Posts by Jesse Adams

feralharbor8 said:Do you think Americans use a different standard deviation than Europeans, meaning their IQ of 130 is actually our 147—the threshold for Mensa?

Of course, this is SD 15.
Europeans haven't touched SD in 24 years—nowadays, the only ones still messing with it are Mensa.
Whether you're looking at the Stanford-Binet or Raven's Progressive Matrices—all that stuff uses an SD of 15.
It isn't just that—it's that the entire standard is different here in the States.

Wait—so you're telling me an above-average psychiatrist (top 3%) isn't actually smarter than an above-average physicist?

Average. A physicist is already two standard deviations above the mean—so yeah, they're in the top tier. 2%Only a PhD in physics actually makes much money—way less than a PhD in psychology. That’s why you see more psychologists sitting in that top 3% bracket; there are just more of them out there in total. Simple math.
Learn statistics.

Carl Ruiz4 said:If the majority... They’re sitting at a relatively standard level of intelligence, around an IQ of 114. Not exactly groundbreaking, but certainly nothing to write home about. Can they handle the grind of a doctoral program? Of course. It’s common sense, really. You’d expect a small minority with higher IQ levels to be the ones actually pulling it off.
There isn't a single challenge on the horizon. Not one.

Anyway, since we're already on the subject... I mean, seriously? Is this really where we’re at now? Just... bloated? It feels like everything is getting heavier, isn't it? Not just the numbers on a scale—though, let's be honest, that's part of it—but the whole damn system. Everything feels swollen, overextended, and frankly, a bit much to swallow. Are we actually going to sit here and pretend this level of excess is sustainable? Probably not. But then again, when has anyone ever actually listened to reason? So, what exactly is the point of this entire thread and all this information? Is there an actual objective here, or are we just shouting into the void?

Wrong again. An undergraduate degree isn't the only requirement for psychology.

quieteagle16 said:How can you say that? If we go by those top-tier averages, it looks like the smartest people are mostly choosing psychology, then biology, then computer science... and physics isn't even the top pick anymore. I mean, if you're going to try and have a serious debate about "who's actually the smartest"...

Da li ti uopće shvaćaš koncepte postotaka, prosjeka? IQ je statistička varijabla s Gaussovom distribucijom! Kad zadaš prosjek i SD zadao si cijelu funkciju.
It’s already been pointed out—way more people flock to psychology than to physics or biology. And honestly? It lines up perfectly with IQ estimates. That's exactly why you see such a higher concentration of people hitting those top 3% results in that field.
Learn some basic statistics before you even think about trying to use them.

Carl Ruiz4 said:Oh, I don't think so. Unsubstantiated claims aren't really my thing. 😍

If you really want to go there. Fine. But the average IQ of psychologists doesn't dictate how much the field actually demands from you.

quieteagle16 said:Interesting point—I just clicked the link you sent. Any particular reason why you left out the Competitiveness Indicators when you were making that comparison?

Because they don't affect the average. 🙄

Carl Ruiz4 said:So, yeah... I mean, does Psychology really demand 100% of my mental capacity? Not necessarily. 😬>

That’s a completely flawed conclusion. 👎

Plus, the GRE is normalized against the US population.

quieteagle16 said:So, if I’m reading this right, you’re basically saying IQ isn't some fixed number set in stone, but something that can actually shift? Honestly, that makes a ton of sense to me. It feels logical that those top five disciplines are all heavy on math and the hard sciences—especially if the IQ tests being used are visual-based or rely heavily on pattern recognition. In those kinds of fields, you're constantly swimming in numbers and logic anyway. For example, when I look at my own results, I hit the 96th percentile on the visual and numerical stuff, but when it shifts over to verbal reasoning and things like that, I drop down to the 90th percentile. It’s like having different strengths for different arenas. 🤷

You missed the point.

It makes sense to me then why those first five fields are all math or science-heavy—especially if the IQ tests used were visual or number-based, which is standard for those careers. For instance, I hit the top 4% on those types of tests, but drop to the 10% range when it comes to verbal stuff.🤷

The test being used was the GRE (as mentioned in the first post), which covers both verbal and math sections.

Keith Lee2 said:Fluffy is a physics major who can't stand psychologists—actually, he can't even stand female psychologists because they smell bad, or so I've gathered from lurking around his posts.
But the one thing he’ll actually admit to a psychologist is this intelligence ranking that—get this—puts physicists at the top.
Since he's gonna be a physicist one day—which, hey, I truly hope he does—
he's hoping that makes him the smartest guy around, which I also wish for him.
My advice? You don't really need to wait until you're a physicist to find out if your IQ is 130—you could just go take a test right now.

😁

You're just trolling.

Moderators, please look into this. Doxing other users is a direct violation of the rules!

Ronald Morales51 said:I’m largely in agreement regarding PhD students, but we shouldn't view them as a profession in their own right—there are countless successful careers out there that don't require a doctorate.

In my honest opinion, while the list might be technically accurate, it doesn't carry much weight. It just doesn't provide any real value when you look at it closely.
It’s essentially unhelpful to try and draw a direct comparison between one single Physics PhD student and one out of a thousand Psychology PhD students.

Fine, whatever. Here’s the breakdown of average IQ by profession for those holding a PhD.

IMHO; I was just trying to say the list might be technically accurate, but it's pretty meaningless. It doesn't really represent any actual value.

Why exactly?

It’s just uninformative to compare one single physics PhD student against one single psychology PhD student out of a pool of 1,000.

This isn't cherry-picked data—it's based on the entire population of PhD students within their respective fields in the USA. I already explained why the numbers vary between groups.

feraltrucker5 said:Transparent ☕

What’s your point?

Ronald Morales51 said:Well, it looks like the whole IQ debate is a rabbit hole that never ends.
In my honest opinion,
I don't think we can really hold all career paths to the same standard as PhD candidates.
Plus, there’s the obvious issue that these data sets aren't even truly comparable,
because what they're presenting as a "silver bullet" is actually just a numbers game regarding the volume of applicants.
It feels like they're just playing fast and loose with statistics; if you apply even a tiny bit of common sense, the logic falls apart.

But hey, I'm sure it's "factually correct" according to their metrics.
At the end of the day, does it even matter?
Cheers😉

It’s the only thing Psychology has actually produced that holds any statistical weight. 😉

IMHO
I don't think you can compare standard jobs to PhD applicants.

Why not? PhD students make up most of the "workforce" in any given field—they're just TAs and researchers on their way up.

And obviously, that data isn't even fully comparable; basically,
the supply curve provided is more about the raw number of applicants.

Um, no. We're talking averages. Ever heard of them? The fact that there are way more applicants in Psychology than in Mathematics is just a direct result of IQ being a statistical variable with a Gauss distribution in the general population.
There are fewer people with an IQ of 129+ than those at 114+.
But you're right that IQ itself is a bit of a mathematical construct—what actually matters are percentiles (as psychologists call them), which essentially show what percentage of the population someone is smarter than.

That's just playing with statistics, and with a little logic, you can see it makes no sense.

How? Where's the error? What's arbitrary? What logic?

These figures are based on GRE scores for prospective PhD candidates:
http://www.econphd.net/guide.htm
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/12...s-them-in.html

* 130.0 Physics
* 129.0 Mathematics
* 128.5 Computer science
* 128.0 Economics
* 127.5 Chemical engineering
* 127.0 Material science
* 126.0 Electrical engineering
* 125.5 Mechanical engineering
* 125.0 Philosophy
* 124.0 Chemistry
* 123.0 Earth sciences
* 122.0 industrial engineering
* 121.5 civil engineering
* 120.1 Biology / medicina
* 120.0 English / literatura
* 119.8 Religion / theology
* 119.7 Political science
* 119.7 Academic disciplines
* 118.0 Art history
* 117.7 Anthropology
* 116.5 Architecture
* 116.0 Business
* 115.0 Sociology
* 114.0 Psychology
* 114.0 Nursing
* 112.0 Communication
* 109.0 Communication and Education
* 106.0 Public administration

The average undergraduate IQ sits at 115—which implies your typical Psychology TA is actually less intelligent than their own students. Makes you think, doesn't it? 🙂

Linda Brown2 said:OH YEAH. Honestly, most guys have a thing for feet, though I couldn't tell you exactly why.

For me, there's something really attractive about seeing a woman with well-kept hands, feet, or nails. To me, it shows she takes care of herself, both physically and mentally.

Since I'm a guy who puts effort into my own grooming too, I appreciate it when a woman does the same.

There’s just something about seeing long, slender fingers... man, even thinking about it gets my head spinning. Like, imagining those hands running through your hair or grazing your face and body. I won't get carried away getting too descriptive here! 😁

Nah, it’s just that foot fetishes are the most common one. Everyone else isn't interested enough to actually bother making a post.

wanderingscout22 said:How do I actually move past this? I really don't want to be defined by a fetish... though, if I'm being honest, I know for a fact that I am when it comes to feet.

Based on what you just said, you’ve got much bigger issues than just a fetish.

Nicholas Edwards10 said:I'm curious about what you guys actually feel when you see feet. Is it passion? Pure arousal? Just a physical rush?

Is looking at a woman's feet basically the same high as looking at her chest??🤷

YES! 😁

Nobody actually knows how a fetish "develops"—anyone claiming otherwise is just lying.

Roger Morgan4 said:I honestly find it hard to believe there’s such a massive obsession with foot fetishes lately. It feels like most people popping up in these discussions are either just trolling for attention or wildly exaggerating things. Just because someone finds it a little appealing doesn't mean they're deep into a fetish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_fe...tive_frequency
Nobody cares what you believe. ☕

goldensailor15 said:Just look at the thread title and the very first post... I've been saying from the jump that this whole debate is pointless anyway, and I already made my stance on "where Jews ought to live" crystal clear.

Not really, though... You spent more time rambling about those weird Judeo-Masonic-Templar conspiracies.

If you ask me, Jews and everyone else should live wherever they want. That’s actually one of the few silver linings of globalization—it lets people move. I don't see why anyone is singling out Jews in this discussion.