Thinking Mouse: Also, why do you use the Feynman example as a minimum? He’s an ultra exception?
Didn’t he get a Nobel? Well, if he did, he is interesting because I suppose that is a threshold effect. But bringing him up over and over to prove some point is dumb.
You must understand that Feynman scored the highest score ever on the Physics entry exam to his university. A number of his other tests in physics were completely off the charts. So Feynman was like a 190 IQ in Physics. Feynman was weak on verbal. People who have access to his notes have observed frequent spelling, punctuation and grammar errors.
So using the Feynman example that “any 125 IQ person can win a Nobel” is just stupid. Can a 125 IQ person win the Nobel Prize? Sure, maybe in Physics. But all you need is a 190 IQ when it comes to Physics. How many 125 IQ people have that? Zero? That’s what I thought.
And it gives false hope to a lot of people while de-emphasizing the importance of intelligence to others. To allow a 100 IQ person to go to university without telling them or at least knowing yourself that they will have to work very hard is irresponsible. To allow someone with an IQ below 115 to even entertain the possibility of getting a PhD or an MD is the height of irresponsibility. I mean it’s hard to tell people these things, but you can always let them go find out for themselves and learn the hard way. But giving people false hope is stupid, cruel, and a waste of time and resources.
The Greeks said, “To know thine own self is the rule.” One of the purposes of life is to know yourself or finally understand yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses, the whole nine yards. Not understanding yourself and always overestimating how good you are at this or that is ridiculous.
Most people I know do not know themselves well at all, even far into their 50’s. This is ridiculous. “I am good at this” or “I am not good at that,” takes a lot of bravery that most folks just don’t have. This is a problem because always overestimating what you can do leads to a lot of time and effort wasted on useless projects and further leads to a lot of frustration and depression when you inevitably fail.
17 thoughts on “Why Emphasizing the Exceptions Over the Rule is Dumb, Lacks Self-Awareness, and Gives False Hope”
First of all, I don’t see how verbal IQ can be extracted from spelling errors and grammar. Verbal IQ measures General Knowledge about random facts, vocabulary (ability to explain things), and Verbal abstract reasoning. He was certainly not weak in any of those. Also, what do you consider as weak?
Also, the point of emphasizing exceptions is to show that IQ isn’t everything. A 125 IQ can get a Nobel, so can a 115. It’s possible. Most people will never, but they can if they have good extra IQ factors. That’s the point here.
Exceptions show possibility, the rule shows the “on average”. I don’t think emphasizing exceptions is bad whatsoever.
Possibility is what makes hypothesis speculation tend to sorround exceptions to the rule.
Exactly. If there’s an exception to a rule “rule”, that rule shouldn’t be the fucking rule!
Rules are just probabilities made from axioms that have deductive qualities. Theres no evidence nor reason to think in universals. Its all subjective. How is higher Math right if you dont get it? What is right Then? Only you know. The reason i wanted to point out that its possible to think in terms of what you think is cause some people are so retarded they dont get the difference between different models and reality.
Maybe some super philosopher could change my mind someday IDK.
I don’t like your math comparison. It’s subjectively objective (for the most part), that math is right.
It’s still the rule! As my Mom says, there is a saying that “the exception proves the rule.” Most people who believe in rules like this realize that there is the occasional exception, but that doesn’t validate the basic rule.
Re: Feynman. Yeah, a guy with a 125 IQ can win the Nobel Prize. IF HE HAS A 190 IQ IN PHYSICS. Now I ask you, how many 125 IQ people have a Tesla-type IQ when it comes to Physics?
This many: ZERO.
The exception is bullshit. People without sky high IQ’s can still accomplish a lot intellectually, yes. BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVE A WILDLY LOPSIDED IQ SUCH THAT ONE SIDE IS FAR OFF INTO THE GENIUS RANGE.
Feynman didn’t win the Nobel because he had a fucking 125 IQ. He won it because his Physics scores were among the highest even seen in the US.
Rahul, do you have OCD. My Mom had a friend who I think had OCD, and she was always WHAT ABOUT THE EXCEPTIONS. It’s idiotic. My Mom complained about her all the time. Also if you keep going on about WHAT ABOUT THE EXCEPTIONS, you will piss a lot of really smart people, especially genius IQ types like my Mom, off.
It’s intellectually obtuse behavior. You’re like a dog with a bone, man. You just cling to your silly ideas and keep yelling louder.
Also if you carry on like through life, you will never understand life well, you will be a social retard, and a lot of bad things might happen to you because you refuse to generalize.
Intelligent people think in universals, rules, and generalizations, while realizing that while of course there are exceptions, most of the time, it’s safe to assume that the rule applies.
If you refuse to think in universals and generalizations like this, you will be a social retard until the day you die, and a lot of bad stuff will happen to you because you refuse to generalize about new situations.
Robert, Feynman didn’t win the Nobel Prize in Physics because he had a 190 Physics IQ or because he had a 125 IQ. He won it because he was ardently passionate about Physics and Math, and he contributed enough to the betterment of using Physics to serve humanity. That’s why he won the Prize.
I don’t mean to be rude when I say this Robert (hell, this is the case with pretty much any disagreement I have, which is a lot), but this comment was somewhat insulting to Richard Feynman. Really, you’re attributing it to his 190 Physics IQ (which I doubt)?
Yeah, I MIGHT have OCD. I certainly show traits of it (when somewhat obsessing over my IQ, lol- due to my insecurities), but I still have to see the therapist. When I get the OCD, I must do a ritual, but I’m able to do it in my head at times when I can’t do my ritual properly. Still, I don’t believe OCD has anything to do with asking about the exceptions.
I’m already socially inept, and to be honest, it fucking sucks a lot of the time, but I feel awkward with the notion of not being socially awkward or anxious.
Again, the exceptions prove that there are again, exceptions to the rule.
You are obsessing over this IQ shit because of your OCD. I work in mental health, I can tell you that straight up.
Robert, you’re right. I am obsessing over it. I’m finding the smallest of details (mostly useless), when doing IQ shit. I wish I could somehow transfer that over to Chemistry tests.
“It’s subjectively objective (for the most part), that math is right.”
Doesnt contradict what im saying. Math is the most self evident and therefore correct, but its on faith my dude. Whenever you turn the computer on, you have the sufficient faith that it wont explode. indivisable units looks like fate to me. Whats even the difference between god and indivisable units? No wonder the catholics had their interpretations of aristotle.
Logic is just the most clear language, but we dont have perfect information so its limited and many people just dont understand for some reason. Why would a person be anymore reasonable than a duck? pure luck.
What isnt fate? incommunicable as language pertains
It might require a decent amount of autism to get this. Some postmodernists lost their ability to speak thanks to this.
Solipsism is right, but socialization makes us fake realists.
as language pertains axioms. Thats where god comes in my opinion, but also humanism and indivisible axioms.
Well, just because something is not interpreted as right, doesn’t mean it isn’t right. There was a time in which people thought the Earth was flat. Is that true? No.
The fact about rightness being right based on faith is only when something is subjective, in which you don’t even have the concept of right.
You can have faith about anything, that doesn’t make it right, or wrong for that matter.
Difference between god and indivisible units? Well, you could say that god created those, but if god for you is omnipotent, than those indivisible particles are god, scientific god perse.
If you can fuck with a Quark, well, you have to the potential to fuck with pretty much any kind of matter. You can fuck up everything on earth.
That was rahul, not me 🙂
I went over this in another comment. Take South Korea, it’s accepted that a person with a fake hidden leg is a gimp and cannot teach school. So all the parents will withdraw the kids from the school. Now cruel is that? What kind of generalization is that? However, in a snooty Jim Crow style culture – one that white nationalists wet dream about – that’s what happens! People become way too narrow-minded.
But anyway, on the other side, we cannot discount generalizations – though we cannot totally live by them. But I think the generalization that a load of poor blacks will bring crime isn’t the same as one saying some mildly disabled teacher cannot teach school.