Quote:
Originally Posted by tofu
...
Nonetheless, even with this flaw (and the bias of the researchers, which I'll get to later) the study found the variance difference. And there are other studies as well. The one I especially like is Hedges and Nowell, 1995. This is well-established scientific fact. People like you, who have a moral objection and an emotional investment likely squelch or bias other research.... |
What makes you think that this is "well-established scientific fact" or that intelligence tests are good measures of scientific or mathematical capability at high levels ?
Here are two, admittedly anectdotal but nevertheless telling, examples that, at least to me indicate that standardized IQ tests are not good indications of research potential.
Richard Feynman was once invited by a MENSA member to join that dubioius organization. He responded to the effect that he was delighted to decline on the basis that he did not meet the stated requirements of MENSA with regard to IQ. So far as I am concerned that speaks more to the validity of the IQ test itself than to Feynman's purported shortcomings.
A senior mathematican with whom I had numerous discussions while in graduate school once told me that he had a tested IQ of 105. That is not particularly high. He is one of the smarter people with whom I have the pleasure of working. I have had that pleasure with truly smart and accomplished individuals -- and their IQ was never an issue.
I remain completely unconvinced that intelligence tests are good indicators of research capability or potential in theoretical science.
And as an aside, I find your general tone in addressing Ken G rather distasteful and arrogant.