But Raymond in Rain Man wasn’t a mathematician in any sense of the word. He was extraordinary good in terms of memory and counting things, but it takes more than that to make a mathematician.
Part of the reason why I think scientists – this includes biologists as well as physicists – have higher IQs is because people don’t go into those jobs to make money. So only those who are highly motivated by the subject matter go into it, and those are good at it because of their high motivation.
what exactly do you think mathematics is that requires rote memorization like what rainman supposedly had?
I think mathematics in general is one category that requires intelligence because of the high level thinking it requires. Stuff like algebra, calculus and the high end proofs for all the theorems involved with maths. Coming up with the pythagoras theorum, understanding geometry and all that stuff isn’t memorization or brain wired things. Most of math is stuff normal people can’t understand, most of the stuff is abstract.
Engineers aren’t that smart, we had cheat sheets in exams. They want us to use our knowledge of science to solve problems. which involves creative thinking, use of science and mathematics. We’re not masters of either, just people that are good at both.
Its also a function of the selectivity of the given careers. If there was a large market for people to apply physics of a moderate difficulty over and over again to a large set of problems which varied only a little bit in the details for $200 a pop, I’m certain there would be a lot more physicists. But no one really needs a physicist that isn’t exploring the edges of the field, so the physics job market is all about intensely competitive academic positions requiring extraordinary intelligence, but the physician job market is for lots of positions requiring high but not astounding intelligence.
I thought about putting engineers in the poll and, in retrospect, probably should have. Still, I didn’t want the list to be so long that it would dilute out the results or become distracting.
In addition to engineers, I thought seriously about including poets, teachers (high school), and architects. I figured computer scientists fell under the math and physics heading so didn’t worry about not including them.
I very much wanted to include something from the world of business but the occupations I could think of in that regard were either too general, e.g. manager, or too heterogeneous, e.g. CEO (some are just lucky, some had money to buy/create their company, some are super-smart). Maybe ‘investment banker’ or ‘business analyst’ would have been okay.
Maybe we can have a 2nd poll with the above included as well as any others that people want, and then have a run off among the top finishers of both polls 
I think lawyers are being seriously underestimated here. We aren’t popular, but anybody that has passed a bar exam has demonstrated solid analytical skills.
Not that I would pick this as the most intelligent: But I’m disappointed Software Developer isn’t there.
They’re all equally worthless in my eyes.
It’s a coinflip between bioengineers and physicists (heads said bioengineers are smarter). Besides, who the fuck really knows?
Professional musician checking in here - I don’t think musicians should even be in the poll. I’ve seen way too many of them who might be brilliant musicians, but who couldn’t put a piece of Ikea furniture together. For every Glenn Gould, there’s at least a hundred Chick Coreas. Not that I don’t admire Chick Corea’s music, just that I think he’s as thick as a plank.
I’d like to see librarians get at least a shout-out. True, there are a lot of them doing more administrative work, but some of them are extremely smart.
Lawyers are smart, and some of them do math, but I have heard a few too many times from people saying they went to law school because there was no math on the LSAT to give them my vote.
I think to a certain extent bachelor’s level engineers are the ones applying math and physics at the “$200 a pop” level.
Just for the record, I have known some mathematicians who were pretty dense, outside math. One in particular, was on sabbatical at the ETH is Zurich the same year as me. My office was next door to the coffee room and he had coffee there with the institute’s secretary every morning and I couldn’t help but here him pontificate on any and all subjects. So one day, I asked the secretary (a very intelligent woman who was also an artist) how she put up with all the inanity. She replied instantly, “Who listens?”
Yeah, so? And physicists have demonstrated analytical skills less so than lawyers?
As I listen to one of my Grieg records, I was torn between professional musicians and physicists, and then I thought, “Well professional musician can include any jackass who plays drums for a band,” and strayed from that answer.
I think it’s a lot closer that the current results of this poll suggest.
As I do whenever I can, I voted for myself.
When I look at back at my high school classmates, precisely none of those who got the top grades at physics, biology, chemistry or mathematics went on to become physicists, biologists, chemists or mathematicians. They went on to become doctors or lawyers or into business.
IQ tests align most closely with the skills required to be a high level physicist or mathematician and so the results of the poll don’t surprise me if you interpret “intelligence” that way.
Most doctors I know have very good science/analytical skills but have much, much more rounded general intelligence than every physicist/mathematician I’ve met (I admit the latter pool is small).
I think there’s a tremendous amount of variance within the professions, especially among lawyers. In my experience, the bottom quartile of lawyers is worse than the bottom quartile of a lot of the other groups in the poll, while the top quartile could compete with any other profession’s top quartile. Your statement that “anybody that has passed a bar exam has demonstrated solid analytical skills,” is only true for very generous definitions of solid. You can pass with the bar with points to spare without the ability to string together a cogent argument if you’re good at memorizing and regurgitating.
I think it depends on the defintion of intelligence is needed to answer the poll. See I am surprised you don’t have Architect in the poll (shameless plug here!) but I think in terms of ‘everyday intelligence’ that Architects would rank very high, whereas someone who is too academic would not.
As an Architect I need to be conversant on many subjects and fields. I need to understand the general concepts of Structural, Civil, Landscape, Mechanical, Parking, Loading dock, Geotech, Acoustical, etc in order to hold conversations with my consultants. I need to understand Construction from the Steel form guy to the Finish Carpenter and all the trades in between. I need to understand the legal implications of my decisions as well as the legal implications of my contracts. Specialized knowledge such as a Mathematician would not be an advantage in my field. Generalized knowledge about a wide variety of subjects though is highly sought.
In a single day I can be in the field in the morning with the General Contractor and his subcontractors, in a board meeting presenting a design to a CEO and the board, meeting with various engineers throughout the day, meet with my lawyer over a lawsuit, etc. I don’t have specialized knowledge of those fields, yet I know enough to understand the concepts as they apply to my profession. I have to be fluent enough in the language of that profession to understand the issue and propose a solution. Architects deal in the world of process and a broad based approach to intelligence is needed, whereas many of the professions noted are very focused in their intelligence.
Aeronautical, clearly. The most arrogant that see themselves as the top of the Engineering hierarchy.
The problem with the question as I see it is, most people are very intelligent with matters regarding their own profession, but are woefully lacking in other areas.
Musicans can understand and write complex musical scores, but can’t add 2+2. A Doctor can be brilliant and have a lousy bedside manner, knowning nothing about the psychology of a patient.
And you can see the point…
Might you be conflating the concepts of intelligence, personality, and knowledge? A doctor with a lousy bedside manner could just not have a very warm personality, or might not know much about how patients feel. In either case, we’re talking about an issue other than intelligence.
