In 1952, psychologist Anne Roe administered a test to 64 scientists with the help of the ETS (the same people who design the GRE). The MEDIAN score was 152, and that's AFTER excluding the physical scientists from the math portion on the basis that it would be too easy for them. Even so, the MEDIAN math score was 154, with the highest score being 194. (!)
Let me repeat that, because I don't think you understand. One of the scientists (who was not in the physical sciences, mind you!) scored over 6 fucking standard deviations from the norm on math.
The median VERBAL IQ was 166, with a high of 177. (!!!)
And before you get hopeful about the Flynn effect, keep in mind that these scores indicate the percentage of the population capable of a career in science at that time. Also, they're entirely speculative (the Flynn effect may have capped out as early as the 70s, in which case the point difference would be much smaller). In fact, it is probably HARDER to get a science career now due to international competition, greater nepotism and lock-in effects, the "everyone is a genius" mentality in education, and much lower demand for unskilled labor.
Working your ass off isn't enough. These scientists were geniuses AND worked their asses off AND lived during America's golden age.
If you want to be a scientist but don't have a >145 IQ, you are *fucked.*
someone get this clearly intelligent man a gold star!
Isaac Hughes
>Not knowing that the reason IQ scores in intelligent people is going down is actually because the population as a whole is getting smarter.
100 IQ is the average score among all test-takers, it is not a fixed number. This means that as the average intelligence rises, the harder it is to score those amazingly high scores from the past. Basically, these academics are just as smart as they were 60 years ago, but because there is now less difference in intelligence between them and the average person, they score lower on the test.
I am assuming that this is some sort of troll topic, so my post is probably going to be ignored in favor of Constanza faces with text reading ">sub 120 IQ manlets".
Carson Hughes
>these academics are just as smart as they were 60 years ago
What are you talking about? Modern scientists would run circles around scientists 50 years ago, just as basketball players today would run circles around basketball players 50 years ago.
Sure, you have outliers, etc. But generally speaking, as the supply of talent increases, institutions can be more selective than ever.
Bentley Williams
I scored 135. What do I win?
Aaron Parker
Why does OP need to post this every week? Take your statistical bull shit that suffers from the problem of induction and shove it up your ass, boy.
Aaron Johnson
>t. 115 IQ brainlet
inb4 "nuh uh I gots 150"
Everyone knows IQ has tremendous predictive power.
Indeed, IQ becomes MORE predictive of success at the high end, not LESS.
Are you mad because I hurt your religious beliefs? You act just like a religious zealot who can't take any criticism, and then to top it off you post some short clip from some movie to just show case of how much of a modern whore you are.
Joseph Smith
>IQ is the most studied phenomenon in social science, with over a century of results, some of the longest and most careful studies, huge n's, etc. But every study regarding IQ that references it's correlation with race in anyway is automatically pseudoscience and racist. Also, this is now a /pol/ thread.
Jayden Kelly
OP. I find it funny you talk about the legitimacy of IQ, but you post an online IQ test. Don't you know the only real way to get an IQ score is to get it tested in real life?
Parker Sanders
That particular test is a pretty good gauge of how well you'd do in a real one, though.
Jayden Thompson
So, we are arguing about papers,facts, and statistical analysis and now we base things on "It's a pretty good gauge". At least be consistent.
Jason Davis
I'm not OP.
Anthony Campbell
gas
Juan James
I scored 122.
:( :( :(
Jeremiah Reyes
>Its another Veeky Forums argues over online IQ tests episode
Ayden Collins
The final couple of questions in that test are BULLSHIT.
Oliver Evans
Wow, op, you're completely right. It's completely impossible to assist in scientific discovery with an IQ of less than 145. I can't believe we didn't figure this out before!
Oliver Butler
Not impossible, but very difficult.
These days, even minor discoveries require a deep understanding of your field, along with a passable knowledge of many other fields and a high degree of creativity. You will be hard-pressed to find a 130er with tenure at a research uni.
Owen Parker
>iqtest.dk/ Why do I have to download something? Gay
Jackson Wood
Cool, now show us your autism test results
Dominic Peterson
we can be bros
Colton Morales
Hahahaha, yeah no. Raven matrix is only a small part of a real IQ test. Even if you scored above 145 in this really shitty IQ test your real IQ could be 100.
Christian Ramirez
Doubtful. Raven's matrices are about "meaning making," which is very close to what g actually is.
Christopher Cooper
it's chrome. try another.
Adrian Sanchez
In some countries, Mensa only has Raven Progressive Matrices as the single component of their assessment. People should stop obsessing over IQ and invest serious effort into the things that interest them -- if they truly do this, they'll find out soon enough whether they have potential for becoming successful at it. Way better predictor than IQ tests. In a world of so much obfuscation, truisms like these are necessary.
t. former Mensa member who stopped paying his controbutions
Michael Robinson
138 but I rushed it so I could get back to my sweet maths
Connor Williams
Not bad, but not enough.
Jason Garcia
IQ tests are flawed as shit and high IQ societies are a scam
almost everyone on Veeky Forums will get near the max score at 135-145 but half of you are slightly above average at best. don't kid yourself into thinking you're super geniuses
The Flynn effect corrected scores are 108-162, and these are not just 64 scientists, they are " the Most Eminent US-Born Scientists "
Symmetry in a distribution is a sign of researcher retardation.
You arrive at the conclusion of "If you want to be a scientist but don't have a >145 IQ, you are *fucked.*" without any basis. Pulling a number like 145 out of your ass is a sign of stupidity.
IQ is measured as a comparison between people. For example, if we are talking about Nations' IQs, then the West IQ would increase with any dumb population growth elsewhere. Reducing the IQ measures to national scores makes it unusable overseas, and it still fails to represent something constant because a nation is a big dynamical environment itself. Correcting IQ for age and gender makes this even worse, since it could drastically change the final numbers and throw the statistics farther into unreality. Overall it's hard to correct IQ over time And space. Having a high IQ feels like being normal while everyone else is brain damaged or crazy; It feels like practicing Propositional calculus whilst your friends are being c r e a t i v e.
Lucas Wilson
...
Jayden Cooper
138 on that one too. What did an above average user such as yourself score?
Sebastian Diaz
138 iirc, took it a while ago
Jackson Williams
we 4channers are all 2+ standard deviations ahead of the curve
Henry Torres
sorry but everyone should be in STEM
Isaac Cox
Everyone who takes this test gets 130+
Brody Young
It's fun reading these kinds of posts as someone giving up on trying and making excuses
Jonathan Moore
I'm EE tenure-track faculty at a UC campus. My iq is 108-114. I can assure you the bulk of STEM researchers and professors reside below 130, not above. You sound like an entitled freshman who's upset he failed calculus after his school psychologist told him he's "gifted."
Science is done in ever so tiny increments, not leaps. think of it like building a staircase out of toothpicks. It's from the ground up, one pick at a time. With your mindset, though, I doubt you have a research degree or will ever get one, however.
Hunter Nelson
>My iq is 108-114 How/where did you test it? Is EE extra difficult at that iq? I'm guessing I'm around the same so I'm just curious
William Richardson
while reddit is behind the first quartile
Adam Morris
I was administered a test in hs (by a psychologist) and that was 111. I've taken a couple of the online ones (without repeating the same test) that float around and score between 108-115.
My job is difficult, but I've never felt like an idea was just "out of reach" for me. When I hit a wall it's always due to lack of time, not knowing prerequisite information, etc. I don't feel any worse off than my peers, and although I'm not the most accomplished in my department, I'm not the least either.
I don't see any reason why someone of average to above averageintelligence 100-115 range) can't work as a scientist. Obviously someone with an iq of 150 plus equal ethic and determination is going to arrive at a conclusion faster, but the average person can still get there. This is especially true in EE where your work isn't necessarily discovering new things, but finding new ways to apply old concepts.
William Wood
pee pee poo poo brainlet here
Blake Miller
>to 64 scientists you forgot to mention that these were the 64 most prolific scientists of their time
t. 116 IQ and at the top of all my classes at Caltech
Robert Phillips
I took one IQ test, and it had retarded questions like "make an english word from these characters" (wait, where's my english vocabulary?) or "find the next number in this sequence" (really hate this with passion, always give random number), it gave me 120±20. Are IQ tests supposed to be this retarded?
Tyler Peterson
online IQ test scores are inflated as hell and actual reliable IQ tests still don't give reliable results in the 150+ range. OP is just baiting.