But it _does_ have a bearing on actual discoveries, and on breaking Enigma. As for having no predictive power - simply false. Has plenty. Not 100% , but what do you want, egg in your beer?
-
-
Replying to @gcochran99 @clairlemon
But does it? Beyond dead man bias? i.e. IQ 0 yeah you probably won't but above 70 all bets are off. Discovery is much more bricolage than intelligence.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @gcochran99 @clairlemon
Which bit do you not like? IQ tests select for those who think the answer to "What comes after 1,2,3,4-?" is 5. Which is FALSE. It's very believable that someone who thinks that way is less likely to discover something, and I the data I have seen does not refute that hypothesis.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SebSteele0 @clairlemon
Since I know something about most of the more prominent inventors and discoverers of the last two or three hundred years, it turns out that your picture is entirely wrong.
3 replies 4 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @JayMan471 and
And as it turns out, easily over 50 % of the major scientific discoveries & inventions of the last 20th century have been by members of the group w/ by far the highest average IQ (w/ an astounding verbal reasoning avg of over 120). What a coincidence...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MatsVinnaren @JayMan471 and
Not that high: < 50%. > 20%, though. And I don't know of solid evidence for that high a verbal reasoning score.
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @JayMan471 and
An extremely well-read Finnish professor of linquistics stated it could be argued that even above 80 %; I need to make sure he meant scientific. I concluded in physics & medicine over 50 % but what does one regard as "major"? As for verbal IQ, one study (1958) found 125,6 //1of2
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MatsVinnaren @JayMan471 and
You concluded wrong. Look at the Nobels: about a quarter of the winners in physics and medicine. Like I said, > 20%, but certainly not > 50%.
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @JayMan471 and
But Nobels alone aren't enough: Einstein was worthy of half a dozen; dead people won't win it; if 3 people win for the same discovery, how we count then; many major discoveries w/ only 100+ years of Nobels to award them; many are major even if not eligible for Nobels or so; etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You're not wrong but think through the implications for getting a rough estimate - are members of that group more likely to die before they can be awarded the Nobel? Do they focus more on fields with Nobel prizes? More likely to work on large teams? Etc.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.