It’s been 9 years since I took the GREs, but I remember that. As I recall, astronomers were first and geosciences were 2nd. I don’t remember where math folks were.
Just so you know, I’m a him. 
Interesting where this thread is heading. Personally, I think scientific textbooks are on the whole not well-written because the belief is that it can’t be both informative and well-written. In the interest of concision, style is often thrown out the window. Yet some writers (I’m thinking of Ivars Peterson, the mathematical writer, for one) are able to take the topics, and without too unnecessarily inflating the quantity of the text, are able to improve the readability (and, thus, the comprehensibility) of the text simply by writing in a ‘stylish’, for want of a better word, way.
Alex
who just got home from a poetry circle where we were discussing Billy Collins’ poetry.
Quote:
“I remember when I took the GREs I recieved a report of the scores which included how the group of test takers did, broken down in various ways including college major. Not surprisingly, the people who did best on the quantitative and analytical part were, in order: mathematicians, physicists, chemists and economists (tied), biologists, … I forget after that. Interestingly, in the VERBAL part the order was almost the same, with math,physics, (I think biologists were a little higher here) Bio-Econ-Chem,…”
Are you all referring to the “Interpreting Your GRE General Test & Subject Test Scores” that came with the results? I have one listed as being for 1998-99. According to this, humanities students did far better on verbal skills (mean of 538). They were followed by the physical sciences group (499). The engineering group did best on quantitative (691) and they were followed by the physical sciences (665). Physical sciences did best on analytical (614). Looks like physical science people kick on the GRE :).
Interestingly, if you look at the chart on the inside, it has the majors broken down more but it only covers mean total score and not specific (verbal, quantitative, or analytical). The math people cleaned up. My group, sociology, did the worst…heh In my own defense, according to this chart, I did over 200 points higher than the average Soc major. I rated right up there with the engineering and biology students. Woo woo!
I can go through the list from highest to lowest but I figure it’s probably not that interesting to everyone so, unless I get a request for it, I’ll stop there.
I’m really successful in humanities, social sciences…hell, I’m even pretty darn good in math (although I don’t enjoy it) and the astronomy dept was trying to recruit me into becoming a astronomy major. However, aside from history (I’m terrible with dates and names) and economics, one subject I’m really bad with is foreign language. Overall, I’ve noticed that people who are good with foreign languages are also good with math and computer science. Anyone else notice this?
You all are confirming my suspicions, which are that math/science people are probably generally more intelligent (in the strictest sense of the word) than us arts/humanities/literature/language types. This doesn’t offend me, though, because I have also observed that smart only gets you so far in life – especially when you have to deal with the rest of us, the unwashed masses, the un-smart (or less smart).
Well, I think there’s still alot to say about being able to understand and work with people. There’s the whole “emotional quotient” theory.
Perhaps the math and engineering students are better with test measured intelligence but it takes people with other skills to keep the world running smoothly…err, well semi-smoothly. For example, I know a couple of violinists who are married. Todd is clearly a better violinist than Joan. Joan’s a good violinist, no doubt, but she keeps the business side of their careers organized and she gets the gigs booked. Todd would be in trouble without her. I think it’s a rare person, even if they are a math or engineering genius, who can do everything without anyone else’s expertise.
Sorry for the long quote but its needed to explain my thoughts :). Anyway, at my University, one of the goals (its a new University, only 4 years old) is to make everyone a better communicator. We all have to take courses that teach us how to communicate effectively, and to critically think (You would think this weren’t necessary in college, but many people cant analyze a book to save their lives). The science majors also have to take courses that teach them how to explain science to the general public. In practically every class we have to do presentations, and a part of the grading for presentations is how well we communicate to the class our ideas and research.
On Science books: I think the reason they aren’t well written for the novice is because many of the writers of these books just do not know how to effectively explain the concepts on a level the general public would understand. As i said above, one of the goals at my University is to make it so the science majors CAN in fact effectively explain science to the general public.
Well i must not fit this because im bad at math, but seem to be one of the few people in my Spanish class who doesn’t need too much explaining of grammar, etc. before i understand it (i’ve breezed through Spanish with A’s so far). Perhaps im terrible at math because i can see where i would use Spanish, but not Calculus (normally ) in my daily life. I think it also helps if you enjoy the subject. To me, math is boring and takes up time i could be doing something else. Language on the other hand is interesting, and something i find useful for me.
jodih writes at the opening of this thread:
I think this is largely a question of the origin and size of the “pool” from which such acquaintances are drawn.
I’m a software designer and engineer with a life-long fascination with the natural sciences, and I generally share the critical and “reductionist” view of things often associated with “hard” science. However, I also love philosophy and literature, so I fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you describe. Although most of my friends are either working physicists, chemists, or engineers, nearly as many studied (and often graduated with advanced degrees in) things like anthropology, world literature, and law. Along with all of my programmer friends, the people who fall into the latter group have never come across any use for a familiarity with advanced mathematics, either in their work or in their intellectual or personal lives. Would any fair-minded person honestly think that this makes them any less “smart” (in the most cerebral, intellectual sense that you describe) than the physicists and chemists?
All I can say in reply is that we certainly wouldn’t think so!
On those (alas, rarer and rarer!) occasions we’re able to get together, it is the often the physicists and engineers who stand in awe of the erudition and breadth of knowledge of the “mathematically uninclined” members of our merry band. Their lack of mathematical perspicacity certainly hasn’t kept their knowledge and intellects from soaring! (Which is hardly to suggest that the scientists and engineers are “ignorant”, of course.)
True, the more scientifically oriented among us might be mistaken as being “smarter” by an outside observer, but I believe this is primarily due to one thing above all else: JARGON. While jargon is a necessity in these days of exponentially-increasing specialization, it can unfortunately make it appear to the uninitiated that deep and esoteric topics are being discussed which are far beyond the ken of ordinary mortals. Mathematics and the sciences (not to mention technology!) all float in a vast ocean of jargon that’s easily deep enough to drown any hapless English major. Shakespeare himself wouldn’t have stood a chance, even with his paramount skill in treading verbal “water”!
So, in partial answer to your question, jargon is probably one factor that contributes to your perception that math- and science- oriented people appear to be smarter than others.
A larger factor is probably pure “math bigotry”. I don’t know if you read the “Why is calculus required?” thread, but this particular flavor of unrepentant prejudice abounded in there. When I tried to suggest that calculus simply wasn’t generally useful enough in my field to be a rigid and absolute requirement for a C.S. degree (just as it wouldn’t be even for a PhD in Philosophy or Law or History), some posters (who shall remain nameless) treated me like a low-brow, anti-intellectual Neanderthal who should never have bothered to attend a “real” university in the first place! (The smug condescension in there was finally too much to bother continuing to rail against.)
It is easy to see how blatantly overt or even unrecognizably subtle pro-math biases might lead someone who isn’t interested or oriented towards mathematics or the physical sciences to unjustly underestimate others’ or even their own intellectual accomplishments and abilities. Again, in my circle of friends at least, this kind of bigotry would be seen as a petty and parochial distortion of what it means to be intelligent and well-educated. Knowledge and skill in advanced mathematics is no more inherently superior or essential to being “well-educated” than fluency in a foreign language or an intimate familiarity with the classics of English literature. All of these things can be highly rewarding and enlightening and all have their places, but none are absolutely essential to be considered “intelligent” or “well-educated”.
While the contributors here seem to acknowledge that “value” comparisons between the various “types” of intelligence are misleading at best and narrow-minded and prejudicial at worst, others tend to implicitly or explicitly suggest that one cannot be “truly” intelligent or educated without a strong familiarity (some would seem to require substantial fluency) with advanced mathematics.
But let me ask: Which is more central or important to an intelligent and well-educated person outside the narrow confines of their professional career?
A: To be able to derive accurate mathematical formulae for complex calculations, such as determining the precise number of miles or road-hours left on the tires on your car given the wide variation of temperatures and coefficients of friction for different surfaces? [Sorry, I couldn’t think of a more practical example of the use of calculus outside of a specific profession], or
B: To be able to reason honestly and carefully about what you think, read, and hear, and to recognize subtle logical distinctions and flaws in matters of importance to you, your family, and the larger society around you?
(And before someone objects to these two examples I’ve come up with off the top of my head, please be aware that I’m only trying to make a point, and I’m certainly NOT downplaying or overlooking the incalculable utility of advanced mathematics to various domains of human knowledge, OK?)
All I’m saying is that “B” would generally be held to be a far more important and persuasive indicator of high intelligence than “A”, and that you don’t need advanced scientific or mathematical knowledge or skills to excel at “B”.
Consider Philosophy. Would anyone outside of a few arrogant math bigots from the “calculus” thread even suggest that the great Western philosophers weren’t exceptionally “cerebral”? Or that even with their remarkably astute and powerful intellects they were less “smart” than their more mathematically oriented peers? Was the co-formulator of The Calculus himself – that bizarre mystic, alchemist, and superstitious crackpot Isaac Newton – more “intelligent” than some of his rough contemporaries such as Hume or Goethe?
So I was saddened when jodih wrote:
Speaking as more or less a “math/science” person, I honestly think you should revise your opinion towards a more balanced point of view. Please don’t let the fact that The Straight Dope seems to cater primarily to those of us with a skeptical and scientific orientation lead you to question the intellectual depth and discernment of which people in other areas of study are fully capable.
And don’t be misled by those of your acquaintance who may be – or may only appear to be – not quite as “smart” as those who focus instead on mathematics or the sciences. I strongly believe that as you continue to extend your circle of acquaintances to include more “humanities” people, you’ll see a better balance of intellectual abilities and erudition –
… as long as you manage to avoid post-modernist criticism, anyway!
In older days, of course, the division wasn’t there. I will never regard it as mere coincidence that Utilitarianism followed so hard upon the invention of the integral calculus.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams