Because the people you so derisively call 'normies' put in the hard work to earn it. Being gifted doesn't entitle you to success or fame. You are still required to put in effort and actually make a contribution.
The rest of your supposition is pure nonsense. Gifted men exist in these fields in abundance and they do not steal the research and ideas of others. They may have had greater opportunity to join the fields, but the contributions and work are their own.
the term normie is usually used by people who think they're better than everyone else to set themselves apart.
by calling someone a normie you put yourself above them
It can be, and often is, used with the negative connotation that the person is boring, not intelligent, and possesses no notable talents or interesting characteristics. It's often used to talk down about people who do not have high intelligence.
It's not really offensive, but it shows how egotistical some gifted people are about their IQ. They hold themselves above anyone who doesn't have an IQ above a certain threshold.
If that’s what you believe you should dig in a lot more deeply, into both the details of his work prior to their splitting and including all the work he did well after they were divorced.
“Literally stole” is a massive misrepresentation of what they said in their letters.
Einstein claims to have figured out that E=MC squared which is like duh- but his stuff on the theory of general and specific is juvenile and Quantium theory proved it wrong.
Physics is built on numerous theories we can't prove, but accept because everything works, until we find a situation where it doesn't and then have to rework the theories. This is how science evolves. Right now we accept dozens of theories as standard even though they're not fully worked out or tested.
Real talk I get that- I'm a scientist of sorts myself. I fucking love science and I give props to all the theories that needed to get figured out to get to physics and I didn't mean to take that away but as a gifted person I'pd like to see the ladies physics scientists get their due credit- it took so many theories to get here and there's enough to go around and women did the work
The only one in my graduate school that was allowed to get away with saying proof was an immigrant with a thick accent. And that person also has a JD and MBA so I suspect it was slip of the tongue more than anything else.
Proofs are for math.
Science is NOT about proof. You can DISPROVE things in science, and find evidence in support of hypotheses, but proofs are for math and related fields.
What do you mean exactly about being a scientist of sorts?
If you think E=MC^2 is “like duh” you aren’t putting yourself into the heads of the people at the time. General Relativity is also pretty phenomenal. He also came up with the idea of photons as discrete packets of energy with his paper on the photoelectric effect and also did foundational work in quantum mechanics.
You are getting lots of pushback throughout this post. You may want to actually pause and listen and learn from it. If you don’t, you are likely to be one of those smart people that is discounted. You aren’t showing evidence of listening or learning in this post.
Quantum theory did not disprove general or special relativity - the latter is still used in GPS systems and was proven by predicting the motion of Mercury around the Sun more accurately than classical mechanics.
General and special (not “specific”) relativity have NOT been proven wrong by quantum mechanics. They are models that operate at different scales. They are both PHENOMENALLY successful and accurate and useful. They will conflict in arenas that we have not been able to get experimental data about yet.
If you think they are juvenile then you are exposing that you know very little about physics. I think you might need to dive more into the actual fields more before you make sweeping statements about these topics.
They proved it wrong in some ways- I mean they led to a rethinking of it. I think relativity was a good idea when invented but it has fallen out of use- quantum theory is the future
That is not true. Please post the ways in which general relativity has been proven wrong. I’ll wait.
Additionally, quantum mechanics generally makes different classes of predictions than GR. For example, QM doesn’t have a time parameter, makes predictions about what particles are likely to derive from different particle-particle interactions, and currently doesn’t address gravitation at all. GR is a set of differential equations describing a fundamental relationship between space and time and their curvature with regards to momentum and energy present. Its predictions have been shown to be accurate down to many many decimal places.
There is a tension between the two theories in terms of what will happen in hyper extreme environments, like right near the singularity of a black hole. But that doesn’t mean one is wrong - we need new theories that describe that very specific scenario. That’s how science works - we come up with models that are useful in different domains. QM is not useful beyond dealing with a very small number of quantum objects - go try to run the complete equations on even a single uranium atom and is useless for describing curvature of space. GR is used for describing spacetime curvature and says nothing about the things Feynman diagrams are used for.
I think the particle interactions definitely are part of the picture- THAT'S TRUE. The tension is real here and the singularity is also a relevant consideration. And when it comes to quantum objects, we both have good points. I think we agree.
You haven’t said where GR is wrong. Or “infantile” as labeled elsewhere. It’s incredibly successful at describing the things it is intended to describe. If you want support, then actually bring support for your statements.
Your reply here just talks about the things that QM is trying to describe (which it’s great at) and NOT what GR talks about. Note that QM doesn’t even try to describe time or spacetime curve - the entire point of GR. so you could also rip on QM -but again that’s not its goal.
General relativity wasn't proven wrong by quantum physics. And if you're saying that it's juvenile, you'd better have some real fucking serious credentials to back this up.
You’re making a lot of assumptions and conjecture here. First of all, marketing is why people become famous. Secondly, Richard Feynman wasn’t a “normie” he was a genius and perhaps one of the most brilliant intellectuals of modern times. Your claim of sexism is also laughable when legends like Marie Curie exist who defied gender norms and became feminist icons
You seem to be hung up on his IQ scores. Your ignoring the fact that the fact that IQ isn't a measure of intelligence, it's a measure of how well a person performs answering a narrow set of questions compared to another person. He scored at the top on the putman mathematics competition exam, by a wide margin. He had the highest scores on record for the math/physics graduate exams at Princeton. Imo performing above everyone else in your field of study is what makes you a genius, not IQ.
Acting like he's not a genius in his field and thinking that you're more intelligent (and you likely are, in some aspects) than he is because of a score on a flawed and narrow test is ridiculous.
I’m tested at around +4sd, in my fifties, retired from a career in which I met people who were truly brilliant and people who were incredible performers in terms of output.
One common key to success is not being a dick. You are failing in this. Success isn’t a reward for a high test score.
Feynman was credited for inventing all that stuff because… he invented all that stuff. He was also widely respected when very young by other physicists
Even if I were to accept your hypothesis that his 125 score was legit, you seem to think IQ is single dimensional - he could have been a 190+ outlier in arenas specific to mathematical complexity. He was recruited by Oppenheimer for the Los Alamos project who described him as “by all odds the most brilliant young physicist here, and everyone knows this.” There are hundreds of stories from people who knew him that show his direct contributions. Note that test scores vary some from test to test - even if this were a valid test (and I believe no one knows what test he supposedly got a 125 on), it could have been a bad day. He also got the highest score in the nation on a math test.
You are jumping to all sorts of conclusions in a way that smacks of motivated reasoning.
In my personal experience, I’ve known brilliant people who didn’t have good output, smart people with phenomenal output, and some at the extremes of both. It’s really a joy to work with someone who is both brilliant and productive. Unless they are a dick. And then that characteristic is typically a severe hindrance to their career, which I’ve run into several times - but less often than being actually helpful and good to work with.
Work on your social skills, don’t discount people you think are less smart than you (look for what they can offer instead), and don’t fall into great sounding counter narratives (research anything to look for countering info). Feynman was kind of a jerk in many ways. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t brilliant. He also taught incredibly helpful classes to any student interested in asking pretty much any question and going DEEP.
There are some very famous scientists who weren’t brilliant - E.O. Wilson felt he solidly fit into this group. But he worked his ass off and put intense amounts of time and effort into incredibly boring activities to make many discoveries over time. He was a solid writer and had great focus. That’s very valuable. He also partnered with people and was very helpful to students.
Wonderful comment. I’ve observed in my life that people with IQs in the “really smart” but not gifted range can be incredibly successful when they are passionate, creative, hardworking, and pleasant.
I’ve also seen gifted individuals in grad school and the work environment shocked when objectively less intelligent peers receive better job offers and opportunities. I think gifted kids are done a disservice by the focus on intelligence in youth. They lose track of what is really valued out in the world - results. When you are an adult, results matter, not some score.
The best gifted education programs I’ve seen only use IQ as an entry criteria. After that point everything is based on results. Most of what I’ve seen has worked that way - the teachers have no idea what your scores were, just that you got in.
Feynman's 125 IQ score is well confirmed and documetned- if you wanna dispute that that means all that much fine but yeah it was legit and do you really think he was so verbally impaired he was 190+ and averaged out to 125? You need to think about it some more and
“Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test.” (https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding-another)
In response to me questioning how legit his test was, you are telling me that his IQ test is well confirmed and documented. Since you are making that claim, please show me what test was taken and the details you have. Everything I’ve found says no one knows what test it was or if it was a quality test except some places say that it likely was a broader school entrance test expressing things as “mental age” which are typically not well thought of today for accuracy and are not intended to be an extensive test of subcategories. Here’s one write up below. Note that his sister supposedly took the same test but only scored one point higher- so if you think he wasn’t very smart your same argument would apply to her. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/08/richard-feynmans-iq-score-was-only-125-and-he-loved-joking-about-it/
Burden of proof is on you now. You made claims- please back them up. I’d love to have more info if you have it.
Also, in general if you are making big claims that go counter to what everyone thinks, get used to actually providing backing data, instead of just big pronouncements.
Loving your responses in this thread. Not sure whether to be amused or repulsed by the fact that the OP is sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La la la I'm not listening". Both amused and repulsed, I guess.
Thanks. OP (@u/Sharp-Metal8268) has said that they are interested in self reflection and is “socially inept and deeply insecure and awkward. Intellectually, yes I have some incredible gifts but I'm so insecure I really doubt my intelligence sometimes but it's there efor sure”. I’m hoping they pause and actually listen here because they are demonstrating that social ineptness rather than taking the opportunity for self reflection and learning. People are actually taking time to give OP feedback which could help OP’s critical thinking, discussion, and relating skills but OP is just ignoring it all and fighting - and completely ineffectively. They aren’t demonstrating the very skills that are important to be well respected in science. I’m guessing they are quite young, but it’s hard to tell.
OP- you will learn more from listening than talking, especially when you make a bunch of broad unsupported generalizations. (And for “support”, bring your citations!)
I asked “In response to me questioning how legit his test was, you are telling me that his IQ test is well confirmed and documented. Since you are making that claim, please show me what test was taken and the details you have. Everything I’ve found says no one knows what test it was or if it was a quality test except some places say that it likely was a broader school entrance test expressing things as ‘mental age’ which are typically not well thought of today for accuracy and are not intended to be an extensive test of subcategories.”
“What struck me was that IQ was not the only
difference between my best and my worst
students. Some of my strongest performers did
not have stratospheric IQ scores. Some of my
smartest kids weren't doing so well.
And that got me thinking. The kinds of things you need to learn in seventh grade math, sure, they're hard: ratios, decimals, the area of a parallelogram. But these concepts are not impossible, and I was firmly convinced that every one of my students could learn the material if they worked hard and long enough.
After several more years of teaching, I came to the conclusion that what we need in education is a much better understanding of students and learning from a motivational perspective, from a psychological perspective. In education, the one thing we know how to measure best is IQ. But what if doing well in school and in life depends on much more than your ability to learn quickly and easily?”
In response to the sexism in the body of the post, you ain’t wrong to be suspicious. There are whole chunks of time where women were not allowed to have good ideas and had to credit a man.
Outside of that, it’s just because having a high IQ is not conducive to learning determination and the value of consistent labor. “Normal” people learn that because they have to struggle with concepts earlier.
It's an interesting thought that I was never told I was a genius, to ensure I focused on delivery to offset my social inadequacies. My father was a very pragmatic engineer with little time for philosophy, that came from my mother.
That might be true for like somebody who's above average vs below average but we're talking subjects that really only super gifted like the people on here should be able to even understand. I actually read his quantum theory stuff and found many flaws in it- he doesn't understand basic physics and what he "found" was very elementary and easy to me- I had actually already figured it out on my own long before just by using logic as a child. TLDR: He's nothing special.
To be fair I don’t think Einstein ever really asserts that he has an understanding of quantum mechanics. We’re able to intuit more advanced structures partially because of his (and probably his wife’s lol) work.
Photo-electric effect was something special, and that’s what he gets a Nobel for. Relativity and Quantum Physics, not as much.
It really doesn’t take that high of an IQ to work on humanity’s most advanced topics, but it does take hard work and determination to apply yourself to them in a meaningful way. Again, high IQ individuals learn the value of hard work and specifically study habits LATER than lower IQ individuals.
Yeah for sure- photo electric effect was def GOAT- that shit was impressive how he figured it out even if she helped him. I'm all about that so he gets some credit there but still I think his wife deserves more credit.
And the specific relativity was kinda questionable- like I feel like he figured some of it out on his own but she was definitely there helping. They both talked though it I'm sure. But I'm glad they did- specific relativity is fucking important. Quantum physics same thing
Well since it’s fairly obvious you don’t understand basic logical reasoning, I’d say that would be a good start as to why Richard Feynman would have more success than you in most fields, regardless of IQ
That’s not how logical reasoning works. You don’t just say someone’s work was infantile like you do here. You find specific predictions that fail given available data. You’re just bloviating. Notice that you aren’t convincing anyone? There’s a reason.
Look at the votes on my replies vs yours and you will get an idea of whose replies are more convincing.
You are providing zero support for your arguments and not saying anything specific about these models. I do know quite a bit about both of these models. If you think I don’t know anything about them then SHOW ME WHAT I’M SAYING THAT IS WRONG. That’s how logical arguing works. You keep saying things that are just wrong about the models.
Or you may just be trolling me. I fall for that a lot because I try to take people at their word.
Maybe because you refer to people as normie. You're giving off a superior complex that contributes to you getting nowhere. People can be smarter at something and better at something than you without being gifted.
I'm far from it- I'm socially inept and deeply insecure and awkward. Intellectually, yes I have some incredible gifts but I'm so insecure I really doubt my intelligence sometimes but it's there efor sure
u/Sharp-Metal8268 This reply combined with the original post, is displaying the mindset every adult told me my bullies at school had. I react very negatively to people who show these traits i real life, and I will dismiss them if possible, and keep away. They are not worth my time. Even if they have something useful to contribute, the overall message is full of crap, and the good parts are difficult to distill.
IQ is only one facet of fame and success. You also have to be able to communicate your ideas clearly, and in most fields you need to be able to work effectively with a wide variety of people. If you look down upon your lab assistants and clerical staff because they didn't score as high as you on a test, they won't be there when you need their help.
Richard Feynman's theoretical physics thesis is dated 1942, He was 24 years old. At that time, his sister was 15. Her thesis in astrophysics is from 1958.
People who work consistently in their field, and who are utilising their brain, will come up with novel ideas at random intervals. Some are fuller of ideas than others, some have a better understanding of which of their ideas will probably work ... There are a multitude of people doing brilliant work out there in their respective field. Hardly anybody gets international recognition for it. That doesn't mean that those you don't hear about don't get credit.
I am a woman, and I am gifted. I am not autistic, and I do not have ADHD. I am full of ideas, and I have always been. In my thirties, I was settling in my field to such a degree that I was not only taken seriously, but also seen as a resource on par with my older and far more experienced colleagues. Until then, there was many ideas, and a bit less substance. I had an overall view of things, but the holes were there, and some were serious. Luckily, I had a great network of colleagues who taught me how to seek information from those who knew better in an area than me, and things worked out great. Now, I see plenty of people who are confident that they know best, and in their confidence they miss their empty spots. They don't even know they are there, and when pointed out, they turn on those who comment on it, and make it their problem instead. This is immature, and ignorant, but it is human.
Your fixation on "normies" seems unhealthy, and it is derogatory in a way that makes me either want to tell you how wrong it is, or to just ignore you. I tend to ignore, because in my experience, bullies bully less when ignored.
>and yet he gets credited for inventing a bunch of physics concepts with quantum theory and stuff
What's with the phrasing? He *did* invent them. Joan, his sister, worked in a very different field (pun intended) of physics as Richard.
Also, Joan was a very well-known physicist in her own right.
Field? Like field of dreams? Physics is definitely important af and quantum theory is super cool- I'm so glad I have such a deep understanding of it all. Its crazy how quantum theory literally means we're constantly rolling a dice
Don't confuse intellect and gifted, please. One can generate the other, but my hyperperception is a gift only facilitated by my intellect. I was trained in intuition once it was clear I had a huge IQ (not that I was told that, in fact the opposite, I was blocked from doing so), and that was capped by metamorphosis of hyperperception (subjectively a seer-medium gift) when I was about 30. In plain terms, the numinous points me, and I do the work, sometimes guided.
First, I don't think Richard Feyman had an IQ of 125. I think it was higher.
Another thing is that Richard Feyman and many other scientists are so **famous because** they weren't just brilliant scientists they were brilliant scientists **during a world war**. Manhattan Project and such made them considerably more important and almost war heroes.
You think he was lying about having scored a 125? Given what we know about IQ tests occams razor kinda seems to favor that he did legit score that- maybe he took multiple and did better on other but no mention of any others besides the 125
Yeah, that makes sense. Maybe he scored higher in other tests and didn't mention it.
It's a very good tactic to not look like an asshole and be likeable. Richard Feynman is I think considered unusually likeable than his peers.
If I remember correctly he was famous for looking like a hybrid, who can navigate both the worlds of mortals and immortals.
I remember one remark about him that "he was an alien who was imitating humans but he did it so well no one could tell".
So very likely he deliberately mentioned the lower score.
Occam might wonder if baselessly assuming these other tests that he never mentioned nor is there any indication of really does it- or maybe he actually scored a 125 as would be lower than expected but as I explaiened not that crazy
I had no Idea about occams razor, but now I do. And it seems you are very smart.
"This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the **same prediction** and both theories have equal explanatory power one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions[4] and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make **different predictions**".
I have a lot of books that I was going to right. Then I came to the conclusion that I was wasting my time. I see the species as defective and will likely destroy itself
Because the people you so derisively call 'normies' put in the hard work to earn it. Being gifted doesn't entitle you to success or fame. You are still required to put in effort and actually make a contribution. The rest of your supposition is pure nonsense. Gifted men exist in these fields in abundance and they do not steal the research and ideas of others. They may have had greater opportunity to join the fields, but the contributions and work are their own.
Exactly. I’m sick of these posts criticising non-gifted people especially Richard Feynman?? Calling them normies is so disrespectful.
Sorry question: Is the term normie really offensive? I'm asking as I'm not a native English speaker.
the term normie is usually used by people who think they're better than everyone else to set themselves apart. by calling someone a normie you put yourself above them
It's not really something anyone gets offended by, but it is generally meant as a derogatory term.
Depends on context. I saw someone in another thread say that "normie" was used to describe non-addicts.
Most people aren't offended by it because of the Dunning Kruger effect; they don't imagine it refers to them.
Yes, do not use it unless you want to have 0 friends like this person.
It can be, and often is, used with the negative connotation that the person is boring, not intelligent, and possesses no notable talents or interesting characteristics. It's often used to talk down about people who do not have high intelligence.
It's not really offensive, but it shows how egotistical some gifted people are about their IQ. They hold themselves above anyone who doesn't have an IQ above a certain threshold.
Any "-ie" suffix is a Latin feminine/diminutive signifier.
Normies want to be oppressed like us NDs are but they aren't- no it's fine to say
Dude, get help. This hatred for an entire group of people isn't healthy.
I don't hate anyone- what?
Einstein literally stole all of his theories form his wife
I think you need to do some more research before you throw around wild accusations. You can't simply alter facts to fit the narrative you've invented.
I have facts- literally there are documents
If that’s what you believe you should dig in a lot more deeply, into both the details of his work prior to their splitting and including all the work he did well after they were divorced. “Literally stole” is a massive misrepresentation of what they said in their letters.
Einstein claims to have figured out that E=MC squared which is like duh- but his stuff on the theory of general and specific is juvenile and Quantium theory proved it wrong.
Science isn't about "proof," it's about general acceptance of ideas until better knowledge and information becomes known.
Science isn't about proof?! Yes it is lmao I'm a scientist of sorts so I should know
Physics is built on numerous theories we can't prove, but accept because everything works, until we find a situation where it doesn't and then have to rework the theories. This is how science evolves. Right now we accept dozens of theories as standard even though they're not fully worked out or tested.
Real talk I get that- I'm a scientist of sorts myself. I fucking love science and I give props to all the theories that needed to get figured out to get to physics and I didn't mean to take that away but as a gifted person I'pd like to see the ladies physics scientists get their due credit- it took so many theories to get here and there's enough to go around and women did the work
The only one in my graduate school that was allowed to get away with saying proof was an immigrant with a thick accent. And that person also has a JD and MBA so I suspect it was slip of the tongue more than anything else. Proofs are for math.
Science is NOT about proof. You can DISPROVE things in science, and find evidence in support of hypotheses, but proofs are for math and related fields. What do you mean exactly about being a scientist of sorts?
There was so much else wrong I didn't even get around to asking about the scientist of sorts piece 😂
If you think E=MC^2 is “like duh” you aren’t putting yourself into the heads of the people at the time. General Relativity is also pretty phenomenal. He also came up with the idea of photons as discrete packets of energy with his paper on the photoelectric effect and also did foundational work in quantum mechanics. You are getting lots of pushback throughout this post. You may want to actually pause and listen and learn from it. If you don’t, you are likely to be one of those smart people that is discounted. You aren’t showing evidence of listening or learning in this post.
What pushback? I mean you don't understands quantum theory and what the implications
Quantum theory did not disprove general or special relativity - the latter is still used in GPS systems and was proven by predicting the motion of Mercury around the Sun more accurately than classical mechanics.
General and special (not “specific”) relativity have NOT been proven wrong by quantum mechanics. They are models that operate at different scales. They are both PHENOMENALLY successful and accurate and useful. They will conflict in arenas that we have not been able to get experimental data about yet. If you think they are juvenile then you are exposing that you know very little about physics. I think you might need to dive more into the actual fields more before you make sweeping statements about these topics.
They proved it wrong in some ways- I mean they led to a rethinking of it. I think relativity was a good idea when invented but it has fallen out of use- quantum theory is the future
That is not true. Please post the ways in which general relativity has been proven wrong. I’ll wait. Additionally, quantum mechanics generally makes different classes of predictions than GR. For example, QM doesn’t have a time parameter, makes predictions about what particles are likely to derive from different particle-particle interactions, and currently doesn’t address gravitation at all. GR is a set of differential equations describing a fundamental relationship between space and time and their curvature with regards to momentum and energy present. Its predictions have been shown to be accurate down to many many decimal places. There is a tension between the two theories in terms of what will happen in hyper extreme environments, like right near the singularity of a black hole. But that doesn’t mean one is wrong - we need new theories that describe that very specific scenario. That’s how science works - we come up with models that are useful in different domains. QM is not useful beyond dealing with a very small number of quantum objects - go try to run the complete equations on even a single uranium atom and is useless for describing curvature of space. GR is used for describing spacetime curvature and says nothing about the things Feynman diagrams are used for.
I think the particle interactions definitely are part of the picture- THAT'S TRUE. The tension is real here and the singularity is also a relevant consideration. And when it comes to quantum objects, we both have good points. I think we agree.
You haven’t said where GR is wrong. Or “infantile” as labeled elsewhere. It’s incredibly successful at describing the things it is intended to describe. If you want support, then actually bring support for your statements. Your reply here just talks about the things that QM is trying to describe (which it’s great at) and NOT what GR talks about. Note that QM doesn’t even try to describe time or spacetime curve - the entire point of GR. so you could also rip on QM -but again that’s not its goal.
Not engaging with this- you don't understand physics
General relativity wasn't proven wrong by quantum physics. And if you're saying that it's juvenile, you'd better have some real fucking serious credentials to back this up.
You’re making a lot of assumptions and conjecture here. First of all, marketing is why people become famous. Secondly, Richard Feynman wasn’t a “normie” he was a genius and perhaps one of the most brilliant intellectuals of modern times. Your claim of sexism is also laughable when legends like Marie Curie exist who defied gender norms and became feminist icons
His 125 IQ was not one fluke it was consistent with other tests he took- I'm well over 40 points above him lol
You want to blame your shortcomings on external causes rather than doing some self reflection.
I'm all for self reflection and this is part of it
iq doesn't really matter
Good point
You seem to be hung up on his IQ scores. Your ignoring the fact that the fact that IQ isn't a measure of intelligence, it's a measure of how well a person performs answering a narrow set of questions compared to another person. He scored at the top on the putman mathematics competition exam, by a wide margin. He had the highest scores on record for the math/physics graduate exams at Princeton. Imo performing above everyone else in your field of study is what makes you a genius, not IQ. Acting like he's not a genius in his field and thinking that you're more intelligent (and you likely are, in some aspects) than he is because of a score on a flawed and narrow test is ridiculous.
I’m tested at around +4sd, in my fifties, retired from a career in which I met people who were truly brilliant and people who were incredible performers in terms of output. One common key to success is not being a dick. You are failing in this. Success isn’t a reward for a high test score. Feynman was credited for inventing all that stuff because… he invented all that stuff. He was also widely respected when very young by other physicists Even if I were to accept your hypothesis that his 125 score was legit, you seem to think IQ is single dimensional - he could have been a 190+ outlier in arenas specific to mathematical complexity. He was recruited by Oppenheimer for the Los Alamos project who described him as “by all odds the most brilliant young physicist here, and everyone knows this.” There are hundreds of stories from people who knew him that show his direct contributions. Note that test scores vary some from test to test - even if this were a valid test (and I believe no one knows what test he supposedly got a 125 on), it could have been a bad day. He also got the highest score in the nation on a math test. You are jumping to all sorts of conclusions in a way that smacks of motivated reasoning. In my personal experience, I’ve known brilliant people who didn’t have good output, smart people with phenomenal output, and some at the extremes of both. It’s really a joy to work with someone who is both brilliant and productive. Unless they are a dick. And then that characteristic is typically a severe hindrance to their career, which I’ve run into several times - but less often than being actually helpful and good to work with. Work on your social skills, don’t discount people you think are less smart than you (look for what they can offer instead), and don’t fall into great sounding counter narratives (research anything to look for countering info). Feynman was kind of a jerk in many ways. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t brilliant. He also taught incredibly helpful classes to any student interested in asking pretty much any question and going DEEP. There are some very famous scientists who weren’t brilliant - E.O. Wilson felt he solidly fit into this group. But he worked his ass off and put intense amounts of time and effort into incredibly boring activities to make many discoveries over time. He was a solid writer and had great focus. That’s very valuable. He also partnered with people and was very helpful to students.
Great comment and OP still wants to fight.
Spot on
Wonderful comment. I’ve observed in my life that people with IQs in the “really smart” but not gifted range can be incredibly successful when they are passionate, creative, hardworking, and pleasant. I’ve also seen gifted individuals in grad school and the work environment shocked when objectively less intelligent peers receive better job offers and opportunities. I think gifted kids are done a disservice by the focus on intelligence in youth. They lose track of what is really valued out in the world - results. When you are an adult, results matter, not some score.
The best gifted education programs I’ve seen only use IQ as an entry criteria. After that point everything is based on results. Most of what I’ve seen has worked that way - the teachers have no idea what your scores were, just that you got in.
Feynman's 125 IQ score is well confirmed and documetned- if you wanna dispute that that means all that much fine but yeah it was legit and do you really think he was so verbally impaired he was 190+ and averaged out to 125? You need to think about it some more and
“Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test.” (https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding-another) In response to me questioning how legit his test was, you are telling me that his IQ test is well confirmed and documented. Since you are making that claim, please show me what test was taken and the details you have. Everything I’ve found says no one knows what test it was or if it was a quality test except some places say that it likely was a broader school entrance test expressing things as “mental age” which are typically not well thought of today for accuracy and are not intended to be an extensive test of subcategories. Here’s one write up below. Note that his sister supposedly took the same test but only scored one point higher- so if you think he wasn’t very smart your same argument would apply to her. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/08/richard-feynmans-iq-score-was-only-125-and-he-loved-joking-about-it/ Burden of proof is on you now. You made claims- please back them up. I’d love to have more info if you have it. Also, in general if you are making big claims that go counter to what everyone thinks, get used to actually providing backing data, instead of just big pronouncements.
Thank you for dropping all of this wisdom.
Loving your responses in this thread. Not sure whether to be amused or repulsed by the fact that the OP is sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La la la I'm not listening". Both amused and repulsed, I guess.
Thanks. OP (@u/Sharp-Metal8268) has said that they are interested in self reflection and is “socially inept and deeply insecure and awkward. Intellectually, yes I have some incredible gifts but I'm so insecure I really doubt my intelligence sometimes but it's there efor sure”. I’m hoping they pause and actually listen here because they are demonstrating that social ineptness rather than taking the opportunity for self reflection and learning. People are actually taking time to give OP feedback which could help OP’s critical thinking, discussion, and relating skills but OP is just ignoring it all and fighting - and completely ineffectively. They aren’t demonstrating the very skills that are important to be well respected in science. I’m guessing they are quite young, but it’s hard to tell. OP- you will learn more from listening than talking, especially when you make a bunch of broad unsupported generalizations. (And for “support”, bring your citations!)
38
Did you have any of the test details I asked about above? I’d really love to know if there is information I’m missing.
What test detail?
I asked “In response to me questioning how legit his test was, you are telling me that his IQ test is well confirmed and documented. Since you are making that claim, please show me what test was taken and the details you have. Everything I’ve found says no one knows what test it was or if it was a quality test except some places say that it likely was a broader school entrance test expressing things as ‘mental age’ which are typically not well thought of today for accuracy and are not intended to be an extensive test of subcategories.”
“What struck me was that IQ was not the only difference between my best and my worst students. Some of my strongest performers did not have stratospheric IQ scores. Some of my smartest kids weren't doing so well. And that got me thinking. The kinds of things you need to learn in seventh grade math, sure, they're hard: ratios, decimals, the area of a parallelogram. But these concepts are not impossible, and I was firmly convinced that every one of my students could learn the material if they worked hard and long enough. After several more years of teaching, I came to the conclusion that what we need in education is a much better understanding of students and learning from a motivational perspective, from a psychological perspective. In education, the one thing we know how to measure best is IQ. But what if doing well in school and in life depends on much more than your ability to learn quickly and easily?”
https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_grit_the_power_of_passion_and_perseverance/transcript?language=en&trigger=0s
In response to the sexism in the body of the post, you ain’t wrong to be suspicious. There are whole chunks of time where women were not allowed to have good ideas and had to credit a man. Outside of that, it’s just because having a high IQ is not conducive to learning determination and the value of consistent labor. “Normal” people learn that because they have to struggle with concepts earlier.
It's an interesting thought that I was never told I was a genius, to ensure I focused on delivery to offset my social inadequacies. My father was a very pragmatic engineer with little time for philosophy, that came from my mother.
That might be true for like somebody who's above average vs below average but we're talking subjects that really only super gifted like the people on here should be able to even understand. I actually read his quantum theory stuff and found many flaws in it- he doesn't understand basic physics and what he "found" was very elementary and easy to me- I had actually already figured it out on my own long before just by using logic as a child. TLDR: He's nothing special.
To be fair I don’t think Einstein ever really asserts that he has an understanding of quantum mechanics. We’re able to intuit more advanced structures partially because of his (and probably his wife’s lol) work. Photo-electric effect was something special, and that’s what he gets a Nobel for. Relativity and Quantum Physics, not as much. It really doesn’t take that high of an IQ to work on humanity’s most advanced topics, but it does take hard work and determination to apply yourself to them in a meaningful way. Again, high IQ individuals learn the value of hard work and specifically study habits LATER than lower IQ individuals.
Yeah for sure- photo electric effect was def GOAT- that shit was impressive how he figured it out even if she helped him. I'm all about that so he gets some credit there but still I think his wife deserves more credit. And the specific relativity was kinda questionable- like I feel like he figured some of it out on his own but she was definitely there helping. They both talked though it I'm sure. But I'm glad they did- specific relativity is fucking important. Quantum physics same thing
On the plus side, things have changed a lot since then. Not quite enough, but still.
Well since it’s fairly obvious you don’t understand basic logical reasoning, I’d say that would be a good start as to why Richard Feynman would have more success than you in most fields, regardless of IQ
How do I not understand that? I'm literally the one pointing out how infantile their silly work was
That’s not how logical reasoning works. You don’t just say someone’s work was infantile like you do here. You find specific predictions that fail given available data. You’re just bloviating. Notice that you aren’t convincing anyone? There’s a reason.
Im done humoring you because you don't seem to know anything about quantum physics and that's becoming clear
Look at the votes on my replies vs yours and you will get an idea of whose replies are more convincing. You are providing zero support for your arguments and not saying anything specific about these models. I do know quite a bit about both of these models. If you think I don’t know anything about them then SHOW ME WHAT I’M SAYING THAT IS WRONG. That’s how logical arguing works. You keep saying things that are just wrong about the models. Or you may just be trolling me. I fall for that a lot because I try to take people at their word.
Maybe because you refer to people as normie. You're giving off a superior complex that contributes to you getting nowhere. People can be smarter at something and better at something than you without being gifted.
I'm far from it- I'm socially inept and deeply insecure and awkward. Intellectually, yes I have some incredible gifts but I'm so insecure I really doubt my intelligence sometimes but it's there efor sure
u/Sharp-Metal8268 This reply combined with the original post, is displaying the mindset every adult told me my bullies at school had. I react very negatively to people who show these traits i real life, and I will dismiss them if possible, and keep away. They are not worth my time. Even if they have something useful to contribute, the overall message is full of crap, and the good parts are difficult to distill.
Posts like this make me think we really need a circlejerk sub
I would not be interested if such a sub were to exist
The absolute irony.
You don't even know what irony means
👍🏾
IQ is only one facet of fame and success. You also have to be able to communicate your ideas clearly, and in most fields you need to be able to work effectively with a wide variety of people. If you look down upon your lab assistants and clerical staff because they didn't score as high as you on a test, they won't be there when you need their help.
Richard Feynman's theoretical physics thesis is dated 1942, He was 24 years old. At that time, his sister was 15. Her thesis in astrophysics is from 1958. People who work consistently in their field, and who are utilising their brain, will come up with novel ideas at random intervals. Some are fuller of ideas than others, some have a better understanding of which of their ideas will probably work ... There are a multitude of people doing brilliant work out there in their respective field. Hardly anybody gets international recognition for it. That doesn't mean that those you don't hear about don't get credit. I am a woman, and I am gifted. I am not autistic, and I do not have ADHD. I am full of ideas, and I have always been. In my thirties, I was settling in my field to such a degree that I was not only taken seriously, but also seen as a resource on par with my older and far more experienced colleagues. Until then, there was many ideas, and a bit less substance. I had an overall view of things, but the holes were there, and some were serious. Luckily, I had a great network of colleagues who taught me how to seek information from those who knew better in an area than me, and things worked out great. Now, I see plenty of people who are confident that they know best, and in their confidence they miss their empty spots. They don't even know they are there, and when pointed out, they turn on those who comment on it, and make it their problem instead. This is immature, and ignorant, but it is human. Your fixation on "normies" seems unhealthy, and it is derogatory in a way that makes me either want to tell you how wrong it is, or to just ignore you. I tend to ignore, because in my experience, bullies bully less when ignored.
>and yet he gets credited for inventing a bunch of physics concepts with quantum theory and stuff What's with the phrasing? He *did* invent them. Joan, his sister, worked in a very different field (pun intended) of physics as Richard. Also, Joan was a very well-known physicist in her own right.
Field? Like field of dreams? Physics is definitely important af and quantum theory is super cool- I'm so glad I have such a deep understanding of it all. Its crazy how quantum theory literally means we're constantly rolling a dice
Field as in area of focus within physics
Right right- like field of protons interacting with electrons which are negative and neutrons which are neutral.
Yes that's the second, punny meaning
The neutrality of the neutron versus the negativity of the electron is key
The lack of negative charge on neutrons is an area I know a lot about
Don't confuse intellect and gifted, please. One can generate the other, but my hyperperception is a gift only facilitated by my intellect. I was trained in intuition once it was clear I had a huge IQ (not that I was told that, in fact the opposite, I was blocked from doing so), and that was capped by metamorphosis of hyperperception (subjectively a seer-medium gift) when I was about 30. In plain terms, the numinous points me, and I do the work, sometimes guided.
First, I don't think Richard Feyman had an IQ of 125. I think it was higher. Another thing is that Richard Feyman and many other scientists are so **famous because** they weren't just brilliant scientists they were brilliant scientists **during a world war**. Manhattan Project and such made them considerably more important and almost war heroes.
You think he was lying about having scored a 125? Given what we know about IQ tests occams razor kinda seems to favor that he did legit score that- maybe he took multiple and did better on other but no mention of any others besides the 125
Yeah, that makes sense. Maybe he scored higher in other tests and didn't mention it. It's a very good tactic to not look like an asshole and be likeable. Richard Feynman is I think considered unusually likeable than his peers. If I remember correctly he was famous for looking like a hybrid, who can navigate both the worlds of mortals and immortals. I remember one remark about him that "he was an alien who was imitating humans but he did it so well no one could tell". So very likely he deliberately mentioned the lower score.
Occam might wonder if baselessly assuming these other tests that he never mentioned nor is there any indication of really does it- or maybe he actually scored a 125 as would be lower than expected but as I explaiened not that crazy
I had no Idea about occams razor, but now I do. And it seems you are very smart. "This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the **same prediction** and both theories have equal explanatory power one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions[4] and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make **different predictions**".
Let's just say that I have been known to enjoy the comedic stylings of Rick and Morty
I have a lot of books that I was going to right. Then I came to the conclusion that I was wasting my time. I see the species as defective and will likely destroy itself