"- IQ tests are better at predicting talent in theoretical physics than in other subjects?" I agree with this as a possibility. I've also read about pranks the super smart physicist types would play on their merely very bright peers. Kinda made me feel bad for the victims. I also love that you brought up Terman. His son Frederick was an …
"- IQ tests are better at predicting talent in theoretical physics than in other subjects?" I agree with this as a possibility. I've also read about pranks the super smart physicist types would play on their merely very bright peers. Kinda made me feel bad for the victims.
I also love that you brought up Terman. His son Frederick was an institution at Stanford, considered one of the founders of Si Valley, and wrote what would become the standard handbook for radio electronics. The original is outdated now, but lots of the empirical data is useful decades later, and not widely available elsewhere.
Ironically, I don't know if Lewis Terman's own son actually met his metrics for the cadre he studied. The best I recall is that he didn't, yet he was a giant in early tech.
I definitely support the "threshold" notion of intelligence. Above a certain point, say a bit over what we measure as 125-130 these days, it starts to matter less. It can even be a disadvantage to be super-duper bright - boredom can kill off achievement too. I recall an interview with a scientist who noted that not being too far above the 120's was helpful because people in that range would still spend time on the tedious stuff needed to actually find something out.
Another considerations is the difficulty of not having peers, or thinking one has no peers, admittedly separate things, but still issues. It makes me think that the vanishing population in the upper tail are lonely indeed. Who, in a population sense, even understands what it's like to be someone that good with stuff in Wechsler or Stanford - Binet type tests?
Yes. I think that the correlation between IQ and what is commonly called intelligence wears off somewhere above 120-something. Still, I have noticed one thing since I wrote the post above: All my three present-day examples of very high IQ people seem to have been very precoscious and very good at learning in general. So I'm starting to suspect that IQ might actually correlate with something interesting also above that threshold. I think that something could be information processing ability. Rick Rosner, Christopher Langan and Michael Kearney all seem to be great at taking in and using information. They don't appear to be better thinkers than the rest of us, but I'm more and more thinking that they actually are better at absorbing human knowledge and symbols than the rest of us.
>It makes me think that the vanishing population in the upper tail are lonely indeed.
This makes me think of Rick Rosner. In some sense he definitely seems unusual, but not because he is deeper or thinks better than other people. For example, he is not above writing manuses for and participating in plebeian TV shows.
"So I'm starting to suspect that IQ might actually correlate with something interesting also above that threshold." I definitely agree.
I know a several people in the (edit) 135+ range. They have an extra something. All of them are neuro-typical, and very very smart. I seek them out for thoughts on the world and the three I know best are good at sorting politics and social trends. Among other things, they are amazing at noting how people work out ways around laws or policy and ways things won't fly in the political realm.
I wish I could say the same. But I hardly know anyone's IQ. I guess IQ testing is more of an American thing. In general, few neurotypicals know their IQ in Europe, because the only reason to have an IQ test is for psychtriatry to figure out what is wrong with you.
Hah! IQ is sort of like salary. It doesn't come up in casual conversation. On the other hand, there are smart people and then there are these others.
After Sputnik, there was a big push over here. There were achievement tests and intelligence tests and there was new math,and so there were parents that knew a bit about their kiddos. It's more like you say now. Aptitude tests are used to sort out whats going on with an obviously bright student who seems to struggle with daily tasks. Good at puzzles, not good at reading for example.
I work in a field where there are a lot of sharp people. Everyone kinda knows who they are.
One day I looked up ranges for various occupations.
"- IQ tests are better at predicting talent in theoretical physics than in other subjects?" I agree with this as a possibility. I've also read about pranks the super smart physicist types would play on their merely very bright peers. Kinda made me feel bad for the victims.
I also love that you brought up Terman. His son Frederick was an institution at Stanford, considered one of the founders of Si Valley, and wrote what would become the standard handbook for radio electronics. The original is outdated now, but lots of the empirical data is useful decades later, and not widely available elsewhere.
Ironically, I don't know if Lewis Terman's own son actually met his metrics for the cadre he studied. The best I recall is that he didn't, yet he was a giant in early tech.
I definitely support the "threshold" notion of intelligence. Above a certain point, say a bit over what we measure as 125-130 these days, it starts to matter less. It can even be a disadvantage to be super-duper bright - boredom can kill off achievement too. I recall an interview with a scientist who noted that not being too far above the 120's was helpful because people in that range would still spend time on the tedious stuff needed to actually find something out.
Another considerations is the difficulty of not having peers, or thinking one has no peers, admittedly separate things, but still issues. It makes me think that the vanishing population in the upper tail are lonely indeed. Who, in a population sense, even understands what it's like to be someone that good with stuff in Wechsler or Stanford - Binet type tests?
Yes. I think that the correlation between IQ and what is commonly called intelligence wears off somewhere above 120-something. Still, I have noticed one thing since I wrote the post above: All my three present-day examples of very high IQ people seem to have been very precoscious and very good at learning in general. So I'm starting to suspect that IQ might actually correlate with something interesting also above that threshold. I think that something could be information processing ability. Rick Rosner, Christopher Langan and Michael Kearney all seem to be great at taking in and using information. They don't appear to be better thinkers than the rest of us, but I'm more and more thinking that they actually are better at absorbing human knowledge and symbols than the rest of us.
>It makes me think that the vanishing population in the upper tail are lonely indeed.
This makes me think of Rick Rosner. In some sense he definitely seems unusual, but not because he is deeper or thinks better than other people. For example, he is not above writing manuses for and participating in plebeian TV shows.
"So I'm starting to suspect that IQ might actually correlate with something interesting also above that threshold." I definitely agree.
I know a several people in the (edit) 135+ range. They have an extra something. All of them are neuro-typical, and very very smart. I seek them out for thoughts on the world and the three I know best are good at sorting politics and social trends. Among other things, they are amazing at noting how people work out ways around laws or policy and ways things won't fly in the political realm.
I wish I could say the same. But I hardly know anyone's IQ. I guess IQ testing is more of an American thing. In general, few neurotypicals know their IQ in Europe, because the only reason to have an IQ test is for psychtriatry to figure out what is wrong with you.
Hah! IQ is sort of like salary. It doesn't come up in casual conversation. On the other hand, there are smart people and then there are these others.
After Sputnik, there was a big push over here. There were achievement tests and intelligence tests and there was new math,and so there were parents that knew a bit about their kiddos. It's more like you say now. Aptitude tests are used to sort out whats going on with an obviously bright student who seems to struggle with daily tasks. Good at puzzles, not good at reading for example.
I work in a field where there are a lot of sharp people. Everyone kinda knows who they are.
One day I looked up ranges for various occupations.
Not a perfect site but there's this one https://psychologenie.com/average-iq-score
and this one for test correlations
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx
Anyway. Stats say roughly 1 in 100 are up there. Not an easy sort to say the least.
And, thanks for your thoughts!