Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Q

Expand Messages
  • Bee Doubleu
    On 6/29/2012 8:52 PM, Robert Karl Stonjek wrote: Inspired and highly motivated individuals may well be able to bridge forty to sixty IQ points (in the above
    Message 1 of 204 , Jul 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On 6/29/2012 8:52 PM, Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
      Inspired and highly motivated individuals may well be able to bridge forty to sixty IQ points (in the above 100 range) when it comes to functional intelligence.  I hope we can see how Richard Feynman, for instance, could be a Nobel Prize winning physicist/mathematician with a stated IQ a little above 120...(comparable to my IQ).

      I am a little shocked that you have bought into the Feynman story (even if it came from him).  If you think his IQ was as he reported verbally, and then someone else wrote in one of the two story books, please tell us about the test.  What was the name of the test?  What was its standard deviation, its reliability coefficient, and its ceiling?  Do you know for a fact that the test that was administered was administered properly?  Is it a provable fact that the test had a ceiling above 125?

      The following material (except for the clearly identified first part) is Arthur Jensen discussing this very issue.

      Mega Questions for Renowned Psychologist Dr._Arthur R. Jensen

      - Interview by Christopher Michael Langan and Dr. Gina LoSasso and
      members of the Mega Foundation, Mega Society East and Ultranet

      Question #1:
            Christopher Langan for the Mega Foundation: It is reported that one of
            this century’s greatest physicists, Nobelist Richard Feynman, had an IQ of
            125 or so. Yet, a careful reading of his work reveals amazing powers of
            concentration and analysis…powers of thought far in excess of those
            suggested by a z score of well under two standard deviations above the
            population mean. Could this be evidence that something might be wrong with
            the way intelligence is tested? Could it mean that early crystallization
            of intelligence, or specialization of intelligence in a specific set of
            (sub-g) factors – i.e., a narrow investment of g based on a lopsided
            combination of opportunity and proclivity - might put it beyond the reach
            of g-loaded tests weak in those specific factors, leading to deceptive
            results?

            Arthur Jensen:  I don’t take anecdotal report of the IQs of famous persons
            at all seriously.  They are often fictitious and are used to make a point
            - typically a put-down of IQ test and the whole idea that individual
            differences in intelligence can be ranked or measured.  James Watson once
            claimed an IQ of 115; the daughter of another very famous Nobelist claimed
            that her father would absolutely “flunk” any IQ test.  It’s all
            ridiculous.  Furthermore, the outstanding feature of any famous and
            accomplished person, especially a reputed genius, such as Feynman, is
            never their level of g (or their IQ), but some special talent and some
            other traits (e.g., zeal, persistence).  Outstanding achievements(s)
            depend on these other qualities besides high intelligence.  The special
            talents, such as mathematical musical, artistic, literary, or any other of
            the various “multiple intelligences” that have been mentioned by Howard
            Gardner and others are more salient in the achievements of geniuses than
            is their typically high level of g.  Most very high-IQ people, of course,
            are not recognized as geniuses, because they haven’t any very outstanding
            creative achievements to their credit.  However, there is a threshold
            property of IQ, or g, below which few if any individuals are even able to
            develop high-level complex talents or become known for socially
            significant intellectual or artistic achievements.  This bare minimum
            threshold is probably somewhere between about +1.5 sigma and +2 sigma from
            the population mean on highly g-loaded tests.  Childhood IQs that are at
            least above this threshold can also be misleading.  There are two famous
            scientific geniuses, both Nobelists in physics, whose childhood IQs are
            very well authenticated to have been in the mid-130s.  They are on record
            and were tested by none other than Lewis Terman himself, in his search for
            subjects in his well-known study of gifted children with IQs of 140 or
            above on the Stanford-Binet intelligence test.  Although these two boys
            were brought to Terman’s attention because they were mathematical
            prodigies, they failed by a few IQ points to meet the one and only
            criterion (IQ>139) for inclusion in Terman’s study.  Although Terman was
            impressed by them, as a good scientist he had to exclude them from his
            sample of high-IQ kids.  Yet none of the 1,500+ subjects in the study ever
            won a Nobel Prize or has a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica as
            these two fellows did.  Not only were they gifted mathematically, they had
            a combination of other traits without which they probably would not have
            become generally recognized as scientific and inventive geniuses. 
            So-called intelligence tests, or IQ, are not intended to assess these
            special abilities unrelated to IQ or any other traits involved in
            outstanding achievement.  It would be undesirable for IQ tests to attempt
            to do so, as it would be undesirable for a clinical thermometer to measure
            not just temperature but some combination of temperature, blood count,
            metabolic rate, etc.  A good IQ test attempts to estimate the g factor,
            which isn’t a mixture, but a distillate of the one factor (i.e., a unitary
            source of individual differences variance) that is common to all cognitive
            tests, however diverse.

                            I have had personal encounters with three Nobelists in
            science, including Feynman, who attended a lecture I gave at Cal Tech and
            later discussed it with me.  He, like the other two Nobelists I’ve known
            (Francis Crick and William Shockley), not only came across as extremely
            sharp, especially in mathematical reasoning, but they were also rather
            obsessive about making sure they thoroughly understood the topic under
            immediate discussion.  They at times transformed my verbal statements into
            graphical or mathematical forms and relationships.  Two of these men knew
            each other very well and often discussed problems with each other.  Each
            thought the other was very smart.  I got a chance to test one of these
            Nobelists with Terman’s Concept Mastery Test, which was developed to test
            the Terman gifted group as adults, and he obtained an exceptionally high
            score even compared to the Terman group all with IQ>139 and a mean of 152.
                         
                            I have written an essay relevant to this whole question:
            “Giftedness and genius: Crucial differences.”  In C. P. Benbow & D.
            Lubinski (Eds.) Intellectual Talent: Psychometric and Social Issues, pp.
            393-411.  Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.


    • mark hubey
      ... http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms.a4.pdf Here is another one :-) It s PeaceMaker Philosophy... -- Regards, Mark Hubey ‎ Learning to
      Message 204 of 204 , Jul 22, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Anna <pantheon@...> wrote:
         

        So many different TOES I read in the last few years, that it is hard to remember them all.


        Here is another one :-)

        It's PeaceMaker Philosophy...


        --
        Regards,
        Mark Hubey

        ‎"Learning to think in mathematical terms is an essential part of becoming a liberally educated person. "
        -- Kenyon College Math Department Web Page 


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.