<p>How plausible is it that someone with a 2400 (~99.98th percentile) could have a decent but not exceptional IQ? </p>
<p>This will probably sound whiny and egotistical (hence my account name), but please bear with me. I want to be a great theoretical physicist, and I've been inspired by books like Outliers which argue that what separates the great from the mediocre in any field is merely practice. However, from reading online it seems to be widely agreed that this doesn't hold in purely intellectual pursuits like pure mathematics and physics, where success requires a special gift--usually exemplified by an exceptional IQ (99.9th percentile+). </p>
<p>Since I improved my SAT score through practice and because scoring well seems to be a matter of reading a lot and doing math rather than being naturally intelligent, I figured that my score would be insufficient evidence for this "gift." So I took the test at iqtest.dk and scored 122. I know I shouldn't be disappointed because this is above average, but this is way below what seems to be the threshold to do great creative work in a field like physics. </p>
<p>But money is tight and I am reluctant to cough up $300 for a full examination from a psychologist. I'm really hoping (probably unreasonably) that someone here has info about the correlation between high SAT scores and IQ which could perhaps show that a 2400 indicates enough raw intelligence to pass the threshold for the most demanding pursuits (like conducting influential physics research).</p>
<p>I'm sorry if this all sounds totally ridiculous. I really wish I didn't care so much. But I can't put aside the idea of becoming an important physicist. Of course, if it turns out I lack the requisite gift I figure it is better to lower my sights now than later. Thank you, friends.</p>
<p>Uh, well. Lots and lots of people get 2350+ on their SATs. So it definitely isn’t necessarily an indicator of Einstein-level intelligence. And it’s pretty well known that the math on the SAT isn’t particularly high-end. Still, the SAT has a pretty solid correlation with IQ that makes the idea that your IQ is sub-130 kinda sketchy.</p>
<p>I would just disregard the IQ test and live your life. Good science kinda dependes more on creativity and tenacity, anyway.</p>
<p>The major studies that show correlation between SAT and IQ were all conducted before the new SAT was implemented. The overhaul was designed to make the SAT more of a scholastic achievement test and less a measure of general intelligence. So it would not be that weird for you to have a 2400 and an IQ of 122–it would be like being great at tennis and only decent at ping pong. Sure, the skills are related, but neither implies the other. </p>
<p>However, I’m not convinced that the SAT is any less valid as a predictor of success in theoretical physics than an IQ test.</p>
<p>SAT is pretty closely correlated with IQ. In addition, the online tests you might have taken mean absolutely nothing. The examination that you are unwilling to cough up $300 for is the only valid number, all other scores are bogus. Never take IQ tests from the internet.</p>
<p>Nihilus, the old SAT correlated pretty closely (r=0.82) with IQ. It’s possible that the new SAT correlates much less strongly given that it was designed to measure achievement rather than aptitude.</p>
<p>No level of IQ insures you can become great at anything. Its a mix of hard work and natural ability, if your iq is lower than another person’s iq, you may need to work harder at a problem.</p>
<p>The free IQ tests out there on the internet are no indication of IQ. Furthermore, even IQ tests don’t actually measure intelligence. The idea that intelligence can easily be quantified is completely unfounded.</p>
<p>The other funny thing about this whole IQ versus SAT score thing on this site is that none of the people with high SAT scores who vouch that one has no chance at getting an elite score without having a high IQ have ever taken an IQ test. Think about this for a second. On how many of these threads have you ever seen the person who’s propagating this idea actually cite their official IQ? ZERO! </p>
<p>That’s the irony of CC. The people who dogmatically claim to be intellectuals on here are actually smug idiots.</p>
<p>It is possible. And anyways, stop asking if it’s possible; just do it, god damnit.</p>
<p>There’s an infinite number of possible approaches for any problem. Regardless of your intelligence, you cannot iterate through all possibilities without an infinite amount of computing power. Even 10,000 different approaches to a problem is not practical to attempt in a short time span regardless of intelligence. Hence, there must be another factor that allows for people to approach and to solve problems. </p>
<p>The only plausible way to go about it is pruning down the possible actions you can take to solve a problem. Knowledge allows one to do that. Past experience allows you to solve new problems you haven’t seen before by pruning down the possible actions you should try to solve the new problem you face. Common problems are rarely unique: they’re often similar to other problems. Hence, pattern recognition learned from prior information is the only way to practically solve any problem. What you learn is much more important than your intelligence.</p>
<p>Gifted-2400 score: Forgot about the test. Didn’t bother to study. Woke up late and was the last person seated by three kids with nervous disorders. Scored 2400.</p>
<p>Pretender-2400 score. Began studying for the SAT in 8th grade, studying a decade worth of old tests, memorizing every single answer and SAT essay. On test day all the hard problems are recycled from old tests, setting up the pretender to achieve a perfect 2400.</p>
<p>I can’t claim to have a gifted-2400 score by your definition. When I took the PSAT with minimal prep in my sophomore year I got a 222, not a 240. Then I bought the Blue Book and did many sections for practice (I also read Direct Hits) before I could score the 2400 in the beginning of my junior year. When I took it, though, I didn’t miss any multiple choice questions (did get one point taken off on the essay). </p>
<p>@blahblah9393 That is a really interesting way of looking at problem solving! Thanks for the reply.</p>
<p>Obviously you can improve by leaps and bounds at any task with thousands of hours of practice. The question is: Is there a rough cap on your achievement level based on natural intelligence? So that your progress would gradually tail off and approach this limit? For example, the maximum chess rating someone can hope to achieve with unlimited practice is posited to be around 1000 + 10 * IQ.</p>
<p>Chess is actually what influenced my opinion on learning. I realized that even with a finite number of moves per turn in chess, it’s still very hard (or impossible) in the beginning/mid game to calculate every possibly position after ‘d’ moves are played (where ‘d’ would be like >= 4) because the number of possible ending positions after ‘d’ moves is exponential. Humans can only decrease the number of moves they try by using heuristics and minor computations.</p>
<p>There’s most definitely a cap. For example, if you have no memory, or you can only remember one thing at a time, you won’t ever be to make useful conclusions from prior evidence. If it takes you a year to add two numbers together, you probably will be limited in what you can learn. That said, most of everyone doesn’t fall in these extreme categories, so you probably will never actually reach your limit.</p>
<p>Your confusion about why some people are a lot better than others probably stems from something else. For example, if intelligence, for some reason (theoretically), linearly correlated with how much you learned, the gap of knowledge would still apply. If two people put in the same amount of work, and person X learned .5 foos per day and person Y learned 2 foos per day, the amount of work X gets over ‘n’ days is .5n and Y is 2n. The difference of learning: 2n - .5n = 1.5n is a monotonically increasing function, hence the difference between how much person Y and X learns increases over time. That’s probably the huge gap between people that you are noticing.</p>
<p>IQ is ********. Malcolm Gladwell is stupid and Outliers is a terrible book. Major in physics, work hard, graduate, get professorship, get absurdly lucky, acquire nobel prize.</p>
<p>Alright egotistical, you’re obviously smart, I did not get a 2400 on the sat, but I can say there is some level of innate intelligence you must have to get a 2400, or else more people would get it. Think of it this way, you maxed out the SAT, the SAT is no longer able to accurately measure your “scholastic aptitude” whether that be raw intelligence, hard work, or both. Egotistical, it’s possible that your ego isn’t that big, but you’re insecure about your intelligence level, which you shouldn’t be…You got a 2400…If you asked this question to normal not school focused CC people they would probably just tell you to stop talking.</p>
<p>Actually I have to disagree. Getting a 2400 on the SAT does not NECESSARILY guarantee that there is a higher level of innate intelligence. I think it’s safe to say that anyone who scores higher than a 2350 has around the same level of intelligence and all have the ABILITY to get a 2400 (speaking from personal experience). The 2400 on the real thing really has to do a bit with luck and circumstances.</p>
<p>Also, a 2400 can easily (well, a 2350+) be earned purely by hardwork. It does not take superhuman (or even above average) intelligence to memorize words, learn grammar rules, and make sure not to make stupid mistakes on simple high school algebra/geometry…</p>
<p>You literally have to force yourself to practice and that’s it. No high IQ required.</p>
<p>The SAT has no bearing on your intelligence whatsoever. The SAT is, essentially, like all other high school coursework. If you work hard and put in the effort, you will get a high score. Many people have said that the only thing the SAT measures is how well you can take the SAT. So if you prep for the exam, there’s no reason why you should do poorly - it is not a measure of intelligence, only of effort. This is coming from someone who scored pretty low on some of the pre-SAT standardized exams (those that purportedly predict your success on the SAT) who came back, after studying extensively, to score a 2290.</p>