Average IQ by profession

Jesse Adams said:That’s a completely flawed conclusion. 👎

Plus, the GRE is normalized against the US population.

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

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.

Jesse Adams said:Because they don't affect the average. 🙄

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"...

Jesse Adams said: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.

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?

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: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.

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

I mean, there’s probably some kind of difference in IQ between psychoanalysts and psychologists, right?

Jesse Adams said:Wrong again. An undergraduate degree isn't the only requirement for psychology.

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. 😬

Carl Ruiz4 said:

Jesse Adams said: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.

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?

Jesse Adams said: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.

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

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.

Jesse Adams said: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.

Yeah, fair point. It's like what you said earlier—the bigger the group, the higher the odds of someone landing in that top 3%. I was under the impression that "top 3%" meant comparing the top 3% of psychiatrists directly against the top 3% of physicists, so my bad if I misinterpreted how the math works.

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).

Jesse Adams 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).
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.

Carl Ruiz4 said:If the majority (those with relatively average intelligence, say an IQ of 114) can manage the grind of a PhD program, then logically, a minority with higher intelligence
should have absolutely nothing to struggle with.

By the way—I’m not exactly an undergrad.

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: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.

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...

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.

😁

Jesse Adams said:What a total lack of class—and an unprovoked insult, no less. I’ve reported your post.

😂😂

..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...

Look, kid, if you actually want a serious, reasoned debate—without all that childish, adolescent posturing where you just try to dodge the facts to push your own little agenda—then maybe we could actually reach a conclusion through discussion. If you don't want to do that, hey, that's your call, and I've got nothing against it. But if you had put in even a shred of actual effort... then we might say you're finally on the right track. Right, Flyfish? Self-deception isn't exactly a virtue, is it? 🤣
Yeah, Jesse Adams, it really isn't... just like we said about self-deception. But hey, if being wrong makes you happy, go for it.