Low IQs of Scientists: Francis Crick & More

  • Thread starter Thread starter Simfish
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the IQ scores of notable scientists, questioning the validity and implications of these scores. It highlights that figures like Feynman, Watson, and Shockley had IQs ranging from 124 to 129, while Crick's reported IQ of 115 raises skepticism due to its lack of authoritative sources. Participants argue that IQ tests, originally designed to identify cognitive deficits, do not effectively measure "brilliance" or predict success in scientific fields. Many emphasize that qualities like hard work, creativity, and opportunity are more crucial for scientific achievement than IQ alone. The conversation critiques the obsession with IQ, suggesting it fails to capture the complexity of human intelligence and creativity, and points out that many successful scientists may not have high IQs. Overall, the thread suggests that while IQ can provide some insights, it is not a definitive measure of a person's capabilities or potential for success in science.
  • #31
IQ tests are for school kids who like to have a measure of how apparently more clever they are over their peers.

They're meaningless in adult life.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Do people still take them then? Why what is the point unless as MIH says it's to highlight potential difficulties in education? And even then its a private matter. Might as well take an internet IQ test, because a real one won't tell you much about anything either other than how well you'll do in maths and English, which is of course vital knowledge you couldn't possibly have any inkling of. :rolleyes:
 
  • #33
Math Is Hard said:
OK, one more time:

Standardized IQ tests and scales weren't developed to measure "brilliance". These were tools designed to identify mild to severe deficits in cognitive ability. IQ tests weren't designed to predict if a student will be successful in grad school, but rather, if a student will have a shot at finishing high school.

To give a more real-world example: I have a brother with severe learning disabilities. His IQ scores gave us a better idea of what we could do to help him plan for his future as far as education and employment. I have another brother who is getting ready for law school. His IQ has never been tested because it is unnecessary. He will go as far as his motivation takes him.

I understand that. but the sad truth is that sometimes things turn into pathetic misrepresentations of what they were originally designed (and are apt) to do. There is an understandable need for testing the difference between someone who would score 70 on an IQ test and someone who would score 130— but then human nature takes over and it turns into a pissing contest of "genius" and "average" and "above average" and all that unnecessary BS.

And, while IQ tests are not necessary for most people, tests of a similar air form a part of school and high school.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Right got you it's a childish pissing contest. :rolleyes:

Don't do it over here. Although they do have tests at various ages to see how high up the league table your school is- Oh no wait... :wink::smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Don't do it over here. Although they do have tests at various ages to see how high up the league table your school is- Oh no wait... :wink::smile:
Yeah, but the teachers can "help" the kids with these tests :wink:
 
  • #36
mathwonk said:
hynagogue, have you ever taken a IQ test? they often have questions like: "which of the following does not belong?" or "which of the following is analogous to XXXX?",

this discriminates against people who can imagine ways that all the given choices do belong, or more creative analogies than the average bear.

Performance on these kinds of questions could be seen as measuring a normative kind of cognitive capacity, e.g. the extent to which you are able to process information according to the norms of the society you live in. If you cannot perform well on these sorts of questions, it doesn't mean you're "smarter" than the test maker. It means you can't perform well on the kind of cognitive capacity they tap.

and do you know who makes up these tests? do you think they are smarter than people like feynman?

On the one hand you reject the IQ test as a meaningful measure but on the other hand you continue to speak as if there is one unitary thing called "intelligence" or "smartness." It seems more likely to me that there are just different kinds of cognitive abilities, anyone of which could be considered "intelligent" in the right circumstances. I thought I made that clear already, but perhaps your interpretation of my previous posts was too creative. :smile:
 
  • #37
hypnagogue said:
If you cannot perform well on these sorts of questions, it doesn't mean you're "smarter" than the test maker.

Haven't you made an elementary mistake in logic? mathwonk did not say "A low score implies that the test-taker is smarter than the test-maker." He said (something like) "A test-taker smarter and more creative than the testmaker (possibly) implies a lower than expected score on the test."

I agree with mathwonk.

It means you can't perform well on the kind of cognitive capacity they tap.

Maybe, but not necessarily.
 
  • #38
moe darklight said:
There is an understandable need for testing the difference between someone who would score 70 on an IQ test and someone who would score 130— but then human nature takes over and it turns into a pissing contest of "genius" and "average" and "above average" and all that unnecessary BS.

I am in complete agreement with you there. :smile:
 
  • #39
George Jones said:
Haven't you made an elementary mistake in logic?

No, I was just lazy in referring to the claim at hand. I am aware that mathwonk was not making the absurd claim that poor performance on the test always implies greater intelligence than the test makers.
 
  • #40
its quite obvious that the nobel prize is not an accurate assessment of achievement
 
  • #41
ekrim said:
its quite obvious that the nobel prize is not an accurate assessment of achievement
Of course it's not, it could happen that you chance upon the discovery -- or, more likely these days, the person getting the prize could just be the tip of a very large pyramid of people who have contributed towards the discovery.

Personally, I think that people who worry about tests, competitions and prizes aren't really cut-out for science. The best people out there don't have to prove their worth in this form, it shows in their work.
 
  • #42
Can I get an Amen.
 
  • #43
Amen! Well said J77.
 
  • #44
If you're so smart how come you ain't rich?

Math Is Hard said:
The thing about IQ tests and scales is that they weren't developed to measure "brilliance". These were tools designed to identify mild to severe deficits in cognitive ability. In that regard, they are very useful, but to try to apply them to the upper range of scores is sort of meaningless.

Binet developed the first IQ tests a century ago, to identify mentally handicapped children. That's just a history snippet. It doesn't mean that's all that IQ tests are used for today.

Obviously the concept of "intelligence" means something, and psychologists need tools to define and measure whatever that is. IQ is just a rough measure. It doesn't take individual talents / limitations into account.

Using myself as an example:
I score in the high 130's, but much of that score comes from the verbal reasoning component. That squares with my lifelong experience. My thinking is scattered and so are my interests. Concepts come easily, details do not. In troubleshooting, I often don't see the obvious. Algebra was never self-evident to me, but geometry was, and humanities always seemed simplistic. Someone else with the same IQ might do worse at crossword puzzles and better at mechanical work. I'd gladly trade.

IQ isn't meaningless, it just doesn't describe all the contents of a person's intellectual toolbox. It isn't meant to.
 
  • #45
:smile: 3 topics that never disappoint in gathering a croud at PF:

1) religion
2) global warming
3) IQ tests

BillJx said:
Binet developed the first IQ tests a century ago, to identify mentally handicapped children. That's just a history snippet. It doesn't mean that's all that IQ tests are used for today.

But that's exactly it: they are not of much use outside of what they were originally designed to do.

They are very helpful for observing and understanding people who have a hard time grasping concepts that come naturally to the majority of the population— but quite pointless otherwise:

So IQ tests tell us that Einstein had an IQ of 160 and was incredibly gifted mathematically— how insightful! ... I'm sure these test results came as an absolute shock to those who knew him in person or read his 1905 papers...

That "160" means nothing; his ideas tell us all we need to know about how intelligent he was.

I don't need an IQ test to tell me that I have a very easy time with words and logic but posses the mathematical intelligence of a frying pan.— I already know that I can zoom my way through a philosophy or biology book, but suffer every page of linear algebra or calculus.

A person's ideas and intellectual disposition is a far more accurate measure of intelligence or "genius" than any IQ test.

but it's almost 8 AM and I have to try and convince myself that I need to sleep now... between the beers, cheap cigars, and probable CO2 poisoning from the campfire, this night is very likely to have reduced my IQ by more than a few points .
 
Last edited:
  • #46
moe darklight said:
but it's almost 8 AM and I have to try and convince myself that I need to sleep now... between the beers, cheap cigars, and probable CO2 poisoning from the campfire, this night is very likely to have reduced my IQ by more than a few points .

:smile:haha! I need more nights like that... but I've just got into college... they're bound to come up soon...:smile:
 
  • #47
I think that we should listen to mathwonk. He has said everything you can say about this.
 
  • #48
try this iq test:
1) how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? assume angels have feet of area 1/100000 sq in, and a pin had area .1 inch. also assume angels like a small amount of elbow room.

2) are women smarter tham men?

3) if you smoke pot, and drink and drive, and do no exercise, and watch tv all evening, what grade will you get in abstract algebra in grade 14?

4) what percentage of american republican voters still think saddam hussein had wmd's?

5) how much does it help to be wealthy if the air is polluted in the entire country?

6) what is .9999... = ?

7) can you whistle dixie and walk at the same time?

8) is a french wine worth $900 a bottle if robert parker gives it a score of 98?

9) can you remember your class schedule for fall 2007?

10) do you floss regularly?

11) is every (p,p) cohomology class on a complex algebraic manifold algebraic?

12) did j.b. ramsey commit suicide?

13) which of the following do not belong with the others? a bottle of beefeaters gin; an 18 ounce pool cue signed by minnesota fats; a first edition of "michael strogoff" illustrated by jules verne; a rejection letter from the newschool for social research in florida; a scratched dvd of a jackie chan movie; a 12 ounce bag of cafarrel gianduia?

14) what do women want?

correct answers will be determined by majority vote submitted by registered contributors for the forum.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
I don't have anything to contribute myself, but I read a nice talk by Richard Hamming a few weeks ago called 'You and Your Research' which I think is somewhat relevant to the thread.

It's a bit long, but I'm sure at least some of you will enjoy it. He talks about why some people do great work, and why others, who may be just as smart, or smarter, don't.

The talk starts a little bit down the page if you don't want to read the introduction, under the heading 'THE TALK: ``You and Your Research'' by Dr. Richard W. Hamming'.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
 
  • #50
BillJx said:
Binet developed the first IQ tests a century ago, to identify mentally handicapped children. That's just a history snippet. It doesn't mean that's all that IQ tests are used for today.
What are these other things it is used for? As criteria to join a high IQ social club? Possibly. But is that really useful? To set a standard for admissions into programs for gifted children? Even that has come under a lot of scrutiny as far as what constitutes "gifted".
IQ isn't meaningless, it just doesn't describe all the contents of a person's intellectual toolbox. It isn't meant to.
I never said it was meaningless, only meaningless in the above average range. Please do not misrepresent my statements. If anything, I have argued exactly the same things that you are arguing.
 
  • #51
What do IQ test have to do with physics?
 
  • #52
Smart is as smart does.I want to discuss photoelecetric gels. any help?
 
  • #53
IQ tests measure people's itellectual potential and makes no pretension to predict if that potential will ever be realized. It's a little like measuring the size of an engine in a car. A 2 litre engine has the potential to power a car to go faster than a car with a 1.1 litre engine but there are a lot of other factors that determine the speed of the car and so a well-tuned 1.1 litre engine might well outperform a badly-tuned 2 litre engine. On the other hand if all else is equal then the 2 litre engine will always outperform the 1.1 litre engine. As they say in boxing parlance 'a good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un'.

Think of it in terms of the law of constraints. People with high IQs are not constrained by their ability to grasp complex problems as people with lower IQ's may be but other physchological attributes may well be constraining issues which prevent those with high IQs from ever achieving their potential. To return to my analogy, if the car has no wheels then it doesn't matter how big the engine is, the car is not going anywhere. In the real world lack of application or motivation are 2 common and obvious examples of constraints.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
try this iq test:

1) how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? assume angels have feet of area 1/100000 sq in, and a pin had area .1 inch. also assume angels like a small amount of elbow room.

A: Depends are they black angels cause those cats need more than elbow room to do their thang, where as white angels just sort of stumble around looking embarrassed so elbow room is fine. Too stereotypical :-p:smile: ?

2) are women smarter tham men?

I don't understand the question? What does tham mean, in context if you mean than "than", there is no scientific evidence to prove they are, such as it is, I mean intelligence is a pretty hazy field. However there are areas of intelligence men excel at and areas of intelligence women excel at so it's not an easy question to answer except in general terms...

3) if you smoke pot, and drink and drive, and do no exercise, and watch tv all evening, what grade will you get in abstract algebra in grade 14?

Impossible to say. Are you someone famous who did just that and then went on to win the fields medal?

4) what percentage of american republican voters still think saddam hussein had wmd's?

Too many.

5) how much does it help to be wealthy if the air is polluted in the entire country?

Not at all exactly, however if you are rich you will no doubt spend less hours in areas that are highly polluted. You don't suggest their is no gradient of pollution.

6) what is .9999... = ?

.9999... Unless you mean .999... Which equals one, although you may be using unconventional maths terminology, in which case it equals 1

7) can you whistle dixie and walk at the same time?

Yep I can. But if you mean you in the sense of everyone then maybe not some people can't whistle, and it may be against the law in some states, who knows?

8) is a french wine worth $900 a bottle if robert parker gives it a score of 98?

No wine is worth that much, unless it's to be collected and never appreciated which is criminal.

9) can you remember your class schedule for fall 2007?

What? I don't have one, fall 2007 is my time off.

10) do you floss regularly?

no.

11) is every (p,p) cohomology class on a complex algebraic manifold algebraic?

How on Earth would I know? I'm going to guess no :smile:

12) did j.b. ramsey commit suicide?

Without googling I have no idea who he is. So I'm going to say the case is still open.

13) which of the following do not belong with the others? a bottle of beefeaters gin; an 18 ounce pool cue signed by minnesota fats; a first edition of "michael strogoff" illustrated by jules verne; a rejection letter from the newschool for social research in florida; a scratched dvd of a jackie chan movie; a 12 ounce bag of cafarrel gianduia?


Isn't Minnesota Fats a fictional character from the Hustler?(fantastic movie btw) Must be him then as I presume the others actually exist.

14) what do women want?

It varies from any given moment and any given day.
^
Disclaimer: the above may be changed at any time without notice.If I score badly the test is not a very good test and is culturally biased, and had loads of grammatical errors. If I score ok then it's a great test well done there Mathwonk :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #55
I have a better intelligent test. It is this: If you have got a Nobel prize in theoretical physics, or a Fields medal, you are intelligent. If you have not got either of them, you are not intelligent. Possible scores in the test are 0 and 1.
 
  • #56
jostpuur said:
I have a better intelligent test. It is this: If you have got a Nobel prize in theoretical physics, or a Fields medal, you are intelligent. If you have not got either of them, you are not intelligent. Possible scores in the test are 0 and 1.
Does John Bardeen get a 2, then? Or does the transistor not count as theoretical physics?
 
  • #57
Does an IQ test measure your intelligence, or your ability to complete IQ tests?
 
  • #58
High IQ is not a requirement to becoming a scientist. The most important aspect is dedication and hard work. You can have the highest IQ in the world but if you do not apply yourself then you will never achieve anything. On the other hand you could have an average IQ and try very hard and produce some fantastic research or win the Nobel prize. What would you rather do.
 
  • #59
I stopped caring about my IQ results when they started giving me lower results...
That proved me I was not a genius after all, so I simply don't give a **** about it now. :P

I pretty much suck at chess for example, I am damn slow processing future possibles moves.

But I don't know, when proving math theorems for example, does the IQ thing really matters? Is it logic what we use?
I think we don't even think about it on a conscious level, it is kind of like you stare at the problem for a long while, you get frustrated with yourself because you can't solve it, you give up, you're taking a shower and then suddenly, out of the blue, a thought runs through your head with the solution.
 
  • #60
Guna82m said:
IQ doesn't picture everything about a human's cababilities...believe me..i'v seen people with very high IQ looks more dull like a cartoon character than normal human. IQ test is linear way of determining one's brain power.. There is no algorithm way to define one's IQ... so don't be surprise to see people with low IQ become world famous scientist...

Formula to become worls famous scientist = Huge amount of hard work + small amount of luck ...can anyone give a scientific eq from this formula?

quoted for truth