View Full Version : String theorists IQ's
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>hi,\n\ni would imagine string theorists are among the smartest self-selected\ngroup of people in this world. I\'ve read the Bell Curve, and a variety\nof intelligence groups including Mensa and MegaWorld require high IQ\nscores for membership.\n\nSupposedly the highest IQ-er\'s in the US, such as Mariyln vos Savant\nand Christopher Lagan are not string theorists.\n\nI am curious as to what IQ\'s are of famous string theorists as Edward\nWitten, Michio Kaku, Briane Green, Steven Weinberg, Lisa Randall,\netc., are, and enthustic academics string theorists such as Lubos\nMotl.\n\nIs IQ a good predictor of success as a string theorist? Is there a\ngood correlation between IQ and stature in the string physics\ncommunity?\n\nthanks\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>hi,
i would imagine string theorists are among the smartest self-selected
group of people in this world. I've read the Bell Curve, and a variety
of intelligence groups including Mensa and MegaWorld require high IQ
scores for membership.
Supposedly the highest IQ-er's in the US, such as Mariyln vos Savant
and Christopher Lagan are not string theorists.
I am curious as to what IQ's are of famous string theorists as Edward
Witten, Michio Kaku, Briane Green, Steven Weinberg, Lisa Randall,
etc., are, and enthustic academics string theorists such as Lubos
Motl.
Is IQ a good predictor of success as a string theorist? Is there a
good correlation between IQ and stature in the string physics
community?
thanks
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Daniel <ensabah6@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ba566c17.0405032356.330ab290-100000@posting.google.com>...\n\n> Supposedly the highest IQ-er\'s in the US, such as Mariyln vos Savant\n> and Christopher Lagan are not string theorists.\n\nMariyln vos Savant is severely mentally retarded, more so than someone\nwith Down\'s Syndrome. This fact is self-evident from her columns in\nParade. If I were to guess her IQ, I would guess about 45. I\'m not\nsaying this as a joke. I\'m 100% serious. Any physicist would agree.\nThis illustrates the point that the so-called IQ test has got to be\nthe least accurate test in terms of measuring what it purports to\nmeasure of any test in the world.\n\n[Moderator\'s note: the measurements of IQ are not the best example of a\nscientific experiment, the intellectual abilities have many forms,\nflavors and subtleties and their success depends on many other facts.\nBecause this is not a psychological newsgroup, I encourage everyone\nto be on-topic. LM]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Daniel <ensabah6@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ba566c17.0405032356.330ab290-100000@posting.google.com>...
> Supposedly the highest IQ-er's in the US, such as Mariyln vos Savant
> and Christopher Lagan are not string theorists.
Mariyln vos Savant is severely mentally retarded, more so than someone
with Down's Syndrome. This fact is self-evident from her columns in
Parade. If I were to guess her IQ, I would guess about 45. I'm not
saying this as a joke. I'm 100% serious. Any physicist would agree.
This illustrates the point that the so-called IQ test has got to be
the least accurate test in terms of measuring what it purports to
measure of any test in the world.
[Moderator's note: the measurements of IQ are not the best example of a
scientific experiment, the intellectual abilities have many forms,
flavors and subtleties and their success depends on many other facts.
Because this is not a psychological newsgroup, I encourage everyone
to be on-topic. LM]
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>well,\n\nVos Savant and Christopher Lagan aside, I would like to know more\nabout string theorists themselves, where they all child prodigies? Did\nthey score high on IQ tests? Are they members of High-IQ societies\nlike Mensa, Triple 9, Prometheus, or MegaWorld? What is Edward\nWitten\'s IQ?\n\nI would imagine that an IQ of 160, 4 standard deviations above the\nmean, would be the bare minimum IQ necessary to be a string theorist.\n\nEveryone knows string theorists like michio kaku and brian greene are\nsmart. Are their intelligence reflected by IQ scores?\n\n==========\n[Moderator\'s note: Do you want particular examples, or perhaps an analysis\nof every string theorist around? Yes, I think it is true that a significant\nnumber of string theorists have been viewed as child prodigies; some of\nthem got their PhD at the age of 20 or less; as kids, they were the\nwinners of mathematical and physics olympiads. They score well in the\nIQ tests. Nevertheless I think that most string theorists - and most\nphysicists - would tell you that the IQ tests are pretty silly, and\nthe "High-IQ" societies usually organize the people who want to be viewed\nas extraordinarily smart rather than to actually *be* smart (or even\nuse their brain for something really non-trivial). Be sure that every\nphysicist prefers to judge the intelligence of another physicist\naccording to his/her work, papers, and comments about science, rather than\naccording to the "IQ-tests". Yes, a visible fraction of the physics students\nwho are viewed as the best ones tends to choose the most challenging\nfield, and it is often string theory although there is no universal rule.\n\nIt is much harder - not just for your memory, but also for your\nbiological CPU - to master all methods, tricks and ways to think that\nare necessary to think about string theory, than it is to master the set of\ntricks that are useful to have good results in the "IQ-tests", and I\nbelieve that not only most string theorists, but most scientists would\nagree with this statement. Nevertheless, intelligence has many\nflavors; many of them are required to do theoretical physics well, some\nof them are not; some of them can even be harmful. Less may sometimes\nbe more, and an overly complicated way of thinking - which in principle\nmight come from a too big intelligence - can prevent one from big\ndiscoveries, too. The success in science is not given purely by\nintelligence, but also by your invested time, patience, and luck.\nThe world is complicated, and so is string theory. LM]\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>well,
Vos Savant and Christopher Lagan aside, I would like to know more
about string theorists themselves, where they all child prodigies? Did
they score high on IQ tests? Are they members of High-IQ societies
like Mensa, Triple 9, Prometheus, or MegaWorld? What is Edward
Witten's IQ?
I would imagine that an IQ of 160, 4 standard deviations above the
mean, would be the bare minimum IQ necessary to be a string theorist.
Everyone knows string theorists like michio kaku and brian greene are
smart. Are their intelligence reflected by IQ scores?
==========
[Moderator's note: Do you want particular examples, or perhaps an analysis
of every string theorist around? Yes, I think it is true that a significant
number of string theorists have been viewed as child prodigies; some of
them got their PhD at the age of 20 or less; as kids, they were the
winners of mathematical and physics olympiads. They score well in the
IQ tests. Nevertheless I think that most string theorists - and most
physicists - would tell you that the IQ tests are pretty silly, and
the "High-IQ" societies usually organize the people who want to be viewed
as extraordinarily smart rather than to actually *be* smart (or even
use their brain for something really non-trivial). Be sure that every
physicist prefers to judge the intelligence of another physicist
according to his/her work, papers, and comments about science, rather than
according to the "IQ-tests". Yes, a visible fraction of the physics students
who are viewed as the best ones tends to choose the most challenging
field, and it is often string theory although there is no universal rule.
It is much harder - not just for your memory, but also for your
biological CPU - to master all methods, tricks and ways to think that
are necessary to think about string theory, than it is to master the set of
tricks that are useful to have good results in the "IQ-tests", and I
believe that not only most string theorists, but most scientists would
agree with this statement. Nevertheless, intelligence has many
flavors; many of them are required to do theoretical physics well, some
of them are not; some of them can even be harmful. Less may sometimes
be more, and an overly complicated way of thinking - which in principle
might come from a too big intelligence - can prevent one from big
discoveries, too. The success in science is not given purely by
intelligence, but also by your invested time, patience, and luck.
The world is complicated, and so is string theory. LM]
<div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>hi,\n\ni would imagine string theorists are among the smartest self-selected\ngroup of people in this world. I\'ve read the Bell Curve, and a variety\nof intelligence groups including Mensa and MegaWorld require high IQ\nscores for membership.\n\nSupposedly the highest IQ-er\'s in the US, such as Mariyln vos Savant\nand Christopher Lagan are not string theorists.\n\nI am curious as to what IQ\'s are of famous string theorists as Edward\nWitten, Michio Kaku, Briane Green, Steven Weinberg, Lisa Randall,\netc., are, and enthustic academics string theorists such as Lubos\nMotl.\n\nIs IQ a good predictor of success as a string theorist? Is there a\ngood correlation between IQ and stature in the string physics\ncommunity?\n\nthanks\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P>hi,
i would imagine string theorists are among the smartest self-selected
group of people in this world. I've read the Bell Curve, and a variety
of intelligence groups including Mensa and MegaWorld require high IQ
scores for membership.
Supposedly the highest IQ-er's in the US, such as Mariyln vos Savant
and Christopher Lagan are not string theorists.
I am curious as to what IQ's are of famous string theorists as Edward
Witten, Michio Kaku, Briane Green, Steven Weinberg, Lisa Randall,
etc., are, and enthustic academics string theorists such as Lubos
Motl.
Is IQ a good predictor of success as a string theorist? Is there a
good correlation between IQ and stature in the string physics
community?
thanks
Most people don't go around telling people their IQ so it might be hard to tell.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Dear Moderator,\n\nYes i would like to know what Michio Kaku, and Briane Greene\'s and\nEdward Witten, and a Lubos Motl IQ\'s are. I\'m a big fan of popular\nphysics books by Briane Green, such as Elegant Universe and Fabric of\nthe Cosmos, and Kaku\'s Beyond Einstein. Edward Witten is said by many\nto be the smartest man alive. String theorist Lubos Motl seems to\nenjoy posting on sci.physics.research, and sparring with John Baez, so\nthere\'s a good chance he\'ll read this post. How does a string theorist\nknow he\'s smart enough to learn string theory?\n\nBy the way, i agree with you about "It is much harder...to master all\nmethods, tricks and ways to think that are necessary to think about\nstring theory, than it is to master the set of tricks that are useful\nto have good results in the "IQ-tests", so do you know why Richard\nFeynman\'s IQ is only 126, as the physics problems he wrestled with are\nfar more complex than IQ questions he had to answer to score 126 --\nFeynman would not even qualify for Mensa.\n\nMy "research" interests stems from the fact that the Bell Curve by\nMurry and Hernstein claims IQ tests are valid measurements of\nintelligence. Mensa agrees 100%.\n\nAlso, public listing of these famous string theorist IQ\'s and early\nchildhood achievements may encourage or discourage bright students to\nself-select (or deselect) string theory as a vocation. I seriously\ndoubt I could be successful as a string theorist as my IQ is only 140.\n\nMy curiousity stems partly from the claim that I\'ve heard Mariyln vos\nSavant and Christopher Lagan are the "smartest" people alive in the US\ntoday, but on the PBS documentary "Nova - the elegant universe", which\ni really enjoyed, the string theorists all claim an Edward Witten is\nthe smartest man alive.\n\n\n\n>\n> ==========\n> [Moderator\'s note: Do you want particular examples, or perhaps an analysis\n> of every string theorist around? Yes, I think it is true that a significant\n> number of string theorists have been viewed as child prodigies; some of\n> them got their PhD at the age of 20 or less; as kids, they were the\n> winners of mathematical and physics olympiads. They score well in the\n> IQ tests. Nevertheless I think that most string theorists - and most\n> physicists - would tell you that the IQ tests are pretty silly, and\n> the "High-IQ" societies usually organize the people who want to be viewed\n> as extraordinarily smart rather than to actually *be* smart (or even\n> use their brain for something really non-trivial). Be sure that every\n> physicist prefers to judge the intelligence of another physicist\n> according to his/her work, papers, and comments about science, rather than\n> according to the "IQ-tests". Yes, a visible fraction of the physics students\n> who are viewed as the best ones tends to choose the most challenging\n> field, and it is often string theory although there is no universal rule.\n>\n> It is much harder - not just for your memory, but also for your\n> biological CPU - to master all methods, tricks and ways to think that\n> are necessary to think about string theory, than it is to master the set of\n> tricks that are useful to have good results in the "IQ-tests", and I\n> believe that not only most string theorists, but most scientists would\n> agree with this statement. Nevertheless, intelligence has many\n> flavors; many of them are required to do theoretical physics well, some\n> of them are not; some of them can even be harmful. Less may sometimes\n> be more, and an overly complicated way of thinking - which in principle\n> might come from a too big intelligence - can prevent one from big\n> discoveries, too. The success in science is not given purely by\n> intelligence, but also by your invested time, patience, and luck.\n> The world is complicated, and so is string theory. LM]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Dear Moderator,
Yes i would like to know what Michio Kaku, and Briane Greene's and
Edward Witten, and a Lubos Motl IQ's are. I'm a big fan of popular
physics books by Briane Green, such as Elegant Universe and Fabric of
the Cosmos, and Kaku's Beyond Einstein. Edward Witten is said by many
to be the smartest man alive. String theorist Lubos Motl seems to
enjoy posting on sci.physics.research, and sparring with John Baez, so
there's a good chance he'll read this post. How does a string theorist
know he's smart enough to learn string theory?
By the way, i agree with you about "It is much harder...to master all
methods, tricks and ways to think that are necessary to think about
string theory, than it is to master the set of tricks that are useful
to have good results in the "IQ-tests", so do you know why Richard
Feynman's IQ is only 126, as the physics problems he wrestled with are
far more complex than IQ questions he had to answer to score 126 --
Feynman would not even qualify for Mensa.
My "research" interests stems from the fact that the Bell Curve by
Murry and Hernstein claims IQ tests are valid measurements of
intelligence. Mensa agrees 100%.
Also, public listing of these famous string theorist IQ's and early
childhood achievements may encourage or discourage bright students to
self-select (or deselect) string theory as a vocation. I seriously
doubt I could be successful as a string theorist as my IQ is only 140.
My curiousity stems partly from the claim that I've heard Mariyln vos
Savant and Christopher Lagan are the "smartest" people alive in the US
today, but on the PBS documentary "Nova - the elegant universe", which
i really enjoyed, the string theorists all claim an Edward Witten is
the smartest man alive.
>
> ==========
> [Moderator's note: Do you want particular examples, or perhaps an analysis
> of every string theorist around? Yes, I think it is true that a significant
> number of string theorists have been viewed as child prodigies; some of
> them got their PhD at the age of 20 or less; as kids, they were the
> winners of mathematical and physics olympiads. They score well in the
> IQ tests. Nevertheless I think that most string theorists - and most
> physicists - would tell you that the IQ tests are pretty silly, and
> the "High-IQ" societies usually organize the people who want to be viewed
> as extraordinarily smart rather than to actually *be* smart (or even
> use their brain for something really non-trivial). Be sure that every
> physicist prefers to judge the intelligence of another physicist
> according to his/her work, papers, and comments about science, rather than
> according to the "IQ-tests". Yes, a visible fraction of the physics students
> who are viewed as the best ones tends to choose the most challenging
> field, and it is often string theory although there is no universal rule.
>
> It is much harder - not just for your memory, but also for your
> biological CPU - to master all methods, tricks and ways to think that
> are necessary to think about string theory, than it is to master the set of
> tricks that are useful to have good results in the "IQ-tests", and I
> believe that not only most string theorists, but most scientists would
> agree with this statement. Nevertheless, intelligence has many
> flavors; many of them are required to do theoretical physics well, some
> of them are not; some of them can even be harmful. Less may sometimes
> be more, and an overly complicated way of thinking - which in principle
> might come from a too big intelligence - can prevent one from big
> discoveries, too. The success in science is not given purely by
> intelligence, but also by your invested time, patience, and luck.
> The world is complicated, and so is string theory. LM]
DeanBooth
Jul15-06, 11:01 PM
I have a more general philosophical question about intelligence and scientific theory. Roughly put, are humans intelligent enough to understand the universe?
It seems clear that if the maximum human IQ were, say, 100, we would probably not have made as much scientific progress. Could there have been a Newton? An Einstein? Would anyone be capable of devising, much less understanding, string theory?
Is there any literature addressing this topic, that addresses whether we are intelligent enough to understand how the universe works?
Thanks,
Dean
People who have a high IQ have it because they scored well on an IQ test, not necessarily because they are super intelligent.
Schrodinger's Cat
Aug31-06, 07:21 PM
I would like to know more
about string theorists themselves, where they all child prodigies?
I heard that Brian Greene was a child mathematics prodigy. He was really good with multiplying figures at an early age.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.