Register to reply

Scientists with low IQs

by Simfish
Tags: inquilinekea
Share this thread:
jostpuur
#55
Aug6-07, 06:15 AM
P: 2,032
I have a better intelligent test. It is this: If you have got a Nobel prize in theoretical physics, or a Fields medal, you are intelligent. If you have not got either of them, you are not intelligent. Possible scores in the test are 0 and 1.
Manchot
#56
Aug6-07, 08:49 AM
P: 728
Quote Quote by jostpuur View Post
I have a better intelligent test. It is this: If you have got a Nobel prize in theoretical physics, or a Fields medal, you are intelligent. If you have not got either of them, you are not intelligent. Possible scores in the test are 0 and 1.
Does John Bardeen get a 2, then? Or does the transistor not count as theoretical physics?
Moridin
#57
Aug6-07, 09:06 AM
P: 858
Does an IQ test measure your intelligence, or your ability to complete IQ tests?
Kurdt
#58
Aug6-07, 10:01 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,981
High IQ is not a requirement to becoming a scientist. The most important aspect is dedication and hard work. You can have the highest IQ in the world but if you do not apply yourself then you will never achieve anything. On the other hand you could have an average IQ and try very hard and produce some fantastic research or win the Nobel prize. What would you rather do.
scientiavore
#59
Jul5-08, 03:44 PM
P: 9
I stopped caring about my IQ results when they started giving me lower results...
That proved me I was not a genius after all, so I simply don't give a **** about it now. :P

I pretty much suck at chess for example, I am damn slow processing future possibles moves.

But I don't know, when proving math theorems for example, does the IQ thing really matters? Is it logic what we use?
I think we don't even think about it on a conscious level, it is kind of like you stare at the problem for a long while, you get frustrated with yourself because you can't solve it, you give up, you're taking a shower and then suddenly, out of the blue, a thought runs through your head with the solution.
mjolnir80
#60
Jul5-08, 04:49 PM
P: 64
Quote Quote by Guna82m View Post
IQ doesnt picture everything about a human's cababilities...believe me..i'v seen people with very high IQ looks more dull like a cartoon character than normal human. IQ test is linear way of determining one's brain power.. There is no algorithm way to define one's IQ... so dont be suprise to see people with low IQ become world famous scientist...

Formula to become worls famous scientist = Huge amout of hard work + small amout of luck ....can anyone give a scientific eq from this formula???
quoted for truth
Danger
#61
Jul5-08, 05:04 PM
PF Gold
Danger's Avatar
P: 8,964
Mr. Dog, I agree with you if only for the flawless camouflage job in your post.
Everyone seems to forget the Q part of IQ. As MIH, Hypatia, Moonbear, and several other less beautiful people know, the IQ scale is meant to determine the capacity for knowledge, rather than the knowledge itself. 35 years ago, when I was tested, I ended up somewhere between 100 and 200. That doesn't mean that I'm smarter than my friend who scored 95, or dumber than my other friend who scored 195.
Work with what you've got, screw the nay-sayers, and make a good life for yourself.
WarPhalange
#62
Jul5-08, 08:29 PM
P: 343
My IQ is 470, making me a Level 12 Genius. I get +5 to arrogance and -10 to my "Chance to get laid" roll. I also get special abilities such as "Flaunt Superiority" and "Fix Microwave".

If you need any proof that IQ means squat when it comes to intelligence, look at this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan
maze
#63
Jul5-08, 11:45 PM
P: 655
If IQ really measures some "intrinsic ability", then, at the absolute minimum, the scores you get on a test should stay relatively constant over time. Your score shouldn't increase as you learn new things. This is not the case with actual tests.

For example, if you work in 3d modeling and texturing/skinning for a few months (drawing and applying 2d images onto a 3d model), then those questions about how a cube or dodecahedron folds up are trivially easy to visualize, because you've gotten used to visualizing much harder stuff.
Howers
#64
Jul6-08, 04:59 AM
P: 444
Quote Quote by Kurdt View Post
High IQ is not a requirement to becoming a scientist. The most important aspect is dedication and hard work. You can have the highest IQ in the world but if you do not apply yourself then you will never achieve anything. On the other hand you could have an average IQ and try very hard and produce some fantastic research or win the Nobel prize. What would you rather do.
To be a scientist who regurgitates other people's work? No. As long as you can recite information you can do anything you want to. But to produce fantastic research? I really think a high IQ is a requirement. This is cruel and unfair, but I believe it is reality. Look at virtually all Nobel winners and the quality of their work... pretty much all of them score above 120 and are closer to 140. In fact, having skimmed through the thread I have yet to see a low IQ name pop up. Granted, a lot of the great scientists were not around to have their IQs tested (including Einstein), and so estimates can be taken with a grain of salt. But history tells us they too were top of their class and in many cases prodigies.

Obivously hard work and dedication is the other half. But this is a learned habit, ANYONE can do it. But not everyone is capable of genius insight. Just as someone tall and someone short can both learn to play basket ball, the nature of the sport favours the tall individual. Thats why when a rare exception comes to mind, ie. Spud Webb, we hear all about it.

Whether or not you choose to accept IQ as an accurate measure of intelligence (I define intelligence as a capacity to aquire knowledge and think in novel ways), is up to you. I believe it is a good measure, although far from perfect. But if you are denying that some people are just naturally more talented, I am afraid you are living in denial.

Quote Quote by maze View Post
If IQ really measures some "intrinsic ability", then, at the absolute minimum, the scores you get on a test should stay relatively constant over time. Your score shouldn't increase as you learn new things. This is not the case with actual tests.

For example, if you work in 3d modeling and texturing/skinning for a few months (drawing and applying 2d images onto a 3d model), then those questions about how a cube or dodecahedron folds up are trivially easy to visualize, because you've gotten used to visualizing much harder stuff.
They are constant. Have you tried this 3d experiment or are you just making it up? Online tests are not constant because are not correct the first time. A professional assessment gives a far more accurate measure. And IQ declines with age. That should be common sense. Is it not harder to learn a new language when you are 30 rather than when you were 7?
maze
#65
Jul6-08, 11:08 PM
P: 655
Quote Quote by Howers View Post
Obivously hard work and dedication is the other half. But this is a learned habit, ANYONE can do it. But not everyone is capable of genius insight.

...

But if you are denying that some people are just naturally more talented, I am afraid you are living in denial.
There has been considerable research done on "the expert mind" in the last 20 years, investigating chess grandmasters, athletes, scientists, concert musicians, and so forth. The overwhelming evidence indicates that geniuses are made, not born. Ericsson is one of the leading researchers in the field, you may want to use his journal articles as a starting point if you wish to investigate the subject further.

Quote Quote by Howers View Post
[IQ scores] are constant. Have you tried this 3d experiment or are you just making it up? Online tests are not constant because are not correct the first time.
I scored 10 points higher on a legitimate administered test after working intensely on 3D modeling as a hobby for 2 years during highschool. The test questions were similar and administered by the same people. I scored basically the same on all portions of the test except the spatial questions which I improved on.

Quote Quote by Howers View Post
Is it not harder to learn a new language when you are 30 rather than when you were 7?
This is a hotly debated issue in cognitive science, and is not clear-cut. People who learn a language through immersion apparently learn pretty quickly.
Defennder
#66
Jul7-08, 02:05 AM
HW Helper
P: 2,616
Quote Quote by maze View Post
Ericsson is one of the leading researchers in the field, you may want to use his journal articles as a starting point if you wish to investigate the subject further.
Sometimes I wonder if those doing research into cognitive intelligence are themselves as intelligent as the human subjects they study.
maze
#67
Jul7-08, 02:41 AM
P: 655
Quote Quote by Defennder View Post
Sometimes I wonder if those doing research into cognitive intelligence are themselves as intelligent as the human subjects they study.
In this case the researchers would definitely be less intelligent than the people being studied - that's the point. Regardless, so long as the research is done carefully and repeatably, and the conclusion is supported by data, it doesn't really matter.
neu
#68
Jul7-08, 08:10 AM
P: 245
People who quote their IQ scores (where do people get tested?) always come across to me as just plain dull.

Even if you accept the premise that an IQ score is directly repesentative of cognitive ability then there's no achievement is scoring high is there?

Remeber IQ tests are timed. If you answer a question quickly you get a better score. Therefore who's to say a person with reasonable cognitive ability will not be able to answer all the questions answered by someone with a very strong and fast cognitive abilities, albeit with some more time and thought.

From what I've heard there's a much larger scope for disorders and depression for those with an incredibly high IQ than there is for success relative to those of just above average IQ. It's a very woolly and vague thing to say but it's just an impression I get.
redargon
#69
Jul7-08, 08:27 AM
P: 348
Regarding the original post:

Is it possible that testing techniques have changed over the years and could make up for different scores for people from different decades? Also, I'm not sure if IQ tests are standard. I've done many different IQ tests officially and unofficially (ie. with researchers and without) and the results do differ. Also, attempting to put this in a different way: You've seen those photos of your favourite movie star plastered on the tabloids with their cellulite and acne and the beer gut. They look just like you and me, maybe worse , but they still make poo loads of money doing a job that "requires" perfect looks.
I know many sports people with lower "sporting potential" (let's call it SP) than me because they have one arm or no legs. Let's say my SP is 100 (i have all normal bodily capability so I sit at 100%) and someone missing an arm has an SP of 75 (because he can't do all the things I can in a standardised test). But I'm telling you right now that my one armed friend would kick me into yesterday in a swimming race, because he is awesome at that. He trains (does not come into play in a SP test), has learned technique and has more heart than anyone in the pool. Why should someone's IQ determine what job they could perform?

My opinion on IQ in general:
I remember thinking, some days I could solve any pattern problem you could throw at me and some days it seems as if my brain just isn't in the problem solving mood and I stumble around a problem for ages with bad results. This must affect IQ test results. What about those questions you get to in the last five minutes of the test and you just randomly guess the answers for. Say you got 25% of those right (considering a,b,c,d multiple choice) for 20 questions that you just guess at the end.

Also, I've noticed that people who are defensive about their own IQ score (maybe they feel it is not an accurate representation of their actual intelligence) are the first to say that the tests are worthless. We don't even know if we compare with others or not. I couldn't tell you the IQ of any of my friends or even my family for that matter, nobody shares that kind of info. Why is IQ such a secretive and elitist number? Not sure if anyone has mentioned their own number here. People do hold a certain value to it, obviously, or otherwise everyone would have put their IQ at the top of their post with no fear of comment. I've never been asked in any job interview or entrance exam for my IQ. Is it really then such a standard of intelligence? And if I told them would they believe me or think I was just boosting my self worth. Like telling people how much money you have or how much you weigh or how big your... hand is.

IQ from results that have been revealed: between 125 and 135. That's apparently above average. Why did I fail subjects at university and only produce ok results? (a couple of A's but mostly B's C's and D's) Because it was damn hard no matter what anyone's IQ was and I didn't always work very hard, but even when I did, I still battled sometimes). Now I'm a practising engineer and I know other engineers with higher and lower IQ's, doesn't make them any more or less of an engineer. Just as I would assume your IQ wouldn't make you any better or worse at being a scientist.
Kurdt
#70
Jul7-08, 08:51 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,981
I'm sorry Howers, but are you suggesting that you need a high IQ to be original and creative? I was not denying that some people have a talent for one particular thing. I was merely addressing the OP and saying that high IQ is not a requirement to be a scientist. As with anything, putting in the hours is the key.
Astronuc
#71
Jul7-08, 09:11 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by Howers View Post
. . . . And IQ declines with age. That should be common sense. Is it not harder to learn a new language when you are 30 rather than when you were 7?
My grandfather was sharp as a tack and quite mentally proficient at 100. He read everyday, kept up with current events and world affairs, and provided meals and services for younger people (in their 80's and 90's) who were less capable (mobile) than him.

I have found it much easier to learn a new language in my 40's and 50's than I did at 7. I have context and knowledge now that I didn't have in primary school.
Howers
#72
Jul7-08, 09:41 AM
P: 444
I am not advocating in any way that IQ be used in place of achievement. It is a measure of innate intelligence and not something that an individual can control. What I am saying is IQ definately is needed to produce good work - or it at the very least increases the odds of producing good work. Not that employers should use it in screening applicants. Even though they currently do, as do medical and grad schools - what do you think is the point of admission tests?

To maze, some have theorized that everyone is born with an IQ "scale". This means if you exercise your brain often and are brought up in a good enviornment, you can score at the higher end of this scale and it wouldn't be surprising to see your score go as high as 15 points. In your case, I am assuming you had not dealt with 3d imagines much before and after exposure they seemed more natural.

There are different forms of originality and creativity. IQ tends to predict the academic ones. The reason I am so cynical about this is because of what I learned from tutoring high school students. Some students pick up on math really fast, and others need to be reminded constantly of what we are doing. There was even a girl who didn't truly understand the concept of division. She was in grade 12, and after a week of teaching her the basic operation from scratch she still did not follow. All she knew was the divison table she memorized years ago. Even to this day, if you ask her what 5/0 is she will say zero. Something I mentioned to her atleast 90 times. Sadly, I just gave up on her. Not surprisingly, the better students were naturally more logical as well. You can guess how logical she was. So if there is a threshold to pass in understanding concepts, it is natural to infer that there is another threshold to pass to create ideals. If you can show me an original academic with a low IQ, which this thread aims to do, I will happily throw out any importance to the score. Until then, I must let facts govern my judgement.

Note: My own score is not particularily high, just a mere "above average". I am not defending IQ on the basis of defending my intelligence. I hate the idea of IQ - something one has no control over, just as I hate the idea of genetic disease. But I have read enough about it to see it is actually quite accurate.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Fat Scientists General Discussion 15
How do I become a scientists? Academic Guidance 13
Scientists and technicians General Discussion 8
Weird Scientists General Discussion 13
Why do scientists believe... General Physics 9