" I have zero doubt that if a representative sample of the population took a scientifically controlled IQ test (and everyone participated honestly, to the fullest extent of their abilities) that Feynman would have placed near the top if not at the top of the distribution."
...He did take an IQ test and this did not happen.
You're just basically admitting here that no amount of evidence will ever cause you to rethink your worship of the IQ test.
so...ok then!
I have a theory that the slavish obedience many people have for the IQ test as THE ONE test of intelligence is because these people once did well on the IQ test so OF COURSE it proves how smart you are...
You are clearly too excited about bashing the concept of the IQ test to actually read any of my comments, or the article itself.
1. Feynman self-reported that he took an IQ test once at school and received a score of 125. He also often lambasted such types of tests and didn't care about them, indicating that he likely didn't try his hardest on these tests, nowhere near as hard as he tried thinking about physics. If he tried to the fullest extent of his abilities on a test that was not self-reported but instead administered in a monitored situation, and a representative sample of the world also took the same test under the same conditions, it is undoubtedly true that he would score near the very high end of the other people taking the test. Feynman's intellectual ability to recognize and memorize patterns was clearly top-notch. I say again: do you really think that Feynman had a middling ability to remember patterns, deduce and track logical models, and memorize things, which are the skills tested by the IQ test?
2. I said over and over again in the comment that you're responding to that "the IQ test" is essentially a stand-in for tests of puzzles, logic, patterns, and memory. It doesn't matter what the test is; some people will outperform everyone else on these tests, and those people are also going to be overrepresented in the high ends of physics.
3. I do not have a particularly high IQ and do not perform well on IQ tests. Compared to my cohort in college, I struggled to focus and understand complex mathematical and programming topics. I instead leaned into other skills like writing and creative thinking to complement my technical degree, and now am very happy and successful. My ability to pattern-match, remember things, and track long chains of logic is weak compared to some family members and more brilliant friends; what sets me apart from them, and apparently from you, is my willingness to consider the possible worth of subjective metrics like the IQ test.
The desperate grasping of straws trying to explain away Feynman's unimpressive IQ score is pretty entertaining here.
" I say again: do you really think that Feynman had a middling ability to remember patterns, deduce and track logical models, and memorize things, which are the skills tested by the IQ test?"
See, now I'm confused because for all your effusive (and IMO misplaced)praise of the IQ test you don't seem to grasp how the scores work.
A 125 on the test is in the top ~5% or so of all test takers.
In no world is that a "middling" score. It's not far from two standard deviations above the mean, but below what many would say is "genius" level and below the Mensa cutoff for whatever that's worth.
It's a really great score, nowhere even close to middling!
...He did take an IQ test and this did not happen.
You're just basically admitting here that no amount of evidence will ever cause you to rethink your worship of the IQ test.
so...ok then!
I have a theory that the slavish obedience many people have for the IQ test as THE ONE test of intelligence is because these people once did well on the IQ test so OF COURSE it proves how smart you are...