4 ms·

The problem with these arguments is that we waffle on the definition of intelligence. Feynman was admittedly no genius. There's no reason to claim he was obviou

The problem with these arguments is that we waffle on the definition of intelligence. Feynman was admittedly no genius. There's no reason to claim he was obviously highly intelligent (and therefore IQ is meaningless). He had many gifts, a .1% intellect wasn't one of them. This doesn't take away from his accomplishments nor the impact he's had on society. There's no reason to redefine intelligence just to make sure it includes guys like him at the high end of the spectrum. His work stands on its own.

btilly 14y ago
Defining intelligence is complicated, and probably a wrongheaded way to look at things. See http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html for more on that. But with that said, any definition that says that Feynman wasn't a genius is obviously wrong. In every environment that he was in, he was given the genius label because he obviously was one compared to (usually quite intelligent) peers. If a test says that he is not a genius, then the test isn't capturing what common usage says that genius means. Conversely the flip side of the point stands as well. The fact that someone is labeled a genius by a test does NOT mean that they have whatever intellectual abilities would be required to better society. There is a correlation - they are more likely to have those abilities. But not a guarantee. And the fact that we see high IQ people failing to use their brains life is not always evidence that those people's gifts are being used. The true gifts may simply not be what was recorded on the test.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Perhaps Feynman was a poor example. I was going by his claim that his own IQ was 125 (or something to that effect). I suspect that there is more to that number and that we shouldn't take it at face value. I see no reason why he wouldn't score much higher.
  - btilly 14y ago
    You are so wedded to your theory that you are unable to accept facts at face value. Presented with evidence that Feynman's IQ was not exceptional, you conclude that he was not a genius. Presented with evidence that he was a genius, you conclude that there must be an external reason that he did not do better on the IQ test, and the test result can be thrown out. The conclusion that you seem to think impossible is that someone can clearly be a genius and yet that genius would not be reflected on IQ tests. Let me offer you two alternate hypotheses. The first fits the criticism in the above post. Many questions on IQ tests are ambiguous - there are multiple logically possible answers, and to find the "right" one you have to figure out what line of reasoning the test maker was most likely to have followed. This is a question about conventions, and Feynman clearly was extremely unconventional. He therefore is an example of someone who was literally too creative to do well on the test. A second possibility is that Feynman's gifts were overwhelmingly mathematical, not verbal. His graduate entrance exams stand as evidence of this, as do comments from people who have examined his work. See http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding-another http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstei... for an example. Since an IQ test has a large verbal component, on which Feynman would have only been somewhat above average, he did not score exceptionally well. I like the first theory better, but there is significantly more evidence for the second. But either way there is no evidence from anyone who knew him, including Feynman, that the IQ score he got is not what he should have been expected to get based on what an IQ test measures.
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that IQ tests highly correlate with other measures of intelligence (SATs, GREs, job advancement, etc). I'm sorry but one outlier does not invalidate the whole body of research regarding IQ tests. The reasonable conclusion regarding Feynman is to suspect other factors at play. I'm simply changing my opinion in the face of new evidence. >A second possibility is that Feynman's gifts were overwhelmingly mathematical, not verbal. And of course this would be the "other factors at play". There are plenty of people who are savant-like in specific areas but aren't a "genius" in the generic sense. In a mathematical/scientific setting, Feynman would appear as a genius. In other settings, he would not. There's nothing surprising about any of this that would warrant a redefinition of genius.
beambot 14y ago
Feynman is a Putnam Fellow (ie. top-5 placement in the annual Putnam exam for undergrad math majors). That unequivocally qualifies him as "genius".

btilly 14y ago

Defining intelligence is complicated, and probably a wrongheaded way to look at things. See http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html for more on that. But with that said, any definition that says that Feynman wasn't a genius is obviously wrong. In every environment that he was in, he was given the genius label because he obviously was one compared to (usually quite intelligent) peers. If a test says that he is not a genius, then the test isn't capturing what common usage says that genius means. Conversely the flip side of the point stands as well. The fact that someone is labeled a genius by a test does NOT mean that they have whatever intellectual abilities would be required to better society. There is a correlation - they are more likely to have those abilities. But not a guarantee. And the fact that we see high IQ people failing to use their brains life is not always evidence that those people's gifts are being used. The true gifts may simply not be what was recorded on the test.

hackinthebochs 14y ago
Perhaps Feynman was a poor example. I was going by his claim that his own IQ was 125 (or something to that effect). I suspect that there is more to that number and that we shouldn't take it at face value. I see no reason why he wouldn't score much higher.
- btilly 14y ago
  You are so wedded to your theory that you are unable to accept facts at face value. Presented with evidence that Feynman's IQ was not exceptional, you conclude that he was not a genius. Presented with evidence that he was a genius, you conclude that there must be an external reason that he did not do better on the IQ test, and the test result can be thrown out. The conclusion that you seem to think impossible is that someone can clearly be a genius and yet that genius would not be reflected on IQ tests. Let me offer you two alternate hypotheses. The first fits the criticism in the above post. Many questions on IQ tests are ambiguous - there are multiple logically possible answers, and to find the "right" one you have to figure out what line of reasoning the test maker was most likely to have followed. This is a question about conventions, and Feynman clearly was extremely unconventional. He therefore is an example of someone who was literally too creative to do well on the test. A second possibility is that Feynman's gifts were overwhelmingly mathematical, not verbal. His graduate entrance exams stand as evidence of this, as do comments from people who have examined his work. See http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding-another http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstei... for an example. Since an IQ test has a large verbal component, on which Feynman would have only been somewhat above average, he did not score exceptionally well. I like the first theory better, but there is significantly more evidence for the second. But either way there is no evidence from anyone who knew him, including Feynman, that the IQ score he got is not what he should have been expected to get based on what an IQ test measures.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that IQ tests highly correlate with other measures of intelligence (SATs, GREs, job advancement, etc). I'm sorry but one outlier does not invalidate the whole body of research regarding IQ tests. The reasonable conclusion regarding Feynman is to suspect other factors at play. I'm simply changing my opinion in the face of new evidence. >A second possibility is that Feynman's gifts were overwhelmingly mathematical, not verbal. And of course this would be the "other factors at play". There are plenty of people who are savant-like in specific areas but aren't a "genius" in the generic sense. In a mathematical/scientific setting, Feynman would appear as a genius. In other settings, he would not. There's nothing surprising about any of this that would warrant a redefinition of genius.

beambot 14y ago

Feynman is a Putnam Fellow (ie. top-5 placement in the annual Putnam exam for undergrad math majors). That unequivocally qualifies him as "genius".