[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-19-2016 05:19 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 04:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 03:32 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Richard Feynman allegedly had an IQ of 125. It's obviously nonsense, such a test wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It did make me chuckle to think there might be people out there walking around claiming to be smarter than a guy like that just because their number was higher than his.

IQ falls with age. If he tested it in his 60s, then 125 is not bad. His mind in respect to his field would still be significant, because the thinking prowess in your field is retained. The height of IQ is reached in your teens and he might have been at 150 at that time (with a test that maxes out at 155 - there are other tests that are unlimited almost, so comparing anyone above 130 has to be taken into account based on those tests - also you gotta test in the ages of 15-20 or you get partly significantly lower results).

Tested during high school, apparently as reported by R.F. himself.

In that case even if 125 is true, then it confirms my point - he had hard work, creativity, high level of determination - all going for him thus reaching higher stages than his 140+-IQ-colleagues who were set in their ways. 125 may be enough for world-class achievements if all other factors are met. Though 125 is pretty low in the Jewish Ashkenazi bellcurve, but my point remains.

[H1N1]

(10-19-2016 05:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 05:19 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 04:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 03:32 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Richard Feynman allegedly had an IQ of 125. It's obviously nonsense, such a test wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It did make me chuckle to think there might be people out there walking around claiming to be smarter than a guy like that just because their number was higher than his.

IQ falls with age. If he tested it in his 60s, then 125 is not bad. His mind in respect to his field would still be significant, because the thinking prowess in your field is retained. The height of IQ is reached in your teens and he might have been at 150 at that time (with a test that maxes out at 155 - there are other tests that are unlimited almost, so comparing anyone above 130 has to be taken into account based on those tests - also you gotta test in the ages of 15-20 or you get partly significantly lower results).

Tested during high school, apparently as reported by R.F. himself.

In that case even if 125 is true, then it confirms my point - he had hard work, creativity, high level of determination - all going for him thus reaching higher stages than his 140+-IQ-colleagues who were set in their ways. 125 may be enough for world-class achievements if all other factors are met. Though 125 is pretty low in the Jewish Ashkenazi bellcurve, but my point remains.

I'm sure you're right - I know almost nothing about the subject, and am happy to defer completely to your superior knowledge on the subject. I only know my own IQ because I had a battery of tests at school because I was so frequently disruptive and so invariably idle, one of which was an IQ test. It's not something I've ever looked into, as I've personally always felt that cleverness cannot meaningfully be reduced to a number. Certainly in my own case it neither proved nor disproved anything I thought about myself, and in the years since, of itself it has not been a source of solace or provided any reserves of intellectual courage.

Edit: I'm also inherently distrustful of any odious little shit who sits any kind of test gratuitously. They should be hung by their underpants on the back of a loo door until they repent before a jury of their more intellectually limited peers.

[Sooth]

I know some very successful people who are definitely below 100. Up at the crack of dawn, and they are "yes, can do" people. They substitute smarts with diligent hard work.

The guy that sucks our tanks out runs a small sewage removal company, not bright but just loves sucking drain water man. Drives some nice cars, has a family and goes racing on the weekends. Done well.

Another guy I know comes from a family of 8 brothers, all about the same IQ. 6 of them are wage slaves and 2 of them run very successful businesses.

Mindset is a huge factor. I'm about to settle down with Cernoviches new book on Trump (MAGA Mindset) which probably has some related content.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-19-2016 05:35 AM)Sooth Wrote:  

I know some very successful people who are definitely below 100. Up at the crack of dawn, and they are "yes, can do" people. They substitute smarts with diligent hard work.

The guy that sucks our tanks out runs a small sewage removal company, not bright but just loves sucking drain water man. Drives some nice cars, has a family and goes racing on the weekends. Done well.

Another guy I know comes from a family of 8 brothers, all about the same IQ. 6 of them are wage slaves and 2 of them run very successful businesses.

Mindset is a huge factor. I'm about to settle down with Cernoviches new book on Trump (MAGA Mindset) which probably has some related content.

Exactly - good examples. That guy would not have succeeded if he attempted to become a NASA scientist, but he sure as hell can make it in other careers. An honest appraisal of your abilities and skills helps in determining the right field of success for you. It is not guaranteed, but at least it is possible that way if you adhere to it.

Though finally I would like to point out that success is relative. If you are low IQ and come from a family of drug addicts and dropouts than becoming a McDonald's shift manager is an excellent achievement. Then again if your father was a multi-millionaire businessman and you become a billionaire businessman then this may be even a lower level of success than the guy who made it into stable job level at McDonald's. Success should be measured in terms of where you started from and not some kind of absolute measure.

Also some people choose to abdicate wordly success completely becoming monks, priests or spiritually minded people. They make great spiritual gains by being for example a forest ranger, caring for their family and loving to be in the outdoors. I would describe them as being successful, though not necesserily in monetary terms.

[nomadbrah]

(10-19-2016 05:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 05:19 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 04:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 03:32 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Richard Feynman allegedly had an IQ of 125. It's obviously nonsense, such a test wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It did make me chuckle to think there might be people out there walking around claiming to be smarter than a guy like that just because their number was higher than his.

IQ falls with age. If he tested it in his 60s, then 125 is not bad. His mind in respect to his field would still be significant, because the thinking prowess in your field is retained. The height of IQ is reached in your teens and he might have been at 150 at that time (with a test that maxes out at 155 - there are other tests that are unlimited almost, so comparing anyone above 130 has to be taken into account based on those tests - also you gotta test in the ages of 15-20 or you get partly significantly lower results).

Tested during high school, apparently as reported by R.F. himself.

In that case even if 125 is true, then it confirms my point - he had hard work, creativity, high level of determination - all going for him thus reaching higher stages than his 140+-IQ-colleagues who were set in their ways. 125 may be enough for world-class achievements if all other factors are met. Though 125 is pretty low in the Jewish Ashkenazi bellcurve, but my point remains.

There is no concrete proof of Azkenazi intelligence being higher than Nordic Europeans. Israel has low IQ rates and is not a beacon of scientific research. In addition, Azkenazis are heavily mixed with Europeans many of them even have blue eyes.

In addition, an IQ of 130 is Mensa level, 2 standard deviations above normal. We also don't know if Mr. Feynman of QM dubiousity (QM is disputed, untesteable by design) had a hangover or if he hadn't slept.

[Giovonny]

"Future success" in what aspect of life?

Take a person with a very high IQ -- Drop him in the middle of the Amazon Jungle or Siberian wilderness-- HE WOULD LIKELY BE DEAD WITHIN 48 HOURS!

Why?

Because he did not have enough knowledge and information about how to find shelter, food, safety from animals, etc.

Who could save his life?

A local. A native. A tribesmen.

That local, native, tribesmen has the necessary information to navigate the jungle and stay alive.

Give that native an IQ test -- He will probably score poorly.

My point:

IQ score itself will not always save you.

What will save you is THE RIGHT INFORMATION AT THE RIGHT TIME!

That story is called "Einstein in the Jungle"

Einstein, by himself, would probably only survive a day or 2 in the wild jungle..

But, Einstein AND a local tribesmen could live many years..

Right knowledge, right time!

--

My favorite way to measure intelligence is someones ability to get what they want out of life.

If you can't what you want out of life.. How smart are you?

[Undercover]

Is IQ an effective tool for determining future success? Yes. To a point.

Genius is seeing things other don't see. That takes raw brains.

However their TONS of stuff you can be great in without needing raw brains.

[RatInTheWoods]

Not IQ.

That can also point to alcoholic abuse, depression and obsessive behavior.

Delayed gratification (Marshmallow test) is a much better indication of future success in life.

Marshmallow Test

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-19-2016 04:36 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

Not IQ.

That can also point to alcoholic abuse, depression and obsessive behavior.

Delayed gratification (Marshmallow test) is a much better indication of future success in life.

Marshmallow Test

Good one. Even more important another extension of the test:

Quote:

The first group was exposed to a series of unreliable experiences. For example, the researcher gave the child a small box of crayons and promised to bring a bigger one, but never did. Then the researcher gave the child a small sticker and promised to bring a better selection of stickers, but never did.

Meanwhile, the second group had very reliable experiences. They were promised better crayons and got them. They were told about the better stickers and then they received them.

You can imagine the impact these experiences had on the marshmallow test. The children in the unreliable group had no reason to trust that the researchers would bring a second marshmallow and thus they didn’t wait very long to eat the first one.

Meanwhile, the children in the second group were training their brains to see delayed gratification as a positive. Every time the researcher made a promise and then delivered on it, the child’s brain registered two things: 1) waiting for gratification is worth it and 2) I have the capability to wait. As a result, the second group waited an average of four times longer than the first group.

In other words, the child’s ability to delay gratification and display self-control was not a predetermined trait, but rather was impacted by the experiences and environment that surrounded them. In fact, the effects of the environment were almost instantaneous. Just a few minutes of reliable or unreliable experiences were enough to push the actions of each child in one direction or another.

This explains more why some people from certain cultures are far more successful, stable and hard-working than from others.

Why work hard on your career and learn Game when all you can do is rape and claim that you are oppressed and that the world shall give you a great job and money?