IQ, as a measure of intelligence hasn't been shown to correlate with much besides the likelihood of being able to do well in school, provided one is motivated to work at it. Also, there is pretty good evidence that colleges don't actually teach students to think, rather they serve as a filter to weed out people with lower IQs who are less proficient to begin with.
Long ago I observed this for myself in my undergraduate time at UC Berkeley. Lots of test questions were more than just problems as taught in class and described in textbooks. Most of them had an IQ test twist to the problems that required some extra insight to solve. This approach does not teach insight, but it does have the effect of filtering graduates for higher IQ's.
Long ago I observed this for myself in my undergraduate time at UC Berkeley. Lots of test questions were more than just problems as taught in class and described in textbooks. Most of them had an IQ test twist to the problems that required some extra insight to solve. This approach does not teach insight, but it does have the effect of filtering graduates for higher IQ's.
Last edited:
IQ is pretty meaningless - I've met some really dumb people over the years with high IQs, members of mensa etc....
Exactly, that's why we need to be careful when describing people's capabilities in terms of, or as a function of, intelligence, at least as its usually defined.
I've been through a few profile tests over the years, for various companies and for interest. They varied in complexity, but the thing that struck me was that the only accurate one was accurate because the guy that did it was exceptionally perceptive, his insight was the real key. So, for me, the tests failed "blind" but worked when a good person "peeked" if you see what I mean!
My wife and I once met a Mensa member, who within a few minutes was talking about how he was only a month out of jail for.... attacking a patrolman.... with a hammer. Practical intelligence was not very impressive in his case.
What would it be like to be the individual with the lowest IQ score of that club ?
(someone has to be the patsy)
People with schizophrenia are often of high intelligence, or at least they were before disease onset. Since onset for that is usually late teens to early 20's, since IQ is often first measured before that age, and since the violent act could reasonably described as crazy, I suspect there may be more to that particular story than we know.
Last edited:
Pretty sure they thought that was the case, but later, more careful examination suggested that this phenomena has more to do with who has access to mental treatment (higher IQ kids = higher IQ parents = more likely to be financially okay) than anything to do with a real connection between IQ and schizophrenia.
Perhaps I'm wrong about a non-relationship, this large-scale survey points to the opposite being the case: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.14040516 (schizophrenia decreasing with IQ, and the relationship strongest below an IQ of 100).
Regression to the norm and all that. Plus, it's going to have a pretty heavy log effect (the smartest of the smart aren't going to be much more "successful", if at all, than the 90-95% folks, and vice-versa). Plus it's an imprecise measure for intelligence, not that we're bereft for other theories. Sorta like the in-utility of Meyers-Briggs for personalities (we're all the different "types" of personalities depending on context, albeit some folks are more easily categorized than others, the profiling hasn't been shown to be remotely useful).
As to the latter point, depends on the degree and the university's culture.
And, while intelligence walls are somewhat flexible, there's a limit, and, simply put, the types of luminaries we're talking about in right now (the Feynman/Einstein types) are a combination of determination and abject brilliance. Sort of like professional athletes. Yes, we'd all do better being more determined and focused on stretching our potential to the max, but it's not infinite (which is to say, keep pursuing it). I'm simply not going to be facile with field theory, certainly not to the extent some of my friends are, nor do I have the skill set to be a professional ball player. Whether that's due to my focus or predilection, I can't say.
The proof, per usual is in the eating of the pudding as far as "measuring" the person. I tried to seek out the pretty-good students with a good amount of curiosity to be my lab munchkins (don't tell them I called them that. 😀), because they're the easiest/most fruitful to teach and most likely to meaningfully push back.
Depends on the professor (his/her proclivity to hard homework sets), but, yes, this is pretty common. And also why I emphasize when teaching that memorizing the equation is nowhere near enough, but to understand its interrelation with the whole is far more important (which is also trainable, although going off-the-cuff in an exam does test intelligence to a degree). This is the invaluable nature of study groups: you collaborate on homework and build tests for each other where no one knows the answer. Kinda similar to working on problems in the "real world." 🙂
SY--I think I told you, but trig sub on that problem makes it pretty easy. But it's certainly a fun one and dug calculus out from the cobwebs. I had another integral more recently that was similarly elegant, but I'm not remembering what it was.
Several years ago, I talked to a UCLA professor about leaning more higher math but i didnt want to go thru the college entrance requiremetnts. he said he knew a proff at close by UC campus and would get me a seat in class there. i didnt want to take tests for the grades etc. just learn all i could. Pay my class fees etc, of course. Too bad people cant do that kind of thing any more. I would go back today-- retired -- and learn in college if it wasnt so limited to those who are pursuing a degree.
Anyway..... I remember the mathematics professor at UCLA telling me that with computers few learned how to derive/solve equations any more. Let the computer solve them is the prevailing attitude of students. I guess that is fine for engineers but wouldnt be for someone who wanted to be a mathematician or physicist etc.
Personally, I cant see spending hours solving equations myself. It used to be a badge of honour to do so... Now its like -- why would you want to do that? Concepts and ideas and principles can be learned but after that... viva the computer.
BTW. Isnt IQ better shown by one's accomplishment(s) rather than potential?
THx-RNMarsh
Anyway..... I remember the mathematics professor at UCLA telling me that with computers few learned how to derive/solve equations any more. Let the computer solve them is the prevailing attitude of students. I guess that is fine for engineers but wouldnt be for someone who wanted to be a mathematician or physicist etc.
Personally, I cant see spending hours solving equations myself. It used to be a badge of honour to do so... Now its like -- why would you want to do that? Concepts and ideas and principles can be learned but after that... viva the computer.
BTW. Isnt IQ better shown by one's accomplishment(s) rather than potential?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
If my last several years of testing and validation simulations has told me anything, relying on the computer to "learn" ideas and principles is the fastest track to GIGO.
SY -- yes, substituting into tan(x) shows you even more clearly that the areas between 0-1 and 1-infinity are the same and opposite sign. It's a neat brain teaser. 😀
Why spend time and energy on learning a foreign language with translator software around.
A woman I lived with, had at a much younger age worked as a nanny for a top psychiatrist in these parts, the couple had 5 children.
The first was a heroin junkie, the 2nd addicted to alcohol, the next was a militant dike, the 4th a wife beater. The last one was of very high intelligence, and introverted to the extreme, one who made everyone feel at unease.
Pick your poison.
A woman I lived with, had at a much younger age worked as a nanny for a top psychiatrist in these parts, the couple had 5 children.
The first was a heroin junkie, the 2nd addicted to alcohol, the next was a militant dike, the 4th a wife beater. The last one was of very high intelligence, and introverted to the extreme, one who made everyone feel at unease.
Pick your poison.
See my edited version. I agree with you. after learning the ideas. priciples and comcepts via working thru the equations et al....... the computer can take over for finding solutions to known equations.
SY--- I was at a hardware store in bangkok last year. I needed help and the salesman didnt know english well enough to converse with me. he whipped out his pocket translator and we were in business. we got what we wanted and all was good.
THx-RNMarsh
Yes. Personality matters a lot. Many companies now hire more on personality fit to the company culture than on ability to do the job. That is, so long as candidate job ability is good enough, it doesn't have to be better than that if the personality fit isn't right.
You can, in some states. Guest Auditors | Division of Continuing Studies | University of Wisconsin–Madison
There's also the free Kahn Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/
And also free, Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.