Is IQ a static measurement throughout a person's life?

  • Thread starter kelvinng
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the idea of whether or not anyone can aspire to be a physicist. While some believe that hard work and dedication are the most important factors, others argue that not everyone has the ability to understand complex mathematical concepts necessary for theoretical physics. Some also suggest that lack of interest or mental blocks may play a role in one's ability to understand physics. The conversation also touches on the topic of race and its potential impact on a person's ability to excel in physics. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of both hard work and natural aptitude in pursuing a career in physics.
  • #36
arildno said:
Those who think "intellectual" capacities are in some deep, mysterious ways different from "physical" capacities (like dexterity, capacity for swift acceleration of the body etc.) or "aesthetic" capacities (like musicality or an eye for visual harmony) are the ones upon the burden of evidence lies, not upon those who think the intellectual capacities might be as variable as any other capacity.

For those who think there are "so many factors" that might explain away different Levels of performance, those are the one to come up With evidence that those factors are..significant enough.

If you rip some muscle, damage some limb, or otherwise cause severe damage to something that impacts your dexterity or mobility (something not in the brain), will the body adapt and restore that function for you? I'm pretty sure there are cases where people lose their sight, but recover because the brain "rewires". Nobody is denying that there is variability in the biology. The actual question is whether or not minor variability in the brain, variability that does not dramatically impair the individual, can prohibit the learning of certain ideas.

There is nothing set in stone about where the burden lies. It is each our own responsibility to reconcile our own conflicting ideas. So are you going to say that the brain does not exhibit any sort of robustness to variability or damage?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
"So are you going to say that the brain does not exhibit any sort of robustness to variability or damage? "
Perhaps you should read what I actually write, rather than put words into my postings that never were there to begin with?
 
  • #38
arildno said:
"So are you going to say that the brain does not exhibit any sort of robustness to variability or damage? "
Perhaps you should read what I actually write, rather than put words into my postings that never were there to begin with?

I'm not putting any words in your postings. I'm asking you a question. You can answer it, ignore it, or tell me that I misinterpreted what you said. You seem to have thought that the best course of action was to accuse me of purposely misrepresenting you. Thanks for that.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Well, if you knew your question was irrelevant to what I actually wrote, why did you address me at all?
 
  • #40
arildno said:
Well, if you knew your question was irrelevant to what I actually wrote,

I didn't?

Those who think "intellectual" capacities are in some deep, mysterious ways different from "physical" capacities (like dexterity, capacity for swift acceleration of the body etc.) or "aesthetic" capacities (like musicality or an eye for visual harmony) are the ones upon the burden of evidence lies, not upon those who think the intellectual capacities might be as variable as any other capacity.

For those who think there are "so many factors" that might explain away different Levels of performance, those are the one to come up With evidence that those factors are..significant enough.

I'm saying intellectual matters differ from something like swiftness. Swiftness can be attributed to the muscle, which is not as adaptable as the brain. I gave you an example. Is that something you would consider deep or mysterious? I don't know. Who carries the burden to defend themselves now? I say, if you recognize this property of the brain, then you should give a defense because you seem to have a completely one sided belief.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Why do you even think, for starters, that not understanding differential equations, for example, is in any way some sort of brain damage analogous to ripped muscles?
 
  • #42
arildno said:
Why do you even think, for starters, that not understanding differential equations, for example, is in any way some sort of brain damage analogous to ripped muscles?

huh? I made an analogy between loss of sight and impairment of mobility. The only point I'm making is that one can adapt(or: recover its own functionality), and the other cannot (to my best knowledge).

Recovery is a form of adaptation and I have no idea whether or not the adaptation can manifest itself differently (through learning perhaps). Do you?

Or is it unreasonable to think that the brain adapts in any other way?
 
Last edited:
  • #43
arildno said:
Those who think "intellectual" capacities are in some deep, mysterious ways different from "physical" capacities (like dexterity, capacity for swift acceleration of the body etc.) or "aesthetic" capacities (like musicality or an eye for visual harmony) are the ones upon the burden of evidence lies, not upon those who think the intellectual capacities might be as variable as any other capacity.

For those who think there are "so many factors" that might explain away different Levels of performance, those are the one to come up With evidence that those factors are..significant enough.

I don't necessarily see people denying the existence of variation. Rather I see some people claiming that finishing a BS/MS or equivalent in a STEM field is beyond the capability of certain people simply due some innate lack of capability.

Others, in my view, are on here trying to espouse the point that people don't finish BS/MS degrees in the STEM fields or get bad grades in STEM related exams due to a multitude of factors having nothing to do with innate capabilities.

I think doing completely revolutionary work like IE: GR and what not, should be put aside because those situations are extraordinarily complex.
 
  • #44
And some fail to become a pop star, because they simply haven't got what it takes to beguile a big enough crowd that the singer is a god or a godess. Actually, that "some" might be replaced With, let's say, 99.9% of those trying to charm the world to their tunes.
However, everybody can get a little bit more charming. Even I.:smile:
 
  • #45
Are you equating being a world famous pop star to finishing a BS/MS degree in a STEM field?

Don't you think you're bringing up the extreme again? Becoming a pop star is more like being the next Einstein.

I think a more apt comparison would be the guy who is a good musician who plays gigs on the weekends and a competent Engineer who can design a building or bridge which is safe and secure.

EDIT: I'm trying to speak about moderately attainable goals here. Which is why I'd like to get away from the whole, anyone can be the next Feynman, business.

To bring another analogy into the mix, do you think that the average joe, with enough motivation and training, can't run a sub 9 minute mile?
 
  • #46
Yanick said:
To bring another analogy into the mix, do you think that the average joe, with enough motivation and training, can't run a sub 9 minute mile?

Maybe, or maybe not.
 
  • #47
Now you're just being difficult :)
 
  • #48
arildno said:
Those who think "intellectual" capacities are in some deep, mysterious ways different from "physical" capacities (like dexterity, capacity for swift acceleration of the body etc.) or "aesthetic" capacities (like musicality or an eye for visual harmony) are the ones upon the burden of evidence lies, not upon those who think the intellectual capacities might be as variable as any other capacity.

For those who think there are "so many factors" that might explain away different Levels of performance, those are the one to come up With evidence that those factors are..significant enough.
No one is making the case that intellectual capabilities are outside the realms of scientific testing, but a surefire way of doing so consistently does not exist as of yet. It is the people who claim "some just can't get a BS" that have a whole lot of explaining to do. You're the ones establishing a constraint on the system. If we're going to approach this as a serious scientific problem with some modicum of intellectual honesty, you have to provide a decent phenomenological reasoning behind that constraint. Not doing so is equivalent to invoking a magical quality to be able to sit through and complete the requirements of a degree.

There's an awful lot of strawman arguments and irrational thinking in this thread. Seriously, this discussion has descended to the level of bold-face assertion internet theism vs atheism arguments. Evidence-backed statements, humility and intellectual honesty are nowhere to be found.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Lavabug said:
No one is making the case that intellectual capabilities are outside the realms of scientific testing, but a surefire way of doing so consistently does not exist as of yet. It is the people who claim "some just can't get a BS" that have a whole lot of explaining to do. You're the ones establishing a constraint on the system. If we're going to approach this as a serious scientific problem with some modicum of intellectual honesty, you have to provide a decent phenomenological reasoning behind that constraint. Not doing so is equivalent to invoking a magical quality to be able to sit through and complete the requirements of a degree.

There's an awful lot of strawman arguments and irrational thinking in this thread. Seriously, this discussion has descended to the level of bold-face assertion internet theism vs atheism arguments. Evidence-backed statements, humility and intellectual honesty are nowhere to be found.

Nonsense.

Saying it is likely that basically the same types of constraints exist for "intellectual" capacities as for "aesthetic" capacities and "physical" capacities is the proper, rational reductionist attitude.

It is those who think intellectual capacities are somehow deeply different who have the burden of evidence upon them.
 
  • #50
arildno said:
Saying it is likely that basically the same types of constraints exist for "intellectual" capacities as for "aesthetic" capacities and "physical" capacities is the proper, rational reductionist attitude.

Another strawman argument.

Nobody has said limitations don't exist. But nobody has made a case as to what they are specifically, how they can be determined, and what their consequences are while still accounting for all of the "happy clappy examples" that completely negate the notions that "some people just can't, period".

You established the constraint/stated the physical law that x is never possible, then the onus is on you to explain why and support it with evidence.

Doesn't look like this thread is going to mature past bold face assertions...
 
  • #51
Lavabug said:
Another strawman argument.

Nobody has said limitations don't exist. But nobody has made a case as to what they are specifically, how they can be determined, and what their consequences are while still accounting for all of the "happy clappy examples" that completely negate the notions that "some people just can't, period".

You established the constraint/stated the physical law that x is never possible, then the onus is on you to explain why and support it with evidence.

Doesn't look like this thread is going to mature past bold face assertions...

+1

Very well said.
 
  • #52
Ivan Seeking said:
No. Anyone can grasp the ideas involved, but I think the notion that anyone can get past the math needed to be a physicist is incorrect. As a physics student, I worked my butt off just to be above average. And this stuff is far easier for me than most people I know. There are people who struggle just to get past one or two algebra classes for their majors. I know. I tutored some of them. And I was often struck by the difficulty they had doing things that seemed obvious and simple to me. So I think the claim that anyone can do this shows a clear loss of perspective - too much time spent in the ivory tower!

I'll get back to you in a few years to see how I am getting on. If I am rocking then your argument is moot. I don't have natural math talent.
 
  • #53
JayJohn85 said:
I'll get back to you in a few years to see how I am getting on. If I am rocking then your argument is moot. I don't have natural math talent.

That's not how it works.
 
  • #54
Lavabug said:
Another strawman argument.

Nobody has said limitations don't exist. But nobody has made a case as to what they are specifically, how they can be determined, and what their consequences are while still accounting for all of the "happy clappy examples" that completely negate the notions that "some people just can't, period".

You established the constraint/stated the physical law that x is never possible, then the onus is on you to explain why and support it with evidence.

Doesn't look like this thread is going to mature past bold face assertions...

With all due respect, but I think it's pretty obvious that not everybody can get a BS. Do you think people with mental retardation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation) can get a BS? Some of these people can't even feed themselves or have a decent conversation. I doubt there is any kind of education that can get them to a BS.

Of course, this is just an extreme case. But intelligence is supposed to be a spectrum. Some people will be close to mental retardation and some people will be far away. So there will be some people who will never be able to complete a BS.

Do I know proper tests to distinguish who can complete a BS and who doesn't? Do I know a clear cut-off point (like if you score below 100 you can't get one)? No, and I don't think such things can ever exist.

As much as I would like to believe that getting a BS is just a lot of hard work, you can't deny that there has to be a certain aptitude for the subject.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #55
micromass said:
With all due respect, but I think it's pretty obvious that not everybody can get a BS. Do you think people with mental retardation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation) can get a BS? Some of these people can't even feed themselves or have a decent conversation. I doubt there is any kind of education that can get them to a BS.

Of course, this is just an extreme case. But intelligence is supposed to be a spectrum. Some people will be close to mental retardation and some people will be far away. So there will be some people who will never be able to complete a BS.

Do I know proper tests to distinguish who can complete a BS and who doesn't? Do I know a clear cut-off point (like if you score below 100 you can't get one)? No, and I don't think such things can ever exist.

As much as I would like to believe that getting a BS is just a lot of hard work, you can't deny that there has to be a certain aptitude for the subject.

I learned from this website that in order to discuss something about physics you need "axioms" both parties can agree on, not everything can be known / proven. I'd guess 5 - 6 billion people is a bit much for both parties to know everyone, let alone know who is "really trying" and who isn't.

So it must be just the 90% or so percent we could call the "general population". Plus it'd seem illogical to include those on the "fringes" of Entire population when the thread itself is titled There Are No Miracle People. Of course those on the lower end of the curve are miracles too, as used in this context.

maybe your hyperbole was to point this out to Lavabug."you can't deny that there has to be a certain aptitude for the subject."

I think Lavabug may have said that the burden of proof is on you. That's said, generally speaking of course intelligence and academic potential correlate far far more often than not.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
micromass said:
Do I know proper tests to distinguish who can complete a BS and who doesn't? Do I know a clear cut-off point (like if you score below 100 you can't get one)? No, and I don't think such things can ever exist.

Do you think there will be an empirical way of determining who can learn what? I don't think anybody really cares about it being in test (paper examination) form.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
goingmeta said:
Do you think there will be an empirical way of determining who can learn what? I don't think anybody really cares about it being in test form.

:smile: Although he/she does say they don't think those test can be done.

No, and I don't think such things can ever exist.
 
  • #58
goingmeta said:
That's not how it works.

What do you mean?

No offense to you guys but I believe that if you memorized everything and also learned how to manipulate equations. You wouldn't even have to fully understand them. I seen a thread elsewhere on the internet where engineers posted about calculus and they where using it without fully understanding it. Trufax bro. http://betterexplained.com/articles/developing-your-intuition-for-math/ Calculus section.

I'd imagine there is a curriculum of stuff you got to get through. Classical, Relativity and Quantum mechanics. Your last piece is likely something that has been done before no matter I bet how obscure you'd try to be unless your doing a PHD or something probably cutting edge there. To be honest someone needs to do something radical its why I am interested in the whole shabang. This casimir experiment needs going over with a fine tooth comb. No laws of thermodynamics is going to put a nail in that coffin unless I personally skull bash over it when I know more. And before someone calls me a loon them DARPA boys are already at it only thing is they harping on about anti gravity bit of a red herring if you ask me. If it isn't then they must think they can get that stuff to move. Aether theory isn't fully dead.

I imagine creating your own equations is like dipping into the repertoire of what is already there in the context of the situation. Before that you deduce all the variables, decide what going to work then sort out your units. Plug and play baby. Well at a certain level I seen some first year questions and they where utilizing f=ma. Though even doing this wouldn't be easy but I'd agree to really shine you'd need to know what your at, so you probably need talent for that. I am making assumptions here though I could be wrong. But you'd say that anyway.

But I don't know how you can figure out if you got any until you try. Some peeps are truly gifted like that american autistic kid Jacob who is tipped for the nobel prize. Others are probably not so lucky while the rest of us are in between. Well could be some geniuses knocking around here. WannabeNewton impresses me but you'd have to be with a name like that.
 
  • #59
There is test, as in a paper examination. Then there is test, as in a scientific experiment. It was clear he doesn't think the former is possible. Is the latter, and more general, possible?
 
  • #61
goingmeta said:
There is test, as in a paper examination. Then there is test, as in a scientific experiment. It was clear he doesn't think the former is possible. Is the latter, and more general, possible?

It's what ever you "design" it to be, it's an analysis on statistics "pulled" from samples.

I think Micromass was saying that the "hidden" potential in someone cannot be "pulled" for statistical analysis.
 
  • #62
This is what Freeman Dyson thinks of Feynman's methods in "Classic Feynman":

"But the sustance of his science is conservative. He reached his insights by careful and laborious sifting of old theories and experiment, not by brilliant invention. He was not a revolutionary. He discarded as little as possible of the old theories while extending them to fit new experiments. He built his theories brick by brick on the foundations of the old. Nothing that he built was done hastily, and all of it stood the test of time. As he often said, when some new and revolutionary idea was proposed, it is more important to be right than to be brilliant. Whatever he was doing, whether he was reconstructing the basis of physics or interpreting the results of a new experiment, he took endless trouble to get the details right. He said that the job of a scientist is to listen carefully to nature, not to tell nature how to behave."
 
  • #63
Most of folk below think you don't have to be F-E-H (Feynman, Einstein, Hawking) smart to do science (check out the comments):

The Cult of Genius
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/25/the-cult-of-genius/#.UZq9d6I3CLs

Check out the comments here:
http://nguyenle.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/the-cult-of-genius-cosmic-variance/

Even Terence Tao agrees:
Does one have to be a genius to do maths?
http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-genius-to-do-maths/
 
  • #64
kelvinng said:
This is what Freeman Dyson thinks of Feynman's methods in "Classic Feynman":

"But the sustance of his science is conservative. He reached his insights by careful and laborious sifting of old theories and experiment, not by brilliant invention. He was not a revolutionary. He discarded as little as possible of the old theories while extending them to fit new experiments. He built his theories brick by brick on the foundations of the old. Nothing that he built was done hastily, and all of it stood the test of time. As he often said, when some new and revolutionary idea was proposed, it is more important to be right than to be brilliant. Whatever he was doing, whether he was reconstructing the basis of physics or interpreting the results of a new experiment, he took endless trouble to get the details right. He said that the job of a scientist is to listen carefully to nature, not to tell nature how to behave."

Who are the revolutionaries and why? Do the revolutionaries always achieve success through a brilliant invention?

What's the point of this quote? What difference does it make how Feynman was perceived to arrive at his results? Does his method make his contributions any less significant?
 
Last edited:
  • #65
goingmeta said:
Who are the revolutionaries and why? Do the revolutionaries always achieve success through a brilliant invention?

What's the point of this quote? What difference does it make how Feynman was perceived to arrive at his results? Does his method make his contributions any less significant?

I think Freeman Dyson was making the point that Feynman wasn't a miracle man.

I think Galileo was a revolutionary. His ideas aren't always right.
 
  • #66
So how does it relate to this thread? Again: what's the point?

I value Feynman's opinion as much as the opinion of any other great physicist. I think this game people tend to play online where they argue over who the greatest genius/intellectual/visionary/whatever was is petty, immature, and stupid. Is this the direction we're headed in?
 
Last edited:
  • #67
goingmeta said:
I think this game people tend to play online where they argue over who the greatest genius/intellectual/visionary/whatever was is petty, immature, and stupid.
It's only petty, immature, and stupid in the case of someone making a petty, immature, and stupid argument for their case.

It's not as if any discussion would ever settle the issue once and for all, but it is often quite interesting to read thoughtful opinions springing from questions like, "Who was greater? Einstein or Newton?"

In any event, the relevance of Kelvinng's post, which addressed a different issue, was clear to me. I don't see why it wasn't to you. Feynman says, "There are no miracle people." Dyson is pulled into corroborate that Feynman, himself, was not a miracle person. The relevance is obvious.
 
  • #68
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but shouldn't the answer to this question be a simple matter of correlating IQ and educational attainment? ANY statistical association would debunk the idea that all people are equally able, wouldn't it?
 
  • #69
zoobyshoe said:
It's only petty, immature, and stupid in the case of someone making a petty, immature, and stupid argument for their case.

It's not as if any discussion would ever settle the issue once and for all, but it is often quite interesting to read thoughtful opinions springing from questions like, "Who was greater? Einstein or Newton?"

In any event, the relevance of Kelvinng's post, which addressed a different issue, was clear to me. I don't see why it wasn't to you. Feynman says, "There are no miracle people." Dyson is pulled into corroborate that Feynman, himself, was not a miracle person. The relevance is obvious.

To me, the quote also appeared to acknowledge the existence of these revolutionaries, of which Feynman is unlike. Does Dyson think there are such people? Would Dyson think these people would qualify as the miracle people we've been discussing? If not, then ignore everything I said.

It's not as if any discussion would ever settle the issue once and for all, but it is often quite interesting to read thoughtful opinions springing from questions like, "Who was greater? Einstein or Newton?"

I'm sorry, but I think that question is pure ********. Let's not discuss why here though.
russ_watters said:
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but shouldn't the answer to this question be a simple matter of correlating IQ and educational attainment? ANY statistical association would debunk the idea that all people are equally able, wouldn't it?

Is IQ a static measurement throughout a person's life?
 
Last edited:
  • #70
goingmeta said:
Is IQ a static measurement throughout a person's life?
Probably not. Does that matter?
 

Similar threads

What defines a truly smart person?
    • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
2K
Finding Meaningful Work: Career Advice for Young Scientists
    • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
654
Is having a genius IQ a prerequisite to be the next Einstein
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
Is Relativity Denial Still Prevalent in Science Forums?
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
294
Physicist Personalities & Traits
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Has this Twitter account been hacked?
    • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
958
Forum Guidelines: Rules and Expectations for Scientific Discussions
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
6
Views
105
I Measurement of heat as an interval measurement or a ratio measurement
    • Thermodynamics
Replies
9
Views
428
More articles like Feynman's Value of Science (1955)?
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
1K
Would it be Weird to See Psychologist Just to Chat and De-Stress?
    • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top