Average IQ by profession

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.

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:So what's your point there? Are you just trying to to make it about oneself by putting psychology students down, or do you actually have a real argument to back that up?

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

Jesse Adams said:Go ahead—you’re doing nothing but trolling my thread.

Sorry, but calling this ego-tripping mess a "thread"... yeah, that’s not funny, it’s just pathetic.🤷..😂

Oh, thanks so much... for the midnight soul-searching jokes. Thanks, Jesse.😂

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:Sorry, but calling this ego-tripping mess a "thread"... yeah, that’s not funny, it’s just pathetic.🤷..😂

Oh, thanks so much... for the midnight soul-searching jokes. Thanks, Jesse.😂

🙂

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:So what's your point there? Are you just trying to to make it about oneself by putting psychology students down, or do you actually have a real argument to back that up?

😲 Just give it another read and then get back to me, alright? 😲
Totally misread me 🤷

vividmason71 said:So you're actually obsessed with IQ? 😁

What really trips me out about this is how theologians—and political scientists too—aren't sitting at the bottom of the list; they're right in the middle. Honestly, I figured medical professionals would be a few spots higher, maybe just under chemists. It seems like Economics works a bit differently here in the States than it does elsewhere, which probably explains why that score is so high. Everything else is pretty self-explanatory, if you ask me.

Keith Lee2, 🙏 🤣

Honestly, medical school is such a grind, even more so than law school, because you're just cramming massive amounts of material into such a tiny window of time, almost like you're training at Juilliard.

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:So what's your point there? Are you just trying to to make it about oneself by putting psychology students down, or do you actually have a real argument to back that up?

I honestly don't think you grasped what the poet was actually trying to say. it's just... not right. 😉

coastalhawk13 said:😲 Just give it another read and then get back to me, alright? 😲
Totally misread me 🤷

There we go! 😬

Jesse Adams said: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."

I have to say, I’m not entirely sure if your whole "calling out" approach is actually hitting the mark. It feels like there might be some language barriers at play here—something you often see in university programs that host a large number of international students. Because of those hurdles, the group GPA tends to look lower than it really is. Since you’ve chosen such an aggressive tone with your critique, I suppose I can afford to be just as blunt in return...

Jesse Adams said: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."

So, you presented that study—that scientific paper—just to achieve some kind of widespread recognition, right? Something that would carry weight among the entire population of physicists, mathematicians, and psychologists here in the States...
Honestly, someone who’s spent their whole life working in the field can't possibly grasp the nuances here. I have a few friends working as teaching assistants, and let me tell you, some of them have zero respect for the curriculum, the organization, or even basic professionalism when it comes to the professors at our College of Science... But if that's just a way to mask some massive superiority complex, then I guess that's exactly what it is... 🙂

Jesse Adams said: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."

I proved it to myself back when I was applying for both programs; I could see my competitors' actual scores for class ranking right there on the screen... you might want to take a closer look at that...😉

Jesse Adams said: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."

The math on an economics entrance exam doesn't necessarily have to be harder than what you'd see on the math and physics entrance exams at the College of Science (though I can't quite recall when the physics exams were held lately)...😉

I'll just say that when I was applying to the College of Science, I was actually exempt from the entrance exam. Still, I decided to take it just for the fun of it since I had taken both physics and math in high school—so, being all high and mighty, I think you would have kicked ass back then...

I'm talking about selection density. You have to cover a specific range of subjects, and there are fewer people competing for those spots compared to the numbers we see in the sciences...

Okay, sure, the math on the entrance exam might be pushed to an extreme, but my question is this: even with such an idealized exam and an ideal education system, why does such a huge percentage of students drop out?

Jesse Adams said: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."

Not for coexisting with other people? 🤣 Or is there nothing in the modern world besides technology? Or could you please—since I appreciate precision—quantify your cost/benefit analysis for me? And you can include only your own contribution, like your contribution to the advancement of science, to me as a user...

I hate condescension, prejudice, and any other kind of judgmental labeling, but considering this is a psychology subforum, what kind of impression do you think someone makes with those statements—someone who has clearly never been in a relationship? Someone for whom technology isn't a tool, but the end goal itself? Do you honestly think our education system directed you toward making a significant contribution to technological development?
No, but the College of Science turned you into a psychological case study. You seem to think you're God, but sooner or later, you're going to realize you aren't... 🙂

Jesse Adams said: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."

I don't mean to brag, but I feel like I could wipe the floor with you and people like you when it comes to understanding and quantifying the phenomena around us. There are groups of people who started with a clear goal and direction, driven by a genuine curiosity that keeps them moving forward...
If you actually had a scientific mind, you would always analyze results with skepticism and adjust your own conclusions based on the level of knowledge you acquire...

Honestly, all the best to you on your little island, and I suppose the standard error of population estimation among physicists is what?...🙂

Jesse Adams said: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.

You don't need a therapist. You just need to tell yourself, "Look, man, I'm not God," and realize there's a whole world out there beyond your own expertise and how much you've learned about it...

I think you might be in the wrong subforum here...😉

Actually, maybe that was the point—you wanted the psychologists to start building your case file... clever move... 🙂

Just chill out a bit, life is beautiful... other people have value too, some even more so, even if they don't possess as much specialized knowledge in your field... just take a deep breath...☕

Chris Chase5 said:I have to say, I’m not entirely sure if your whole "calling out" approach is actually hitting the mark. It feels like there might be some language barriers at play here—something you often see in university programs that host a large number of international students. Because of those hurdles, the group GPA tends to look lower than it really is. Since you’ve chosen such an aggressive tone with your critique, I suppose I can afford to be just as blunt in return...

So, you presented that study—that scientific paper—just to achieve some kind of widespread recognition, right? Something that would carry weight among the entire population of physicists, mathematicians, and psychologists here in the States...
Honestly, someone who’s spent their whole life working in the field can't possibly grasp the nuances here. I have a few friends working as teaching assistants, and let me tell you, some of them have zero respect for the curriculum, the organization, or even basic professionalism when it comes to the professors at our College of Science... But if that's just a way to mask some massive superiority complex, then I guess that's exactly what it is... 🙂

I proved it to myself back when I was applying for both programs; I could see my competitors' actual scores for class ranking right there on the screen... you might want to take a closer look at that...😉

The math on an economics entrance exam doesn't necessarily have to be harder than what you'd see on the math and physics entrance exams at the College of Science (though I can't quite recall when the physics exams were held lately)...😉

I'll just say that when I was applying to the College of Science, I was actually exempt from the entrance exam. Still, I decided to take it just for the fun of it since I had taken both physics and math in high school—so, being all high and mighty, I think you would have kicked ass back then...

I'm talking about selection density. You have to cover a specific range of subjects, and there are fewer people competing for those spots compared to the numbers we see in the sciences...

Okay, sure, the math on the entrance exam might be pushed to an extreme, but my question is this: even with such an idealized exam and an ideal education system, why does such a huge percentage of students drop out?

Not for coexisting with other people? 🤣 Or is there nothing in the modern world besides technology? Or could you please—since I appreciate precision—quantify your cost/benefit analysis for me? And you can include only your own contribution, like your contribution to the advancement of science, to me as a user...

I hate condescension, prejudice, and any other kind of judgmental labeling, but considering this is a psychology subforum, what kind of impression do you think someone makes with those statements—someone who has clearly never been in a relationship? Someone for whom technology isn't a tool, but the end goal itself? Do you honestly think our education system directed you toward making a significant contribution to technological development?
No, but the College of Science turned you into a psychological case study. You seem to think you're God, but sooner or later, you're going to realize you aren't... 🙂

I don't mean to brag, but I feel like I could wipe the floor with you and people like you when it comes to understanding and quantifying the phenomena around us. There are groups of people who started with a clear goal and direction, driven by a genuine curiosity that keeps them moving forward...
If you actually had a scientific mind, you would always analyze results with skepticism and adjust your own conclusions based on the level of knowledge you acquire...

Honestly, all the best to you on your little island, and I suppose the standard error of population estimation among physicists is what?...🙂

Thanks for the heads-up that this post was going to be a personal attack.
If you want to look strictly at the math behind the GRE—assuming the verbal section discriminates against international students and that those students are concentrated in lower-ranked majors (which, frankly, makes no sense)—fine, we can do that. But the ranking wouldn't change much regardless.

You cited a study just to troll, right? To get a rise out of the whole population of physicists, mathematicians, and psychologists—which applies here too.

Did you study statistics in business school? Concepts like means, standard deviation, distributions? This isn't about trolling; it's about averages.

Someone working in the field could have absolutely no clue—I have a few friends among the TAs who can't even speak coherently about the curriculum, organization, or the professionalism of the professors at our blessed College of Science... But if you're suffering from a superiority complex, then sure... 🙂

And what are these imaginary TAs called, since we're relying on anecdotes now? And do you tell them they suffer from a "superiority complex" (whatever that means)?
The situation at the College of Science is far from perfect regarding the issues you mentioned, but how you concluded I felt differently based on my posts is a total mystery to me.

I proved it to myself during those years when I was enrolling and looking at the grades of my "competitors"... maybe you should take a look yourself...😉

Okay, I don't care about you personally. As I said at the start, this isn't a personal attack; it's about groups of people.

Admissions for business school don't necessarily require harder math than the entrance exams for the math and physics tracks at the College of Science.

Fine... 😕

I can't even remember—was there even an entrance exam for physics?😉

How long has physics actually existed?

Just so you know—when I was applying to the College of Science, I actually got a pass on the entrance exam. I did it just for the hell of it—purely for my own satisfaction. Since I took both physics and math during my high school finals—so, yeah, I’m feeling pretty high and mighty about this—I honestly think you would’ve kicked ass back then.

Alright, since you’ve decided to make this personal...
What have you been tackling just for the hell of it lately? Entrance exams? Which ones did you finally get out from under your belt?
So you took physics and math on your finals? Real impressive.
I have. [nešto] Look, I’m not going to tell you which Olympics I competed in or even what medal I took home—I have no interest in outing myself. Unlike most of you lot who just scraped through high school physics and math, there aren't exactly a ton of us Olympiad types running around. 😉 So, honestly? It’s unlikely anything would have kicked me out then—or even now.

I'm talking about selection—you have to cover the ground here. Right now, you're expected to handle three different subjects, even though there are barely enough people at the College of Science to fill the slots. What's the logic there?

Explain yourself.

Look, the math on these entrance exams has been pushed to a total absurdity—I get that. But I’m asking you this: if we actually had these "perfect" exams and an ideal education system, why the hell would such a huge percentage of people still be dropping out?

At the College of Science? For a dozen different reasons—it really just depends on the individual. For some, it’s simply because they can't manage to land on the right side of the bell curve.

So, what—it’s not about being able to live with other people? 🤣 Is there really nothing left in the modern world besides technology? Or—since I prefer precision—could you please quantify your cost-benefit ratio for me? And let’s be clear about the "benefit" part: you can only include your actual contribution, like your impact on scientific progress or what you specifically offer me as a user.

Got it. If you're that interested, just start a new thread about it—maybe I'll even show up.

I hate policing, prejudice, and any other kind of moralizing—but if you drop statements like that in a psychology subforum, what kind of impression do you think you're making on someone who’s actually been in a relationship before?

Those self-help books written by pop-psychologists about "reading body language"—the ones mentioned earlier—are pure pseudoscience. Any actual psychologist worth their salt will tell you the exact same thing.

When does technology stop being a tool and start becoming the end goal itself? Do you honestly think our education system actually prepared you to make any meaningful contribution to technological advancement?

You really think you're in any position to judge?
Do I even care?

No, but the College of Science turned you into a psychological case study because you think you're God—and sooner or later, you'll realize you aren't... 🙂

Stalking me now? Interesting.
If you haven't realized by now, that thread was just a joke meant to highlight the circular logic behind claiming God is infallible.

I hate to brag, but I could wipe out the understanding of people like you when it comes to quantifying the phenomena around us—people who actually had a goal and a direction, driven by actual curiosity...

Wow, a basic insult. You don't know anything about me. Dropping down to that level of vulgarity says way more about you than it does about me.

If you actually had a scientific mind, you'd be analyzing results skeptically and adjusting your own conclusions based on how much you actually know...

Thanks for the advice!

Honestly, good luck on your little island. And what’s the standard error for population estimates among physicists?🙂

SD=15.
SE=15/sqrt(n).

Since n is greater than 200, the SE is less than 1.

Chris Chase5 said:You don't need a therapist. You just need to tell yourself, "Look, man, I'm not God," and realize there's a whole world out there beyond your own expertise and how much you've learned about it...

I think you might be in the wrong subforum here...😉

Actually, maybe that was the point—you wanted the psychologists to start building your case file... clever move... 🙂

Just chill out a bit, life is beautiful... other people have value too, some even more so, even if they don't possess as much specialized knowledge in your field... just take a deep breath...☕

You're the one who crossed the line into being insulting. Maybe "chill out" is better advice for you?

From now on, if anyone has a personal problem with me, just send a DM.

So, just for my own curiosity, what’s the average IQ of, say, painters, writers, dancers, singers, and all those other wannabe creative types trying to make it big? 😂

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.

Exactly.

Think about the admissions process at a major US university's philosophy department. It’s one of those rare cases where they base everything on an IQ test and barely give a damn about your high school GPA. You have about 4,000 people applying every single year. Half of them are gunning for psychology as one of their top three choices—which, by the way, has been one of the most popular majors at schools like NYU or UCLA for years now. But there are only about 50 to 70 spots available. So, in our system, the selection process itself basically guarantees that the only people getting into psychology are the ones with the highest IQ scores...

Peter Stewart18 said:So, just for my own curiosity, what’s the average IQ of, say, painters, writers, dancers, singers, and all those other wannabe creative types trying to make it big? 😂

How the hell should I know?
The data is based on the GRE, which is part of the entrance requirements for PhD programs at universities across the USA.
Some people are whining because other professions weren't listed, but the original post specifically focused on PhD candidates.

John Roberts4 said:Exactly.

Think about the admissions process at a major US university's philosophy department. It’s one of those rare cases where they base everything on an IQ test and barely give a damn about your high school GPA. You have about 4,000 people applying every single year. Half of them are gunning for psychology as one of their top three choices—which, by the way, has been one of the most popular majors at schools like NYU or UCLA for years now. But there are only about 50 to 70 spots available. So, in our system, the selection process itself basically guarantees that the only people getting into psychology are the ones with the highest IQ scores...

The IQ test is just one of three components of the exam, and since they capped it at 130 (SD 15) and haven't updated the norms in years, it's hardly a gold standard.

Besides, like I’ve already pointed out, anything measuring intelligence functions effectively like an IQ test when you're dealing with large populations—thanks to Gauss's distribution.
So, you aren't the only ones using "IQ tests"—you're just the only ones calling it that.
Furthermore, why on earth would you think your specific test guarantees that the people entering psychology are the highest IQ individuals in the entire pre-college population? Maybe they're the smartest among those *applying* for psychology (much like how the SAT or GRE works here in the States), but even that's debatable—see below.

I don't see how this thesis doesn't apply to America. There's zero reason to assume otherwise since the curricula are practically identical in both countries.

Minimal importance of grades? Grades account for 1/4 of the total points, and the IQ test makes up 1/3 of the exam—meaning they carry the exact same weight.

Jesse Adams said:You're the one who crossed the line into being insulting. Maybe "chill out" is better advice for you?

From now on, if anyone has a personal problem with me, just send a DM.

Take a look back at your very first response. If you actually started engaging with people properly, you'd naturally develop a higher level of tolerance... or maybe not, but hey, at least you'll get an Olympic gold medal for it...😉

It’s kind of funny—who would even bother stalking you? Are you feeling a bit paranoid or something? Using primal outbursts in a civilized society—or just in a well-raised household—isn't really how things work... so I don't see much point in stooping to your level by retaliating... it feels beneath me, and frankly, it’s just childish...😂

You clearly can't handle any criticism, sarcasm, or irony directed at you. It sounds like you live in a state of constant tension, which must be exhausting...

I've handled statistics before, I was part of the demo group, and I'm currently teaching myself econometrics, time series analysis, multivariate analysis, stochastic processes, and so on. So, you really don't need to lecture me on how to apply mathematical tools... When I mentioned "condescension," I was referring to that high-and-mighty attitude you have toward people who haven't mastered your specific field... Capiche?...☕

Your tone is ridiculous, your self-importance is hilarious, and your actual arguments only make up about a quarter of what you write. The other three-quarters are just animalistic shouting and insults aimed at the person you're talking to...

If you truly respected diversity and actually possessed such a wide range of knowledge, you'd be aware of the limits of what you know. You wouldn't categorically reject the existence of something just because you can't prove it right this second based solely on your own narrow view...
Good luck... this is my last email regarding this topic of yours...

Chris Chase5 said:Take a look back at your very first response. If you actually started engaging with people properly, you'd naturally develop a higher level of tolerance... or maybe not, but hey, at least you'll get an Olympic gold medal for it...😉

It’s kind of funny—who would even bother stalking you? Are you feeling a bit paranoid or something? Using primal outbursts in a civilized society—or just in a well-raised household—isn't really how things work... so I don't see much point in stooping to your level by retaliating... it feels beneath me, and frankly, it’s just childish...😂

You clearly can't handle any criticism, sarcasm, or irony directed at you. It sounds like you live in a state of constant tension, which must be exhausting...

I've handled statistics before, I was part of the demo group, and I'm currently teaching myself econometrics, time series analysis, multivariate analysis, stochastic processes, and so on. So, you really don't need to lecture me on how to apply mathematical tools... When I mentioned "condescension," I was referring to that high-and-mighty attitude you have toward people who haven't mastered your specific field... Capiche?...☕

Your tone is ridiculous, your self-importance is hilarious, and your actual arguments only make up about a quarter of what you write. The other three-quarters are just animalistic shouting and insults aimed at the person you're talking to...

If you truly respected diversity and actually possessed such a wide range of knowledge, you'd be aware of the limits of what you know. You wouldn't categorically reject the existence of something just because you can't prove it right this second based solely on your own narrow view...
Good luck... this is my last email regarding this topic of yours...

Why should I bother tolerating people when they don't even make up my entire life?

You’re being ridiculous—who would even bother stalking you? Are you having a paranoid breakdown or something?

No. I’ve got my "spy" badge right here:
I can't believe people are still falling for this. Honestly—how many times do we have to go over the same arguments before it sticks? It’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes. The logic being used here is completely broken—it’s flawed from the jump. You can't just ignore the actual data and expect anyone to take you seriously. If you want to make a point, at least try to make one that holds up under scrutiny. Is it really that hard to look at the facts? And don't even get me started on the "experts" being cited. Most of them couldn't find their way out of a paper bag without a map. It’s all just noise at this point.

Using animalistic outbursts in polite society—or even just in a decent, well-bred household—is something most people just don't do. Personally? I'm not even going to bother reciprocating. It’s beneath me. Besides, looking back at how that was handled during my childhood... it’s honestly just pathetic.😂

Funny?

You can't handle a little criticism, sarcasm, or irony—it’s like you're constantly wound tight. Honestly, sounds like a pretty exhausting way to live.

Who cares what you "think"?

Look, I’ve got the stats background—I was a math major—and I'm still drilling into econometrics, time series analysis, multivariate analysis, stochastic processes, and all that. So, you can skip the lecture on how to actually use mathematical tools. I get it.

Props to you—you clearly know your stuff. 👍 Way to go!

When I talked about being condescending, I was actually talking about that high and mighty attitude you have toward anyone who hasn't spent years mastering your specific field. Capisce?☕

If this discussion is happening in my neck of the woods—so why shouldn't I have an opinion?

You're honestly a joke—your ego is hilarious. Your actual arguments make up maybe a quarter of what you write? The other three-quarters is just mindless screaming and insults thrown at everyone else.

My average is better than yours on that front—at least within this thread. I haven't bothered looking at your other posts because, frankly, I don't care about you.

If you actually respected diversity and truly possessed such a vast range of knowledge, you’d be aware of your own limitations. You wouldn't just flat-out deny something exists based solely on the argument that it doesn't...

Give me an example.

Good luck....this is my last email regarding this topic of yours....

An email? Santa Claus!
Bye now! I’ll certainly miss your "constructive" contributions to the debate (and then you have the nerve to claim I can't handle sarcasm). 😉

Jesse Adams said:Why should I bother tolerating people when they don't even make up my entire life?

You’re being ridiculous—who would even bother stalking you? Are you having a paranoid breakdown or something?

No. I’ve got my "spy" badge right here:
I can't believe people are still falling for this. Honestly—how many times do we have to go over the same arguments before it sticks? It’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes. The logic being used here is completely broken—it’s flawed from the jump. You can't just ignore the actual data and expect anyone to take you seriously. If you want to make a point, at least try to make one that holds up under scrutiny. Is it really that hard to look at the facts? And don't even get me started on the "experts" being cited. Most of them couldn't find their way out of a paper bag without a map. It’s all just noise at this point.

Using animalistic outbursts in polite society—or even just in a decent, well-bred household—is something most people just don't do. Personally? I'm not even going to bother reciprocating. It’s beneath me. Besides, looking back at how that was handled during my childhood... it’s honestly just pathetic.😂

Funny?

You can't handle a little criticism, sarcasm, or irony—it’s like you're constantly wound tight. Honestly, sounds like a pretty exhausting way to live.

Who cares what you "think"?

Look, I’ve got the stats background—I was a math major—and I'm still drilling into econometrics, time series analysis, multivariate analysis, stochastic processes, and all that. So, you can skip the lecture on how to actually use mathematical tools. I get it.

Props to you—you clearly know your stuff. 👍 Way to go!

When I talked about being condescending, I was actually talking about that high and mighty attitude you have toward anyone who hasn't spent years mastering your specific field. Capisce?☕

If this discussion is happening in my neck of the woods—so why shouldn't I have an opinion?

You're honestly a joke—your ego is hilarious. Your actual arguments make up maybe a quarter of what you write? The other three-quarters is just mindless screaming and insults thrown at everyone else.

My average is better than yours on that front—at least within this thread. I haven't bothered looking at your other posts because, frankly, I don't care about you.

If you actually respected diversity and truly possessed such a vast range of knowledge, you’d be aware of your own limitations. You wouldn't just flat-out deny something exists based solely on the argument that it doesn't...

Give me an example.

Good luck....this is my last email regarding this topic of yours....

An email? Santa Claus!
Bye now! I’ll certainly miss your "constructive" contributions to the debate (and then you have the nerve to claim I can't handle sarcasm). 😉

Look, if you're really bothered by people reading your posts on here—just don't post.🤷
Honestly though, I think it’s kind of a ego boost for you that anyone even bothers to read your stuff.😉

And man, seriously, stop accusing me of stalking you.
Just say the word and I'll stop reading anything you write—end of story.