ questions and thats all.

there is no such thing as smart people. there are dumb people(retarded) and lazy people. and people that works hard and dedicate their time on something.

most people with high IQ are janitors and buss drivers. very few are physicists or mathematician or engineers

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 06:18:04 2013 No.6091363 >>6091361 You completely ignored the post you replied to. Nice.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 06:22:34 2013 No.6091369 File: 197 KB, 512x921, jobsIQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6091361

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 08:32:51 2013 No.6091523

>>6091369

well yea look at that stats. it the IQ interval of te different jobs varies a lot . and the IQ's overall stays in between 100-130.

and you have medical(medical people are no very smart) at top. which varies from 110 to 130. thats not that big of deal. since the job with lowest score reaches over 110 in its interval.
you have to take into account that people with more "thinking"-work will be more interesting in solving puzzles and be interested in IQ

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:10:26 2013 No.6091555 >>6091523 None of that made any sense. Rewrite that post, but use logic this time.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:16:26 2013 No.6091558

>>6091555
He's pointing out that for each individual job, the IQ varies around 30 points or more, whereas the average IQ only varies like 15 points from the 'worst' job to the 'best' (excluding the very bottom one, which looks like an outlier). It seems reasonable to conclude that IQ says very little on the individual level.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:18:55 2013 No.6091560 >>6091361 Troll/10

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:21:26 2013 No.6091563

>>6091558
Keep in mind that one does not cover all job types, and that moving an average for a job just 15 points has a HUGE EFFECT.

g says quite a lot about individuals, but it is probabilistic, not certain. Read the introductory material I posted in >>6085630

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:26:55 2013 No.6091573

>>6091558
>He's pointing out that for each individual job, the IQ varies around 30 points or more, whereas the average IQ only varies like 15 points from the 'worst' job to the 'best'
...but that's not a meaningful observation at all.
How unfamiliar are you with statistics?

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:26:55 2013 No.6091575

>>6091563
It says a lot about groups of people, not individuals; this is what it means for something to be probabilistic. If I tell you my IQ, you won't be able to tell me what I do (see for instance the graph above). Likewise, if I tell you what I do, you won't be able to tell my IQ.

What you can do is come up with an educated guess, and you might even be able to be better at guessing than a random guess generator; but this is exactly what it means that you can't say much on an individual level, only on the level of large groups.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:28:26 2013 No.6091578 >>6091573 It is completely meaningful. It means that you won't be able to predict very well what I do based on my IQ, or vice versa. How familiar are you with statistics?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:31:55 2013 No.6091585 >>6091578 When you see a distribution like in >>6091369 , do you imagine it's something completely flat, centered around 90, and which abruptly stops at 75 and 110?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:32:26 2013 No.6091588 >>6091578 Actually you would be able to do very good predictions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:33:56 2013 No.6091591 >>6091585 I'm not in the mood for a pop quiz. If you have a point, state it.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:34:55 2013 No.6091594

>>6091591
My point is you don't understand how distributions work.
Saying something like "the IQ varies around 30 points or more" doesn't mean anything. In fact it's wrong. You will find points outside that range.
Those kind of graphs represent a normal distribution...

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:35:26 2013 No.6091597

>>6091588
Except the graph >>6091369 clearly shows that people in the range 90-110 could be practically anything. You can make good predictions primarily in the range <75 and >130. Given those ranges, I think I could devise a simpler test than an IQ test to predict what kind of job someone has.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:37:56 2013 No.6091598 >>6091594 Indeed, if you want a mathematically precise statement from what I said, you would have to interpret the statement in a certain fashion. This can easily be done, by someone with the relevant prerequisites.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 10:02:48 2013 No.6091640

>>6091597
>You can make good predictions primarily in the range <75 and >130.
You don't need that much to do predictions, no.

Do you understand of percentiles work?
Yes some janitors have an IQ higher than 110. But way less than doctors proportionally.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 10:13:16 2013 No.6091665

>>6091640
Still, I am not arguing that IQ is not correlated to other parameters. I am simply stating the obvious fact that on an individual level, you can't say much about a person solely based on their IQ, or vice versa. This is how it is for most statistically significant correlations.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 10:17:47 2013 No.6091678

>>6091665
No, actually, you're just backpedalling.
First it was "IQ doesn't measure anything", then it was "the interval is bigger than the difference in average" (which once again has no statistic meaning whatsoever), now it's "yeah it's correlated but you can't tell anything about individuals".

Which isn't true anyway. A dude with 120 IQ is much more likely to be a doctor than a janitor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 10:19:17 2013 No.6091684 >>6091665 >This is how it is for most statistically significant correlations. In other word your position isn't falsifiable. Nice science breh.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 11:29:47 2013 No.6091785

>>6091575
But that is not right. This is only if the numbers do not approach certainty for some IQ groups, which they do indeed. The chance of someone IQ 70 becoming a college professor is 0. The chance of someone IQ 100 becoming a college professor is very small indeed, but not quite 0. But still, it would be foolish advice for a career adviser to suggest going for a college professor job.

There are other things as well. Suppose you want to excel in whatever job you choose. You want to be at at least the 90th centile in that job. In that case, consulting mean IQs for various jobs is a very good idea. You might become a mediocre physicist with an IQ of 130, but you would be top level psychotherapist.

But sure, these numbers are mostly useful for group level judgments and political decisions, and less useful for personal decisions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 11:36:16 2013 No.6091794 >>6068061 It means IQ is flawed end of discussion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 11:38:46 2013 No.6091797 >>6091785 they dont use IQ for political decisions. because they don’t give accurate measures. that the key here. its juts pop-science. if they did then black people would be considered stupider than white people.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 12:33:47 2013 No.6091879

>>6072420
Yeah, i took my first mandatory WAIS-IV IQ test back in 2009. Drugged up & sleep deprived i scored a 118. I must add i was still recovering from a manic episode.

A year later, after demanding it to be done under fair circumstances i scored a 129. Did i grow smarter?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 12:36:48 2013 No.6091884 >>6091879 It shows your capability to make tests and a rough indication of your intelligence. I wouldn't think too much of it.

Anonymous Tue Oct 15 17:01:19 2013 No.6092353

>>6091797
>they dont use IQ for political decisions. because they don’t give accurate measures. that the key here. its juts pop-science.

Yes they do. Calling something you don't know anything about "pop-science" is pretty pathetic. Read something about the matter before making dumb judgments. Introductory material here: >>6085630

>if they did then black people would be considered stupider than white people.

Yes they do. The difference is quite real.

>>6091879
Phenotypic intelligence is not completely stable devoid of any environmental impact during the testing. No expert thinks that. Asking rhetorical questions like that just makes you look stupid in the eyes of experts.

>>	Carbon Tue Oct 15 21:37:18 2013 No.6092861 >>6068061 Motivation and constant study.. IQ isn't useful when you can't apply it(actually trying to learn something i.e. studying) Something like the download speed of the brain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 22:34:23 2013 No.6092915 >>6068073 >>6068075 >>6068077 >>6068082 intelligence is the ability to understand.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math