4 ms·

> Richard Feynman, who many acknowledge to be the last great American genius (his IQ was a merely respectable 122). I've always wanted a quick, one-line, anecd

by nikcub 15y ago

> Richard Feynman, who many acknowledge to be the last great American genius (his IQ was a merely respectable 122). I've always wanted a quick, one-line, anecdote as to why IQ is bullshit. I think I just found it.

AngryParsley 15y ago
If you search hard enough, you can find a one-line anecdote to support any position.
- pjscott 15y ago
  "A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire (Hey, it works!)
arvinjoar 15y ago
It's not bullshit, it's just that it isn't the only factor to keep in mind, and after a certain point, higher IQ doesn't seem to do much.
mangodrunk 15y ago
If the IQ test is bullshit, this anecdote and your reasoning aren't good reasons to conclude that for several reasons, and to mention a few: 1. It may not be true that he had an IQ of 122 2. A score of 122 is still kind of high 3. If it were wrong in one case it doesn't invalidate it, especially since we're talking about a Nobel prize winner in physics 4. If he did take a test, that was several decades ago and I'd imagine the test has evolved from then 5. This test may have not been good for Feynman since he is much better in science and math On another point, I think the author is incorrectly using Feynman as a person of average intelligence when it's obvious he was very much well above average in math being that he was a Putnam Fellow. >He obtained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in mathematics and physics—an unprecedented feat—but did rather poorly on the history and English portions. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Early_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Early_life
- aik 15y ago
  There's so much misinformation about what the IQ test is for. It has become common understanding that it's a measure of intelligence (or ability, or potential), however it was never created for that nor ever intended to be that. In addition, intelligence is often seen as a fixed thing. Any reasonable and practical definition of intelligence is in complete contradiction to this idea. Study after study shows that an apparent talent (or intelligence) in one moment does not correlate with future potential talent, intelligence, or general potential for achievement in anything. So to add to your point -- who knows when Feynman took the test and got a 122, and who knows which test he even took -- to me this point decreases any commonly understood value of the IQ test to an even greater extent. Quote from Alfred Binet (creator of the first IQ test) himself: “I have not sought in the above lines to sketch a method of measuring, in the physical sense of the word, but only a method of classification of individuals. The procedures which I have indicated will, if perfected, come to classify a person before or after such another person or such another series of persons; but I do not believe that one may measure one of the intellectual aptitudes in the sense that one measures length or a capacity. Thus, when a person studied can retain seven figures after a single audition, one can class him, from the point of his memory for figures, after the individual who retains eight figures under the same conditions, and before those who retain six. It is a classification, not a measurement…we do not measure, we classify.”
tokenadult 15y ago
I like this one-liner: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html?... "Q (Deborah Solomon for the New York Times): What is your I.Q.? "A (Stephen Hawking): I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers."
- larrys 15y ago
  "People who boast about their I.Q. are losers" People boast, people brag, because in general it gets them more out of the world than not doing so and gets them special treatment and accommodations. There are a fair amount of people in the tech industry, and even here on HN, that are quite willing to boast about what they have done and are treated as royalty for their past accomplishments. Isn't this the same thing? Stephen Hawking, assuming he knows his IQ, has nothing to gain and possibly stands to loose by revealing his IQ. You'd expect it to be high and if not, it might detract from the aura [1]. Not that I think that is why he does it but I can certainly see many successful people that are not super successful feeling the same way. Especially if they are insecure about the luck that caused them to get to where they are. [1] The aura in the eyes of people who don't know exactly why he is viewed as smart and just view him as presented in the media.
  - aik 15y ago
    I believe the underlying idea in Hawking's comment isn't that people shouldn't boast, but it's that no information of value is conveyed in the act of boasting about one's IQ. This is due to an understanding that the IQ test does not (nor was ever intended to) be a standard and fixed measure of intelligence[1] or potential. Therefore it is a moot point to boast about. [1] Any measure of intelligence that doesn't take potential into account is essentially worthless as a measure of intelligence.
    - larrys 15y ago
      (I'm interested also in many of the things that your "about" says so I will take this one step further.) What you are saying I think is that Hawking is saying "People who boast about their IQ don't understand what an IQ test is for". If that is the case I would say: a) A really poor choose of words for Hawking to be calling someone a "loser" b) Hawking doesn't realize that there are many legitimate reasons why someone might mention their IQ score to gain some benefit and still realize what Hawking realizes about the test. To that end I've done a few things that I could mention that would generally be thought of as impressive but could also been seen as "bragging". I also recognize that while they appear to be impressive there are many (who have done the same thing) who may also see it as not as impressive as it appears. But I don't think of them that way (and certainly not "losers") for mentioning it and trying to derive value from the association. While IQ tests are not dejure they certainly are viewed by the general public and certainly the media as defacto measures of intelligence.
mynameishere 15y ago
He almost certainly flubbed it on purpose, or is just lying. Also, it was never meant to differentiate geniuses. Also, you don't need quick, one-line, anecdote to explain why 1 (one) is not statistically significant. It's actually pretty obvious.
EricDeb 15y ago
How can there be a "last great American genius." Assuming genius is a statistical percentage of the population born every year, wouldn't there be just as many if not more currently than in the past?
- freyrs3 15y ago
  The same way there can there be a "last Tuesday".
Daniel_Newby 15y ago
On the other hand it's a Feynman story, so take the 122 figure with a huge grain of salt.
larrys 15y ago
"merely respectable 122" What I'm finding in several places is that the fiqure was 125. But more importantly the low IQ figure was self reported by Feynman and done in high school. Who knows if that is the correct figure and who knows if he was sick the night before or tired or if there was an error etc. I'm not defending IQ tests but it's important to realize that the fact that Feynman said his IQ was X doesn't mean that the test or testing or reporting was flawed or he got someone elses score by accident.
emmelaich 15y ago
Likewise, vos Savant's score is a bit dubious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant#Rise_to_fame_and_IQ_score http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant#Rise_to_fame... There's something to the IQ scores, but error bars are large and the meaning controversial.

by nikcub 15y ago

AngryParsley 15y ago

If you search hard enough, you can find a one-line anecdote to support any position.

pjscott 15y ago
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire (Hey, it works!)

arvinjoar 15y ago

It's not bullshit, it's just that it isn't the only factor to keep in mind, and after a certain point, higher IQ doesn't seem to do much.

mangodrunk 15y ago

If the IQ test is bullshit, this anecdote and your reasoning aren't good reasons to conclude that for several reasons, and to mention a few: 1. It may not be true that he had an IQ of 122 2. A score of 122 is still kind of high 3. If it were wrong in one case it doesn't invalidate it, especially since we're talking about a Nobel prize winner in physics 4. If he did take a test, that was several decades ago and I'd imagine the test has evolved from then 5. This test may have not been good for Feynman since he is much better in science and math On another point, I think the author is incorrectly using Feynman as a person of average intelligence when it's obvious he was very much well above average in math being that he was a Putnam Fellow. >He obtained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in mathematics and physics—an unprecedented feat—but did rather poorly on the history and English portions. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Early_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Early_life

aik 15y ago
There's so much misinformation about what the IQ test is for. It has become common understanding that it's a measure of intelligence (or ability, or potential), however it was never created for that nor ever intended to be that. In addition, intelligence is often seen as a fixed thing. Any reasonable and practical definition of intelligence is in complete contradiction to this idea. Study after study shows that an apparent talent (or intelligence) in one moment does not correlate with future potential talent, intelligence, or general potential for achievement in anything. So to add to your point -- who knows when Feynman took the test and got a 122, and who knows which test he even took -- to me this point decreases any commonly understood value of the IQ test to an even greater extent. Quote from Alfred Binet (creator of the first IQ test) himself: “I have not sought in the above lines to sketch a method of measuring, in the physical sense of the word, but only a method of classification of individuals. The procedures which I have indicated will, if perfected, come to classify a person before or after such another person or such another series of persons; but I do not believe that one may measure one of the intellectual aptitudes in the sense that one measures length or a capacity. Thus, when a person studied can retain seven figures after a single audition, one can class him, from the point of his memory for figures, after the individual who retains eight figures under the same conditions, and before those who retain six. It is a classification, not a measurement…we do not measure, we classify.”

tokenadult 15y ago

I like this one-liner: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html?... "Q (Deborah Solomon for the New York Times): What is your I.Q.? "A (Stephen Hawking): I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers."

larrys 15y ago
"People who boast about their I.Q. are losers" People boast, people brag, because in general it gets them more out of the world than not doing so and gets them special treatment and accommodations. There are a fair amount of people in the tech industry, and even here on HN, that are quite willing to boast about what they have done and are treated as royalty for their past accomplishments. Isn't this the same thing? Stephen Hawking, assuming he knows his IQ, has nothing to gain and possibly stands to loose by revealing his IQ. You'd expect it to be high and if not, it might detract from the aura [1]. Not that I think that is why he does it but I can certainly see many successful people that are not super successful feeling the same way. Especially if they are insecure about the luck that caused them to get to where they are. [1] The aura in the eyes of people who don't know exactly why he is viewed as smart and just view him as presented in the media.
- aik 15y ago
  I believe the underlying idea in Hawking's comment isn't that people shouldn't boast, but it's that no information of value is conveyed in the act of boasting about one's IQ. This is due to an understanding that the IQ test does not (nor was ever intended to) be a standard and fixed measure of intelligence[1] or potential. Therefore it is a moot point to boast about. [1] Any measure of intelligence that doesn't take potential into account is essentially worthless as a measure of intelligence.
  - larrys 15y ago
    (I'm interested also in many of the things that your "about" says so I will take this one step further.) What you are saying I think is that Hawking is saying "People who boast about their IQ don't understand what an IQ test is for". If that is the case I would say: a) A really poor choose of words for Hawking to be calling someone a "loser" b) Hawking doesn't realize that there are many legitimate reasons why someone might mention their IQ score to gain some benefit and still realize what Hawking realizes about the test. To that end I've done a few things that I could mention that would generally be thought of as impressive but could also been seen as "bragging". I also recognize that while they appear to be impressive there are many (who have done the same thing) who may also see it as not as impressive as it appears. But I don't think of them that way (and certainly not "losers") for mentioning it and trying to derive value from the association. While IQ tests are not dejure they certainly are viewed by the general public and certainly the media as defacto measures of intelligence.

mynameishere 15y ago

He almost certainly flubbed it on purpose, or is just lying. Also, it was never meant to differentiate geniuses. Also, you don't need quick, one-line, anecdote to explain why 1 (one) is not statistically significant. It's actually pretty obvious.

EricDeb 15y ago

How can there be a "last great American genius." Assuming genius is a statistical percentage of the population born every year, wouldn't there be just as many if not more currently than in the past?

freyrs3 15y ago
The same way there can there be a "last Tuesday".

Daniel_Newby 15y ago

On the other hand it's a Feynman story, so take the 122 figure with a huge grain of salt.

larrys 15y ago

"merely respectable 122" What I'm finding in several places is that the fiqure was 125. But more importantly the low IQ figure was self reported by Feynman and done in high school. Who knows if that is the correct figure and who knows if he was sick the night before or tired or if there was an error etc. I'm not defending IQ tests but it's important to realize that the fact that Feynman said his IQ was X doesn't mean that the test or testing or reporting was flawed or he got someone elses score by accident.

emmelaich 15y ago

Likewise, vos Savant's score is a bit dubious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant#Rise_to_fame_and_IQ_score http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant#Rise_to_fame... There's something to the IQ scores, but error bars are large and the meaning controversial.