• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

High IQ problem

bigbadwolf said:
I don't think there's an agreed-on definition of "intelligence" -- so the IQ can't be a bad measure of it since it's undefined, vague, and fuzzy. The IQ is what you get when you take a particular test. Does it matter? It seems to matter to the US army, which has a cutoff of 85: they found it's too difficult and expensive to train people with lower IQs. And the SAT and ACT function as IQ tests in all but name: admissions officers know there's a correlation between the scores and subsequent academic performance. While it's important not to fetishise the IQ, it serves a purpose: that's why it's in existence. If I had to choose between two candidates, ceteris paribum, I'd go for the one with the higher score.
Click to expand...


Kim Peek supposedly scored a 87 on a IQ test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek).

btw I don't know which IQ test you are referring to, but from what I've seen they are quite different from tests like SAT, ACT or GRE. Also, with your 160 IQ (yes you didn't state this but its obvious from your posts that you like to think of yourself as a genius) you should know that even people with slightly above average scores on the IQ test can score perfect scores in those tests with enough studying. So does that mean their intellectual capacity was increased by studying for SAT/ACT/GRE?
 
systemtrader said:
Also, with your 160 IQ (yes you didn't state this but its obvious from your posts that you like to think of yourself as a genius)...
Click to expand...

You do but flatter me. I'm not in that league. But I have mixed with people vastly more capable than myself and I know there's an inherent difference.

you should know that even people with slightly above average scores on the IQ test can score perfect scores in those tests with enough studying. So does that mean their intellectual capacity was increased by studying for SAT/ACT/GRE?
Click to expand...

No they can't. As with any of the IQ tests, scores at the SAT/ACT/GRE can be improved by practice up to a certain limit. One can approach that limit asymptotically -- but not get past it. Not being able to get past that limit marks the boundary of one's inherent abilities.
 
The moral of the story is...don't talk about IQ with quants (especially your own), or else everyone will assume you are being arrogant, and you will make enemies in the workplace. There are a few people I know like this, and it is amazing to see the difference in how they view themselves, and how much others talk behind their backs!
 
JesseLevermore said:
I'm sorry but if the GRE is an IQ test it's one of the worst ever devised. Anyone could get a perfect score with enough studying/practice, it's just a time wasting exercise that most people don't enjoy.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of the math subject GRE (for admission to grad school in math), where of course you have to know your stuff -- but you have to be mentally agile as well. Or substitute something else if you wish -- like the Putnam or the Cambridge Part III exams.
 
bigbadwolf said:
I was thinking more of the math subject GRE (for admission to grad school in math), where of course you have to know your stuff -- but you have to be mentally agile as well. Or substitute something else if you wish -- like the Putnam or the Cambridge Part III exams.
Click to expand...
As someone that takes the Putnam very seriously, the Putnam is a terrible "IQ" test - first, it's got a terrible distribution, and second, practice AND innate ability are necessary for a reasonably decent score.

Not sure why we're arguing about this though, this completely veered off the original thread topic, although I believe

wayoung said:
The moral of the story is...don't talk about IQ with quants (especially your own), or else everyone will assume you are being arrogant, and you will make enemies in the workplace. There are a few people I know like this, and it is amazing to see the difference in how they view themselves, and how much others talk behind their backs!
Click to expand...

is right on the money.
 
wayoung said:
Look at the Polgar Sisters. Geniuses are made, not born.
Click to expand...

Judit is the genius. A combination of innate ability and systematic training (the father is a genius of a teacher). We were having a discussion of this on a chess forum a couple of years back: my contention was that Hungarian Jews are the brightest ethnic group in the world (John von Neumann is another example).
 
euroazn said:
As someone that takes the Putnam very seriously, the Putnam is a terrible "IQ" test - first, it's got a terrible distribution, and second, practice AND innate ability are necessary for a reasonably decent score.
Click to expand...

It's not normally distributed -- but then it's meant only to sift out only the most promising. You do have a valid point that practice and innate ability are key, as in most everything else (which is why an IQ score by itself doesn't mean much except as an abstract potential).
 
I would first ask whether employee x has an ego problem, or honestly is in a position where he honestly is not utilized to his full potential. Regardless of the answer, I would recommend that employee x take an honest look at his goals and long term focus. Where does Mr. x ultimately want to go and what does he want to accomplish? Who cares if the company is utilizing Mr. x to his full potential or not. Is Mr. x utilizing his potential 100% all of the time? That is the real question whose answer is the most important.
 
bigbadwolf said:
I don't think there's an agreed-on definition of "intelligence" -- so the IQ can't be a bad measure of it since it's undefined, vague, and fuzzy. The IQ is what you get when you take a particular test. Does it matter? It seems to matter to the US army, which has a cutoff of 85: they found it's too difficult and expensive to train people with lower IQs. And the SAT and ACT function as IQ tests in all but name: admissions officers know there's a correlation between the scores and subsequent academic performance. While it's important not to fetishise the IQ, it serves a purpose: that's why it's in existence. If I had to choose between two candidates, ceteris paribum, I'd go for the one with the higher score.
Click to expand...


Interesting, so many people who served in the US army successfully in the past would not be eligible for commission now? Since IQ is a population measure and IQ is increasing year-on-year...
 
Barny said:
Interesting, so many people who served in the US army successfully in the past would not be eligible for commission now? Since IQ is a population measure and IQ is increasing year-on-year...
Click to expand...

I'm talking of enlisted men.
 
Personally, I would fire the guy. I'm with Ken, though he's probably not as intolerant I am. If you are clever but unable to speak to others, come to work having had a shower, or think everything is beneath you, I have literally no time for you.
 
Back
Top