I was a bit sympathetic to this at first. Honestly the reason my skepticism has done nothing but grow since I started a slow passive research into the subject has been practice at reading real science papers.



Quarks have a pretty strong evidentiary basis. Quarks are honestly a direct extension of the same type of science that brought us atomic weights. It's looking at the fundamental makeup of the smaller and smaller pieces of particles. Even if you don't think quarks exist there's absolutely no doubt that protons are not fundamental particles.

Physics has gotten softer because modern physics has reached a level of complexity that the equations involved have no exact solutions. We won't have a big revolution in the descriptive power of physics without reworking very fundamental parts of our knowledge base. We've basically got to reinvent math to get more precise equations, or whatever the new math version of an equation will be. Until then we're just going to be applying increasingly specific approximation methods.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 3 2020 11:15am

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3048792/coronavirus-tally-epicentre-wuhan-may-be-just-tip-iceberg

ty

i think if i approach the subject honestly i would say we lived in a state as humans for hundreds of years, or even really hundreds of thousands years, where a TINY fraction of the population had a natural advantage in IQ. the thinkers, the people who thought to use a rock as a hammer, the people who thought to crack rocks and use the shards as knives, all the way up to Eli Whitney and co. In this stage of human development IQ literally caused success, because humans all were fairly self reliant for success. then as we got more technology, driven by IQ blessed people, we became less reliant on our own merits and failures as a means of success. and the diverse and complicated society we built on the backs of that technology raised new concerns and issues. mental health problems, relationship issues of a changing sexual landscape, diverse demands of food from people, fashion was born, etc. this makes success possible without IQ, but IQ still has the most direct path between failure and success.

one can have peak physical intelligence but still fail utterly, one can have peak emotional success and same thing. one can be blessed in IQ and be a failure, but i think its more rare than the other types of intelligence. i have some unfounded theories, but i think it breaks down to where those intelligences lead people in life. being a math genius doesnt typically lead anywhere unsuccessful. whereas a high emotional or social intelligence could lead people to manipulate others into doing work for them, or could be only used in one's personal life without capitalizing on them in their career.

but i think the most telling of all would be a hypothetical intelligence trade, i dont see anyone with a genius IQ ever trading that for another category. i personally wouldnt trade my good IQ a good EQ score.

I think you're looking too much at just the people with truly transcending intelligence/talent, the Mozarts and Einsteins. Those types tend to find success no matter what. But they are the exception.

In modern society, there are so many complexities that it really takes a certain minimum standard in various fields to become successful. There are tons of people who are intellectually gifted enough to, for example, become a tenured professor at a good university, but they didnt because they had shitty work ethics or a messed up personal life, etc. I believe there are more failed math geniuses than you think, to name just one example.


In general, I would say that in a modern society, a "very high/good enough/good enough"-split between intelligence/work ethics/social skills is a more reliable path to success than a "super high/subpar/subpar"-split.

When it comes to the different forms of intelligence: not all of them are equal in terms of how good you can monetize them. A high analytical intelligence tends to pay off more than a high physical or emotional intelligence or "artsiness".
I'm with you that I wouldnt trade any point of my IQ for EQ.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 3 2020 12:26pm

I bet whether your parents went to college is a bigger predictor of success than IQ.

whether your parents went to college is also likely highly correlated with IQ. im sure its testing two factors both moving in the same direction.

this is of course true. but testing people with a mix of intelligence scores gets sticky quick and is hard to test and then discuss. i for example have tested high in EQ as well as IQ, i just generally dont use the EQ professionally unless i have to.

plus it just leads us to the predictably boring outcome of "a mix of all is good". true but not very controversial or discuss able.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 3 2020 12:23pm

My point wasnt that a mix of all is good, my point was that other areas than intelligence, in particular work ethics and social skills, require a certain mimum standard for someone to reliably get ahead in modern society.


Say we have 300 points to distribute across these 3 dimensions (intelligence/work ethics/social skills).
My point isnt that a murky 120/90/90 split would be good, my point is that for example a 180/60/60 split will be better than a 250/25/25 split. (And yes, also better than the mediocre 120/90/90 split.)

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 3 2020 12:34pm

i agree with that. big mix of IQ, competent mix of social and work ethic.

but it should be said that a high dose of work ethic can guarantee success to a certain degree, just with a lower ceiling. people who work hard are generally kept in layoff phases, and get new jobs and good references.

whereas i think a strong social skills score with only competent other scores would produce a more mixed bag of success rates.

Wisdom is for whomever is qualified to use it. I put it into the public space because somebody might find it useful, I didn't think you really would. That is the thing about the aphorism.