And you think that was an accurate result? For a kid who taught himself calculus and who, only a few years later (at MIT, no less) routinely mastered the contents of physics courses before he took them? Please.
Feynman was so smart that when he took an IQ test I suspect he was able to see that more than one answer could often be correct depending on how you looked at it, something he excelled at (and in such situations where there was more than one possible correct answer, he would then be essentially guessing which one he’d get credit for). Beyond that, Feynman was nothing if not a smartass and he may have deliberately sought out and selected answers that he knew were ‘wrong’ but for which he could see other possible correct responses.
I have read all the usual Feynman bios and autobios and can therefore state with confidence that claiming his intelligence was merely, and only modestly, above average is disingenuousness of the highest order.
Do you have any suggestion as to why Jews are over-represented as winners of those prizes?
Let us even be very specific: assume, for the sake of discussion, that Feynman’s 125 IQ was indeed an accurate assessment of his “intelligence” and that other Jewish Nobel winners were no brighter. What resulted in his becoming, to your mind, “easily the last great scientist of the 20th century” without the benefit of being very smart? And do those factors, whatever you think they are, apply to other Jewish winners of those prizes? And why to them more so than to other groups?
If you are a REAL genius, you can’t possibly have 125 on an IQ tests and let’s remember that the test is the same for everyone. It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that someone who’d get 125 on an IQ test might be smarter than someone who’d get 200.
You don’t need to be VERY smart, there are other factors like passion, time spent, relationship with colleagues, etc. There might be thousands of factors in play.
Why were the Chinese overrepresented by 7200% in the latest Intel STS? Probably not because there are 72 times more Chinese American geniuses in the U.S.
See, the thing here, objectivy, is that you are repetitively throwing out these false factoids. Some that you could actually check on with nothing more than the briefest of googles (which in this case would get you this Forbes article right off).
This is not talk radio or primary debates. You can’t just make stuff up. And if you claim something it is your job to back it up if called on it.
Anyway …
As to the validity of IQ tests, I submit Feynman as proof that one indeed can be a genius (which does not mean an IQ of 200) with a measured IQ of 125. That number alone does not capture what is genius.
As to your next point, personally I agree and such has been my thesis in this long running thread: habits of mind (which include a passionate curiosity, a facility with dealing with and recombining a variety of diverse ideas, and the willingness to question established standard approaches and answers … the chutzpah to believe that you might be right and the establishment wrong, that you have a better answer) which are learned within families and cultures - are much more important factors.
But you still have not answered the op’s question which I have asked you several times …
Why do you think so many of those prize winners are Jewish?
There are several factors, some of which I can’t identify. However, no one can really answer to that question. While genetic factors certainly must have had an impact, I really much doubt that they have the highest IQ amongst the ethnic groups.
Ah, the Argument From Watch This YouTube Video.
We’re hitting all the bases.
Now, you’ve also stated that you “really much doubt that they have the highest IQ amongst the ethnic groups.” Your doubt seems… odd. Even if we ignore the fact that population groups are not ethnic groups and IQ isn’t a perfect measure of G, we are left with the fact that certain population groups reliably test higher than others. What classification scheme, if any, do you have? Or is it simply “nuhn uhnh!”
Like I said, using researches with sample sizes of 90, 100, 150 and 400 to arrive at the average IQ of 110 for American Jews is very questionable, not to mention the other problems I’ve observed.
Sample sizes might have an effect. There are around 7 million people in Hong Kong, more than the population of Ashkenazi Jews, and the sample size seem to have had an effect on the results.
1 103.4 1968 13,822 6 to 13 SPM 101.3 2.1 UK 1979 Lynn, Pagliari 1988 Hong Kong 107 -3.6 3.6 20,763 1980.9 -12.9 Northeast Asian
2 110 1982 4,500 6 to 15 SPM 110.4 -0.4 UK 1979 Lynn, Pagliari 1988 Hong Kong 107 3 3 20,763 1980.9 1.1 Northeast Asian
3 109 1983 4,858 6 CPM 110 -1 UK 1979 Chan, Lynn 1989 Hong Kong 107 2 2 20,763 1980.9 1.6 Northeast Asian
4 107 1986 197 10 PM 108 -1 UK 1979 Lynn, Pagliari 1988 Hong Kong 107 0 0 20,763 1980.9 5.1 Northeast Asian
5 107 1986 376 9 Cattell 113 -4 -2 US 1972 Lynn, Hampson 1988 Hong Kong 107 0 0 $ 20,763 1980.9 5.1 Northeast Asian
A sample size of 13,000 is more than the total of the samples of Lynn’s review of American Jews (400+150+100+90).
You’ve already been educated on the fact that, for example, a sample size of 400 that is properly randomized is valid. Ignoring your methodological errors, the correct response to a claim which has neither been falsified or substantiated is to withhold judgment, not to “doubt” it. A positive claim not clearing the threshold of proof is also a reason to withhold judgment, not to “doubt”.
Yet you claim your reaction is doubt. What, specifically and explicitly, is your reason for such doubt and what is your evidence? What classification schema, if any, do you have? Or do you simply object to one which places Jews higher, without being able to say what population groups you do feel should be categorized as such?
As for “other problems you’ve observed”, you’ve made numerous factual errors, rarely acknowledged let alone retracted them and have yet to provide a structured, cogent argument in which to couch your thesis. You’re wasting your own time here more than ours, since beating up on crappy arguments is practically a sport here in GD, so it’s about time that you actually provided an argument of substance.
So that’s a ‘no’ to “will you provide something of substance”?
That seems to have been your response to that request each time it’s been asked of you, and you have yet to advance a coherent, cogent argument or to address and retract your numerous errors.
.
What exactly, if anything, do you hope to achieve?
By the way, if measuring the IQ of people with vocabulary tests and claiming that it’s their IQ,and not their verbal IQ, especially if they are known to have a higher verbal IQ and a normal performance IQ, is not a methodological error, I don’t know what is.
Point out those errors and prove they are indeed errors, instead of making blanket statements like that. I thought there were no more than 20 billionaires, but I was wrong. I recognized that.
Your argument is still flailing aimlessly and composed of numerous errors all over the place.
How can we “[know that someone has] a higher verbal IQ and a normal performance IQ” if we don’t know those values in the first place? This is basic logic. You also cannot point to one trial out of several and claim that the variation in that one survey is due to one single variable that you have not controlled for. That’s dead basic experimental design and you seem not to grok it.
Then again, as you’ve still not answered even my most basic questions (nor those of most people in this thread) and your argument is spastically flitting from one error, tangent or irrelevancy to the next, it appears that you really do not have an argument that is coherent and cogent, and instead just…this.
Pity, but I’m sure we can play “Whack The Pinata” a little bit more until the candy prize falls out.
Ah, and bonus points for claiming that you don’t actually have to state a coherent argument, let alone support it, since it’s “obvious”. I see we’ve hit the next base from the “Argument From YouTube Video”.