1. vg 说：

   21年2011月2日，格林尼治标准时间下午06:XNUMX

   殡葬承办人比考古学家更聪明。哈！什么是农业科学家？一个有大学学历的农民？他们似乎不太聪明，收入也不高。
2. AG 说：

   21年2011月2日，格林尼治标准时间下午23:XNUMX •100字

   Agree. There are small number of surgeons who thought neoplasm only cancer and clean surgical resection as treatment of lymphoma. These surgeons have been reduced to simple operators without much medical knowlage in their heads any more. Yet, they still make big bucks.

   Certainly majority of surgeons are brilliant despite of those stupid outliers.

   (FYI, neoplams include both benign and malignant tumors. Lymphoma is whole body disease which should be treated with chemotherapy and radiation).
3. 汤姆·里斯 说： • 您的网站

   21年2011月2日，格林尼治标准时间下午27:XNUMX •100字

   我想知道 wordsum 的重测相关性是什么？我的意思是，这是一项更大调查的 10 个字。我想很多人可能会犯错，如果他们今天过得很糟糕或者在调查的这一部分上分心的话。

   调查通常发现，当提供选择时，5-10% 的人会给出完全愚蠢的答案。我想知道这是否真实反映了世界上低能儿的数量。
4. 杰森·马洛伊（Jason Malloy） 说：

   21年2011月2日，格林尼治标准时间下午37:XNUMX

   INCOME has been asked a since 1974, but unfortunately its highest category is $25,000 and more, so there’s not much information at the non-low end of the scale (at least in current dollar values).

   REALRINC is the inflation adjusted income variable.

   (Also CONRINC)
5. AG 说：

   21年2011月2日，格林尼治标准时间下午56:XNUMX •100字

   Here is academic measurement of IQ/profession.

   http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

   Compare to Audacious Epigone Average IQ by occupation (estimated from median income) listed above by Razib.

   Obviously quite a lot of occupations do not deserve what they get.

   On the other hand, not all smart people want to become surgeons or physicians. So income is only correlated with IQ but not equal to IQ.
6. 马塞尔普鲁斯特 说：

   21年2011月4日，格林尼治标准时间下午00:XNUMX •100字

   And of those who are smart, 1 out of 5 are smart..

   I see. So, 80% of those who are smart are not smart? I really don’t feel comfortable with logic that does not rely on the law of the excluded middle. Perhaps you could restate this in other terms that are more easy to interpret. Perhaps you meant, “And of those who 认为他们 are smart, 1 out of 5 are smart.” This would fit the world that I know and experience every day, though how you get that from these numbers is not clear to me.

   Perhaps I’m being too smart (or too cute)?
7. 理查德·D·莫雷 说：

   21年2011月4日，格林尼治标准时间下午10:XNUMX

   “换句话来说，WORDSUM 50% 的变异可以解释一般智力 50% 的变异。”应该读作“换句话说，WORDSUM 的变异可以解释 50% 的一般智力变异。”
8. 匿名 • 免责声明 说：

   21年2011月5日，格林尼治标准时间下午23:XNUMX •100字

   || An undertaker is smarter than an archaeologist. Hah!

   Look at their success rates at the same task. They are both trying to dig a hole with a body at the bottom: an archaeologist might get it right one time in a hundred, but the undertaker does it every time.
9. 拉齐布汗 说： • 您的网站

   21年2011月6日，格林尼治标准时间下午26:XNUMX

   richard, thanks. marcel, i shouldn’t write fast before i go to sleep. but can’t resist the temptation. is that smart or dumb? 🙂
10. 拉齐布汗 说： • 您的网站

    21年2011月6日，格林尼治标准时间下午28:XNUMX •100字

    
    Obviously quite a lot of occupations do not deserve what they get.

    deserve is a loaded word. i mean, why do morticians make good money? no one wants to do their job. that is not the case with some professions which have high credentialing barriers, and those barriers are controlled by the professionals themselves. the key is this: are there great marginal returns for having a pool of dentists who score above a particular score the DAT? i doubt it.
11. crf 说：

    21年2011月7日，格林尼治标准时间下午29:XNUMX

    ||也就是说，WORDSUM的变异可以解释一般智力变异的50%~~Razib

    还是不对。删除第一个“的”。
12. 匿名 • 免责声明 说：

    21年2011月9日，格林尼治标准时间下午49:XNUMX •200字

    Of the many veterinarians (115) I’ve known, their income (or wealth) had very little correlation to their intellect. Unlike other healthcare professionals, they must generally fill the roles of physician (161), surgeon (234), pathologist (not listed), pharmacist (126), CEO (148), dentist (140), ophthalmologist (not listed), anesthesiologist (not listed), dietitian (102), physiologist (102), physical therapist (not listed), and radiologist (not listed). They must be competent in each these requirements–not just for a single species as in human medicine–but for a wide variety of species. And, they must be able to diagnose and treat without the aid of the verbal language that a human patient can provide. The fact that they are willing to do all of this for a fraction of what they could earn in many of the component professions listed is a testament that either they do what they do out of love, or that it is possible to have great intellect and still be pretty dumb.
13. 奥赫维莱克 说： • 您的网站

    21年2011月11日，格林尼治标准时间下午37:XNUMX •100字

    I’d be curious to know if there was a sex bias in the GSS data, particularly in the over 50 age group. The prevailing meme is that assortive marriage is becoming more common, and hence may not have been as common in the over 50 group as it is today.

    If that meme is correct, one would expect more affluent but not smart women than men in that age group than in the sample overall.
14. 匿名 • 免责声明 说：

    格林尼治标准时间22年2011月12日上午15:XNUMX •100字

    I’m not a statistician, but it seems like the results here might be skewed if the correlation between WORDSUM and IQ were different for populations at different income/wealth levels. What if, say, poorer people don’t tend to learn as many words per IQ point as wealthier people do? I’m not, of course, saying that I know that to be true.
15. 杰森柯林斯 说： • 您的网站

    格林尼治标准时间22年2011月3日上午15:XNUMX •100字

    The probability of someone having an IQ of above 220 is around 1 in 10 quadrillion (10^16 – my statistical software couldn’t handle an IQ of 234 – it gave a probability of zero). It seems there are more surgeons than this probability suggests. The same problem applies to physicians (although not as seriously).

    I expect this is a result of incomes not being normally distributed.
16. 克里斯_T_T 说：

    24年2011月9日，格林尼治标准时间下午10:XNUMX

    I wonder what fraction of ‘smart poor’ have underlying psychological conditions. Intelligence can help you compensate, but not completely.
17. 约翰·爱默生 说：

    格林尼治标准时间25年2011月5日上午13:XNUMX •100字

    Less than $40k is not poor. The American standard of living is very high, and there’s a point of diminishing returns for consumption. A lot of people make their livings one way or another and then devote their real energies to something not lucrative. Someone with a fascination with logic systems will go into IT type stuff and make tons of money. An equally smart person with a fascination with dead languages might make no money at all from it.
18. 安德鲁S. 说： • 您的网站

    格林尼治标准时间25年2011月9日上午08:XNUMX

    @12. Sandi:

    We mainly do it out of love. Sometimes I realize how dumb and futile it all is in the grand scheme of the universe, so at least we’re not naïve. 🙂

评论被关闭。

通过RSS订阅所有Razib Khan评论