It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by KyleChemist
Not quite sure what you mean by 'lack of intelligence' But, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Call me dramatic if you want, but if you have the drive determination, and detication, nothing is impossible. Read a book called The Millionaire Next Door, most millionaires are not geniuses, they just have a dream and went for it and didn't let anything get in their way.
Maybe they were not administerd properly, but I doesn't matter. I have done HORRIBLE on EVERY standardized IQ test I have ever taken, and has not hurt me one bit. Most of my friends that did do well on those test have not been helped by it all that much either.
In the sciences, grad schools don't care all that much about the GRE (I had two acceptance letters before even taking it). A high score will help you, but If you have a solid GPA, a strong background in undergraduate research, and good letters of recomedation, the GRE doesn't mean a thing.
There are a lot of people in my situation, success in life depends a lot more than some scores on a test. If I really wanted to, and applied myself, I probably could do well on some intelligence test, but its not worth my time. My past record of accomplishments speak for themselves. Intelligence tests may work in most cases, and they may have worked for me, I may actually be dumb for all I know. I have to work harder than those who have natural intelligence, but as I keep saying, desire, determination, and dedication will overcome some scores on a test any day of the week, period.
Fair enough. I was definitely being unclear with the phrase "lack of intelligence". The problem is that intelligence is an extremely vague term that often gets confused with things like creativity. By intelligence, I mean the end result of all of the different activities of the brain. That is, working memory, long-term memory, spatial ability, verbal ability, etc.. I suppose nobody is actually lacking in intelligence in that sense, so I worded that poorly. What I really meant was that severly lacking in these domains makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do what you have done. People diagnosed as mentally retarded or with IQs under 70 are not getting Ph.D.s in chemistry, even if they have dreams and go for it. I could be wrong, and if so, just provide the reference.
Well, in a practical sense it doesn't matter, I agree. But if someone took your temperature incorrectly and said you had a fever, but in reality it was simply a measurement error on the part of the physician, does that mean that the Fahrenheit scale is a bunch of crap? Of course not.
That's news to me. When did you get accepted? Why do most natural science programs require applicants to take both the GRE and the standardized subject test for their field? A high GPA and good letters of recommendation are expected for any applicant. That's exactly why standardized tests are needed.
What is "natural intelligence"? Is that what intelligence tests measure?
In a way, I agree with you that motivation and interests are excellent predictors of later success. I disagree with you when you say that intelligence scores don't matter. The score on the test doesn't help you in any practical sense, fine. However, intelligence scores are better predictors of later success than motivation and interests measures alone. That's all I'm saying. Take 100 people of equal motivation and interest in field X. 50 have an IQ of 80 and the other 50 an IQ of 120. Which group will have the better outcome in their field? I'm putting my money on the people with the IQ of 120.
Take another example: A lot of kids want to be professional athletes when they grow up. Why don't they all do it? Because they don't have the ability. They have the desire, they have the dedication, they go to whatever camps they can, they play in rec leagues, they play in high school and in college, but still, the majority don't make it. Why? They don't have the ability.
Your personal situation sounds to me like a kid who was told by stupid coaches that they couldn't make it in the big leagues, but you made it anyways. Fair enough, dumb coaches. But now you are interpreting it as if ability had nothing to do with it.
"How do I calculate the area of contact at the intersection
of two (Both 1" Diamiter) perfect sphears, the surfaces of
which possess no allowance for Deformation?
Please Provide detailed explanation of Solution, and proof there of."
Originally posted by KyleChemist
For those of you with IQ in the 140-200, kudos to you, but this will NOT gurantee you success in life.
[edit on 12-4-2005 by KyleChemist]
I agree completely with this statement and most of what you said in the last post. I disagree that the GRE and subject tests are merely formalities. If two applicants have similiar CVs and one has a higher standardized test score, I'd bet they will accept the one with the higher score. In highly competitive programs, where only 2-5 people may be accepted out of 300 or more applicants, I would think (just speculation) that the top 25 applicants have very strong letters of recommendation, and I would agree that the CV and letters of recommendation are what put them in the top 25 to begin with. People with high test scores and poor letters of recommendation or a lack of research experience will never make it on test scores alone.
I think we can agree that it takes a blend of motivation, hard work, and natural ability to succeed in any field. The difficult part is defining "natural ability" or "intelligence". I guess a conservative definition would be that intelligence is that factor that accounts for the rest of the variation unaccounted by motivation and hard work. Not everyone who has the motivation and dedication to answer a difficult problem will arrive at the correct answer.
On the other hand, I understand that people come to the correct answer in many different ways. Intelligence shouldn't be thought of has a specific "way" or "method" of solving a problem, nor should it be thought of as how quickly someone can answer it. In that sense, if two people can arrive at the same correct answer, one doing it slowly on paper and the other doing it instantly in their head, I don't think this should be used as an indication of any difference in their ability. They are simply using different strategies.
Originally posted by KyleChemist
It depends on the program and the school. Most graduate programs in the sciences, are not very competitive due to lack of US applicants. In fact most graduate programs have to try and recruit more graduate students to fill all the slots, thus the large number of foreign grad students. The GRE may or may not be just a formality, but letters of recommendation and undergraduate research definanlty carry much more weight. Even more so than GPA. In fact a high GRE can accutally hurt you in some cases. If you have a high GRE, but a low GPA, no undergraduate research, and dismal letters of recommendation (I knew A LOT of people like this) you get labled SLACKER, and you can kiss your chances of getting into a top school goodbye.
Yes, you are right 'natural ability' is a tough value to measure. Both natural ability and work ethic have to be there in order to achieve success in ANY field. If one is lacking, the other has to pick up the slack. But that doesn't mean if you have high test scores and you are lazy bum you going to make it.
Absolutely, I am one of those people that has to come up with the answer slowly on paper. Yes, I do have to work harder and longer than some of co-wokers who can come up with answer in their head. But as I have said before, this hasn't hurt me one bit.
As far as I am concerned, the tests I took worked, they measure intelligence and test taking abiliy, NOT drive and motivation.
Originally posted by Grey
I really do find enjoyment in the fact that many people confide in a three digit number that seems to dictate one's position on the intellectual ladder. IQ's mean nothing ... to dwell on the fact that your number is lower or higher than the other guy's number, and/or to judge who you are by it, is rather ridiculous.
So taking these classifications of 'genius' into consideration ... let me ask you this. Who's more 'genius', a man with an IQ of 100 (average) whom happens to succesfully create an alternative to gasoline using corn (although it's already been done) ... or a man with an IQ of 175 whom sits at his house all day everyday with a bottle of Jimmy Beam at his side, thinking about how misserable and meaningless his life is because he can, and believe he has, learned almost everything there is to know in life without trying? And don't even try to say that no incredably 'genius' people spend their days getting liquored up ... I know a couple myself.
It doesn't matter whether or not some guy with 'credentials' says you're genius .... it matters what you do with what you have.