Low IQs of Scientists: Francis Crick & More

  • Thread starter Thread starter Simfish
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the IQ scores of notable scientists, particularly focusing on the implications of these scores for their intellectual capabilities and contributions to science. Participants explore the relevance and limitations of IQ tests in measuring intelligence, as well as the potential for low IQ scores among successful scientists.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the validity of Francis Crick's reported IQ of 115 and seek authoritative sources for this figure.
  • Others argue that an IQ of 115 is still relatively high and does not diminish a scientist's capabilities.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the significance of IQ tests, suggesting that they do not fully capture a person's intelligence or potential as a scientist.
  • It is proposed that effort and opportunity may play a more crucial role in achieving success than IQ alone.
  • Some participants highlight that IQ tests were originally designed to identify cognitive deficits, not to measure brilliance or high intelligence.
  • There are claims that exceptionally intelligent individuals may score lower on IQ tests due to the nature of the tests themselves, which may not align with their cognitive abilities.
  • One participant shares a link to a study suggesting that effort may be more important than IQ for academic success.
  • Concerns are raised about the societal obsession with IQ and its implications for self-worth and elitism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views regarding the relevance and interpretation of IQ scores. There is no consensus on the significance of IQ in relation to scientific achievement, and participants express a range of opinions on the matter.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the interpretation of IQ scores can vary significantly, and the discussion reflects differing assumptions about what constitutes a "low" IQ. The limitations of IQ tests in measuring intelligence, particularly at the higher end of the scale, are also acknowledged.

  • #61
Mr. Dog, I agree with you if only for the flawless camouflage job in your post. :biggrin:
Everyone seems to forget the Q part of IQ. As MIH, Hypatia, Moonbear, and several other less beautiful people know, the IQ scale is meant to determine the capacity for knowledge, rather than the knowledge itself. 35 years ago, when I was tested, I ended up somewhere between 100 and 200. That doesn't mean that I'm smarter than my friend who scored 95, or dumber than my other friend who scored 195.
Work with what you've got, screw the nay-sayers, and make a good life for yourself.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #62
My IQ is 470, making me a Level 12 Genius. I get +5 to arrogance and -10 to my "Chance to get laid" roll. I also get special abilities such as "Flaunt Superiority" and "Fix Microwave".

If you need any proof that IQ means squat when it comes to intelligence, look at this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan
 
  • #63
If IQ really measures some "intrinsic ability", then, at the absolute minimum, the scores you get on a test should stay relatively constant over time. Your score shouldn't increase as you learn new things. This is not the case with actual tests.

For example, if you work in 3d modeling and texturing/skinning for a few months (drawing and applying 2d images onto a 3d model), then those questions about how a cube or dodecahedron folds up are trivially easy to visualize, because you've gotten used to visualizing much harder stuff.
 
  • #64
Kurdt said:
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.

To be a scientist who regurgitates other people's work? No. As long as you can recite information you can do anything you want to. But to produce fantastic research? I really think a high IQ is a requirement. This is cruel and unfair, but I believe it is reality. Look at virtually all Nobel winners and the quality of their work... pretty much all of them score above 120 and are closer to 140. In fact, having skimmed through the thread I have yet to see a low IQ name pop up. Granted, a lot of the great scientists were not around to have their IQs tested (including Einstein), and so estimates can be taken with a grain of salt. But history tells us they too were top of their class and in many cases prodigies.

Obivously hard work and dedication is the other half. But this is a learned habit, ANYONE can do it. But not everyone is capable of genius insight. Just as someone tall and someone short can both learn to play basket ball, the nature of the sport favours the tall individual. Thats why when a rare exception comes to mind, ie. Spud Webb, we hear all about it.

Whether or not you choose to accept IQ as an accurate measure of intelligence (I define intelligence as a capacity to acquire knowledge and think in novel ways), is up to you. I believe it is a good measure, although far from perfect. But if you are denying that some people are just naturally more talented, I am afraid you are living in denial.

maze said:
If IQ really measures some "intrinsic ability", then, at the absolute minimum, the scores you get on a test should stay relatively constant over time. Your score shouldn't increase as you learn new things. This is not the case with actual tests.

For example, if you work in 3d modeling and texturing/skinning for a few months (drawing and applying 2d images onto a 3d model), then those questions about how a cube or dodecahedron folds up are trivially easy to visualize, because you've gotten used to visualizing much harder stuff.

They are constant. Have you tried this 3d experiment or are you just making it up? Online tests are not constant because are not correct the first time. A professional assessment gives a far more accurate measure. And IQ declines with age. That should be common sense. Is it not harder to learn a new language when you are 30 rather than when you were 7?
 
  • #65
Howers said:
Obivously hard work and dedication is the other half. But this is a learned habit, ANYONE can do it. But not everyone is capable of genius insight.

...

But if you are denying that some people are just naturally more talented, I am afraid you are living in denial.

There has been considerable research done on "the expert mind" in the last 20 years, investigating chess grandmasters, athletes, scientists, concert musicians, and so forth. The overwhelming evidence indicates that geniuses are made, not born. Ericsson is one of the leading researchers in the field, you may want to use his journal articles as a starting point if you wish to investigate the subject further.

Howers said:
[IQ scores] are constant. Have you tried this 3d experiment or are you just making it up? Online tests are not constant because are not correct the first time.

I scored 10 points higher on a legitimate administered test after working intensely on 3D modeling as a hobby for 2 years during high school. The test questions were similar and administered by the same people. I scored basically the same on all portions of the test except the spatial questions which I improved on.

Howers said:
Is it not harder to learn a new language when you are 30 rather than when you were 7?

This is a hotly debated issue in cognitive science, and is not clear-cut. People who learn a language through immersion apparently learn pretty quickly.
 
  • #66
maze said:
Ericsson is one of the leading researchers in the field, you may want to use his journal articles as a starting point if you wish to investigate the subject further.
Sometimes I wonder if those doing research into cognitive intelligence are themselves as intelligent as the human subjects they study.
 
  • #67
Defennder said:
Sometimes I wonder if those doing research into cognitive intelligence are themselves as intelligent as the human subjects they study.

In this case the researchers would definitely be less intelligent than the people being studied - that's the point. Regardless, so long as the research is done carefully and repeatably, and the conclusion is supported by data, it doesn't really matter.
 
  • #68
People who quote their IQ scores (where do people get tested?) always come across to me as just plain dull.

Even if you accept the premise that an IQ score is directly repesentative of cognitive ability then there's no achievement is scoring high is there?

Remeber IQ tests are timed. If you answer a question quickly you get a better score. Therefore who's to say a person with reasonable cognitive ability will not be able to answer all the questions answered by someone with a very strong and fast cognitive abilities, albeit with some more time and thought.

From what I've heard there's a much larger scope for disorders and depression for those with an incredibly high IQ than there is for success relative to those of just above average IQ. It's a very woolly and vague thing to say but it's just an impression I get.
 
  • #69
Regarding the original post:

Is it possible that testing techniques have changed over the years and could make up for different scores for people from different decades? Also, I'm not sure if IQ tests are standard. I've done many different IQ tests officially and unofficially (ie. with researchers and without) and the results do differ. Also, attempting to put this in a different way: You've seen those photos of your favourite movie star plastered on the tabloids with their cellulite and acne and the beer gut. They look just like you and me, maybe worse :wink:, but they still make poo loads of money doing a job that "requires" perfect looks.
I know many sports people with lower "sporting potential" (let's call it SP) than me because they have one arm or no legs. Let's say my SP is 100 (i have all normal bodily capability so I sit at 100%) and someone missing an arm has an SP of 75 (because he can't do all the things I can in a standardised test). But I'm telling you right now that my one armed friend would kick me into yesterday in a swimming race, because he is awesome at that. He trains (does not come into play in a SP test), has learned technique and has more heart than anyone in the pool. Why should someone's IQ determine what job they could perform?

My opinion on IQ in general:
I remember thinking, some days I could solve any pattern problem you could throw at me and some days it seems as if my brain just isn't in the problem solving mood and I stumble around a problem for ages with bad results. This must affect IQ test results. What about those questions you get to in the last five minutes of the test and you just randomly guess the answers for. Say you got 25% of those right (considering a,b,c,d multiple choice) for 20 questions that you just guess at the end.

Also, I've noticed that people who are defensive about their own IQ score (maybe they feel it is not an accurate representation of their actual intelligence) are the first to say that the tests are worthless. We don't even know if we compare with others or not. I couldn't tell you the IQ of any of my friends or even my family for that matter, nobody shares that kind of info. Why is IQ such a secretive and elitist number? Not sure if anyone has mentioned their own number here. People do hold a certain value to it, obviously, or otherwise everyone would have put their IQ at the top of their post with no fear of comment. I've never been asked in any job interview or entrance exam for my IQ. Is it really then such a standard of intelligence? And if I told them would they believe me or think I was just boosting my self worth. Like telling people how much money you have or how much you weigh or how big your... hand is. :wink:

IQ from results that have been revealed: between 125 and 135. That's apparently above average. Why did I fail subjects at university and only produce ok results? (a couple of A's but mostly B's C's and D's) Because it was damn hard no matter what anyone's IQ was and I didn't always work very hard, but even when I did, I still battled sometimes). Now I'm a practising engineer and I know other engineers with higher and lower IQ's, doesn't make them any more or less of an engineer. Just as I would assume your IQ wouldn't make you any better or worse at being a scientist.
 
  • #70
I'm sorry Howers, but are you suggesting that you need a high IQ to be original and creative? I was not denying that some people have a talent for one particular thing. I was merely addressing the OP and saying that high IQ is not a requirement to be a scientist. As with anything, putting in the hours is the key.
 
  • #71
Howers said:
. . . . And IQ declines with age. That should be common sense. Is it not harder to learn a new language when you are 30 rather than when you were 7?
My grandfather was sharp as a tack and quite mentally proficient at 100. He read everyday, kept up with current events and world affairs, and provided meals and services for younger people (in their 80's and 90's) who were less capable (mobile) than him.

I have found it much easier to learn a new language in my 40's and 50's than I did at 7. I have context and knowledge now that I didn't have in primary school.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Manny46
  • #72
I am not advocating in any way that IQ be used in place of achievement. It is a measure of innate intelligence and not something that an individual can control. What I am saying is IQ definitely is needed to produce good work - or it at the very least increases the odds of producing good work. Not that employers should use it in screening applicants. Even though they currently do, as do medical and grad schools - what do you think is the point of admission tests?

To maze, some have theorized that everyone is born with an IQ "scale". This means if you exercise your brain often and are brought up in a good enviornment, you can score at the higher end of this scale and it wouldn't be surprising to see your score go as high as 15 points. In your case, I am assuming you had not dealt with 3d imagines much before and after exposure they seemed more natural.

There are different forms of originality and creativity. IQ tends to predict the academic ones. The reason I am so cynical about this is because of what I learned from tutoring high school students. Some students pick up on math really fast, and others need to be reminded constantly of what we are doing. There was even a girl who didn't truly understand the concept of division. She was in grade 12, and after a week of teaching her the basic operation from scratch she still did not follow. All she knew was the divison table she memorized years ago. Even to this day, if you ask her what 5/0 is she will say zero. Something I mentioned to her atleast 90 times. Sadly, I just gave up on her. Not surprisingly, the better students were naturally more logical as well. You can guess how logical she was. So if there is a threshold to pass in understanding concepts, it is natural to infer that there is another threshold to pass to create ideals. If you can show me an original academic with a low IQ, which this thread aims to do, I will happily throw out any importance to the score. Until then, I must let facts govern my judgement.

Note: My own score is not particularily high, just a mere "above average". I am not defending IQ on the basis of defending my intelligence. I hate the idea of IQ - something one has no control over, just as I hate the idea of genetic disease. But I have read enough about it to see it is actually quite accurate.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
Howers said:
There are different forms of originality and creativity. IQ tends to predict the academic ones. The reason I am so cynical about this is because of what I learned from tutoring high school students. Some students pick up on math really fast, and others need to be reminded constantly of what we are doing. There was even a girl who didn't truly understand the concept of division. She was in grade 12, and after a week of teaching her the basic operation from scratch she still did not follow. All she knew was the divison table she memorized years ago. Even to this day, if you ask her what 5/0 is she will say zero. Something I mentioned to her atleast 90 times. Sadly, I just gave up on her. Not surprisingly, the better students were naturally more logical as well. You can guess how logical she was. So if there is a threshold to pass in understanding concepts, it is natural to infer that there is another threshold to pass to create ideals. If you can show me an original academic with a low IQ, which this thread aims to do, I will happily throw out any importance to the score. Until then, I must let facts govern my judgement.
I can sympathize with teaching or being a tutor. I taught freshman students in an introductory engineering class. They struggled with simple word problems that 8th or 9th graders should understand! That was 20+ years ago, and I see no improvement since, and it reflected a problem I had identified when I was in high school 30+ years ago. (When I was a senior in high school, I got pulled out of my AP chemistry class for a few days to substitute teach the regular chemistry class because the teacher was ill.) The educational system in the US is fundamentally flawed to the point that a majority of students fail to achieve their full potential.

However, with respect to the 12th grader, how does one differentiate between innate capability and the achievement (or lack thereof) of the educational experience. Perhaps she was never challenged or never taught in a way that was conducive to her learning. Clearly some people lack the ability to learn, but most do have the potential, although it varies widely. Then we must consider that different people learn differently, and this reflects on one of the greatest failures of the US (and perhaps elsewhere) educational system - that being 'one size does not fit all'. In general, we use an assembly line approach to education that attempts to move everyone at the same rate - and that doesn't work. Each student needs a customized education!

My kids needed help outside of the normal class, and we had to go to great effort to get that supplemental help. My wife works with kids who need extra help in school, and that appears to be an exception than the norm, and it seems to work on a school by school, district by district basis.

Now getting back to the OP, I think it shows that folks with relatively average (not exceptional IQ) can achieve great work, and it does not require a high IQ. Having a high IQ may be sufficient, but it's not necessary to achieve.
 
  • #74
On a lot of IQ tests, a score of around 130 will put you in the top 98th or 99th percentile. None of the scores you posted are "low", as in below average.

In fact, I would expect that the average score for someone with a PhD in a field of Physics would be somewhere between 118-135 depending on the test, so the scores for these supposed "low scorers" actually looks pretty average, or if anything, slightly below average for people in their fields.

Einstein, for instance, certainly had a high IQ, but not nearly as high as many of his more famous (at the time) contemporaries, which just goes to prove that genius simply is not measured simply by a score on a test, it is also hard work, creativity, luck, and a certain je ne sais quoi.
 
  • #75
This game claims to boost your IQ: http://dual-n-back.com/

IMHO intelligence is not something that is fixed, it's always changing, granted, some people are "naturally" better than others at specific things, but that does not mean anything, practice makes perfect, if you really care about something, you can do it, it's just a matter of time.
 
  • #76
Huh?
 
  • #77
wait...what?
 
  • #78
What is going on, where am I?
 
  • #79
G01 said:
I don't give IQ tests merit. Your work ethic and attitude are much more important in the end.


Agreed. No matter how high your intuitive aptitude is, if you don't put forth the necessary effort, you will not achieve as much as someone of a lower intuitive aptitude who puts in many more hours. It's all about ATTITUDE and GOALS. I've seen it and also been a victim of it. People who I naturally excelled past in high school, have better qualifications than me now because I had the wrong attitude and didn't apply myself like I should have. The shame of it all is that I really have the ability, I really do. However, I am much smarter now and on the right track.
 
  • #80
Astronuc said:
Then we must consider that different people learn differently, and this reflects on one of the greatest failures of the US (and perhaps elsewhere) educational system - that being 'one size does not fit all'. In general, we use an assembly line approach to education that attempts to move everyone at the same rate - and that doesn't work. Each student needs a customized education!

This is the key point. Teachers tend to teach in THEIR OWN LEARNING STYLE. Some students are predominantly auditory learners, others are predominantly visual, others are predominantly physical and so on. Generally we have all three aspects but are more dominant in one. Teachers tend to only use ONE style of teaching which is supposed to fit every student in the room. It just doesn't work like that and it's no wonder you get students who "hate" that class or find it boring. The teacher is not catering to their styles of learning. It is difficult and maybe unrealistic to expect teachers to teach each individual selectively for optimized results. A good start would be to engage the different modalities a lot more when teaching a large group, rather than just focusing on one.
 
  • #81
I don't understand how people could speak of IQ tests as if it had a 100 % scientifically proven correlation to intelligence. I for one don't know where in between 0 and 100% correlation it has but the one thing I can be sure of it is that it is not 0 and 100 % percent yet nobody believes it has 0 % correlation but there are a decent amount of those believing blindly as if it was some religion that it has a 100% correlation with intelligence.
 
  • #82
IQ scores are a valid way of measuring abstract thinking- skills necessary for advanced physics & math. If you don't score high enough don't blame the test, blame yourself for not being that smart. Feynman, who only scored 126, was described as 'slow' , and 'lacking in rigor' by some of his lesser known contemporaries. He was smart, but by no stretch of the imagination a genius.
 
  • #83
Away, foul necromancer!
 
  • #84
elfboy said:
IQ scores are a valid way of measuring abstract thinking- skills necessary for advanced physics & math. If you don't score high enough don't blame the test, blame yourself for not being that smart. Feynman, who only scored 126, was described as 'slow' , and 'lacking in rigor' by some of his lesser known contemporaries. He was smart, but by no stretch of the imagination a genius.

Since when is IQ the end all be all for deciding who's a genius and who isn't?
 
  • #85
elfboy said:
Feynman, who only scored 126, was described as 'slow' , and 'lacking in rigor' by some of his lesser known contemporaries. He was smart, but by no stretch of the imagination a genius.
No stretch of your imagination, perhaps! My imagination needs very little stretching to accommodate that idea.

PS: From your dismissal of his intellectual capabilities - one that is contrary to common estimation - you are claiming, at the minimum, a comprehension of most of his notable scientific work. How many of Feynman's papers have you read and understood, and which ones?
 
Last edited:
  • #86
Gokul43201 said:
No stretch of your imagination, perhaps! My imagination needs very little stretching to accommodate that idea.

PS: From your dismissal of his intellectual capabilities - one that is contrary to common estimation - you are claiming, at the minimum, a comprehension of most of his notable scientific work. How many of Feynman's papers have you read and understood, and which ones?

I define IQ as the ability synthesize abstract concepts relative to ones peers for a respective field. Being that I'm not a theoretical physicist I'm in no position to judge the works of Feynman, but some of his contemporaries have judged him to be 'slow' and I attribute this to his IQ.
 
  • #87
elfboy said:
I define IQ as the ability synthesize abstract concepts relative to ones peers for a respective field. Being that I'm not a theoretical physicist I'm in no position to judge the works of Feynman, but some of his contemporaries have judged him to be 'slow' and I attribute this to his IQ.

Where did you read that anyone judged Feynman to be 'slow'? I've never heard this.

The Feynman case is en excellent example of why IQ measurements, as a way to measure high intellect, are pure BS.
 
  • #88
elfboy said:
Being that I'm not a theoretical physicist I'm in no position to judge the works of Feynman, but some of his contemporaries have judged him to be 'slow' and I attribute this to his IQ.
Names and citations please!
 
  • #89
leroyjenkens said:
Since when is IQ the end all be all for deciding who's a genius and who isn't?

For that matter, what is genius, anyway? Top 1%? In what? Doing what?

I do not subscribe to a generic "genius" category, as some I've met may be brilliant in many areas, but not so much in others.
 
  • #90
elfboy said:
I define IQ as the ability synthesize abstract concepts relative to ones peers for a respective field. Being that I'm not a theoretical physicist I'm in no position to judge the works of Feynman, but some of his contemporaries have judged him to be 'slow' and I attribute this to his IQ.

Where are you coming up with all this drivel?
It turns out that guys like Feyman hit the ceiling for logical-mathematical intelligence. However, Feynman scored low in verbal intelligence, which didn't really matter for his field of study.
 
Last edited: