IQ of a Physicist and Other Related Fields

[T.O.E Dream]

To assist the OP's wishes of finding correlation, I have an IQ of 70 and I major in Physics.

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong but a lot of sources say that an IQ of 70 indicates a slight case of mental retardation. But then again I'm getting this information from the internet.

If your iq really is 70 then that goes to show that it doesn't take a high iq to be good at or learn physics.

 

[Stratosphere]

First, nobody asked you to spell check your work, but there is a certain level of grammar that one would expect to be innate and come easily to any semi-cogent human being. For example, knowledge of the word "about" which apparently escapes you.

I would argue that grammar serves as a decent indicator of intelligent (up to a point). You can't tell that someone is a genius from their writing style, but you can tell if they are a raving lunatic. I would expect nearly ALL mildly intelligent people to have nearly impeccable grammar because grammar skills are very easy to learn relative to what a person needs to learn to be considered "intelligent." Every intelligent person has to be exposed to writing (in their native language) in order to read textbooks and communicate...

However, the arbitrary skills on an IQ test, like selecting patterns out of symbols, have no direct relation to anything and doing well on them proves nothing (in my opinion).

How is finding patterns arbitrary? It's one of the things the human brain is good at. If no one recognized patterns, where that would leave physics and all of science? Early humans had to recognize patterns of migrating animals and the rainy season. It seems to be the people who don't do as well as they hope on IQ test that seem to disagree with them the most. (And no I'm not saying that IQ is really a true measure of someone’s intelligence but it certainly isn't always inaccurate).

 

[bp_psy]

I had to conduct a survey, and so my topic was Iq's of certain jobs but the most interested I'm in is a physicist.

First off. My IQ is 271. 83 which kind of permits me to tie my shoelaces but certainly does not allow me to do fast complicated arithmetic . Second there is really no more efficient way than performing a survey on the internet. As you know there are no such things as self selecting samples or peole who lie on the net. I commend for your choice in survey subject you are certainly a very intelligent fellow.

 

[byohannan]

I am not a physicist myself .But what You need to be physicist in my opinion is a strong passion to learn the mysteries of physics and a willingness to work hard to back up ur passion.

 

[AUMathTutor]

I believe I remember from Psychology 101 that language skills correlate most strongly with IQ. Next come quantitative skills, and then spatial.

I think IQ tests must inevitably make fundamental assumptions about what does and does not constitute "intelligence", and therefore it is reasonable to question the assumptions that go into them.

For instance, most IQ tests focus on fluid, rather than crystalized, knowledge, although it is a well known scientific fact that fluid knowledge decreases (roughly) with age, and crystalized knowledge increases throughout a lifetime.

Pattern matching falls squarely under the spatial reasoning category, although (if I remember correctly) it is not the best indicator of IQ in the first place. I've noticed many online IQ tests have a disproportionate number of pattern-matching questions.

I've taken some online tests before, and usually score approximately 150. I do believe the tests are completely bogus, however, so I don't put much stock in them.

However, I do think there have been studies correlating IQ to life success. I wouldn't be surprised in the least, though, if these studies are biased pretty severely (how was the sample chosen? was the sample size statistically significant? how many times was the experiment repeated? etc.)

IQ tests leave a funny taste in my mouth. I think a better test to determine whether one has an aptitude for physics is, obviously, something closer to the GRE Physics Subject Test.

 

[neu]

Only Idiots give a **** about IQ

 

[Moonbear]

I believe I remember from Psychology 101 that language skills correlate most strongly with IQ. Next come quantitative skills, and then spatial.

Maybe because those are some of the things IQ tests are designed to measure? I would hope the things the test measures correlate to test scores.

 

[Count Iblis]

I had to do a few psychological tests in primary school and later in high school. These are not exactly the same as IQ tests in that they give you some number for your IQ, rather they are meant to help you with your future school/university choice.

But for me the test results did not help at all. According to the tests in primary school, I was not suitable for higher education. I lacked in mathematical thinking ability, I could not do any techical subjects etc. etc. The teacher at primary school could not believe my results, so he arranged a meeting with a psychologist with me and I did the test orally with the psychologist.

The conclusion was that I could probably do ok. in high school because I was far ahead in many subjects, but that I had severe weaknesses in the areas that the test measure, like pattern recognition etc.

Later tests confirmed this. And I have done a few of these online IQ test some time ago in which I typically scored just 80 or so. The only thing I can do well are the number pattern recognition tests.


But despite this, I did well in school and university. I think that the reason is that you don't have to use any of the skills they test for in psychological test. E.g., I remember doing a 3d geometry exam in high school where I simply wrote down systems of equations and solved them using Gaussian elimination. Of course, we were not supposed to solve the problem that way, but the teacher did not mind.

Ultimately what matters physics and math is if you can formalize a problem and solve it mathematicaly. I think I excell at that, but none of the psychological tests measure this ability. The pattern recognition test are only relevant if you depend on intuition to learn math and physics.

 

[junglebeast]

First off. My IQ is 271. 83 which kind of permits me to tie my shoelaces but certainly does not allow me to do fast complicated arithmetic . Second there is really no more efficient way than performing a survey on the internet. As you know there are no such things as self selecting samples or peole who lie on the net. I commend for your choice in survey subject you are certainly a very intelligent fellow.

Gee, that sounds quite high, but you sound modest. Let's calculate the percentile. The standard Weschsler IQ test has mean 100 and standard deviation of 15. Therefore, the cumulative probability of having an IQ of 271.83 or greater is

$$1 - normalcdf(\frac{271.83 - 100}{15}) = 1.136 \times 10^{-30}$$

Wow, that's amazing! That means out of a random sampling of 1 nonillion people, you'd be the smartest one! In other words, 1 billion cubed times 1 thousand. Wait..I don't even think there are that many atoms in the solar system! You certainly are a smart guy! Oh well, at least you are humble about it

 

[Math Is Hard]

Why do half of your post revolve around proving ones intelligence. You shouldn't based your life on how intelligent others perceive you.

Maybe I am tattling, but I just want to point out that the OP is only 13 years old (mentioned in an older post).

 

[jobyts]

There are 3 kinds of people.

1. People who get no-so-impressive scores in IQ tests.
2. People who get high score and brag about that.
3. People who get high score, feel good about it, but do not brag about it.

I'm more of 1 and 3 (based on the test results), and definitely not 2.

Let's say you need to adopt a child and go to an orphanage. They present you 2 kids with exact same background and looks, but only with one difference - one child has an IQ 100 and the other one has an IQ of 150. Who would you choose? Definitely, I would not be tossing a coin to decide.

 

[jobyts]

First off. My IQ is 271. 83

There are many categories. I hope you clicked the right one.

Wechsler Pre-school and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) - 3-7 years
Wechsler Intelligence scale for Children (WISC) - 7-16 years
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) - 16 years and over

 

[Chi Meson]

There are a few recurring topics that bring the bile to the surface here at PF. IQ is one of those topics. I wonder why some people get so aggressive about their disinterest in IQ scores?

For the OP, Richard Feynman was a Nobel-winning physicist who exemplified that particular kind of genius that makes a true physicist. His IQ was measured at 126. His sister scored 127, and so he would often say that she was "smarter than him." Her scientific achievements were pretty good in her own right, but paled in comparison to his.

I was tested when I was 10, and again at 13, and I'll just say my "score" was significantly higher than Feyman's. There is no question, however, that he was far more insightful, productive, smart, brilliant, [insert superlative here], and successful as a physicist than I could ever have hoped to be.

My general belief is that IQ tests, even the "real" ones like the Stanford-Binet test, do not test for success as a physicist, and have no correlation to likelihood of winning a Nobel prize, or anything else. I think that you will find that Physicists in general (those with a physics degree) are above-average in intelligence, and you would find an average IQ around 120. But as it has been said, so many times, the "score" ultimately means jack squat.