Posts by Jesse Adams

hollowtinker18 said:..yeah, you're just making stuff up too😉..can't you see the most valid argument right there? That classic American quasi-table😁

What even is a "quasi-table"?
That table isn't an argument—it's just a conversation starter.

hollowtinker18 said:..you poor thing, you can barely handle a warm welcome, yet here you are attacking people on a forum just for sharing their info. Give me a break.

Go ahead—you’re doing nothing but trolling my thread.

hollowtinker18 said:You think you are? Who says?

Like I said—self-delusion is a nasty habit.😁

It’s funny how some people use this weirdly subtle, overly polite friendliness just to constantly pat themselves on the back.🤣

🙂

After two trolls kept badgering me about my career path, I finally gave them an answer.
Save the subpar psychoanalysis for someone else—I've sat across from actual professionals far better than you.

hiddenhawk3 said:I guess that means you're probably a professor then.😉

Man, you are exhausting. No, I'm not in the teaching track—I'm in research, and they actually waived my entrance exam because of some competitions I won.

Want me to just spill all my personal info? Maybe my credit card number too? Or should we actually get back to the topic at hand?

hiddenhawk3 said:Look, it's a discussion forum, for crying out loud. 🤣
You were the one who decided to make it about oneself by starting this thread. I guess I just want to know if students in teaching programs are actually smarter than those in research tracks. 🤷 🤷

I didn't to make it about oneself. I'm done sharing personal details on a forum after some bad experiences.

hiddenhawk3 said:Fine, so you think you're some kind of professor or something?🤷

Why do you even care?

feraltrucker5 said:Hmm... yeah. Honestly, I’m sitting here wondering why this thread even exists in the first place.

Click!

Like I’ve already said: this is just a pathetic, transparent attempt to vent some frustrations and play the troll.

Fair point. I mean, I'm pretty sure the average physics major is a total genius... but there are always exceptions. And let's be real, those exceptions are usually pretty glaring. ☕

Is being insulting really the only tool in your kit?
Ignore.

silentraven11 said:Come on, please. You've mentioned you study physics in ten other places on this forum.
Group-level psychometrics, huh? Look, you can't even have a conversation about that topic here. Twenty posts in a row and it's nothing but Trolls.

Yeah. Just another desperate attempt to boost your own ego... classic you.

To the Troll (and likely their clone)—if I wanted some desperate, amateur psychoanalysis from a web forum, I’d ask for it. If you actually think there's "nothing left to discuss" on this topic, go ahead and clone yourself. Please.

hiddenhawk3 said:Fine, but what if someone studies Economics and the natural sciences? 🤷
I guess that’s just a recipe for low IQ scores. I mean, can't anyone with an average IQ pass any major if they just put in enough work? 🤷
And what about the idea that education isn't tied to IQ? You learn things, right? Intelligence is just how you handle new situations.

I don't know. That's a good question, and I don't have a scientific answer for you. I can only offer my own personal experience if you're interested.

but what about the idea that education isn't tied to IQ? It's learned stuff, right? Intelligence is supposed to be the ability to handle new situations.

Any test related to intelligence functions like an IQ test and measures g for large populations. Why?
The answer lies in the Gaussian distribution. Other factors follow a Gaussian distribution too, and they balance out once the population is large enough.

silentraven11 said:What did you even post this for, just to flex and act like you're the smartest guy in the room?

How did you even pull that off? If that LIQ Troll hadn't mentioned I'm studying physics, I definitely wouldn't have.
Once again, I have to clarify for the group: we're talking about psychometrics at a group level here, not an individual one.

P.S.

Location: Dugopolje

Seriously? You could never tell.

hiddenhawk3 said:well, they enroll in normal stuff. 😉 I know plenty of geniuses who studied or are studying Economics 🙄
and, why would Medicine be considered "better" than Economics or Law? 🤷 I mean, isn't it mostly about having an interest in the field? Try forcing someone into an Economics degree if they hate it, and you'll see how it goes regardless of their IQ.🙄

People, we're talking about averages here, not outliers.

coastalhawk13 said:In America.
Look around you and see what kind of people are actually enrolling in things like Economics or Political Science... back home. This whole argument is completely irrelevant when applied to the US.

Maybe try reading a bit more than just the opening post—like, say, the one right before yours? I already explained there that what we call Economics here is actually called "Business" in the States, while what they call Economics over there is basically "Financial Mathematics" to us.
As for Political Science? Over there, almost every politician has a major in it.

Chris Chase5 said:Unfortunately, if you want to have a serious statistical discussion about significance or data analysis, you really need to be familiar with the tools being used and the context behind them.
First off, these tests consist of both a logical-mathematical component and a verbal one. For non-native English speakers, the verbal portion can actually be the bigger hurdle when trying to master either section. Because of that, understanding how applicants are distributed across different fields of study is pretty essential.
A GRE vs. GMAT score comparison is difficult, but in general the GMAT is the harder exam. Put side-by-side, the GMAT math and reading comprehension questions are more difficult for the comparable skill level. International students may find the GRE harder because of the vocabulary required. The question of GMAT or GRE will probably be determined by the requirements of the graduate programs. Virtually all major business schools require the GMAT as well as some graduate Economics programs. The GRE is used for non-business related graduate programs.

I don't know the full breakdown of the GRE, but I am currently studying for the GMAT, so I have a decent handle on it. It doesn't really have much to do with a standard IQ test as we know it; rather, it’s almost entirely a matter of focus and practice. Besides, you can drastically improve your scores on standard IQ tests just by practicing, which means mental preparedness plays a huge role too.

Secondly, I wouldn't consider these results applicable to many environments where the educational system for physicists or mathematicians has been shaped since the Middle Ages—fields people often enter simply because they don't have many other options. In a field like Economics, for example, there is already a sort of natural selection happening right at the admissions stage, let alone later on. Though, since many science students are trained to be absolute superstars, Economics ends up being a course that 🙂

But even if we assume these results are representative and absolute, training one specific skill inevitably contributes to the development of other skills that might be impossible to measure with these tests—like emotional intelligence. I’d argue that psychologists would absolutely run circles around us, and being able to read body language is arguably a much more vital life skill than knowing quantum field theory...

Further complaining about the nature of intelligence isn't really my area of expertise, but regarding your point, I'd say this is just one metric that is essentially useless in court unless you understand how the data was collected and the context behind it. Based on research, we could conclude that, on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.
That's all from me. I hope this stays sufficiently on-topic...🙂 LP☕

And what exactly did you prove with that?

I don't know the full breakdown for the GRE—I'm actually prepping for the GMAT myself—but let's be real: it isn't much different from a standard IQ test. It’s not some innate measure of genius; it's strictly about concentration and putting in the reps. Besides, you can drastically boost your scores on actual IQ tests just by practicing—it really comes down to mental readiness.

Yeah? And?

Second point—I wouldn't count these results as applicable to many places where the physics and math education systems haven't seen a serious update since the Middle Ages.

What kind of environments are you even talking about?
If you're talking about the US, that’s just an insult without any actual proof. If we were to rank countries based on their h-index for physics papers versus economics papers—or even just looking at GDP per capita—the US would sit way higher on that first list than it does on the second or third. So yeah, that claim is nothing but a blatant insult.
Look, the physics and math programs at top-tier US research universities—think places like MIT—are basically the gold standard, and our curriculum follows that exact blueprint. We’re talking identical coursework, the same mandatory textbooks, and nearly identical problem sets on written exams. It’s definitely not some "medieval" level of education. So why are you even talking about this when you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about?

Most people only enroll in this field when they've run out of actual options—there are plenty of exceptions, sure, but that's the reality.

Prove it. Without proof, you’re just peddling a prejudice—and a bad one at that. People who enroll in these programs simply because they have no other options? They don't even make it through freshman year. I guarantee it—I've seen it happen firsthand.

Take Economics, for instance—natural selection kicks in right at the admissions stage, plain and simple. Though, let's be real, most STEM students are basically trained to be super-students, which makes an Economics course feel like a breeze in comparison. 🙂

Which country are we talking about here? The US? If that's the case, you're dead wrong. Admissions for Economics involve much easier math—say, compared to a math or physics program.
Comparing selection rigor between Economics and Physics based on math is absurd. Most of the math covered in an Economics program gets brushed over in a single lecture in a physics department. Besides, I won't dwell on Economics—I don't know enough to comment without just relying on stereotypes.

But let's assume the results are representative and absolute—training one skill necessarily contributes to the development of another skill that might be unmeasurable by tests, such as emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence doesn't exist.

Where am I convincing you that psychologists would crush us, when body language recognition is more important to you than knowing quantum field theory....

Oh really? And what is it more important for? It certainly isn't for technology or the modern world.

Further lamentation regarding the topic of intelligence isn't my field, and regarding your point, I can respond that it's just one indicator which—without knowing how data is collected and the context behind it—isn't even applicable in court: Based on research, we can conclude that on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.

Wow. Bravo. You've clearly reached a conclusion.
By the way, what is referred to as "economics" in certain contexts is actually called Business in the USA, which is what you're actually preparing for. In the US, Economics is a mathematically demanding field—distinct from what people often mean when they say "Business."

Carl Ruiz4 said:If you aren't looking for an answer, why bother asking the question?

And what exactly is "the subject"? Because I don't see a single one of your posts actually relating back to the original premise.
☕
Is this some new trend where people just copy-paste content to start a new topic, and then decide for themselves who is staying on track and who isn't—even when there isn't a track to begin with?

"Average IQ by profession"

Since I don't see any of your posts actually relating back to the original one.

Look—I'm replying to a comment on the original post [1] here, answering a question about the specific test used [2] there, and explaining the statistics regarding the test and the table right here [4]. I'm done. Any other posts are off-topic only because I'm responding to off-topic comments from Trolls—which is exactly what I'm doing now.

Or maybe it's just the new trend to copy-paste stuff as a "new" topic, then decide for yourself later who's staying on track and who isn't.

No, this calculation uses data from the GRE.

I'm done responding to off-topic posts.

hollowtinker18 said:Look, we aren't even on the same page here. Neither you nor I am the topic. I threw out some questions, but since you won't give me actual answers, I'm done. How many question marks can you even spot in my post? I asked you something—I didn't ask for a deep dive into my shitty grammar.
Goodnight. Good luck to you.👍 If we're going to dive into ad hominem attacks, let's start with that quasi-real table of yours...
If you're going to start this discussion, you better come prepared with actual arguments—especially since you're the one who wrote the damn thing.

There isn't a single question mark in sight. Is that because you didn't actually ask anything to begin with?
Go ahead—ask whatever you want regarding this topic and I'll gladly try to answer.

..Good night,

At 4:30 PM?

and good luck to you👍 (if we're going to talk ad hominem—we could, but maybe start with that quasi-real table of yours first...)

Um, no. This thread isn't an ad hominem attack—since no specific person is being targeted or mentioned. You might argue it's ad populum, but it isn't. This is just applying psychometrics to a specific group of people.
The fact that some people feel insulted by these results is irrelevant to the discussion—as is the irony of psychologists failing their own psychometric tests.

hollowtinker18 said:😁

😂😂

..Jesse Adams.. that chart of yours is just brilliant. Truly realistic, since you’re a physicist, so clearly YOU get to be the one deciding things at the top.😁 (Nice little ego boost for you, isn't it?)😂
..Where are the outliers?.. Where's the logical fallacy?.. What about other professions?
..So what, surgeons, vets, lexicographers... they're all idiots? Miles below some arbitrary level of intelligence?🤣
..Or is this just you exercising your freedom of opinion? Because out of all the charts out there, you just had to pick some American one as the gold standard for IQ? (Ever heard that general cultural knowledge of a nation actually factors into the average?)🤷
Summa-summa:.. It must be true, because that's how Jesse Adams found it and posted it.🙏
Well, obviously, it HAS to be truth! I mean, physics is physics, right? It's not just whatever you want, people... If it wasn't, you'd surely prove it with some terrifyingly heavy argument typical of physicists—"well, that's just how it is!"—but no, you subtly convinced us (thanks, Jesse) along with my partial left-hemisphere amnesia...😂
..There. I've explained it. This puts me above you (and Carl Ruiz4 tried explaining it too, but she barely scratched the surface...) and if you're even remotely average, you'll get it... if not, just remember the motto: it's never too late... keep going...

Language syntax is your friend—it's what actually helps you get your thoughts across to everyone else.

How much can I actually salvage from the broken grammar in your post? Your arguments for why the list is wrong are nothing more than a pile of ad hominem attacks—helped along by a ridiculous amount of emojis.

Look, if you actually want a serious, reasoned debate—without all the infantile, adolescent outbursts and fragmented attempts to push your own little propaganda agenda—then maybe we can try to reach an actual conclusion through discussion. Or is that too much to ask?

"Kid"—what a pathetic little trick. Now he’s hoping someone who doesn't know the context will assume I'm the idiot just because he called me a "kid." Listen, I'm here for a serious, reasoned debate—which, by definition, means not using ad hominem attacks in every single sentence like you do. You haven't proven a damn thing in your two posts because you haven't used a single actual argument. All you've offered is a pathetic personal attack disguised as some amateur psychoanalysis on an internet forum. Real classy.

We’ve got the data—the actual GRE results from across the USA.
A discussion should either involve interpreting the data or actually debating it. You haven't done either—and you haven't even tried.

Bradley Wood6 said:Even the attempts to measure IQ are honestly kind of laughable. If people actually had the means—or even the slightest clue—to quantify their full potential (which, let’s be real, is somewhat relative anyway), they’d all just become perfect. But we already know that's an impossible mission...

Explain yourself.

Carl Ruiz4 said:No—it’s just that I can't read your mind to know you're an undergrad. That statement alone:

Therefore, psychology doesn't require 100% of my potential.

implies that you can solve every unsolved problem in psychology using less than 100% of your capacity—since that’s what psychology, and indeed any science, supposedly "requires" (if science even "requires" anything at all).

Don't project your views onto me. I said.

By the way—I’m not exactly an undergrad.
That was just an afterthought.

btw—I don't have a college degree

Right. We've completely lost the plot here. If I actually wanted to debate you, I'd start a whole new thread dedicated to you.

From here on out, I’m ignoring your childish insults, random life stories, and anything else you post that isn't actually relevant to the topic.

Carl Ruiz4 said:No—it’s just that I can't read your mind to know you're an undergrad. That statement alone:

Therefore, psychology doesn't require 100% of my potential.

implies that you can solve every unsolved problem in psychology using less than 100% of your capacity—since that’s what psychology, and indeed any science, supposedly "requires" (if science even "requires" anything at all).

Don't project your views onto me. I said.

By the way—I’m not exactly an undergrad.
What a total lack of class—and an unprovoked insult, no less. I’ve reported your post.

Carl Ruiz4 said:So you start a thread, and then the second someone hits you with a reply you don't like, you just pivot to another topic... fine, fine. Real classy. 😬

If the majority... They’re sitting at a pretty standard level of intelligence—around an IQ of 114. Not exactly groundbreaking, but certainly nothing to write home about. Can someone actually handle the sheer weight of doctoral studies? It’s almost a given, isn't it? Logic dictates that only a small minority with higher IQ levels would have the capacity to pull it off.
There isn't a single challenge on the horizon. Not one.

Anyway, since we’re already on the subject... I suppose I should address the elephant in the room—or rather, the sheer volume of it. It’s all getting a bit much, isn't it? Everything is expanding. Is it just me, or does everything feel like it's just... swelling? A little too much. It’s becoming quite cumbersome. So, what exactly is the point of this entire thread and all this information? Is there an actual objective here, or are we just spinning our wheels?

No—it’s just that I can't read your mind to know you're an undergrad. That statement alone:

Therefore, psychology doesn't require 100% of my potential.

implies that you can solve every unsolved problem in psychology using less than 100% of your capacity—since that’s what psychology, and indeed any science, supposedly "requires" (if science even "requires" anything at all).