Re:IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)
by alexandercrohde on Thursday May 07, 2020 @11:04AM
(#23103806)
Sorry, I don't want to read that whole thing. Is there a linked journal article about IQs of nobel winners?
Re:IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)
by JamesBarney on Thursday May 07, 2020 @12:08PM
(#23104590)
The article basically says when you look at a 1000 really smart 11 year olds you don't get any Nobel prize winners. Which is a pretty obvious straw man because the base rate of Nobel prize winners is 1 in a million, plus childhoold IQ doesn't perfectly correlate with adult IQ. For instance a group of children with an average IQ of 150 will have an average IQ of 130 as adults.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/07/26/anne-roes-study-of-extr...
Basically the average Nobel prize winners have IQ's in the 150's.
Re:IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)
by empath75 on Thursday May 07, 2020 @12:35PM
(#23104908)
There were two future Nobel prize winners that were excluded from the group he studied because they didn't score high enough.
Re:IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)
by JamesBarney on Thursday May 07, 2020 @12:59PM
(#23105243)
Who both also had very high iqs, just not quite high enough at the age of 11 to be included.
Firstly if that's his point, his conclusion should match. Saying there is "no correlation" is a reach.
Secondly, I'm not convinced I even believe that point. So is he saying that if I took an IQ test from nobel prize winners they would be equally distributed to a normal population sample (assuming a 100 minimum cutoff)?