Do all great scientists possess a genius level IQ ?

[atharv kapila]

I've wanted to become a mathematical physicist for as long as I can remember. Hailing from a rather small place in India , I usually found myself smarter than the people around me .This gave me confidence that I'm going to make a great physicist one day .

But now as a 12th grader who has moved into a larger city to study with one of the best students of the country, I realized there are a lot of people who are just as smart or even smarter. I used to give myself a pat on the back for being able to do calculus in grade 9 but now I've met people who've won medals at international Olympiads.

Reality is gradually dawning upon me that I'm probably smart enough to clear competitive exams or get into good colleges or even talk about a complex theory but becoming a Nobel prize level physicist is way more than that. For me, its very important that whatever I do, I do it outstandingly well.

It's clear I'm no Ramanujan or Einstein. Are there any examples of physicists who are not as smart but they've still achieved as much as their "gifted" counterparts ? Can I still make a great scientist ?

 

[fresh_42]

The answer to your headline is "No."

There will always be people who are smarter than you, even if you were a genius. Effort and persistence, and in my opinion curiosity are far more important than the time you need to learn something. It might be the case that you are no Ramanujan, or that you won't be able to prove the ERH, but you can still become an excellent scientist. You should not think about such comparisons, you should think about all the subjects you want to know and do not yet. It is curiosity that should drive you, not a competition!

I have to think about Wiles. It was mainly his persistence that finally made him succeed.

 

[atharv kapila]

Ummm... what's ERH?

 

[fresh_42]

Extended Riemann hypothesis.

 

[Klystron]

Your life story of moving from a small town to a larger city in order to study reminds one that cooperation among peers remains a hallmark of science. Test scores and competitive exams form a large part of the learning process while at university. This competition gives way to cooperation, problem solving and team development among many professionals.

Historically, a 'great' scientist may not register the highest IQ among peers in a meeting, but she probably knows not only who is smart but also what they have published/written and can contribute to the group. When asked how he could out think strategic rival General Erwin Rommel on the battlefield, General George Patton exclaimed, "I read his book!".

 

[PeroK]

Ummm... what's ERH?

Ah well, if you don't know that then there's no hope!

 

[atharv kapila]

Ah well, if you don't know that then there's no hope!

Thank You. It was very motivating to hear that!

 

[russ_watters]

Reality is gradually dawning upon me that I'm probably smart enough to clear competitive exams or get into good colleges or even talk about a complex theory but becoming a Nobel prize level physicist is way more than that. For me, its very important that whatever I do, I do it outstandingly well.

You're going to need to re-define what "outstandingly well" means. There's a lot more to a Nobel than just being smart and not being awarded one doesn't equate to failure. And a lot more to life than such an all-or-nothing quest.

It's clear I'm no Ramanujan or Einstein. Are there any examples of physicists who are not as smart but they've still achieved as much as their "gifted" counterparts ? Can I still make a great scientist ?

As others said, the days of the relatively lone genius making a revolutionary contribution are likely gone forever. But there is a halfway decent possibility of being on or leading a team of dozens or hundreds in a Nobel-worthy effort. I've cited this one before (this exact question comes up a lot):
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/mcdonald-lecture-slides.pdf
My mom's cousin is on that list of 262 authors.

 

[atharv kapila]

Surely, a Nobel prize can't define or brand one's success as a physicist which is why I wrote the Nobel prize "level". I've always possessed the "perfectionist "tendency of either doing things well or not doing them at all. My rather small challenges up until now have never posed enough threat to this tendency but for me to accept and live with the fact that my contributions can only be average and not mindblowing would be very hard.

 

[Drakkith]

My rather small challenges up until now have never posed enough threat to this tendency but for me to accept and live with the fact that my contributions can only be average and not mindblowing would be very hard.

A road paved with average stones can still lead to greatness.

 

[Drakkith]

For me, its very important that whatever I do, I do it outstandingly well.

I'm not sure you have a real understanding of how scientific and mathematical progress is made. The laws of physics and math are such that things are a certain way and no other, so it doesn't matter how you make progress, only that you do. If your paper takes four years to write instead of one year you've still contributed the same amount as long as your conclusions are valid and useful.

 

[atyy]

Thank You. It was very motivating to hear that!

Yup, you should give up and do experiments instead

 

[HAYAO]

From a psychology standpoint, IQ has career success correlation around 0.3 to 0.4 (depending on sources), which means, IQ only makes up around 9 - 16%. The other remaining factors are personality, family background, etc. That being said, IQ is still the largest correlation compared to any other (independent) factors, so I am not saying it's irrelevant.

The major with the highest average IQs are Mathematics and Physics (at around 130). Philosophy comes at close third. So it's fair to say physicists may have one of the highest IQs among majors, especially when you talk about the top physicists. However, to think that all top physicists have genius level IQ would be a massive overstatement.