In the comment section of Steve Sailer’s blog, the widely admired Ron Unz said the following about physicist Richard Feynman’s reported IQ of about 125:
…Like I said, Feynman was a notorious prankster and jokester. I’m somewhat more inclined to believe he was just pulling that journalist’s leg, and the silly fellow didn’t realize it.
But my main point is there’s simply *no* possibility Feynman had an honest-to-goodness true IQ of 125. 251 or maybe even 512 would be likelier. Back in JHS or HS he developed a new type of generalized Calculus after someone gave him a book. In college, he won the Putnam as a last-minute substitute entrant.
IQ-fetishists have come up with the silliest theories to justify the 125. Maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he did badly on the Verbal questions. The bottom line is if Feynman really scored 125 on a legitimate IQ test (a test that allowed scores higher than 125) then “IQ Is Bunk.”
I personally subscribe to the theory that Feynman’s verbal IQ was much lower than his spatial/mathematical IQ, and since prominent IQ tests of that era emphasized verbal ability almost exclusively, the test dramatically underestimated Feynman’s overall IQ.
However even if 125 were a true reflection of Feynman’s overall IQ, I’m not convinced the score invalidates the concept of IQ, because Feynman is only one data point. Unz seems to believe that if you’re a mathematical Genius, then by definition, you’re spectacularly brilliant. Maybe. But in my humble opinion, that’s analogous to arguing that if you’re a spectacular basketball player, then by definition, you’re super tall.
So just as height is perhaps the single best predictor of basketball achievement, intelligence is the single best predictor of mathematical achievement, but that doesn’t mean other variables can’t compensate for less than stratospheric height and intelligence respectively.
An example is Muggsy Bogues who became one of the best basketball players in Americas despite being only 5’3″ tall. 5’3″ is roughly 2.71 standard deviations below average in height for an American man; equivalent to an HQ (Height Quotient) of only 59!
By contrast, Feynman’s reported IQ score was 125 (1.67 standard deviations above the average American). So even if his true IQ were “only” 125, Feynman was more than FOUR STANDARD DEVIATIONS more gifted in intelligence than Bogues is in height. And yet no one cites Bogues to argue that tape measures must be bogus, even though he’s much much much more anomalous for basketball than Feynman was for physics.
Statistically we should expect some of the greatest intellectual achievers in history to have IQs below the gifted level. This is because achievement is an imperfect measure of talent, and talent in a specific domain, even one as g loaded as physics, is an imperfect measure of general or overall intelligence.
While the average Nobel prize winning academic probably has an IQ around 150, the scores are probably normally distributed, with some being above 180 and others being below 120. Analogously, we should expect the average height on the NBA to be about 6’7″, with some being above seven feet, and others being below 6’1″.
But again, I do not in any way believe that Feynman’s reported IQ score was valid, however I do believe some non-brilliant people achieve at the highest level in even the most intellectual of fields. That’s just the nature of an imperfect correlation between ability and achievement.
I believe any IQ over 200 is impossible to authenticate to the limitations sample size? I think that’s why Guinness dropped IQ as a category in 1990 due to the difficulties in naming a single record holder. Assuming a SD of 15 points, you would need a population sample greater than the population of earth and a test with thousands of questions to reliably ascertain such a high IQ. There are probably 100 people in the world, of which anyone of them could be the ‘smartest person alive’.
For his accomplishments, an IQ of ‘only’ 125-140 is not impossible. Feynman was smart, no question about it, but he was not a prodigy. He didn’t go to college at age 10. There may be a tendency in the HBD community to overestimate the IQ needed to perform tasks, as I write about here http://tinyurl.com/o6omk7f
Reported IQs above 200 are virtually always ratio IQs obtained in childhood that are calculated by dividing the child’s mental age by his chronological age, so an 8 year old who scores as well as a 16 year old is functioning at 200% of his chronological age and thus has a ratio IQ of 200.
The problem with calculating IQ this way is that mental development in childhood is not perfectly linear, and varies from the type of ability or skill being measured, so the scores are almost meaningless because of inconsistent standard deviations and distributions.
David Wechsler introduced the deviation IQ which more or less forces scores to have a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15 at all ages. Ratio IQs of 200 tend to equate to deviation IQs of 170. Deviation IQs of 200 are virtually impossible.
Feynman was definitely a prodigy. And his IQ was definitely higher than 125. Mine is 153, and I know I’m not nearly as intelligent as he was. I got a B in quantum mechanics in college.
I’d guess his IQ was around 190, based on all the stuff I’ve seen of his, and his quick grasp of complicated physics stuff.
1) Feyman probably lied about his IQ because he liked to mess around with people he thought were stupid.
2) With that said, many of your points in this post are valid. IQ tests used to focus more on verbal ability than non-verbal so people with weaker verbal tended to have their IQs underestimated.
3) Feynman never really struck me as low verbal, though. I read his autobiography and have listened to many of his speeches and lectures. He had a working-class accent but that in and of itself has nothing to do with IQ. I’m guessing based on what I know about him that his verbal IQ was about 145, spatial IQ about 170. Which is an unusually big difference in sub-test scores, but possible given his unique intellect.
4) Another thing, aren’t Jews supposed to high verbal, but low spatial? But so many of greatest scientists over the past 100 years have been Jews with relatively low verbal, high spatial!
5a) Your basketball-height, science-IQ analogy isn’t quite correct. First of all, arm span is probably even more important to basketball success than height. A 6’5″ guy with a 7’0″ arm span will dominate guys several inches taller than him, which is part of the reason why blacks do so much better at basketball than whites (they have much larger arm spans). Even speed and jumping ability don’t compare to arm span in determining good basketball players.
5b) I strongly believe, though, that IQ is even more important to science than arm span is to basketball. Steve Hsu did a statistical analysis at University of Oregon many years ago that showed that almost no students with SAT Math scores below 600 (equal to about an IQ of 118-119) was able to get at least a 3.5 GPA in a math or physics major. No other major had a minimum threshold for success the way math or physics did (not even computer science, if I remember correctly). Dr. Hsu argued that a 3.5 GPA was minimum needed to be admitted to a competitive graduate school in the sciences.
I wanna add to 5b that there’s probably thresholds in other science areas other than math and physics, just not as high as the one in math and physics.
I strongly believe, though, that IQ is even more important to science than arm span is to basketball. Steve Hsu did a statistical analysis at University of Oregon many years ago that showed that almost no students with SAT Math scores below 600 (equal to about an IQ of 118-119) was able to get at least a 3.5 GPA in a math or physics major.
That’s true, but it’s a bit circular to say you must have a high IQ to be good at math, when you’re using math SAT as the measure of IQ.
I’m guessing based on what I know about him that his verbal IQ was about 145,
I think you might be so impressed by his Genius as a physicist that you are overestimating his ability in other areas. Psychologists refer to this as the Halo effect. From wikipedia:
The halo effect is a cognitive bias in which an observer’s overall impression of a person, company, brand, or product influences the observer’s feelings and thoughts about that entity’s character or properties…The halo effect is a specific type of confirmation bias, wherein positive feelings in one area cause ambiguous or neutral traits to be viewed positively.
Historiometric evidence suggests Feynman’s verbal IQ might have been substantially less impressive than his math IQ (from wikipedia):
Feynman was a late talker, and by his third birthday had yet to utter a single word. He would retain a Bronx accent as an adult.[13][14] That accent was thick enough to be perceived as an affectation or exaggeration[15][16] — so much so that his good friends Wolfgang Pauli and Hans Bethe would one day comment that Feynman spoke like a “bum”.[15]
The halo effect isn’t necessarily wrong; anyone who knows about the g factor knows that someone with high ability in one area tends to have high ability in others.
Speaking of Steve Hsu again, he has also implied in several posts that the threshold for even being able to understand theoretical physics is probably pretty high- likely at least 130 or so. And Razib Khan had a post on his old Discover blog many years showing the average GRE scores for various majors, and theoretical physics was one of only maybe 2 or 3 majors where average scores were impressively high for both verbal and math. I’m guessing the verbal minimum is around IQ 130, while the math minimum is around IQ 140.
My point is that I think you guys are severely underestimating the necessity for high intelligence (both math and verbal) for graduate level physics/math work. And verbal ability is very important in all theoretical science fields. Also, accents have almost nothing to do with verbal IQ; many Jews grew up in poor, working class areas in the inner-city during the early 20th century and developed working class accents, but that didn’t mean they had low IQs. Many of them went to places like the City College of New York (before it eliminated all admissions standards, and before Ivy League schools began allowing Jews in), and became successful scholars and scientists. Verbal IQ should not be judged the color of one’s accent but by the content of one’s speeches and writings.
I can accept the possibility Feynman had low verbal IQ relative to his overall IQ, but I doubt it was below 140.
You might be right about the stratospheric level of intelligence required to excel in theoretical physics. For example Steve Hsu reports that in the Roe study of eminent scientists, the lowest score in each category among the 12 theoretical physicists would have been roughly Verbal 160 Spatial 130 and Math >> 150.
http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-iqs-of-eminent.html
I believe the test was normed on young adults, so for the older scientists, this probably had the effect of inflating verbal IQ and deflating spatial IQ.
But I’m suspicious of the Roe study because the results seem a little too good to be true from the perspective of IQ enthusiasts.
As for Feynman’s verbal IQ, there’s also this new comment on Steve Sailer’s blog by Anon3:
I knew Feynman personally, and while he was extremely gifted mathematically and mechanically, he also had a reputation of being an uncultured hick, in contrast to Gell-Mann who was his main competitor at Caltech. Feynman famously prepared for his trip to Brazil by studying Spanish. “Feynman’s Lectures in Physics,” based on the course he taught at Caltech in the early ’60s did not follow his actual verbiage because, as Feynman famously said, he did not speak “writeable English.” He was definitely a bigger-than-life showman, the likes of which are rare today as most white American men have been beaten down by feminism and white guilt. Interestingly, he refused to be classified as Jewish.
Lately, feminist bloggers have been going after him for having used negging on Las Vegas showgirls in the late 1940s (because of that Feynman is a hero to the denizens of the Manosphere), and also because of his habit of taking his graduate students to topless bars in Pasadena.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/jeffrey-goldberg-is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/#comments
I’m surprised there has never been a more definitive assessment of Feynman’s IQ than the 125 quoted.
I’m aware of (or wonder about) the following possible data points:
– Feynman’s stated 125 IQ which aligns with the 123 stated by his sister. See http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/brau/H182/Term%20Papers/Ryan%20McPherson.html
Both of those numbers probably come from the same school IQ test. Does anyone know his age at the time? @gwern asserts it was middle school or earlier in a comment at http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-iqs-of-eminent.html based on Gleick’s book.
– Generic college admissions scores (SAT/ACT/etc) – do these exist? I have seen no references.to them. Since he was admitted to MIT in 1935 it seems likely he did well, but I can’t find information on that era’s MIT admissions averages/requirements beyond comments in http://libraries.mit.edu/mithistory/institute/offices/mit-admissions-office/
which indicates requirements were made “more flexible” in 1935.
– Columbia University entrance exam (he was not admitted). I have seen no reference for an actual score. See http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Feynman.html
The contention was he was not admitted due to Jewish quotas. I suspect these scores would cast some light if available.
– Admission to graduate school at Princeton University. See http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Feynman.html and http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_feynman.html
The latter states: “He obtained an unprecedented perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University (although he did rather poorly on the history and English portions)”. I think the scores for these exams would provide the best estimate of Feynman’s IQ and help judge the degree of verbal/math difference. BTW, I consider this (along with his Putnam results) clear evidence Feynman would have been ceiling limited on essentially any math IQ subtest. I am most curious about Feynman’s verbal IQ because a relatively low (say < 130) result would (I believe) make him an exception among elite theoretical physicists.
– Sadly, Feynman was not included in Anne Roe's study of eminent scientists (too young I guess): http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2013/03/roes-scientists.html
My guess is that the 125 score was from an IQ test biased towards verbal and with a low ceiling (140?). I would not be surprised if Feynman missed one or more easy fact-type questions covering things he did not care about. I also suspect that part of Feynman's extreme ability was not properly measured by a typical school IQ test (spatial ability?). I would not be surprised if one or more questions had answers that were arguably wrong or ambiguous (and if there were two "correct" answers, say one easy and one difficult, I would not be surprised if Feynman would give the difficult answer and be marked wrong). My perception is that Feynman was a type who would delight in making a truthful comment (i.e. I don't think he lied) that indicated the ridiculousness (and failure) of an attempt to evaluate his ability.
For more on ceiling effects see http://www.malonefamilyfoundation.org/whatisgifted_assessing2.html
I found this particularly interesting: "At the Gifted Development Center, we have found that the optimal time to test gifted children is between the ages of four and nine. We find that at the age of nine, test scores for gifted children usually decline, sometimes as much as 20 points, due to (1) ceiling effects (test items not being sufficiently difficult to measure the full range of abilities); (2) perfectionism (particularly in girls), leading to unwillingness to guess when uncertain; and (3) the increased emphasis on crystallized (learned) knowledge and skills rather than fluid abilities (purer forms of abstract reasoning, considered innate). This does not mean that testing is useless after age nine. While the score generated may be an underestimate, we find that children and adults profit from even minimal estimates of their abilities."
I think the 125 IQ was indeed a valid measure of his verbal IQ, since as you say, he did poorly on history and English tests (measures of general knowledge and vocabulary which correlate highly with verbal IQ).
But his math IQ was clearly in the stratosphere and probably not measurable.
Had he taken the old SAT, he probably would have gotten a verbal score of 545 and a math score of 800 for a combined score of 1345, which on the old SAT was equivalent to an IQ of about 140.
If there’s truly a high cognitive threshold for “great” intellectual achievement, then the variance of “great” intellectual achiever IQs will be much lower. 125 could be 4-5 SDs below.
Of course, IQ does not have much of a correlation with success or performance.
Feynman’s IQ was likely accurate. People ignore the fact that Feynman constantly did math. Feynman was divorced because he constantly did math. That kind of grit is probably as rare, if not rarer, than stratospheric IQ.
Maybe he knew what he was talking about when he said “”I have limited intelligence and I use it in a particular direction.”
If true — and I believe it is true — then IQ remains as it always was: a useful but ultimately weak predictor of real-life performance.
“the greatest athlete in the world” the gold medal decathlete…
no one cares…
because at world class level he sucks at everything.
As noted above, his sister said pretty much the same thing. Were they both in on this joke together? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And the ability split required to produce an average IQ of 125 is unlikely. He’d have to be a verbal troglodyte.
Dude,
You’re on affirmative action. You can’t be questioning the intellect of one of the greatest physicists.
White folks gona be mad. Kate’s gona kick your black ass.
I never questioned his intellect. IQ != intelligence.
Dude, stop projecting.
reteesh is a moron,
whatever pumpkin says he takes it as if it were a fact.
he can’t help it he’s black.
Dude,
I only agree with pumpkin on stuff I already knew on my own.
Would it surprise you to learn that I was doing calculus at age 6, reading Kant at age 7, and had already dropped out of college before most kids even enter it. You think that’s bullshit don’t you. My own girlfriend didn’t believe me until she finally went snooping through old papers and my parent’s house. She was so freaked out she dumped me. When you’re severely profoundly gifted you learn to hide your intellect early & become an average dude, dude! People feel threatened.
My IQ was so high it couldn’t even be tested. They don’t make tests that measure that high. My verbal abstract reasoning was off the scale for kids twice my age! When Jeopardy comes on I know the answer to every single question.
If HBD is true I’m probably the smartest black person on the face of the planet, although I’m cheating since I’m half Chinese
I could have been anything I wanted, but I gave it all up to smoke weed & party & flip burgers for living, though I make a bit of extra money on the side fixing computers . I’m here for a good time, not a long time.
dude,
i was banned from lion’s two days ago for calling him a “kike”. he is a kike. i feel absolutely no remorse.
that’s the second time.
he let me back once, because all his other commenters are mouth breathing hairballs like you.
hitler was right.
oh wait…
i get it…projection…
Blasian, you’re a total sperglord and full of shit.
reading Kant at seven?
I’m sure you & the Lion will get over your differences as you agree on key issues (both anti-libertarian, both admire Marx, both think the IQ-income correlation is virtually zero when you control for college)
Given your strong similarities, what made you mad enough to say something so offensive?
Blasian, can you please email me (see the contact section). I have some questions I would like to ask you
there are jews and there are jews. i called him a kike for a very specific reason, not just an insult. he knows i hate jews.
bill cosby criticized his fellow blacks for bad behavior.
charles murray wrote a book criticizing his fellow white trash for bad behavior.
jews NEVER do this. EVER. all they do is talk about how great they are, and how “persecuted”. it’s a JOKE.
99% of Jews explain their long history of expulsions, progroms, etc. and eventual mass murder with:
1. we were “different”, scapegoats.
2. we’re superior and everyone else is jealous.
and hating Jews is perfectly congruent with my criticism of the P = G + E model.
that is, the very idea of a level playing field and the same starting line for everyone and meritocracy is RIDICULOUS. they all depend on the P = G + E model.
if West Africa were as developed as the US and had its own “right of return”, wouldn’t almost all new world blacks move? i’m surfe most norwegian americans would move to Norway if they could.
it is because P != G + E that i believe in the nation state, the ethno-state. empires and new world states are necessarily stupid and evil.
pogroms.
does kudzu say:
just doin’ my thing. tryin’ to be a good citizen. you’re just jealous tree (whom i’ve enveloped), because you can’t smother an entire landscape like me. hey we’re all in the same environment. fair chance for everyone. not like i’m getting fertilizer, and you’re getting weed killer. blah, blah, blah, …
“I could have been anything I wanted, but I gave it all up to smoke weed & party & flip burgers for living, though I make a bit of extra money on the side fixing computers . I’m here for a good time, not a long time”
If true, what a waste.
it would be strange if a jew were so gifted in non-verbal intelligence and not so giftend in verbal intelligence. like a chinese shakespeare who sucked at math.
What I find weird is how you guys comment from the outside. Why not find someone who thinks like him and see what’s going on inside. If you know anything about what I mean you realize of course Feynman had a 125 IQ. Your verbal qualification about tests from the past is all that’s needed to clarify. He described in his own words how his mind worked. It’s not the nerdery of most nerds, which is where I suppose the problem resides – and why most nerds aren’t Feynmanian geniuses – so again: 125 is spot on.
exactly right.
stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
http://sdl.granthazard.com/exhibits/show/famous-synesthetes/famous-synesthetes-closer-look/richard-feynman
Feynman had synesthesia. Imagine if every number/function had a certain color, texture, shape etc. Math would be a cinch. It’d be like finger-painting.
Do we have other test scores from him?