Where to begin? I'll just make random points in no particular order.
- When a man widely recognized as one of the top geniuses of his generation is determined by a test to not be a genius, it is not Feynman's status as a genius that should be questioned.
- "Correlated with" is very different from "the same as." See the second half of http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intelligence.ht... for some sample calculations on exactly how meaningful the correlations measured between an IQ test and other measures of intelligence likely are. (Short summary. If there is a 0.7 correlation between IQ and "true intelligence", then people with an outstanding IQ should be expected, on average, to merely be of somewhat above average intelligence. And vice versa.) Thus the measured correlations are actually evidence that IQ tests are at best moderately effective at identifying true genius.
- The body of data that we have on IQ and intelligence is COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with the prediction that we should expect a top mathematical genius to have only a somewhat above average IQ. Feynman's relatively modest IQ is therefore not a surprise. The fact that it is not a surprise is again evidence that IQ tests are a flawed method of identifying genius.
- We actually have no real evidence that IQ, g, or other related measures are measuring anything directly meaningful at all. The arguments about this are complex, please see http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html for an explanation. As a side note, to the extent that by "genius" we mean something other than the weighted average of random abilities actually measured by IQ tests, we should expect that IQ tests are not that good at identifying geniuses.
Yes, I know that I just gave you a lot of complex stuff to digest. But please give me the courtesy of assuming that I have at least a passing familiarity with the subject of IQ tests, have put some thought into it, and my opinions should not be immediately disregarded without investigation.
At the very least I hope I gave you enough to cause you to reconsider whether "top 2% in IQ" effectively captures what the word "genius" means in common usage.
- When a man widely recognized as one of the top geniuses of his generation is determined by a test to not be a genius, it is not Feynman's status as a genius that should be questioned.
- "Correlated with" is very different from "the same as." See the second half of http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intelligence.ht... for some sample calculations on exactly how meaningful the correlations measured between an IQ test and other measures of intelligence likely are. (Short summary. If there is a 0.7 correlation between IQ and "true intelligence", then people with an outstanding IQ should be expected, on average, to merely be of somewhat above average intelligence. And vice versa.) Thus the measured correlations are actually evidence that IQ tests are at best moderately effective at identifying true genius.
- The body of data that we have on IQ and intelligence is COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with the prediction that we should expect a top mathematical genius to have only a somewhat above average IQ. Feynman's relatively modest IQ is therefore not a surprise. The fact that it is not a surprise is again evidence that IQ tests are a flawed method of identifying genius.
- We actually have no real evidence that IQ, g, or other related measures are measuring anything directly meaningful at all. The arguments about this are complex, please see http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html for an explanation. As a side note, to the extent that by "genius" we mean something other than the weighted average of random abilities actually measured by IQ tests, we should expect that IQ tests are not that good at identifying geniuses.
Yes, I know that I just gave you a lot of complex stuff to digest. But please give me the courtesy of assuming that I have at least a passing familiarity with the subject of IQ tests, have put some thought into it, and my opinions should not be immediately disregarded without investigation.
At the very least I hope I gave you enough to cause you to reconsider whether "top 2% in IQ" effectively captures what the word "genius" means in common usage.