4 ms·

It's a huge stretch to consider patents and peer-refereed publications "actual evidence". Others have taken other approaches and found no correlations.

trendia 10y ago
There were five different features that they plotted vs. SAT score [1]. All five rely heavily on intelligence: 1. any doctorate 2. STEM publications 3. STEM doctorates 4. Patents 5. Income in the 95th percentile A person in Q4 was 60% more likely than a person in Q3 to earn income in the 95th percentile. I'd say that's pretty significant. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/Child_genius_chart_newsfeature_web.jpg https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/Child_...
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  I believe that is only evidence of bias towards high score holders, which we already know exists. Minor issue: why does that figures' caption lead with a quip about the top 1%, but only present data for quartiles?
  - hyperpape 10y ago
    I'm not sure what those Q1-Q4 numbers are, but I don't think they are quartiles. I went to a TIP ceremony for kids who'd scored well on the SATs in 7th grade. There were a few hundred kids there (I think something like 1000 got you there?), a few dozen with 1200 something, and one kid up on stage with a 1400.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      The bottom right of the figure says, "[s]tudents were split into quartiles". I don't get why there is a reference to the top 1% in the caption though.
      - MagnumOpus 10y ago
        Step 1: Take highly able kids who score in the top 1% in entrance exams or can get SAT scores of 700 at age 13. Step 2: Sort these highly able kids into quartiles by their test scores. Result: Even within the top 1% of IQ, the relative ability still matters. I.e. there is no "cutoff" for becoming a great scientist or inventor; smarter is always better.
  - trendia 10y ago
    IQ measured while young predicts income later as an entrepreneur. http://imgur.com/a/huYKk http://imgur.com/a/huYKk http://ftp.iza.org/dp3648.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp3648.pdf
- dalke 10y ago
  Features #1-3 do not "rely heavily on intelligence". While intelligence certainly has a role, they rely much more heavily on training. All three also depend on knowing what is interesting, which is more a form of curiosity guided by knowing what other people know than a form of intelligence that can be measured by taking the SAT. (I don't know enough about #4 or #5 to make a comment.)
  - trendia 10y ago
    People with graduate degrees have higher than average IQ, but people with higher IQ do not necessarily have graduate degrees. That is, intelligence is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to get a graduate degree in STEM. The other necessary conditions you mention (training, interest, etc.) are also important, but still require a baseline ability. Even looking at undergraduate degrees, IQ is a significant factor in what degree is obtained. Physics and astronomy majors have an average of IQ [1] of over 130 -- that's 2 standard deviations above the mean. If interest, training, and hard work alone were sufficient to get a physics degree, we'd see a much lower average IQ among physics students. [1] http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/ http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students...
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Again, you are only exposing group bias. Doctorates are largely predicated on test scores - they are a filter on who can access a defense committee - of course those with doctorates will have higher prior test scores; those with high test score were intentionally picked as doctoral candidates, in part, because of their test score(s).
      - trendia 10y ago
        What I think you're trying to say is that intelligence is irrelevant to getting a Doctorate because test scores, not intelligence, are the factor. But of course doctorates are based on test scores. That's because test scores are an indicator of intelligence, and so admissions committees filter based on test scores in order to filter on intelligence. So that means yes, admissions depends on test scores, but no, test scores are not independent of intelligence. That is: P(high IQ | high test score) > P(low IQ | high test score) What you're trying to say is that getting a doctorate a degree doesn't depend on intelligence, and is just an indicator of some "group bias". What I'm saying is that test scores are correlated with IQ. This implies that if you do not have high intelligence, it is going to be extremely difficult to get the test scores required to get into graduate school, and thus intelligence is required for admission. In other words, intelligence is indeed a necessary but not sufficient condition to get a graduate degree in STEM.
dredmorbius 10y ago
What alternatives would you propose? Why?

trendia 10y ago

There were five different features that they plotted vs. SAT score [1]. All five rely heavily on intelligence: 1. any doctorate 2. STEM publications 3. STEM doctorates 4. Patents 5. Income in the 95th percentile A person in Q4 was 60% more likely than a person in Q3 to earn income in the 95th percentile. I'd say that's pretty significant. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/Child_genius_chart_newsfeature_web.jpg https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/Child_...

jsprogrammer 10y ago
I believe that is only evidence of bias towards high score holders, which we already know exists. Minor issue: why does that figures' caption lead with a quip about the top 1%, but only present data for quartiles?
- hyperpape 10y ago
  I'm not sure what those Q1-Q4 numbers are, but I don't think they are quartiles. I went to a TIP ceremony for kids who'd scored well on the SATs in 7th grade. There were a few hundred kids there (I think something like 1000 got you there?), a few dozen with 1200 something, and one kid up on stage with a 1400.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    The bottom right of the figure says, "[s]tudents were split into quartiles". I don't get why there is a reference to the top 1% in the caption though.
    - MagnumOpus 10y ago
      Step 1: Take highly able kids who score in the top 1% in entrance exams or can get SAT scores of 700 at age 13. Step 2: Sort these highly able kids into quartiles by their test scores. Result: Even within the top 1% of IQ, the relative ability still matters. I.e. there is no "cutoff" for becoming a great scientist or inventor; smarter is always better.
- trendia 10y ago
  IQ measured while young predicts income later as an entrepreneur. http://imgur.com/a/huYKk http://imgur.com/a/huYKk http://ftp.iza.org/dp3648.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp3648.pdf
dalke 10y ago
Features #1-3 do not "rely heavily on intelligence". While intelligence certainly has a role, they rely much more heavily on training. All three also depend on knowing what is interesting, which is more a form of curiosity guided by knowing what other people know than a form of intelligence that can be measured by taking the SAT. (I don't know enough about #4 or #5 to make a comment.)
- trendia 10y ago
  People with graduate degrees have higher than average IQ, but people with higher IQ do not necessarily have graduate degrees. That is, intelligence is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to get a graduate degree in STEM. The other necessary conditions you mention (training, interest, etc.) are also important, but still require a baseline ability. Even looking at undergraduate degrees, IQ is a significant factor in what degree is obtained. Physics and astronomy majors have an average of IQ [1] of over 130 -- that's 2 standard deviations above the mean. If interest, training, and hard work alone were sufficient to get a physics degree, we'd see a much lower average IQ among physics students. [1] http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/ http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students...
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Again, you are only exposing group bias. Doctorates are largely predicated on test scores - they are a filter on who can access a defense committee - of course those with doctorates will have higher prior test scores; those with high test score were intentionally picked as doctoral candidates, in part, because of their test score(s).
    - trendia 10y ago
      What I think you're trying to say is that intelligence is irrelevant to getting a Doctorate because test scores, not intelligence, are the factor. But of course doctorates are based on test scores. That's because test scores are an indicator of intelligence, and so admissions committees filter based on test scores in order to filter on intelligence. So that means yes, admissions depends on test scores, but no, test scores are not independent of intelligence. That is: P(high IQ | high test score) > P(low IQ | high test score) What you're trying to say is that getting a doctorate a degree doesn't depend on intelligence, and is just an indicator of some "group bias". What I'm saying is that test scores are correlated with IQ. This implies that if you do not have high intelligence, it is going to be extremely difficult to get the test scores required to get into graduate school, and thus intelligence is required for admission. In other words, intelligence is indeed a necessary but not sufficient condition to get a graduate degree in STEM.

dredmorbius 10y ago

What alternatives would you propose? Why?