Exploring Academic Success for Individuals with Average & Below Average IQs

[Noxide]

I'm going to preface this post by stating that I have an above average IQ. I'm curious about those with average and below average IQ's, especially in relation to academic pursuits.

Is it possible for someone with an average IQ to be successful in physics (successful means whatever you want it to mean- within reason)? I don't quite know what challenges an average person would face when studying physics. Is it outrageous to think that an above average IQ is unnecessary when studying physics? Would it even be possible to succeed in physics with a below than average IQ?

If you, or if you know of anyone who has an average or below average IQ please let me know what they have struggled with throughout their studies.

 

[drankin]

I have a below average IQ, I think, probably, my wife says so anyway. My biggest struggle has been dealing with all the idiots in the physics field I have to work with. :)

 

[Danger]

As our resident goddess Evo has pointed out repeatedly in the past, the only thing that an IQ test measures is your ability to score on an IQ test.
I took the most stringent test that was available at the time, in the late 70's (Four Sigma Society) and scored in the 99th percentile. That was when I was on several beers and before I got on the meds for ADD, but a few years after I dropped out of high-school.
I'm on Social Assistance (Welfare in Yank-speak), waiting on AISH, and have accomplished absolutely nothing in my life.
One's ability to cope with developments in one's life is a far more accurate measure of social accomplishment than is an external perspective of one's 'official' intellect.

 

[Tobias Funke]

I have a below averige IQ is what peopel tell me before. I'm physics, but not like the NBA theyre sogood. I forget.

 

[annoymage]

but one thing, the IQ test are made from PhD thesis, they are not necessarily a true value, unless they made some device that can calculate straight from the brain..

besides, in IQ test there's a time limit for it, and sometimes even a genius are taking time to take a thing that is new for him/her.

(sorry, for my speculation, this is only my raw opinions :D )

 

[waht]

Some of the questions are open ended, leaving a lot of room for finding higher order patterns that the test maker overlooked.

 

[annoymage]

yea, and some didn't make the same repeated question at least 3 times. Because, hmm, if only once, maybe he.her only pin point that question.. Doesn't know whether they truly know that question..

(sorry, for my english)

 

[rootX]

It is all nonsense.

One of my coworker had scored in top 10 in a national exam in his country when he was young. Most people thought he would be very succesfull. But, now he has masters and working as a normal engineer.

 

[drankin]

I have never taken an IQ test. What is the point? Other than an ego boost I don't see a benefit. I have a big head as it is. And then I'd fine myself comparing scores with other people, making condescending judgements because my score is better. And then finding those that have a higher IQ and experiencing intelligence anxiety. Bah, I'll just go on thinking I'm the smartest person in the world.

Besides, the test sounds like a bunch of work for no pay...

I'm sure I share this attribute with many other geniuses. I already know I'm intelligent and too lazy to take the test. :)

 

[kakarotyjn]

The only thing that an IQ test measures is your ability to score on an IQ test.

Nice!

 

[Pengwuino]

IQ tests being nonsense or not, I know some STUPID people in the master's program that I'm in. Blindly memorizing and regurgitating formulas in the hopes some of them come together to form an answer is not exactly a full proof way of failing out of physics... at least at my level.

 

[Lisa!]

I have a below average IQ, I think, probably, my wife says so anyway. My biggest struggle has been dealing with all the idiots in the physics field I have to work with. :)

 

[annoymage]

yea drankin,

What is the point? Other than an ego boost I don't see a benefit.

 

[Borek]

I remember reading somewhere (Goleman?) that the correlation between achievements and scores in marshmallow test is higher than between achievements and IQ.

 

[BobG]

I remember reading somewhere (Goleman?) that the correlation between achievements and scores in marshmallow test is higher than between achievements and IQ.

That wasn't a fair test! Within 10 minutes, I had successfully flicked my marshmallow off of the face of the clock, into a basket of crayons, off of the forehead of the blonde girl sitting across from me, reshaped the marshmallow into a Q-tip and cleaned the ears of the boy sitting next to me, then reshaped the marshmallow into a football with one point coated in ear wax, then successfully flicked the football so it became lodged between the glasses and eye of the evil brunette girl sitting across from me, and then she ate the damn thing! And then they blamed me!

 

[S_Happens]

I have always scored high on IQ tests, from kindergarten up through high school (99%). I dug up some of my old testing info a while back when I was feeling pretty worthless intellectually. It was a sad attempt to join MENSA, which I thought would boost my intellectual self esteem. I had quite a few tests that automatically qualified me, but I did some research and I'm glad I didn't join.

On my first trip through college I spent my time working with practical applications of thermo (cars), instead of applying it in the classroom. I was skipping a lot of class and most of the homework. I still did well on all my tests, but sacrificed sufficient parts of my grades to homework and sometimes labs (I'd be there for the labs, but not write them up sometimes). I scored well enough on the exams that I'd pass with a C, sometimes B in the class depending on how much homework and labs were worth (meaning I had A scores on the exams). When it came time to go into upper level engineering, I did not have the required GPA so there was nothing left to do. My classmates that didn't do as well as me on the exams, but did all of their homework and labs ended up with better grades. Hard work beat out raw talent.

Now I work in a job that only requires a 2 year college degree, which is basically a formality to sit through (doesn't even require college algebra). I make very good money, and excel at my job, but am far beyond the education required for it (so it's not very rewarding). All the respect I've gained from coworkers and engineers feels false.

Except for the money, my "high IQ" and ability in physics amount to very little in terms of success at this point. I've learned some lessons, and will be applying them when I go back to school shortly, but unless I can succeed this time, I'm an example against high IQ = success in education/sciences.

 

[drankin]

I have always scored high on IQ tests, from kindergarten up through high school (99%). I dug up some of my old testing info a while back when I was feeling pretty worthless intellectually. It was a sad attempt to join MENSA, which I thought would boost my intellectual self esteem. I had quite a few tests that automatically qualified me, but I did some research and I'm glad I didn't join.

On my first trip through college I spent my time working with practical applications of thermo (cars), instead of applying it in the classroom. I was skipping a lot of class and most of the homework. I still did well on all my tests, but sacrificed sufficient parts of my grades to homework and sometimes labs (I'd be there for the labs, but not write them up sometimes). I scored well enough on the exams that I'd pass with a C, sometimes B in the class depending on how much homework and labs were worth (meaning I had A scores on the exams). When it came time to go into upper level engineering, I did not have the required GPA so there was nothing left to do. My classmates that didn't do as well as me on the exams, but did all of their homework and labs ended up with better grades. Hard work beat out raw talent.

Now I work in a job that only requires a 2 year college degree, which is basically a formality to sit through (doesn't even require college algebra). I make very good money, and excel at my job, but am far beyond the education required for it (so it's not very rewarding). All the respect I've gained from coworkers and engineers feels false.

Except for the money, my "high IQ" and ability in physics amount to very little in terms of success at this point. I've learned some lessons, and will be applying them when I go back to school shortly, but unless I can succeed this time, I'm an example against high IQ = success in education/sciences.

It's very typical human behaviour to follow the path of least resistance. A high IQ isn't a requirement to be successful. Certainly can help but has to be applied with work ethic to really benefit.

No different that someone who is a naturaly superb athlete but doesn't participate in sports.

 

[Pattonias]

It is all nonsense.

One of my coworker had scored in top 10 in a national exam in his country when he was young. Most people thought he would be very succesfull. But, now he has masters and working as a normal engineer.

Well crap, I want to get a Masters and become an engineer. If that's not successful, then what the heck am I supposed to do?

 

[S_Happens]

It's very typical human behaviour to follow the path of least resistance. A high IQ isn't a requirement to be successful. Certainly can help but has to be applied with work ethic to really benefit.

Which is exactly my point. I just felt it important to put in the detail for the OP.

Although I think "work ethic" is a poor description for this situation, I would certainly agree (and posted so) that working hard in school can prove to be more successful than simply being able to understand the material. Outside of school, a person can be a hard worker without required redundancy (such as homework). In a case such as school, it's almost impossible to bypass the redundancy and be successful, but "work ethic" is applicable to much more than just school. I'm sorry, I know what you mean, but I couldn't help but clarify since it's an issue that hits close to home.

Pure stubborn work and raw talent both have their merits. Different situations are tailored more storngly towards one or the other, but neither is a guarantee of anything.

 

[leroyjenkens]

It's very typical human behaviour to follow the path of least resistance. A high IQ isn't a requirement to be successful. Certainly can help but has to be applied with work ethic to really benefit.

No different that someone who is a naturaly superb athlete but doesn't participate in sports.

Being an athlete is essential to be good at most sports, but is having a high IQ essential to be good at most jobs that require mental prowess? Like, for example, does your IQ have any effect on how good you will be as a biologist?

 

[drankin]

Being an athlete is essential to be good at most sports, but is having a high IQ essential to be good at most jobs that require mental prowess? Like, for example, does your IQ have any effect on how good you will be as a biologist?

Depends on your definition of "good". Good at performing lab functions, good at doing research, good at discerning patterns and developing new theory. Not all of these roles requires a high IQ in order to be successful.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Depends on your definition of "good". Good at performing lab functions, good at doing research, good at discerning patterns and developing new theory. Not all of these roles requires a high IQ in order to be successful.

What correlation does IQ have to doing any of those things successfully? I don't see why someone with an average IQ would be limited in how well he could do those things.
The correlation of between being an athlete and being, for example, an NFL runningback is obvious.

 

[chiro]

I'm going to preface this post by stating that I have an above average IQ. I'm curious about those with average and below average IQ's, especially in relation to academic pursuits.

Is it possible for someone with an average IQ to be successful in physics (successful means whatever you want it to mean- within reason)? I don't quite know what challenges an average person would face when studying physics. Is it outrageous to think that an above average IQ is unnecessary when studying physics? Would it even be possible to succeed in physics with a below than average IQ?

If you, or if you know of anyone who has an average or below average IQ please let me know what they have struggled with throughout their studies.

For me what really gets me about IQ is that I haven't really seen intelligence to be that well defined in the first place. There are so many categories of "intelligence" that it seems impossible for one test to really classify and categorize such a metric.

You could define a matrix with four possible categories: the first being low IQ and low motivation, the second high IQ and low motivation the third low IQ and high motivation and the fourth high IQ and high motivation.

Obviously the fourth is the most desirable but in reality the personality traits of people with higher IQs may in cases render them lazy and apathetic. Since I personally think that intelligence is not really defined that well in the first place, I tend to think that anyone in the high motivation category will with enough motivation succeed in their field. It doesn't matter if we need to ask questions because we don't understand something the first time.

I've been told that I have a high level of intelligence but I strongly doubt that I am what you would call mensa or whatever material. In my experience a strong curiosity is a lot more
helpful than having some predetermined notion of a "intelligence quotient".

 

[leroyjenkens]

For me what really gets me about IQ is that I haven't really seen intelligence to be that well defined in the first place. There are so many categories of "intelligence" that it seems impossible for one test to really classify and categorize such a metric.

You're right, it's not well defined. So to claim that this test measures intelligence is pretty unintelligent. Kim Peek scores extremely low on IQ tests, so by that standard, he's unintelligent. But if what he has isn't intelligence, what is it?
IQ tests test how well you can do on an IQ test, it doesn't tell you anything about how your intelligence will help you in any other situation in life.
It's like if someone can hit a golf ball really far and concluding that they must be good at sports in general.

 

[Jame]

I'm of the opinion that it's inherent in being intelligent not to realize it. Which makes sense if you say being intelligent is about being able to grasp things, and grasping something means that it is clear and understandable, often obvious. I'm trying to say that it's very hard to understand what you grasp but somebody else doesn't, the thought process is a peculiar and hard to really understand.

Poincaré has elaborated on this. He says he finds it hard to understand how people can find mathematics hard since it's just the same reasoning people do all the time.

Another good example is Richard Feynman. Many of his statements indicate that he truly doesn't understand how unique his talent is, and that what is clear to him is not to most people.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I score well but I imagine I'd score even better if I wasn't heavily dyslexic.

Approaching 160 but as I've said before I wouldn't take it all that seriously it's not even that correlated to intelligence, see the Flynn effect it tends to reflect level of education more than anything, to the point that people who take even a few months off school can see reduced IQ?!

 

[drankin]

What correlation does IQ have to doing any of those things successfully? I don't see why someone with an average IQ would be limited in how well he could do those things.
The correlation of between being an athlete and being, for example, an NFL runningback is obvious.

That was my point, a high IQ isn't necessary. I know a few unsuccessful geniuses myself. :)

 

[Noxide]

IQ tests test certain abilities. There exists arbitrary nomenclature for those who attain certain scores in relation to their aptitude for a certain ability that is tested by an IQ test. If the test says that if person x scores 180 then person x is a genius then the person is a genius according to the arbitrary nomenclature associated with that test. I do not care about your opinions of the test, as I have not asked about your opinions of the test. Stop talking about the test and address the questions posed. lol

 

[Loren Booda]

Ask a thousand people whether their IQ is above or below average. Unlike some of the honest people in this thread, a significant majority will answer "above," and most of them don't know what an IQ is.

 

[Muppetmaster]

Sadly the only thing an IQ tests is your ability to do IQ tests, apart from that it's kind of moot that it has any value except to determine how well you will do in Western education.

It was after all invented to highlight people who had problems with education not so called "intelligent" people and was never meant to indicate the actual intellect of the person, for a start it tests only a small part of what we think of as intelligence. It's a bit like taking a hatchet to the brain instead of a scalpel.

Average IQ means you will probably do about average at school if you don't pull the lead out and study your arse off.

I score highly by the way in case you think it's sour grapes, I'm a realist. It's a rough guide that will highlight in which areas you might excel and more importantly areas you need to improve on, but the brains ability to learn is fairly elastic especially when younger, sure you are born with a certain amount of smarts but plenty of great minds have scored low and then gone on to revolutionise their field. Nothing more than a rough guide in my opinion.

We all know people who were tragically bad at school, and seemed dense, but give them a mechanical problem or something practical and for some reason they just get it, and leave you speechless and looking like a dumbass.

 

[Muppetmaster]

I'm going to preface this post by stating that I have an above average IQ. I'm curious about those with average and below average IQ's, especially in relation to academic pursuits.

Is it possible for someone with an average IQ to be successful in physics (successful means whatever you want it to mean- within reason)? I don't quite know what challenges an average person would face when studying physics. Is it outrageous to think that an above average IQ is unnecessary when studying physics? Would it even be possible to succeed in physics with a below than average IQ?

If you, or if you know of anyone who has an average or below average IQ please let me know what they have struggled with throughout their studies.

I heard somewhere that Richard Feynmans IQ was only a little above average perhaps by a couple of standard deviations ie in the region of the 120s. So considering that yes you can, but it is up to you to improve yourself.

Attitude and motivation is far more important than an arbitrary score.

Turn your question around an average IQ is the minimum but a higher one might help. But there's no reason it will if you are lazy or can't be bothered to use whatever intelligence you have.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Ask a thousand people whether their IQ is above or below average. Unlike some of the honest people in this thread, a significant majority will answer "above," and most of them don't know what an IQ is.

People exaggerating their intelligence?! Get outta here! There's just this one guy somewhere in Montana I think with an IQ of -10^50.