YanShen wrote:I'm sorry Thommo, but if you think that being a Putnam Fellow isn't strong evidence of extraordinary mathematical aptitude, I'd argue that you're sadly mistaken. Or for that matter winning the Nobel prize in physics.

YanShen wrote:Sigh. Let me try one more time. Obviously his spectacular quantitative achievements render it highly likely, if not virtually certain, that the IQ test administered couldn't adequately measure out to his level of mathematical aptitude. He was also a Putnam Fellow.



So you reason that because he achieved he must have had a high IQ - this is a trivial example of confirmation bias.

YanShen wrote:How is that a circular argument? The Putnam Exam has a much higher ceiling than the 99th percentile. Maybe that's the point that you're missing which is throwing you off. You can essentially think of the Putnam Exam as de factor math IQ test, albeit one without a traditional IQ score.

I hope that clarifies the confusion.

YanShen wrote:The test does measure IQ buddy, albeit indirectly.

YanShen wrote:In general, being able to do difficult math requires quantitative IQ Thommo. I know that it's a profound concept.

YanShen wrote:Lol, you amuse me. You're right. Doing difficult math has nothing to do with math IQ.

YanShen wrote:In general, being able to do difficult math requires quantitative IQ Thommo. I know that it's a profound concept.

YanShen wrote:Lol, you amuse me. You're right. Doing difficult math has nothing to do with math IQ. No brain processes are involved in any way. You don't have to think. THe answers magically appear to you if you just will yourself enough.

YanShen wrote:Come on, you're smarter than that. I'm claiming that people who ace a test which requires high math IQ have high math IQ. Sure. There's nothing circular about that. And people who fail a test which requires high math IQ don't have high math IQ. It's so simple that I don't get why you can't see it.

YanShen wrote:You see the logical deduction there? There's no circular reasoning. Of course, you seem to be challenging premise one, which is quite simply absurd.

YanShen wrote:In general, being able to do difficult math requires quantitative IQ Thommo. I know that it's a profound concept.



Not profound, wrong.

Being able to do difficult math requires the ability to do difficult math.

Sure, if you define that people who perform well on a specific test have "high math IQ" then that "high math IQ" will be an excellent predictor of performance on that test. Profoundly and trivially circular. Big fat "so what".

YanShen wrote:Usually when the specific test is a rigorous mathematical examination, it's almost tautological to claim that it requires math IQ?

YanShen wrote:What else do I have to prove? That in order to do well at reading comprehension, you need to have good verbal IQ?

YanShen wrote:Do you even understand your own objection or argument?

YanShen wrote:You basically dispute the claim that the Putnam Exam requires math/quantitative IQ. That's a direct challenge to premise 1.

YanShen wrote:Do you even understand your own objection or argument? You basically dispute the claim that the Putnam Exam requires math/quantitative IQ. That's a direct challenge to premise 1.

YanShen wrote:In general, being able to do difficult math requires quantitative IQ Thommo. I know that it's a profound concept.

Not profound, wrong.

Being able to do difficult math requires the ability to do difficult math.

Your only objection is that you refuse to equate "the ability to do difficult math" with "math/quantitative IQ".