So with an FSIQ of 124, and a fluid reasoning score of 129, provided

File: 1443714992396.jpg (696KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 1280x720px

No. If you bench 80 kg, you can't compete in strength sports with people who bench 200 kg. Similarly a 125 IQ brainlet has nothing on 140+ IQ guys when it comes to intelligence-demanding tasks.

Feynman's IQ was tested at a very young age, and thus his adult IQ was probably a lot higher.

Wasn't the iq test Feynman scored 125 on scaled where 125 was the max score?

>>8340339

Incorrect.

>>8340345

No.

>>8340352
>How do we convince the jews
Money

File: 1472304313223.jpg (30KB, 477x358px)

30KB, 477x358px

>mfw /sci/ is obsessed with psychology memes like IQ
>>>>>>> psychology

>>8340348
explain.

Your only chance to achieve greatness with your limited IQ is to choose a field that intelligent people typically aren't interested in, like welding fences or inventing a new dog toy.

>>8340368
and biology?

>>8340327
Feynman discovered a bunch of arithmetic concepts as a fucking kid, then proceeded to rank first by far in some national math competition.
It's fine to aim at being a late bloomer, but for fuck's sake don't take Feynman as an example.

>>8340581
"pic only slightly related"

>>8340339

Are you seriously positing this as an analogy? If you bench 80kg, train for 10 years and use steroids, you will bench 200kg. The interrelation of intelligence, hard work, luck, and achievement cannot accurately described or understood by retarded memesters like you on a Maoist revolutionary Internet forum.

Some of the most important discoveries in the sciences over the last century were made by people with IQ scores in the 120 - 130 range.

>Feynman's IQ was tested at a very young age, and thus his adult IQ was probably a lot higher.

IQ is actually higher at a young age and decreases with age.

>>8340339
Feynman probably just had low verbal intelligence and I doubt there were any mathematical/quantative items on the test

>>8340585
>brainlets who didn't discover Bernouilli numbers as a 14 yo kid think they'll just make up for being shit at math by working hard in college
lel
enjoy being a high school teacher

>>8340589

>I don't have an argument, so I'm going to resort to acting like a man child

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about people with that IQ range in the abstract, and supporting it with evidence.

I always find it amusing that the people on here that call others brainlets are usually some of the dumbest and least self-aware posters. Compensating for something?

>>8340589
>enjoy being a high school teacher

Do you have something against high school teachers? Teaching mathematics to students, particularly bright students, is a respectable profession and I respect anyone that does it with passion and skill. Go fap to anime, man child.

>but his IQ!
top kek
And they said /sci/ was actually success incarnated.

>>8340614

If you needed more proof that iq is vacuous as a concept, than look at the Nobel laureates with "low IQ's", the chaps that discovered DNA.

There are two others Nobel laureates, from physics, that were denied entry to a special high IQ school (130 was the cut off rate I believe). Nobody from the school won a Nobel prize, only the two kids that were denied entrance.

>>8340624
>only look at the outliers
wew

You don't necessarily need a high IQ, but you need to be good at math and have some insight.

File: giphy.gif (955KB, 500x377px)

955KB, 500x377px

>>8340634
>can't explain which genes and structures define the IQ
>"no, you are wrong!"
MY FUCKING SIDES

>>8340650
>can't explain gravity
>hurr durr gravity ain't real

>>8340624
>some nobel laureates didn't have iq 130 or more which is proof that iq is a vacuous concept

iq less than 130 confirmed pleb

>>8340624
140 was the cut off, they both had iqs around 135

>>8340650
because intelligence isn't entirely genetic

>>8340662

I'm 90% sure the cut off was less than 140. It was either 130 or 135. Can't look it up now.

>>8340657
>comparing fundamental forces to biologic fenomena
KEK

>>8340672
>biological processes are magic!

>>8340671
nope terman's criteria for "genius or near genius" was 140

>>8340668
Can you explain the genetic part?
Which genes determine the brain structure and how does the brain determines the IQ?

Psychology reasearch will never find out that.
Brain studies and research are the future.

Keep circlejerking until you sacrifice yourselves for the superior chinks and ashkejews KEK

>>8340673
>We can explain with "cause and effect" almost every biologic fenomena.
>"muh gravity isn't explained so IQ is valid!"
MY SIDES!

>>8340676
>Psychology reasearch will never find out that.

Yes because only dumbasses think that IQ can be adequately explained by specific genes.

>>8340679
Psychology omits most "behaviour change" tools which explains a lot of exceptions and "vanguard" therapy methods and NLP.

Also how the hell is it supposed to find out how the brain works? Pseudoscience.

>IQ does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.

Direct quote from the inventor of IQ.

>>8340675

Shockley had an IQ of 129.

>>8340686
>Psychology omits most "behaviour change" tools which explains a lot of exceptions and "vanguard" therapy methods and NLP.

You might benefit from explaining what you mean by this and how it is at all relevant.

>Also how the hell is it supposed to find out how the brain works? Pseudoscience.

wtf, babbys first psych/neuro course: psychology isn't supposed to find out how the brain works.

>>8340708
yes i realise my mistake now, the cutoff was 135 for which neither shockley nor alvarez made the cut

>>8340722
>what is the context again?
Keep trying brainlet.

>>8340678
>We can explain with "cause and effect" almost every biologic fenomena.
but that's wrong you fucking retard

>>8340794

>but that's wrong

Support your statement with arguments, facts and evidence next time.
This time you got BTFO by yourself.

>>8340646
how exactly do you know if you have "insight"

>>8340867
experience. usually means more qualified people tell you