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

  • Thread starter Thread starter kelvinng
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the debate over whether anyone can aspire to be a physicist, with references to Feynman's views on hard work and dedication. Participants argue that while some individuals may struggle with physics due to various factors, including lack of interest or prior knowledge, it is overly simplistic to claim that effort alone guarantees success in the field. There is acknowledgment that innate ability plays a role, as some people may face insurmountable challenges despite their efforts. The conversation highlights the importance of persistence and the varying experiences of students in mastering complex concepts. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the idea that while dedication is crucial, not everyone possesses the same capacity to excel in physics.
  • #91
goingmeta said:
I can't tell if you're trolling or not.
And I'm trying to figure out if you are! Your argument style is to ask questions and imply a position without actually stating it. It makes it very difficult to tell what the point is that you are trying to make!
I asked you if you thought IQ was a static measurement. I guess I assumed you would have specified that it would be decreasing.
You didn't ask a specific question, only a vague one. Not knowing what your point and level of knowledge of the facts was, it was impossible for me to guess how specific of an answer you wanted. So since the question was framed as a yes or no, I answered a yes or no.

So now that I know what you are getting at: It really doesn't matter if it increases or decreases, only that it doesn't tend to increase by 25 points, enabling an average person to become Richard Feynman.

Moreover, there is a clear logical flaw in that reasoning of yours: Are all people able to increase their IQ only by enough to bring everyone up to exactly 125? If not, then the differences in ability and thus resulting attainment would be intact. And even if they did, the lost time would still cause differences due to starting IQ. It wouldn't make sense for that to be true/possible, even if we didn't already know that it isn't true, and even if it was, it still wouldn't produce the equality Feynman claims!

Again, the data and logic on this seems clear and simple to me. That there is argument about it is truly baffling to me.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
russ_watters said:
Again, the data and logic on this seems clear and simple to me. That there is argument about it is truly baffling to me.
Adding to the surreal-ness of this thread/argument, I'm one of the staunchest conservatives on this site, a firm believer in personal responsibility. So for me to be the one arguing that those who attain less aren't lazy is a surreal twist. Typically, I'm getting accused by others of believing the poor tend to be lazy!
 
  • #93
goingmeta said:
Is IQ a static measurement throughout a person's life?
No, it's not. If you had bothered to read about IQ tests, first you would know that that they are created to test for learning impairment. Then you would know that children under 14 tend to score higher then drop off.
If people can't bother to learn even the basics about a subject before they post, it is a waste of our time.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K