which major has the smartest students?

[Loric]

Are most people really under 130?

I could be way off - I barely remember my GRE scores and only know vague details of my old SAT and such... But I'm fairly certain my IQ is " officially" in the 140's. That can't be the top 5% can it? I dunno. I thought it went up to like 160 or 180, no?

[DerpTastic]

Well the world records seem to be in the 220+ range.

 

IQ is not something I ever really plan to test, as I'm sure you have to pay for a legit test, and what's the point in that?

[Guest |||]

 

Not to mention that psychologists who studied this haven't even agreed on a standard definition of intelligence, so there's no one test that can really measure overall/general intelligence (if there even is such a thing.  I think the one thing that psychologists DO generally agree on is that there are different types of intelligences).

 

 

That is true but its also a little bit deceptive.  We do not have a clear cut definition of happiness, depression, dark holes, dark matter, gravity, etc etc, but we can commonly agree on what we mean and by this study the topic.

 

Alternatively psychology might be more plagued by this problem than other fields, however out of all the "subjective states" studied, it is probably the case that psychologists would agree that intelligence is one of the more defined and well understood ones.

 

 

Graduates of physics and theoretical mathematics tend to have the highest IQ scores.

 

 

I was going off the association between GRE scores and IQ, here is a citation

 

https://esirc.emporia.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/1709/Pauls%201994.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

Furthermore, some of the studies' results are patently absurd.  The first one asserts that the top ranking majors' averages are all around 130, two standard deviations above the mean.  This is absurd; IQ tests are scaled to be normally distributed, which means that 95% of people score within two standard deviations (30 points) of the mean (so between 70 and 130).  The mean of any one major being ~130 would mean that 50% of the students in that major, for example, scored in the top 5% of IQ test scorers, which simply does not make any sense. 

 

Why is that absurd?  It seems completely consistent to me that the mean IQ of a group who are enrolled in post secondary have a higher IQ than the mean population IQ.  I'd also bet the further you go on in graduate school, from masters to ph.d, and to full professor, there is a high correlation with IQ.

 

 

 

 

 

Are most people really under 130?

I could be way off - I barely remember my GRE scores and only know vague details of my old SAT and such... But I'm fairly certain my IQ is " officially" in the 140's. That can't be the top 5% can it? I dunno. I thought it went up to like 160 or 180, no?

 

The vast majority would be under 130.  The standard deviation of an IQ is 15, and a mean of 100.  To score 140 would put you in the upper 1% of the population.

 

 

Well the world records seem to be in the 220+ range.

 

 

The world record is technically undefined, as I believe is at least one woman who has scored perfect on every IQ test ever given to her.

 

 

 

 

IQ is not something I ever really plan to test, as I'm sure you have to pay for a legit test, and what's the point in that?

 

 

I wouldn't use IQ tests either, but I'm not sure I understand the latter point.  Paying for something and then asking what is the point?  Well we pay to use an fMRI, an atom collider, a blood pressure machine, etc etc.  Some incredibly useful things cost money, doesn't mean they are pointless.

[DerpTastic]

I wouldn't use IQ tests either, but I'm not sure I understand the latter point.  Paying for something and then asking what is the point?  Well we pay to use an fMRI, an atom collider, a blood pressure machine, etc etc.  Some incredibly useful things cost money, doesn't mean they are pointless.

 

My point wasn't that it's useless because you have to pay, it was more that you have to pay for something useless. "What's the point in paying for something useless?" is probably how I should have worded it.

[Guest |||]

My point wasn't that it's useless because you have to pay, it was more that you have to pay for something useless. "What's the point in paying for something useless?" is probably how I should have worded it.

 

I agree something useless isn't worth paying for, but I doubt either of us want to argue on what is and isn't useless in this case.

[Loric]

Well, how is it useful to know someone's IQ?

 

According to people here, my formally tested IQ puts me in the top 1%.

 

Now go ask people on these forums if they would want me in their cohort or believe that I know much of anything about any of the topics they research?  The answer is "not many." Look at my massive negative rep supply.

 

It's not like any of them are going to change their interactions with me based on that bit of information.

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

Well, how is it useful to know someone's IQ?

 

According to people here, my formally tested IQ puts me in the top 1%.

 

Now go ask people on these forums if they would want me in their cohort or believe that I know much of anything about any of the topics they research?  The answer is "not many." Look at my massive negative rep supply.

 

It's not like any of them are going to change their interactions with me based on that bit of information.

 

To be fair, you do come across as generally very intelligent. You can just be generally very frustrating.

[Guest |||]

Well, how is it useful to know someone's IQ?

 

According to people here, my formally tested IQ puts me in the top 1%.

 

Now go ask people on these forums if they would want me in their cohort or believe that I know much of anything about any of the topics they research?  The answer is "not many." Look at my massive negative rep supply.

 

It's not like any of them are going to change their interactions with me based on that bit of information.

 

Don't interpret IQ for more than what it is.

 

You can be incredibly gifted with intelligence but fail at doing anything valuable.  Someone with an IQ of 100 could easily be of more value than someone with an IQ of 150, if all the 150 does is twiddle their thumbs.

 

You may also have a high IQ but be terrible at communicating.  If you want to sell something good content and good style are critical, but if you could only have one, style may more often than not outweight content - after all a brilliant product with a terrible sales pitch will accordingly sell terribly, whereas the shamwow guy does pretty well.

 

Further having a high IQ doesn't mean you arent a loathsome individual and have a personality like a bag of nails.

[Loric]

Well, if it's going to be a bag of nails, might as well bludgeon those who are against me with it, no?

[Guest |||]

You would probably do better to try and change in the nails for something nicer, like smarties.  Academic progress, and generally life, goes along better when you are pleasant.

[Loric]

In life, to succeed you must be two of the following three things:

Nice, fast, good.

While you can arguably somehow fail at all three and be successful, failing upward if you will, I don't know of any cases where someone has pulled off the trifecta of being competent on all three measures.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

You would probably do better to try and change in the nails for something nicer, like smarties.  Academic progress, and generally life, goes along better when you are pleasant.

Some of the most influential people in history were giant assholes. 

[Guest |||]

Some of the most influential people in history were giant assholes. 

 

 

Obviously, but unless youre trying to argue that being an asshole makes life generally easier for most people, I'm not sure what youre getting at as you could probably make the statement "some" of the "something" were "something" to highlight an exception to most situations.

 

 

In life, to succeed you must be two of the following three things:

Nice, fast, good.

While you can arguably somehow fail at all three and be successful, failing upward if you will, I don't know of any cases where someone has pulled off the trifecta of being competent on all three measures.

 

Thats too bad

[Loric]

"Nice is different than good."

[spectastic]

the answer is obviously chemical engineering, particularly those who pursue career in polymer research.

[DerpTastic]

the answer is obviously chemical engineering, particularly those who pursue career in polymer research.

 

Pretty sure not only that, but people who choose usernames that begin with the letter "s". Or so I've heard.

[iExcelAtMicrosoftPuns]

Y'all got some interesting things to say.

But I still prefer my answer.

[spectastic]

Pretty sure not only that, but people who choose usernames that begin with the letter "s". Or so I've heard.

excellent point. Studies have also proven that those who are physically active, particularly in cycling, are typically smarter, more successful and better looking than their counterparts.

[Guest |||]

excellent point. Studies have also proven that those who are physically active, particularly in cycling, are typically smarter, more successful and better looking than their counterparts.

 

I don't actually know, but there probably is a correlation between cycling and attractiveness, and perhaps even a correlation with physical activity and intelligence

[RedPill]

Well,

 

Guess I'm dumb.

 

This is rather unfortunate. 

[danieleWrites]

I know a dude with an IQ that got him into Mensa and the Triple Nine Society (or would have it he'd been more on the ball). He's a complete moron. He's the opposite of smart. He makes smart look like an achievement only rocks fail at.

I've got the same kind of numbers (inherited genes, go figure), but what difference does that make? Well, it's easier for me to read and understand a scholarly journal. And. Yeah, that's about it. I'm better at reasoning things out in a shorter period of time than the other 99%. Big. Fat. So what? Who cares? Last semester, I created an exam that was worth 5 points. It had three sections to complete. Section One was worth 1 point, section two worth 2 points, and section 3 worth 3 points.

I may be quantitatively smarter than most people. I am not, in any conceivable way, better to anyone else. I am better at being me, but that's about it. Sure, I can get all snooty about my IQ, but my IQ is not my fault so it's kind of like acting as if I'm somehow a fabulous person because I was born with eyes.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I know a dude with an IQ that got him into Mensa and the Triple Nine Society (or would have it he'd been more on the ball). He's a complete moron. He's the opposite of smart. He makes smart look like an achievement only rocks fail at.

I've got the same kind of numbers (inherited genes, go figure), but what difference does that make? Well, it's easier for me to read and understand a scholarly journal. And. Yeah, that's about it. I'm better at reasoning things out in a shorter period of time than the other 99%. Big. Fat. So what? Who cares? Last semester, I created an exam that was worth 5 points. It had three sections to complete. Section One was worth 1 point, section two worth 2 points, and section 3 worth 3 points.

I may be quantitatively smarter than most people. I am not, in any conceivable way, better to anyone else. I am better at being me, but that's about it. Sure, I can get all snooty about my IQ, but my IQ is not my fault so it's kind of like acting as if I'm somehow a fabulous person because I was born with eyes.

I don't really know what you just said. Once I started following, I got off track again. 

[spectastic]

I know a dude with an IQ that got him into Mensa and the Triple Nine Society (or would have it he'd been more on the ball). He's a complete moron. He's the opposite of smart. He makes smart look like an achievement only rocks fail at.

I've got the same kind of numbers (inherited genes, go figure), but what difference does that make? Well, it's easier for me to read and understand a scholarly journal. And. Yeah, that's about it. I'm better at reasoning things out in a shorter period of time than the other 99%. Big. Fat. So what? Who cares? Last semester, I created an exam that was worth 5 points. It had three sections to complete. Section One was worth 1 point, section two worth 2 points, and section 3 worth 3 points.

I may be quantitatively smarter than most people. I am not, in any conceivable way, better to anyone else. I am better at being me, but that's about it. Sure, I can get all snooty about my IQ, but my IQ is not my fault so it's kind of like acting as if I'm somehow a fabulous person because I was born with eyes.

yup. There are various forms of intelligence, and IQ is probably the most overrated.

[danieleWrites]

I don't really know what you just said. Once I started following, I got off track again.

I love this part:

nom nom nom nom chompsky!

Pacman roolz.

[CageFree]

Every major has its difficulties. Sure, I don't have the knowledge/skillset to be an engineer, but very few engineers have the knowledge/skillset to be historians. My partner is a STEM person and even though he is a decent writer he is the first to acknowledge he cannot do what I do. Meanwhile, I struggled with high school math concepts when I was studying for the GRE, even though took a few calculus classes in college.... which really only made me realize how long it had been since I had been in a math classroom (1996), and thus made me feel very old.

 

IQ tests, SATs, AP exams, GREs... all those do is show who is better at taking standardized tests. They are no more evidence of "intelligence" than your choice of major or how much money you make.