Low IQs of Scientists: Francis Crick & More

[hypnagogue]

hynagogue, have you ever taken a IQ test? they often have questions like: "which of the following does not belong?" or "which of the following is analogous to XXXX?",

this discriminates against people who can imagine ways that all the given choices do belong, or more creative analogies than the average bear.

Performance on these kinds of questions could be seen as measuring a normative kind of cognitive capacity, e.g. the extent to which you are able to process information according to the norms of the society you live in. If you cannot perform well on these sorts of questions, it doesn't mean you're "smarter" than the test maker. It means you can't perform well on the kind of cognitive capacity they tap.

and do you know who makes up these tests? do you think they are smarter than people like feynman?

On the one hand you reject the IQ test as a meaningful measure but on the other hand you continue to speak as if there is one unitary thing called "intelligence" or "smartness." It seems more likely to me that there are just different kinds of cognitive abilities, anyone of which could be considered "intelligent" in the right circumstances. I thought I made that clear already, but perhaps your interpretation of my previous posts was too creative.

 

[George Jones]

If you cannot perform well on these sorts of questions, it doesn't mean you're "smarter" than the test maker.

Haven't you made an elementary mistake in logic? mathwonk did not say "A low score implies that the test-taker is smarter than the test-maker." He said (something like) "A test-taker smarter and more creative than the testmaker (possibly) implies a lower than expected score on the test."

I agree with mathwonk.

It means you can't perform well on the kind of cognitive capacity they tap.

Maybe, but not necessarily.

 

[Math Is Hard]

There is an understandable need for testing the difference between someone who would score 70 on an IQ test and someone who would score 130— but then human nature takes over and it turns into a pissing contest of "genius" and "average" and "above average" and all that unnecessary BS.

I am in complete agreement with you there.

 

[hypnagogue]

Haven't you made an elementary mistake in logic?

No, I was just lazy in referring to the claim at hand. I am aware that mathwonk was not making the absurd claim that poor performance on the test always implies greater intelligence than the test makers.

 

[ekrim]

its quite obvious that the nobel prize is not an accurate assessment of achievement

 

[J77]

its quite obvious that the nobel prize is not an accurate assessment of achievement

Of course it's not, it could happen that you chance upon the discovery -- or, more likely these days, the person getting the prize could just be the tip of a very large pyramid of people who have contributed towards the discovery.

Personally, I think that people who worry about tests, competitions and prizes aren't really cut-out for science. The best people out there don't have to prove their worth in this form, it shows in their work.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Can I get an Amen.

 

[ranger]

Amen! Well said J77.

 

[BillJx]

If you're so smart how come you ain't rich?

The thing about IQ tests and scales is that they weren't developed to measure "brilliance". These were tools designed to identify mild to severe deficits in cognitive ability. In that regard, they are very useful, but to try to apply them to the upper range of scores is sort of meaningless.

Binet developed the first IQ tests a century ago, to identify mentally handicapped children. That's just a history snippet. It doesn't mean that's all that IQ tests are used for today.

Obviously the concept of "intelligence" means something, and psychologists need tools to define and measure whatever that is. IQ is just a rough measure. It doesn't take individual talents / limitations into account.

Using myself as an example:
I score in the high 130's, but much of that score comes from the verbal reasoning component. That squares with my lifelong experience. My thinking is scattered and so are my interests. Concepts come easily, details do not. In troubleshooting, I often don't see the obvious. Algebra was never self-evident to me, but geometry was, and humanities always seemed simplistic. Someone else with the same IQ might do worse at crossword puzzles and better at mechanical work. I'd gladly trade.

IQ isn't meaningless, it just doesn't describe all the contents of a person's intellectual toolbox. It isn't meant to.

 

[moe darklight]

:rofl: 3 topics that never disappoint in gathering a croud at PF:

1) religion
2) global warming
3) IQ tests

Binet developed the first IQ tests a century ago, to identify mentally handicapped children. That's just a history snippet. It doesn't mean that's all that IQ tests are used for today.

But that's exactly it: they are not of much use outside of what they were originally designed to do.

They are very helpful for observing and understanding people who have a hard time grasping concepts that come naturally to the majority of the population— but quite pointless otherwise:

So IQ tests tell us that Einstein had an IQ of 160 and was incredibly gifted mathematically— how insightful! ... I'm sure these test results came as an absolute shock to those who knew him in person or read his 1905 papers...

That "160" means nothing; his ideas tell us all we need to know about how intelligent he was.

I don't need an IQ test to tell me that I have a very easy time with words and logic but posses the mathematical intelligence of a frying pan.— I already know that I can zoom my way through a philosophy or biology book, but suffer every page of linear algebra or calculus.

A person's ideas and intellectual disposition is a far more accurate measure of intelligence or "genius" than any IQ test.

but it's almost 8 AM and I have to try and convince myself that I need to sleep now... between the beers, cheap cigars, and probable CO2 poisoning from the campfire, this night is very likely to have reduced my IQ by more than a few points :yuck:.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

but it's almost 8 AM and I have to try and convince myself that I need to sleep now... between the beers, cheap cigars, and probable CO2 poisoning from the campfire, this night is very likely to have reduced my IQ by more than a few points :yuck:.

:rofl:haha! I need more nights like that... but I've just got into college... they're bound to come up soon...:rofl:

 

[Darkiekurdo]

I think that we should listen to mathwonk. He has said everything you can say about this.

 

[mathwonk]

try this iq test:
1) how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? assume angels have feet of area 1/100000 sq in, and a pin had area .1 inch. also assume angels like a small amount of elbow room.

2) are women smarter tham men?

3) if you smoke pot, and drink and drive, and do no exercise, and watch tv all evening, what grade will you get in abstract algebra in grade 14?

4) what percentage of american republican voters still think saddam hussein had wmd's?

5) how much does it help to be wealthy if the air is polluted in the entire country?

6) what is .9999... = ?

7) can you whistle dixie and walk at the same time?

8) is a french wine worth $900 a bottle if robert parker gives it a score of 98?

9) can you remember your class schedule for fall 2007?

10) do you floss regularly?

11) is every (p,p) cohomology class on a complex algebraic manifold algebraic?

12) did j.b. ramsey commit suicide?

13) which of the following do not belong with the others? a bottle of beefeaters gin; an 18 ounce pool cue signed by minnesota fats; a first edition of "michael strogoff" illustrated by jules verne; a rejection letter from the newschool for social research in florida; a scratched dvd of a jackie chan movie; a 12 ounce bag of cafarrel gianduia?

14) what do women want?

correct answers will be determined by majority vote submitted by registered contributors for the forum.

 

[Teegvin]

I don't have anything to contribute myself, but I read a nice talk by Richard Hamming a few weeks ago called 'You and Your Research' which I think is somewhat relevant to the thread.

It's a bit long, but I'm sure at least some of you will enjoy it. He talks about why some people do great work, and why others, who may be just as smart, or smarter, don't.

The talk starts a little bit down the page if you don't want to read the introduction, under the heading 'THE TALK: ``You and Your Research'' by Dr. Richard W. Hamming'.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html

 

[Math Is Hard]

Binet developed the first IQ tests a century ago, to identify mentally handicapped children. That's just a history snippet. It doesn't mean that's all that IQ tests are used for today.

What are these other things it is used for? As criteria to join a high IQ social club? Possibly. But is that really useful? To set a standard for admissions into programs for gifted children? Even that has come under a lot of scrutiny as far as what constitutes "gifted".

IQ isn't meaningless, it just doesn't describe all the contents of a person's intellectual toolbox. It isn't meant to.

I never said it was meaningless, only meaningless in the above average range. Please do not misrepresent my statements. If anything, I have argued exactly the same things that you are arguing.

 

[Tesla569]

What do IQ test have to do with physics?

 

[Tesla569]

Smart is as smart does.I want to discuss photoelecetric gels. any help?

 

[Art]

IQ tests measure people's itellectual potential and makes no pretension to predict if that potential will ever be realized. It's a little like measuring the size of an engine in a car. A 2 litre engine has the potential to power a car to go faster than a car with a 1.1 litre engine but there are a lot of other factors that determine the speed of the car and so a well-tuned 1.1 litre engine might well outperform a badly-tuned 2 litre engine. On the other hand if all else is equal then the 2 litre engine will always outperform the 1.1 litre engine. As they say in boxing parlance 'a good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un'.

Think of it in terms of the law of constraints. People with high IQs are not constrained by their ability to grasp complex problems as people with lower IQ's may be but other physchological attributes may well be constraining issues which prevent those with high IQs from ever achieving their potential. To return to my analogy, if the car has no wheels then it doesn't matter how big the engine is, the car is not going anywhere. In the real world lack of application or motivation are 2 common and obvious examples of constraints.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

try this iq test:

1) how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? assume angels have feet of area 1/100000 sq in, and a pin had area .1 inch. also assume angels like a small amount of elbow room.

A: Depends are they black angels cause those cats need more than elbow room to do their thang, where as white angels just sort of stumble around looking embarrassed so elbow room is fine. Too stereotypical :tongue2: ?

2) are women smarter tham men?

I don't understand the question? What does tham mean, in context if you mean than "than", there is no scientific evidence to prove they are, such as it is, I mean intelligence is a pretty hazy field. However there are areas of intelligence men excel at and areas of intelligence women excel at so it's not an easy question to answer except in general terms...

3) if you smoke pot, and drink and drive, and do no exercise, and watch tv all evening, what grade will you get in abstract algebra in grade 14?

Impossible to say. Are you someone famous who did just that and then went on to win the fields medal?

4) what percentage of american republican voters still think saddam hussein had wmd's?

Too many.

5) how much does it help to be wealthy if the air is polluted in the entire country?

Not at all exactly, however if you are rich you will no doubt spend less hours in areas that are highly polluted. You don't suggest their is no gradient of pollution.

6) what is .9999... = ?

.9999... Unless you mean .999... Which equals one, although you may be using unconventional maths terminology, in which case it equals 1

7) can you whistle dixie and walk at the same time?

Yep I can. But if you mean you in the sense of everyone then maybe not some people can't whistle, and it may be against the law in some states, who knows?

8) is a french wine worth $900 a bottle if robert parker gives it a score of 98?

No wine is worth that much, unless it's to be collected and never appreciated which is criminal.

9) can you remember your class schedule for fall 2007?

What? I don't have one, fall 2007 is my time off.

10) do you floss regularly?

no.

11) is every (p,p) cohomology class on a complex algebraic manifold algebraic?

How on Earth would I know? I'm going to guess no

12) did j.b. ramsey commit suicide?

Without googling I have no idea who he is. So I'm going to say the case is still open.

13) which of the following do not belong with the others? a bottle of beefeaters gin; an 18 ounce pool cue signed by minnesota fats; a first edition of "michael strogoff" illustrated by jules verne; a rejection letter from the newschool for social research in florida; a scratched dvd of a jackie chan movie; a 12 ounce bag of cafarrel gianduia?


Isn't Minnesota Fats a fictional character from the Hustler?(fantastic movie btw) Must be him then as I presume the others actually exist.

14) what do women want?

It varies from any given moment and any given day.
^
Disclaimer: the above may be changed at any time without notice.If I score badly the test is not a very good test and is culturally biased, and had loads of grammatical errors. If I score ok then it's a great test well done there Mathwonk

 

[jostpuur]

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]

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]

Does an IQ test measure your intelligence, or your ability to complete IQ tests?

 

[Kurdt]

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]

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]

IQ doesn't 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 don't be surprise to see people with low IQ become world famous scientist...

Formula to become worls famous scientist = Huge amount of hard work + small amount of luck ...can anyone give a scientific eq from this formula?

quoted for truth

 

[Danger]

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]

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]

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]

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 acquire 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.

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]

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.

[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 high school. 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.