Earlier quoted context omitted.
how do you know that? have they shown you iq test results?
Brilliance is more than IQ.
yes that's what i'm insinuating too.
You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
11–20 of 63 posts
Re: You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
#12Depends on what you count as "brilliant work". All of the Neuroscience PhDs at Stanford, UCSF and MIT (non-exhaustive list, just examples) I've met are at least 2 standard deviations away from average intelligence and many are 3 SDs away. Makes me think that some brilliant work requires being brilliant.
Have you actually measured all of those Neuroscience PhDs IQs?
No, but I know their GRE scores, which are a good proxy for IQ. Plus, seeing the kind of math they do on the fly gives you a good idea.
Re: You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you actually measured all of those Neuroscience PhDs IQs?
No, but I know their GRE scores, which are a good proxy for IQ. Plus, seeing the kind of math they do on the fly gives you a good idea.
Is there a reference or study for that? I thought GRE scores were mostly a proxy for cramming English vocabulary into your brain (verbal) and for knowledge of basic geometry facts and inferences from them (quantitative).
Re: You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
#14Depends on what you count as "brilliant work". All of the Neuroscience PhDs at Stanford, UCSF and MIT (non-exhaustive list, just examples) I've met are at least 2 standard deviations away from average intelligence and many are 3 SDs away. Makes me think that some brilliant work requires being brilliant.
Bit of a sampling bias. "Neuroscience PhD at MIT" is a helluva qualifier.
Re: You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
#15Re: You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
#16Depends on what you count as "brilliant work". All of the Neuroscience PhDs at Stanford, UCSF and MIT (non-exhaustive list, just examples) I've met are at least 2 standard deviations away from average intelligence and many are 3 SDs away. Makes me think that some brilliant work requires being brilliant.
Bit of a sampling bias. "Neuroscience PhD at MIT" is a helluva qualifier.
I guess this highlights the problem, that “brilliance” is in fact subjective and relative. To some “brilliance” is a PhD at MIT, to others it is being able to do something much more mundane.
Re: You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
#17I think brilliant, not-brilliant, idiot or any other judgemental terms spent on tagging someone or ourselves is just a waste of time.
The greater the effort spent on something by someone, greater is the probability of a favourable outcome to them. But it is still a probability and not a certainty because of variables involved.
Re: You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but I know their GRE scores, which are a good proxy for IQ. Plus, seeing the kind of math they do on the fly gives you a good idea.
...standardized tests are terrible proxies for iq
Why would you say this? Assessing IQ is the entire purpose of standardized tests, and unsurprisingly it's something they do well.
Re: You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
#19I enjoyed the article, but I think the author learned the wrong lesson from his friend's success story. Csongor says: > Then learning the answer revealed that it's actually something that can be fixed --- as is always the case with these things if you think about them enough. The author focuses on the consequent, thinking long and hard about something, but misses the antecedent, acquiring a deep understanding of a pr…
Lots of people have one skill, few people have two, and only a tiny fraction ever put multiple skills to use at once.
Re: You Don't Need to Be Brilliant to Do Brilliant Work
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but I know their GRE scores, which are a good proxy for IQ. Plus, seeing the kind of math they do on the fly gives you a good idea.
Is there a reference or study for that? I thought GRE scores were mostly a proxy for cramming English vocabulary into your brain (verbal) and for knowledge of basic geometry facts and inferences from them (quantitative).
Both are proxies for TDTPT:
https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/113360634364/the-stan...