Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>going from 130 to 166 is not a 20% gains more more like multiple orders of magnitudes.

I have always wondered what the truth is about this but I have never seen any real answers. On the "linear" side you have median incomes by IQ percentile. On the "not even quantitatively comparable" side you have the fact that your score on an IQ test will not increase that much if you are allowed much more than the standard time to finish it, indicating that there is a wall (defined by your ability) that you can hit. On the "sublinear" side, there's the fact that a lot of moderately smart people have made major scientific discoveries, which you wouldn't think could ever happen when there are 10,000 people with IQ > 160 in the US today - easily more than enough to take all of the places in the history books written about this decade.

I do not think there is any clear-cut answer.



a discovery is not the same as raw intellectual horsepower. If the goal is to learn as much as possible in the shortest period of time and understand it well, that requires horsepower. But being smarter increases the odds of finding a major discovery for more abstract concepts like math or physics, as Terrance Tao did many times. An IQ of 130 is probably not enough for pure maths, but may be enough for something like medicine.


>An IQ of 130 is probably not enough for pure maths

The average IQ among mathematicians is somewhere between 130 and 140.

I'm not debating the claim that smart people can learn faster, but like the above I am calling the specifics into question.


Enough to make an important discovery in math, which gets citations and such. Having read math papers, there is a wide range of ability. Compare the stuff featured in Quanta magazine to your typical pdf in google. 130 is probably the min. to maybe get a master's degree.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: