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

[nitsuj]

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.

 

[kelvinng]

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."

 

[kelvinng]

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/

 

[goingmeta]

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?

 

[kelvinng]

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.

 

[goingmeta]

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?

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

 

[goingmeta]

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.

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?

 

[russ_watters]

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

Probably not. Does that matter?

 

[goingmeta]

Probably not. Does that matter?

Are you measuring ability with IQ? Is so, then a correlation between a low IQ and low education attainment wouldn't actually support your conclusion.

There's also the question of whether IQ actually measures what you want to measure...

 

[MarneMath]

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?

I don't think so. There's been a few studies that have gathered results of different IQ scores, gathered an average and broke the results down into education level. Typically 125+ had a PhD, MD or JD. 115-120 have just an undergraduates, 100-110 have some college, and the rest were high school education broken down by various types with admin on top and unskilled at the bottom.

The problem really comes when you use the word IQ. How does anyone really purpose to gather an IQ score? There was a study that attempted to correlate a relationship between IQ and GPA for college student. When giving a verbal centered IQ test, the scores correlated well, when given a second and different type of IQ test, the scores correlated poorly. Also, assuming that IQ scores give a reasonable baseline for intelligence of a certain kind, it ignores a great deal of other mental ability that may make up the difference with regards to academic success.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

All I see in the quote is Dyson separating Feynman from a common conception of Feynman. Dyson doesn't indicate whether or not he thinks there are authentic "brilliant innovators" or what might characterize such a person.

I'm sorry, but I think that question is pure ********.

******** questions make the best rorschach tests. You find a lot out about the person answering.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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?

Feynman's claim is not that all people are equally able. He merely claims that an "ordinary" person could do what he did:

"You ask me if an ordinary person, by studying hard, would get to imagine these things like I imagine them: of course! I was an ordinary person, who studied hard."

Translated to I.Q., he'd be saying anyone with an I.Q. of about a hundred should be fit to be a physicist.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Feynman's claim is not that all people are equally able. He merely claims that an "ordinary" person could do what he did:

"You ask me if an ordinary person, by studying hard, would get to imagine these things like I imagine them: of course! I was an ordinary person, who studied hard."

Translated to I.Q., he'd be saying anyone with an I.Q. of about a hundred should be fit to be a physicist.

So half the population is not normal then? Seems a little extreme. I have no idea what being Feynman is like, I'm sure he has no idea what being a "normal" person is like. Many people claim to be ordinary, but some are simply above or below (with respect to any arbitrary metric).

I think that dozens, if not hundreds or more "ordinary" people have tried to do what Feynman did, by studying hard. They did not succeed.

When I see claims like that I immediately think the claimant is engaging in humility and self deprecation. Nobody likes an arrogant ***. Better to lay on the politically correct platitudes.

 

[MarneMath]

So half the population is not normal then? Seems a little extreme. I have no idea what being Feynman is like, I'm sure he has no idea what being a "normal" person is like. Many people claim to be ordinary, but some are simply above or below (with respect to any arbitrary metric).

I think that dozens, if not hundreds or more "ordinary" people have tried to do what Feynman did, by studying hard. They did not succeed.

When I see claims like that I immediately think the claimant is engaging in humility and self deprecation. Nobody likes an arrogant ***. Better to lay on the politically correct platitudes.

I think Feynman reported he scored 125 on an IQ test he took. That would put him about 2 standard deviations above 100, which in some regards is surprising. You would think that someone we consider to be a super genius would score much higher. 125 is what I would normally expect to see from a PhD, and assuming that the 125 is his score, then perhaps the lesson to take away from Feynman is that while yes it is important to have the aptitude, it's perhaps of greater importance to have the ability to properly use that aptitude.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So half the population is not normal then? Seems a little extreme. I have no idea what being Feynman is like, I'm sure he has no idea what being a "normal" person is like. Many people claim to be ordinary, but some are simply above or below (with respect to any arbitrary metric).

I think that dozens, if not hundreds or more "ordinary" people have tried to do what Feynman did, by studying hard. They did not succeed.

When I see claims like that I immediately think the claimant is engaging in humility and self deprecation. Nobody likes an arrogant ***. Better to lay on the politically correct platitudes.

I don't think any of these Feynman interview videos should be taken very seriously. What I suspect he's doing in this one is trying his best to come off as a "regular guy". That's something that always seemed important to him. He didn't like elitists, which is the point of the title story in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"

 

[chiro]

This is an interesting topic (with good discussion) to say the least.

Personally I don't think anyone can get a BS in physics for a number of reasons.

A big reason psychologically basically has to do with "cutting your losses". What I mean by this is that if people are struggling (regardless of how hard they work), then they are likely to switch out to avoid the pain of further failure.

Some people here might regard that as a "weak" argument (maybe because they themselves despise that kind of behaviour), but it is a critical attribute of how people function generally. If someone is failing, it makes perfect sense to cut your losses and try something different.

Psychologically as well, people don't want to be constantly told that they are wrong or are failing all the time especially if its not that important for them to pursue the given endeavor (like physics). People naturally want to feel like they are powerful and in control and as soon as they start to feel like they are losing their sense of power, they are going to find some other avenue that makes them feel like they are in control.

Not everyone does this of course and you can get into all kinds of debates on the matter (including Darwinian arguments of survival of the fittest blah blah blah), but for this discussion it needs to be taken into account.

Having done some practicums as a high school math teacher and having done tutoring for a range of people with different skill-sets (including year 7 to masters students with varying capabilities), I can tell you from these experiences that some people find a lot of concepts that most people in this forum would find easy, extremely difficult.

This forum is an extremely biased sample and pointing this out is really vital to get an adequate answer or inference for the original question.

 

[goingmeta]

Having done some practicums as a high school math teacher and having done tutoring for a range of people with different skill-sets (including year 7 to masters students with varying capabilities), I can tell you from these experiences that some people find a lot of concepts that most people in this forum would find easy, extremely difficult.

Everybody struggles at some point at their current level though. As a tutor, you probably see a lot of that. What matters more is, when you track these people, that they achieve a level higher, succeed, and progress.

Did you not think that these students nevertheless learned these difficult concepts?

 

[ModusPwnd]

I've tutored people for weeks on subjects like the number line and fractions. They simply cannot get the concept. They get one on one help from not just me, but others at the facility as well. Some people are hopeless, as unfortunate as that is. At least, hopeless when it comes to learning the number line or some other particular concept.

I worked at a school that specialized in adult re-entry, low income and new immigrants. I'm sure many could have achieved more had they been educated and nurtured as a child. Many of my students never went to school as a youth, many were African refugees missing fingers and hands. It is simply harder to learn math when you don't have fingers and hands to do it with. Couple that with a lack of education as a youth and at some point, learning the concept is hopeless. Other students I had were seemingly normal people, from the states with a high school education and no obvious mental illness. But they just couldn't get a concept such as dimensional analysis from intro to chemistry. They would certainly try, they would spend more time on it than I did in undergrad.

Of course most of my students were able to get get basic ideas like the number line or dimensional analysis, but some could not and never did.

 

[WannabeNewton]

This forum is an extremely biased sample and pointing this out is really vital to get an adequate answer or inference for the original question.

Why do you say this (not disagreeing just curious)?

 

[goingmeta]

I've tutored people for weeks on subjects like the number line and fractions. They simply cannot get the concept. They get one on one help from not just me, but others at the facility as well. Some people are hopeless, as unfortunate as that is. At least, hopeless when it comes to learning the number line or some other particular concept.

I worked at a school that specialized in adult re-entry, low income and new immigrants. I'm sure many could have achieved more had they been educated and nurtured as a child. Many of my students never went to school as a youth, many were African refugees missing fingers and hands. It is simply harder to learn math when you don't have fingers and hands to do it with. Couple that with a lack of education as a youth and at some point, learning the concept is hopeless. Other students I had were seemingly normal people, from the states with a high school education and no obvious mental illness. But they just couldn't get a concept such as dimensional analysis from intro to chemistry. They would certainly try, they would spend more time on it than I did in undergrad.

Of course most of my students were able to get get basic ideas like the number line or dimensional analysis, but some could not and never did.

In such a situation, where you have nontraditional students such as the African refugees, how personal is the material made? I suspect that if it is taught in a traditional way (here is this concept, here is that concept), the ideas may seem completely unmotivated and foreign (of course, this is nothing new).

And if they didn't understand arithmetic, have you ever tried jumping to something like basic logic?

Also, how capable were they of expressing what they didn't understand?

I have never had this sort of experience.

 

[chiro]

Everybody struggles at some point at their current level though. As a tutor, you probably see a lot of that. What matters more is, when you track these people, that they achieve a level higher, succeed, and progress.

Did you not think that these students nevertheless learned these difficult concepts?

I guess the thing that I should have emphasized is that for a lot of people, they just want to pass and move on with their life.

When some-one has had a lot of pain, sometimes all they want to do is to escape it in any way that they can. They do what they have to do and if they don't have to do it again, they will make decisions so that they don't have to.

Some people have the intention of learning things like math and physics: for these people the struggle is a means to an end and a necessary part of the journey.

Others don't have the same ambitions and if they can avoid it they will.

When I hear people argue about whether everyone can get a BS, I have to say again that I think the answer is no and another reason is the one mentioned above: namely that a lot of people just don't care enough to go through the struggle.

The path of least resistance is different for everyone and it depends on what peoples values and intents are. For a person that is set on learning the path of least resistance is going through the struggle and getting better.

For someone with a different goal, it might be passing the unit and never touching it again.

The fact that everyone has different interests, values, and ambitions will mean that they are geared to have different paths of least resistance and will choose their paths accordingly.

Its like learning to play an instrument: some people really won't be all that interested and may give up after a few weeks or a month where-as the other person will slave away for decades seven days a week.

You might ask the question: "Is everyone capable of becoming a professional musician?" and you will get the exact same responses as this thread has contributed.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you measuring ability with IQ?

IQ can be thought of as the ability to learn to solve new problems, yes.

Is so, then a correlation between a low IQ and low education attainment wouldn't actually support your conclusion.

Huh? Isn't that exactly what it says? People who are less able to learn tend to learn less, people who are more able to learn tend to learn more. Please explain what you mean.

There's also the question of whether IQ actually measures what you want to measure...

That's the "begging the question" fallacy. You're basically saying that the proposition you want to prove is not measurable so we must just assume it is true (or in this case, false). But no, you can no more say that inborn intelligence has nothing to do with attainment than I can that it does, without evidence. It just so happens that the evidence is not in your favor, so you try to attack the evidence rather than using/interpreting it to judge the hypothesis.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think so. There's been a few studies that have gathered results of different IQ scores, gathered an average and broke the results down into education level. Typically 125+ had a PhD, MD or JD. 115-120 have just an undergraduates, 100-110 have some college, and the rest were high school education broken down by various types with admin on top and unskilled at the bottom.

Ok...hypothesis supported, right?

he problem really comes when you use the word IQ. How does anyone really purpose to gather an IQ score?

What do you mean/why does this matter? There are lots of ways to do it, it is difficult and none are perfect, but regardless of the specifics, the bottom line is, as you said, that there is a very strong correlation between IQ and educational attainment.

There was a study that attempted to correlate a relationship between IQ and GPA for college student. When giving a verbal centered IQ test, the scores correlated well, when given a second and different type of IQ test, the scores correlated poorly.

What was that "different type of IQ test"? That's too vague to be useful.

Also, assuming that IQ scores give a reasonable baseline for intelligence of a certain kind, it ignores a great deal of other mental ability that may make up the difference with regards to academic success.

Agreed, it is not perfect. And yet the correlation is strong.

Again, let's flip this around: the basic point of the OP appears to be that there is no correlation between IQ and educational attainment, is it not? And we know that that's not true, right? Isn't this exactly the question the OP is asking?

 

[russ_watters]

Feynman's claim is not that all people are equally able. He merely claims that an "ordinary" person could do what he did:

"You ask me if an ordinary person, by studying hard, would get to imagine these things like I imagine them: of course! I was an ordinary person, who studied hard."

Translated to I.Q., he'd be saying anyone with an I.Q. of about a hundred should be fit to be a physicist. [emphasis added]

Right, and we know that that's not true, right? He didn't have a 100 IQ, he had more like a 125 IQ. So that statement that he was ordinary is bafflingly false.

Inadvertently - via his false statement, if we insert the correct fact - he's essentially telling us that no one under a 125 IQ can be a physicist!

I don't think any of these Feynman interview videos should be taken very seriously. What I suspect he's doing in this one is trying his best to come off as a "regular guy". That's something that always seemed important to him. He didn't like elitists, which is the point of the title story in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"

Agreed. I'll say it another way:

When your mom tells you "you can do anything you want with your life", she knows its a lie, but it is a motivational lie. I think he knew he was lying, but he said it to be motivational.

 

[goingmeta]

IQ can be thought of as the ability to solve new problems, yes.
Huh? Isn't that exactly what it says? People who are less able to learn tend to learn less, people who are more able to learn tend to learn more. Please explain what you mean.

That's the "begging the question" fallacy. You're basically saying that the proposition you want to prove is not measurable so we must just assume it is true (or in this case, false). But no, you can no more say that inborn intelligence has nothing to do with attainment than I can that it does, without evidence. It just so happens that the evidence is not in your favor, so you try to attack the evidence rather than using/interpreting it to judge the hypothesis.

You want to conclude that not everyone is equally able. If somebody can improve, and hence score higher later, at what point can you be sure, based on a previous score, that the person will not have the capacity to achieve a higher education?

I never said anything was not measurable. I also didn't say inborn intelligence has nothing to do with attainment. I'm posing a simple question: how do you know intelligence, whatever that is, is being measured by an IQ test?

 

[russ_watters]

You want to conclude that not everyone is equally able. If somebody can improve, and hence score higher later, at what point can you be sure that the person will not have the capacity to achieve a higher education?

IQ cannot typically be substantially improved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#IQ_and_age

It is, by definition (and shown to be valid), a measure if inborn intelligence.

I never said anything was not measurable. I also didn't say inborn intelligence has nothing to do with attainment.

Then I guess I don't see what your point is. Could you please clearly state your thesis.

 

[goingmeta]

I asked you if you thought IQ was a static measurement. I guess I assumed you would have specified that it would be decreasing.

 

[goingmeta]

It is, by definition (and shown to be valid), a measure if inborn intelligence.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not.