If IQ is a meme why is the average IQ of a science nobel prize winner 150+?

Chad has 144 IQ, he studied for an hour total and got 95/100 points.
See the difference?

This. IQ measure of ability to comprehend, however it doesn't measure the application. So, if someone has the ability to comprehend, but doesn't apply it, it doesn't really matter.

According to Einstein, who is generally acknowledged as knowing about such thing, the most important thing is imagination.

why are jews like this?

They all think the same what the fuck.

Or maybe despite being almost illiterate and horrible at writing, Suzy turns out to be really good at math. Maybe she picks up algebra and geometry a lot faster than Bobby, who can barely perform long division, but can read and understand works of literature very well, and can write essays about philosophy and novels that represent the challenges of human existence. And perhaps Ralph, who is arguably more retarded than both of them, can do no math, can't write for shit, demonstrates very high social intelligence by befriending and even manipulating his classmates. He goes on to get a business degree and now makes more money than both of them combined.

>the average IQ of a science nobel prize winner 150+
Source

Mein Nigger!

Two things are true
1. IQ is important and the best metric we have
2. When we talk about genius we are actually talking about achievements
One thing that psychometricians should be looking at is what G-loaded traits are actually useful today. It isn't useful to be a human calculator anymore. We have computers. That trait would have been amazing to have before we made computers and now it is basically useless. Take people that are really good a scrabble as well. Who gives a fuck? If we are going to have intelligence tests that identify potential genius then simply looking for G isn't going to be ideal. You need to identify those G-loaded traits that are actually useful in this computer-laden modern age.

Why do you guys always bring up autistic arguments.
There is a strong correlation between IQ and life time success, even if it is not 100%

>average IQ of a science nobel prize winner 150+?

I would legitimately like a link to this info. I've never found any convincing dataset on this.

>t. bugman
1. Demand impossible data sets
2. Use idiotic data sets whenever convienient \

what's up with IQ and educational attainment if IQ is a meme? IQ and economic success also correlate

As my professor would say: Necessity and sufficiency are different things.

IQ tests measure intellectual abilities instead of actual intelligence (which is a pretty vague idea - in a strict sense noone really knows, what intelligence is, btw), that's the problem. Since it only measures certain abilities, every IQ test is biased towards those abilities.

Take two fictitious persons: both have the same level of intelligence at the beginning of our little thought experiment (person A is as intelligent as person B is). Person A trains certain skills (logic, mathematics) which are tested in an IQ test, person B trains other skills which aren't tested. Since you get better at skills you train, person A gets better at the skills he/she/it trains, person B gets better at the skills he/she/it trains. If you test their IQ one year later, who do you think will perform better? Of course, it's A.
But we said A is as intelligent as B. Now, A seems to be more intelligent as B - that's a contradiction.

Natural sciences, especially the ones which require mathematics, teach (and require) a lot of the skills which are measured in an IQ test. Therefore, people who are interested in natural sciences, study and make a living out of them, naturally perform well in tests. Nevertheless, they oftentimes lack intellectual abilities which they don't need as much (and aren't tested in IQ tests), but which are surely part of the thing you call intelligence - for example, a lot of people I know (including myself) find it quite difficult to learn a new foreign language. But learning and using a language is an intellectual ability without a doubt - it just isn't part of IQ tests.

Anyone have it?

Pic related is what I'm after, only gonna have my MacBook in the evening to search it but if anyone as it please share it!

Most Nobel Prize Winners have not and do not announce their IQ scores.

Veeky Forums is a shit hole that would actually have this argument.

Einstein never took a test, Stephen Hawking never revealed his score, Feynman was apparently 125 or less.

Despite this being easily accessible and public information you will still get retards all over the world, insisting having a 160 IQ which was probably made by some retard is hard proof you're smarter than Einstein and Stephen Hawking. If I caught some of you retards in the street I would beat you for your extreme idiocy and pretension. Many people even know this information and ignore it to feel intellectually superior. Fuck all you people who do this.

>If I caught some of you retards in the street I would beat you for your extreme idiocy and pretension. Many people even know this information and ignore it to feel intellectually superior. Fuck all you people who do this.

>which is a pretty vague idea - in a strict sense noone really knows, what intelligence is, btw
can you define what a set is in a very precise manner?
I'll wait.

>IQ important
Only on this board and in the land of research sociology.

>There is a strong correlation between IQ and life time success, even if it is not 100%
The topic of this discussion is NOT life time success. It is about obtaining a Nobel Prize, a very tiny subset of the former. And as mentioned above that takes more than intelligence, it takes imagination.

I have a book on Sobelev Spaces. You want that instead?

If most internet statistics come out of OP's ass, why does he get (You)s?

Stephen Hawking is a retard with an IQ of prob about 30 and look what he's done

This

I dont know man. With an IQ of 141 i beat all the nerdy study virgins on all of my physics finals despite not studying at all. The only person that beat me was an asian kid who set the curve, and even then he only did better than me by an average of 2% using impossibru asian study disciprine. Meanwhile i got high af and played video games.

Except that is an extraordinarily rare circumstance. The vast majority of math geniuses dont struggle in other areas of study. Sure they may not be shakespeare, but it would be exceedingly rare to find someone who can do triple integrals with ease, yet struggle to work out basic grammar. Not including autistic savants because they are statistical outliers.

And the reverse is also true, it'd would be very rare to find someone who can paint amazing works of art but not be able to to do basic arithmetic.

Which means, somewhere there is one metric which can determine cognitive ability in all areas. All of this “but what about emotional/spiritual/linguistic intelligence” nonsense is bullshit, and someone who is good at anyone thing is usually good at most other things. IQ is the closest thing that we have to measure that metric, and while it not perfect, is a fairly accurate way to measure cognitive ability.

All of nobel prize winners have at one point one a nobel. That’s a better correlation

>one a nobel
I dont think i will be taking anything you post seriously. You cant even say thats a typo you just straight up suck at language.

if you attended lecture or read the book, you studied

Autism alert

>1. Demand impossible data sets

Hence the demand

>2. Use idiotic data sets whenever convenient

what the fuck are you on about

>my iq is 124
Holy shit this dudes head is massive, his iq is easily 200

Some of my classes i didnt even buy a book. I attended most of my physics lectures though just because i enjoy physics.

If you have any proof of it I will.

Because it's not a meme. Consciousness doesn't surpass biology, just because we want certain features like intelligence to not be mostly genetic and measurable doesn't mean they aren't.

People with high IQ may win noble prizes, people without will not, no matter the effort, because that's who they are as biological specimen.

The truth idealists who believe in the limitless human will would never admit.

a set is a thing that provably exists
next

crazy. i have a 141 viq. i was under extreme stress at the time of that post though

fresh OC

but hawking took an iq test following his tumble down the stairs and it was published.

I have a friend that is 160, but measured as a child. got 1600 on sats and ivy league for med school. he hasn't done much for humanity though

This thread is absolute fucking trash, Feynman fucking hated the idea of the Nobel prize as well as any honors.

Thank you
It was never published, retarded people just say it is 170 with no proof, its literally a guess score. He was even specifically asked by the media and refused to tell.

IQ isn't a meme. The only people who think it is, don't know shit about the relevant scientific literature.

The only data on scientific Nobel prizes IQ I've ever been able to find is the following :
-Feynman was tested 124
-W. Shockley was tested 129 and 125
-James Watson was tested 126
-Luis Walter Alvarez was tested below 130

I think that's the only data available on Nobel prizes laureates IQ. Isn't IQ a scam (in matter of testing the genius) ?

what about iq types. i have an average iq of 115 but a verbal of 143. does that mean i have talents at some things and hindrances at others

Maybe they have a higer IQ but when they were tested if they didn't find pattern immediately they said they said : "Fuck it I have better things to do."

very close to me, my man. 141 verbal 128 average.

this is reassuring and telling- the people I know with IQs much higher are prone to mental masturbation that renders them ineffective.

kinda funny how you limit it to science nobel prize winners so that you can pretend that any of them still have any value at all in this day and age

ftfy

...

The only thing your contradiction proves - and I agree with - is that IQ can be slightly increased if you do training puzzles.

Your first sentence is where you are wrong however. You say "IQ tests measure intellectual abilities instead of actual intelligence".
Which should be:
"IQ tests measure how fast you are at learning new cognitive abilities instead of actual intelligence".

This is why IQ correlates with many other things, seemingly irrelevant to IQ. Like learning a new language. Yup, people with high IQ learn a new language faster than people with low IQ. This influence IQ has over new cognitive abilities stretches ridiculously far. Let some kids count a bunch of dots on a piece of paper and the ones with higher IQ will be faster than the ones with a lower IQ.

Your third paragraph is where you go completely wrong. You state that people in STEM get higher IQ is because they are people who are naturally interested in things IQ tests test for. This is factually wrong and I have no idea what made you write that.
In my country when a child has a learning problem, they get their IQ tested and when it's below a certain number (I think somewhere around 75), they get barred from following public normal education because it would be simply too hard for them, IRRELEVANT of how interested they might be in math. They get send to a special school where they get the support they need.

Though I do grant you that you can get slightly better at IQ tests by training for it (a few points), it is mostly innate and tests how good you are at learning any new cognitive skill, including learning a new foreign language.

This is true.

Just read anything that was produced by a top person in any STEM field, or watch interviews, they almost always have far above average linguistic skills.

I mean, isn't this how the concept of general intelligence came around? Someone observed that people that tend to do well in one area aren't average or below average in others, they're usually quite competent in all other tests of mental ability.

IQ tests are designed to measure how suitable you are for government education. Essentially it measures how much interest you can muster in regurgitating bullshit. "Intelligence" is an extremely vague term that cannot be quantified.

Let's imagine the IQ test as we know didn't exist, and you were asked to create a test to measure this thing called "intelligence" - do you think you'd create the exact same test?

Source?

bruh she got shot in the head by extremists

Did you read what I wrote?

IQ tests how good you are at LEARNING ANY NEW COGNITIVE ABILITY.

And as I said "this stretches ridiculously far" from counting dots on a paper to reading speed, to predicting where an object will fall onto the ground, etc...

In response of your last sentence my answer would be yes I would choose the exact same test since my definition of intelligence is how good you are at learning a new cognitive skill. And I believe that definition makes a lot of sense since it would show that a math genius is intelligent, and also magnus carlsen is intelligent, and so are the best painters. Because math, chess and painting are all cognitive skills. And many people would indeed call those people intelligent, thus showing the usefulness of my definition

>IQ tests how good you are at LEARNING ANY NEW COGNITIVE ABILITY.

But what if you don't find it interesting? Doesn't that play a huge part? A stereotypical example would be people who don't do well in traditional academically, but know everything about a sports team because that's what interests them.

>And as I said "this stretches ridiculously far" from counting dots on a paper to reading speed

Not really, this is someone's subjective idea of what intelligence is.

>In response of your last sentence my answer would be yes I would choose the exact same test

So the IQ test is objective, and not a subjective creation born out of someone's imaginary idea of intelligence?

In actual working, modern science literally nobody gives a fuck about IQ. It would only make yourself look either narcissistic or just outright not rational (the ultimate sin in science) to try to "win" any argument about scientific subjects by going "I bet my IQ is higher so I'm right". Those words are never said among actual researchers and the actual brainlet thing is thinking that IQ matters at all to scientists or would get you any clout working in a field. Sizing up people with IQ would get you huge negative marks as a grad student or a postdoc. Depending on location and circumstance it could even get you fired if you were already on thin ice because it is just such poor, misleading and irrelevant conduct. Nobody likes narcissists much less ones who bring up shit like IQ that does not prove anything at all results wise and pretending that it does. That is in fact an anti-scientific way of arguing.

You don't get to declare yourself as "smart" much less genius from some test. That title is earned from being called that unsolicited by people you don't even know. Even when you hear it, you think of it as flattery or even mockery if you're talking among peers. It's just assumed people are competent, learned and logical, and very rarely genius so much as "damn it he got lucky and picked something that went a lot deeper and impactful than might have been guessed". Lots of researchers study things that don't wind up having much impact and it was hard to know before starting how crummy the results would be. This then impacts their ability to get tenure track, everything. A lot of successful scientists just got the luck of the draw of stumbling across something profound by accident.

>Or maybe despite being almost illiterate and horrible at writing, Suzy turns out to be really good at math.
we call that autism

I love how people on the internet keep repeating the same tired old objections against IQ tests that have been debunked decades ago as if they're really interesting thought experiments.
And by love I mean I get nausea every single time I read one.

he mostly said to be intuitive

there is no single professional who believes IQ tests are valid

you belong at a mensa convention to be laughed at

"people on the internet rejecting my IQ tests"
lmfao you have a complex bro

how low was their IQ?

bragging about a high IQ is like bragging about being 'white' on /pol/

>there is no single professional who believes IQ tests are valid
Here you go, brainlet.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305
Literally the opposite of what you said is true.
It's quite amazing how ignorant you guys are.

my diary desu

>there is no single professional who believes IQ tests are valid
the field of psychology disagrees

There is no such thing as genetic intelligence. If you want to be smart, you just have to work hard to improve your intelligence.

I had a dream the other day that Magnus walked into the lab and started laughing at my obvious stupidity, proceeding to explain why the reaction I was running would fail. Then the rest of my group came in and laughed at me too. Feels bad desu

There is something in what you say but you're going too far. I've met many people who were born with specific talents like painting and were definitely not geniuses. The brain is a very complex machine and even two people with the same IQ can have relatively different brains, as well as vice versa.

Literally every study in behavioral genetics shows that IQ is highly heritable.

>The topic of this discussion is NOT life time success. It is about obtaining a Nobel Prize

Read this again and again until you realize how fucking stupid you are.

Thank Christ there is a single person here who isn't retarded.

Oh, the highly unreliable number that claims to measure something highly ambiguous is highly heritable? This place is a joke. Feel free to keep spewing your egotistical bullshit about how no untermensche could ever even think about reaching your genetic aryan intelligence, as the people who live in the actually enlightened world laugh at you pathetic manchildren.

Yes I see the error I made now.

I made it seem as if good painters necessarily also have a high IQ. This is not the case. What I was trying to state is that there is a significant amount of correlation between good painters and IQ. But, yup you can be a great painter with low IQ, it's just not that likely.

My point was that IQ correlates strongly will all cognitive abilities and this surely supports the validity of IQ, thus making the argument that it "only tests for certain puzzles" seem incorrect.

Next time he comes around in your dreams, remind him of game 8 of the world championship. That will show him
youtube.com/watch?v=QN9tDN5B778

I need a citation for that, but if IQ was anything more than a meme, instead of taking the average, they'd all be 150+. One counter-example disproves it.

If someone says "primes end with the digit '3'.", you don't need to find every prime not ending in 3 to disprove it. You only need to find the first one not ending in 3.

If someone says "IQ measures how successful you'll be" either one example of a successful person with a low IQ or one example of a high IQ person who isn't successful would be enough to disprove it. There are plenty of such examples.

People would take IQs more seriously if the tests weren't such bullshit with arbitrary "right" and "wrong" answers. "Oh, I'm sorry, but the pattern you recognized isn't the one we recognized so you're wrong." Hence why someone like Feynman is able to score a 120 but Marilyn vos Savant is able to score a 228.

Spike netdecked the practice tests and scored 90/100 by actually optimizing his studies

>Marilyn vos Savant

If her quotes are anything to go by she's a pretentious fool. It's the same boring, cliched shit you see depressed women post on facebook constantly.

>the highly unreliable number
Why do you guys keep talking about subjects you clearly don't know shit about? It's amazing, every single time there's an IQ thread you come spouting the same retarded, decade old objections that have been debunked by countless experiments and every single time someone shows how full of shit you are, you just disappear.
Getting to the point, IQ tests have very high test-retest reliability, and the main findings linked to IQ have been replicated throughout every replication crisis, so what the fuck are you talking about?

Because Nobel prizes are also memes.

This too is yet another very dumb objection.
IQs is the best single predictor of success. It doesn't mean "every single time it's going to predict precisely how successful any person is going to be". A measuring system doesn't have to be perfect in order to be useful.
Could you guys be more arrogant in your ignorance?

>tfw iq 150 but lazy

Richard Feynman definitely did not have an IQ of 124. If you've read his book or listened to his lectures, you'd realize he was an incredibly intelligent man. This is just one of those memes like "Einstein was bad at maths".

> Being this attached to the IQ meme.

Quote my PI - "the people picking the Oscars are more qualified than the people picking Nobel Prizes"

>IQ is only a reliable indication of intelligence up until the moment it fails