That is why it is important when you read some thing to have source and make sure it is peer reviewer.
When you get into things like cancer, global warming , religion, end of times and world problems you going get more of that stuff.
But the big problem for public is where to read on the internet and what books to read that not crackpot ideas, political bias, fraud, extreme views, too optimistic views, too pessimistic views or bad ideas.
Anyone can upload any thing on the internet. How do you know what is real and what is not. Where to get source or proper source what is peer reviewer.
Even CNN and Fox has political bias put false spins on cancer and global warming.
In your next post you mention peer review. Is this blogspot post peer reviewed? Income converted to IQ? Seriously? Surgeon especially requires no special skills beyond a steady hand and the drive to become a surgeon. 234 is almost 9 standard deviations above mean. It looks like Excel won’t even calculate how many 99.99999999…% above anybody else that is. But it looks like it’s saying that every surgeon is smarter than every other person who has ever lived. And there’s thousands of surgeons out there!
They note that it’s inflated, but even any of the other top or bottom ones are suspect.
And average plumbers make more than police officers, historians, and dental hygienists, don’t they?
Most IQ numbers in the US are really inflated anyways for some strange reason like many of the online test. It probably has to do with the type of IQ test being done.
When most of the world the average IQ is 90 to 109 and above 109 you are above average IQ.
What is it around 130 or above 130 and you can join Mensa?
I would suspect a lot of those numbers are really inflated.
Some thing does not sound right how the US does there IQ test if numbers are that inflated.
Yeah, the IQ numbers for surgeons and physicians alone should completely invalidate this guy’s methodology, whatever it is. It’s also ridiculously precise with no error bars, so I’m going to assume it’s pseudo-scientific nonsense.
I’m not sure that this has a factual answer. There’s too much personal interpretation and no established objective way to measure IQ that everyone agrees on. Most of what has been presented here isn’t actual data; it’s guesswork and hypothesis. This might be better suited for GD or IMHO.
True, which is why we should use standardized scores to compare between two tests.
Statistically 85-115 is normal (or 84-116), but as you note education may use different standards.
98th percentile on whichever standard. Wikipedia isn’t really clear, but 131 plus or minus 1 on most standard IQ tests.
Hijack - how common is the Cattell test? Or just for people to get smug about because it rates you higher than WAIS or Stanford-Binet (76 to 124 is normal range)?
So, boooooogus. Professors of psychology make half as much as professors of business - I rather doubt this says a lot about their relative IQs. And we can draw our own conclusions about the IQs of unpaid bloggers, can’t we?
Possibly the worst cite in GQ ever.
sweat209, the claims in that link you give in post #60 about the average I.Q. scores for the jobs with high average I.Q. scores make no sense. Go back to my post #9. Try to understand it before you go any further. I wrote:
> Suppose that they do better than 50% of all other test-takers and worse than 50%
> of all other test-takers. Then their I.Q. is 100. Suppose they do better than 75% of
> all other test-takers and worse than 25% of all other test-takers. Then their I.Q. is
> 110. Similarly, if they do better than 91% and worse than 9%, their I.Q. is 120; if
> better than 98% and worse than 2%, their I.Q. is 130; if better than 99.6% and
> worse than 0.4%, their I.Q. is 140; if better than 99.96% and worse than 0.04%
> then their I.Q. is 150; if better than 99.998% and worse than 0.002%, then their
> I.Q. is 160.
160 is the highest score that can be measured by any accurate I.Q. test. The notion that physicians have an average I.Q. of 161.1 is ridiculous. It would mean that slightly more than half of all doctors have an I.Q. so high that no common test could measure it. The notion that surgeons have an average I.Q. of 234.1 doesn’t even make any theoretic sense given how many people have every lived. If you could theoretically give an I.Q. test to every human being who has ever lived, that would only be 100,000,000,000 people, so you couldn’t say that the smartest person who ever lived had an I.Q. higher than 200. There would have to be gazillions of people who ever lived before you could assign one of them an I.Q. of 234.1.
You’re not even bothering to read the posts here. What’s the point in us trying to answer your questions? You just ignore our answers and post links to clearly ridiculous webpages.
Actually, surgeons need a bit more than merely steady hands and drive. They often do assume a more workman like attitude than internists, but I suspect that is because they see themselves as “doers” more than “thinkers”. They are generally no less bright than other doctors, in general, and those in competitive subspecialties are selected to be extremely bright (although more narrowed in their focus).
My favorite “dumb surgeon joke” is about orthopedic surgeons:
“You gotta love an orthopedic surgeon- strong as an ox, and twice as smart!”, or alternatively ending with “…, but can’t spell it!”
This is funny but, of course, untrue, orthopods have a great fund of knowledge, and are usually smarter than the average bear, even among doctors (at least in the US).