Boy, isn't that a common sense assumption? If you can't even ace the easier test, why would you be able to ace the much harder one? Maybe you can tell me the reasoning that would justify such a notion.

YanShen wrote:Boy, isn't that a common sense assumption? If you can't even ace the easier test, why would you be able to ace the much harder one? Maybe you can tell me the reasoning that would justify such a notion.

Because you don't need to ace the higher level test to improve on the g-score from the first one because the questions are more difficult. You're assuming perfect calibration without demonstrating it. You're also ignoring the second point about other people who did ace one or more sections of the test but performed worse in others.

"It works in theory" doesn't mean "it works in practice".

I have no idea what you're even saying Thommo.

Let's say that you have a test which measures IQ and this test nominally is capable of detecting IQs in the range 70-130.

The test will be scored between say 65 (for almost no correct answers) to 135 (for every response correct).

Now, people who score 130+ on a particular section may be directed to take a specialised test for that section which is nominally capable of detecting IQs in the range 120-180.

So clearly the implication is that for someone like Feynman that they could improve their score by taking the specialised test and using that nominally more accurate score in place of the original "off the chart" score.

However, since this will apply not just to Feynman but to anyone else who could improve their score by taking a specialised test in place of one or more sections of the original test, it does not follow that Feynman's relative standing would necessarily improve if everyone was given equal opportunity to improve their score in the same fashion. This would be the "like for like" test that would make for a valid methodology.

You have assumed that the two tests gel perfectly - that someone scoring 125 on that first test would not be capable of improving to a 135, 145 or 155 on the second test. You have seemingly assumed that since this is the theoretical intention of the tests that it will actually be borne out in practice. I am questioning this assumption and asking you to substantiate it with evidence, after all there are problems with standardising tests for the more extreme IQ values. There are also methodological concerns about taking arithmetic means of section scores where the section scores show wider variance from the "g-score".

Okay you got me. In theory someone who scores low on the easier test could somehow guess all the answers right on the hard test if he hit the lottery.

There's always variation between different tests, but usually the variance is low. There have been statistics showing that for instance the average variation between sats is fairly low for most people.
In theory, the tests are assumed to gel more or less perfectly. In reality, its fairly close. In particular, Feynman got a perfect score on the Putnam! That places him probably amongst the top few mathematicians of his birth cohort.

YanShen wrote:Okay you got me. In theory someone who scores low on the easier test could somehow guess all the answers right on the hard test if he hit the lottery.

Naughty again, I never asserted it would be due to luck. There are a number of reasons this could occur.

YanShen wrote:In theory, the tests are assumed to gel more or less perfectly. In reality, its fairly close. In particular, Feynman got a perfect score on the Putnam! That places him probably amongst the top few mathematicians of his birth cohort.

Yes, he was a brilliant mathematician who did not perform remarkably well in like for like comparisons of IQ tests. That was exactly the point being made by whoever it was who brought him up. It's a single data point which appears to belie your assertion in the OP.

Now a single data point is never going to either substantiate or refute a hypothesis in this kind of scenario, so it would be nice if you were to actually back up your claim with some real-world evidence at some point.

Man are you a broken record. Feynman's mathematical IQ and hence overall aggregate IQ was underestimated by the particular test that he took. How that counters the OP is beyond me.

YanShen wrote:Man are you a broken record. Feynman's mathematical IQ and hence overall aggregate IQ was underestimated by the particular test that he took. How that counters the OP is beyond me.

Feynman was an extraordinary individual who was brilliant at some things, and crap at others. It's widely thought that he was on the autism scale.

He may have been a scientific and mathematical wizard, but apparently he left a trail of emotional wreckage behind him. So I guess that only science matters, and people don't count at all, Yan?

You know what the so-called communist system done to the so-called intellectual elites in dissent? Made them work in boiler-plants or uranium mines. And why?

Sure, any theoretical physicist with IQ over 160 could probably become a plumber or a miner, but I'd like to see one actually doing it voluntarily.

WTF is my point? There is none. Carry on.

tuco wrote:WTF is my point? There is none. Carry on.

Ok then Tuco, I will. Carry on, I mean.

Fact is that if you read much about Feynman, as I did after reading a book of his lectures and becoming fascinated by the personality behind them, it turns out that he was a brilliant mind who probably took as much from society as he gave.

Apparently he was incapable of living in a manner acceptable to society without someone else by his side who could provide him with a secure and stable base from which to operate.

Society supports those who benefit society.

Which kinda re-iterates and confirms what the majority of us on this thread have been saying all along.

Society also supports those who do nothing. In particular, Western Europeans are enamored by the idea of welfare.

Society, the so-called intellectual elites included, have the ability to support or accept the "worst" ideas (which need to be destroyed as someone said;) The rise of fascism is a prime and recent example as it is hard to claim that Nazi Germany was a barbaric nation.

One thing is to accept the will of majority, and another to admit majority is hmmm "right".

YanShen wrote:Society also supports those who do nothing. In particular, Western Europeans are enamored by the idea of welfare.

We are not enamored by the idea of welfare. We believe that a civilised nation looks after all its people not a selected few.
We do not have people dying due to the lack of health care or the lack of affordable housing.
You have not answered any of my questions on both threads.
This is the worst thread that has been around for ages. I think only Seth could get lower.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

YanShen wrote:Society also supports those who do nothing. In particular, Western Europeans are enamored by the idea of welfare.

We are not enamored by the idea of welfare. We believe that a civilised nation looks after all its people not a selected few.
We do not have people dying due to the lack of health care or the lack of affordable housing.

Also, YanShen has made a basic mistake of assuming that because some people don't earn a wage, they therefore do nothing.

YanShen wrote:Society also supports those who do nothing. In particular, Western Europeans are enamored by the idea of welfare.

Why ignore the rest of my post, Yan, which was addressing the op, and focus on this? When I said

Doubtdispelled wrote:Apparently he was incapable of living in a manner acceptable to society without someone else by his side who could provide him with a secure and stable base from which to operate.

Society supports those who benefit society.

you know damned well I didn't mean that therefore society only supports those who benefit society.

Oh but go ahead. Move the goal posts if you like.

Doubtdispelled wrote:Feynman was an extraordinary individual who was brilliant at some things, and crap at others. It's widely thought that he was on the autism scale.

Wasn't he a sociable and amiable fellow? Playing bongo drums at Rio Carnival and all that.

Berthold wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:Feynman was an extraordinary individual who was brilliant at some things, and crap at others. It's widely thought that he was on the autism scale.

Wasn't he a sociable and amiable fellow? Playing bongo drums at Rio Carnival and all that.

Sure. Did anyone say that people with autism, or in this case it would probably be Aperger's, aren't capable of being sociable and amiable? I didn't. Feynman was such a sociable and amiable fellow that he apparently had trouble curbing his friendliness.

What's even worse is how often these intellectual elites are underpaid, relative to certain other professions. Most people in science and academia don't actually make that much money, relative to people in business or law or medicine. And don't even get me started about celebrities and athletes.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/06/su ... tists.html

... For the great majority, becoming a scientist now entails a penurious decade or more of graduate school and postdoc positions before joining the multitude vainly vying for the few available faculty-level openings. Earning a doctorate now consumes an average of about seven years. In many fields, up to five more years as a postdoc now constitute, in the words of Trevor Penning, who formerly headed postdoctoral programs at the University of Pennsylvania, the “terminal de facto credential” required for faculty-level posts.

And today’s postdocs rarely pursue their own ideas or work with the greats of their field. Nearly every faculty member with a research grant — and that is just about every tenure-track or tenured member of a science department at any of several hundred universities — now uses postdocs to do the bench work for the project. Paid out of the grant, these highly skilled employees might earn $40,000 a year for 60 or more hours a week in the lab. A lucky few will eventually land faculty posts, but even most of those won’t get traditional permanent spots with the potential of tenure protection. The majority of today’s new faculty hires are “soft money” jobs with titles like “research assistant professor” and an employment term lasting only as long as the specific grant that supports it.

A lot of people go into science and academia not to seek the fast and easy dollar, but rather go into their field out of a desire to make some real contribution to humanity. You'd think that the least society can do in return is show these people some respect.

YanShen wrote:What's even worse is how often these intellectual elites are underpaid, relative to certain other professions. Most people in science and academia don't actually make that much money, relative to people in business or law or medicine. And don't even get me started about celebrities and athletes.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/06/su ... tists.html

... For the great majority, becoming a scientist now entails a penurious decade or more of graduate school and postdoc positions before joining the multitude vainly vying for the few available faculty-level openings. Earning a doctorate now consumes an average of about seven years. In many fields, up to five more years as a postdoc now constitute, in the words of Trevor Penning, who formerly headed postdoctoral programs at the University of Pennsylvania, the “terminal de facto credential” required for faculty-level posts.

And today’s postdocs rarely pursue their own ideas or work with the greats of their field. Nearly every faculty member with a research grant — and that is just about every tenure-track or tenured member of a science department at any of several hundred universities — now uses postdocs to do the bench work for the project. Paid out of the grant, these highly skilled employees might earn $40,000 a year for 60 or more hours a week in the lab. A lucky few will eventually land faculty posts, but even most of those won’t get traditional permanent spots with the potential of tenure protection. The majority of today’s new faculty hires are “soft money” jobs with titles like “research assistant professor” and an employment term lasting only as long as the specific grant that supports it.

A lot of people go into science and academia not to seek the fast and easy dollar, but rather go into their field out of a desire to make some real contribution to humanity. You'd think that the least society can do in return is show these people some respect.

Subsidized university tuition for a year at University of Utrecht for EU residents: 1672 euros
Tuition fees for Swedish universities for EU residents: 0 euros
Tuition fees for a year at a German university for EU residents: 1000 euros
Tuition fees for a year at Danish universities for EU residents: 0 euros/kroner
Austrian fees for a year: 726 euros
Luxumberg fees for a year: 200 euros
Finnish fees for a year: 0 euros

Other countries take care of their own and everything isn't about the almighty dollar. Here, we saddle students with an assload of debt.

I'd say that the universities in the EU show their students a damn sight more respect than in the US, where if you don't have cash, you can go fuck yourself. And even if you can get a loan, you get insane interest rates in paying it back.

The top 10% contributing science is pure, absolute, utter BULLSHIT that serves nothing but to prevent about another 50-80% of people just as capable of contributing to scientific knowledge from their own, and showing those pompous fucks up.
It also highlights the point that the "top 10 percent" might not really be that hot themselves, nor actually the most scientifically gifted people at all- they simply say they are and don't like the competition.

The proof? Australian show called "The New Inventors". Also the Woolworths director who founded the Metal Storm munitions company. Ordinary people.