Science and IQ

[scorpiomover]

We want scientists to be very smart.

I gather from Google that there are 7 million scientists in the world and 7.8 billion people in the world. So for every 7 scientists, there are 7,800 people. So scientists are 1 in 1,114.

IQ Percentile and Rarity Chart

www.iqcomparisonsite.com

1 in 911 people have an IQ of 149 or above. 1 in 1,125 have an IQ of 150 or above.

So surely it would make more sense if we required scientists to have an IQ of at least 150.

But I gather that scientists have an average IQ of 120. 1 in 9 people have an IQ of 120+. So there's 867 million people who are as smart as the average scientist, or even higher, when we employ 7 million as scientists.

So why don't we have a threshold requirement that to get into science, someone needs to score at least 150 in an IQ test?

 

[Hadoblado]

Because most science doesn't require you to be 150 IQ. Most of science isn't eureka based.

Because this would be gatekeeping with no real purpose, since being a good scientist is competence-based, not IQ based. SAT scores etc. are basically IQ tests that also ensure certain competencies.

Because there are still some reasons to be concerned that IQ is another psychology bubble, despite a large amount of evidence for it.

Because even assuming IQ is a good measure of intelligence, it's only one factor in making a competent scientist. You also need a lot of drive, curiosity, motivation, discipline, self-awareness, and honesty. Most problems in science don't come from people being too stupid, but from Merlinian bias, corporate interest, individual greed, and laziness.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Science is type of activity that requires a type of disposition that is not common for all types of people no matter what IQ.

IQ people may be more curious on average, but curiosity also is not just a matter of quantity, but also quality. A science person needs to do things science way and that way of behavior is not common for all types of people.

Motivation to do science is another problem. Not all people want to be scientist no matter what IQ. Being scientist is not that lucrative and it is not that fun.
You need people for whom money is not object and people who are going to do boring and tedious work and willing to work on problems for years on end.

 

[Minuend]

Good luck getting everyone above 150 IQ to do science. People are not interested or motivated just because brains. Brains does not equal interest in science. A lot of brainies probably have pretty fucked up life circumstances where they can't do whatever they want. I mean, think of all the brain power in places that are generally unsafe and require a huge amount of money to get a degree.

That being said, smart scientists do not solve the problem of financial and other bias reasons for research. Even if you're very intelligent, if you see how the world works and see how easy you can make money from how you do stuff... why be objective and unbiased? Why not be biased and make money?

 

[Black Rose]

There is no objective reason a scientist must have an IQ above 150. But 150 is supposed to be an objective level of calculation. It is not an optimized calculation because that depends on how resources are utilized. Raw calculation power can be highly inferior to optimized resource utilization. Scientists utilize their resources optimally.

 

[sushi]

stem subjects are already hard enough as it is and ivory tower, we dont need more scientific elitism. you know how hard the barriers of entry and earning a stem degree is, almost as hard as a medical degree and becoming a doctor.

its another issue stupid people mix psuedoscience with science, and confuse misinoformation with science facts.

 

[computerhxr]

What constitutes a scientist? There are plenty of people who do science who are not considered a scientist. At the same time, there are a lot of people who work in labs that would be classified as a scientist that do little more than follow operations.

There are scientific benefits to having an average or low IQ. Someone with a high IQ may not make a stupid mistake that leads to the discovery of something scientifically significant.

Low IQ and high motivation in the sense of function, manifest alternative neurological pathways that someone with a high IQ can't even imagine. I have noticed this with Autism, blocked function leads to neurologically diverse reasoning. Einstein also was missing part of the lateral fissure of his brain, possibly inhibiting some cognitive function, which lead to him seeing the world in a way that even scientists with very high IQ's were unable to agree with initially.

IQ is not an objective scale. It is difficult to measure and may give a brilliant person a lower IQ than someone who is brilliant in another category of intelligence.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Einstein also was missing part of the lateral fissure of his brain, possibly inhibiting some cognitive function, which lead to him seeing the world in a way that even scientists with very high IQ's were unable to agree with initially.

I think main reason for Einstein why he accomplished what he did was he was very into physics. That was the reason he was successful. Other reason may have been that he was lucky to come across a couple good professors and be surrounded with the right kind of colleagues as well as correspond with a lot of people about physics.
To put simply he immersed himself in physics.
He simply had passion for what he did and it manifested in early success as well as in break through that was quite brilliant. Pretty sure most of those IQ things related to Einstein are inflated anyway. I doubt his IQ was 160 where ever those websites got that ridiculous number from.

Also I think there is a simple test for you to see if you can be a good scientist. Take 10 thick textbooks and set them on the table. If by a week you know them from first to last page you can be good scientist. IF you cannot then don't even try.

The reason for such a test is simple. FIrst if you can focus second if you can sit for long periods of time and actually do a lot of thinking third if you can actually retain information and understand it.
If on Sunday you can understand the textbooks you are good to go for science. If not you are going to be lame in science even if you eventually end up doing it.

 

[Hadoblado]

None of these purity tests have any basis in reality.

 

[Black Rose]

confused?

 

[ktevico]

Iq is a human construct. Intelligence and passion for scientific enquiry is ambient/natural. Cant be quantified by just a number

 

[Black Rose]

Intelligence can't be measured?
If not a single number surely some kind of other quantization(s)?

 

[ZenRaiden]

None of these purity tests have any basis in reality.

They do and do not. Science is way of doing things which requires a way of thinking.
Scientist are different people. They all share one quality and that is ability to learn and understand things, and ability to think accurately.
However all kinds of other jobs require just the same and depending on the field there might be additional requirements in science.
All kinds of people can contribute to science in some way.

 

[computerhxr]

Einstein also was missing part of the lateral fissure of his brain, possibly inhibiting some cognitive function, which lead to him seeing the world in a way that even scientists with very high IQ's were unable to agree with initially.

I think main reason for Einstein why he accomplished what he did was he was very into physics. That was the reason he was successful. Other reason may have been that he was lucky to come across a couple good professors and be surrounded with the right kind of colleagues as well as correspond with a lot of people about physics.
To put simply he immersed himself in physics.
He simply had passion for what he did and it manifested in early success as well as in break through that was quite brilliant. Pretty sure most of those IQ things related to Einstein are inflated anyway. I doubt his IQ was 160 where ever those websites got that ridiculous number from.

Also I think there is a simple test for you to see if you can be a good scientist. Take 10 thick textbooks and set them on the table. If by a week you know them from first to last page you can be good scientist. IF you cannot then don't even try.

The reason for such a test is simple. FIrst if you can focus second if you can sit for long periods of time and actually do a lot of thinking third if you can actually retain information and understand it.
If on Sunday you can understand the textbooks you are good to go for science. If not you are going to be lame in science even if you eventually end up doing it.

Imagination is what many scientists are missing. I think that is what made Einstein unique when compared with most other scientists of his day. You can be incredibly smart and capable of learning and applying science but lack imagination.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Imagination is what many scientists are missing. I think that is what made Einstein unique when compared with most other scientists of his day. You can be incredibly smart and capable of learning and applying science but lack imagination.

Certainly he said himself didnt he. I have no reason to not believe him.

 

[Black Rose]

Science is a form of cognition, hypothesis testing.

IQ is coordination between neural pathways.

The coordination of hypothesis testing has diverse results.

 

[BurnedOut]

We want scientists to be very smart.

Well, many of those 120+ IQ scientists or let's say 115+ IQ scientists occasionally stumble on something new after systematic searching and researches and that results into a breakthrough.

A genius scientist may waste his time chasing futile theories and an average one will find an anamoly glaring back at his face.

Plus science is also like clerical work. There is much more work than scope for creativity. That means that having a less number of intelligent scientists make as much as difference as a lab filled with 300+ IQ scientists.