>>11076953(Cont) This graph here shows the correlation between average IQ and field of study with some stats on the gender dominance of a field. Notice the highest IQ fields are all abstract - mathematics, comp sci, physics. These people practice finding patterns in abstract fields of data on the daily. On the lower end of the spectrum we see social work and psychology, fields that do far more emotional interaction than logical divination. People often argue that this is the point of IQ; that intelligence is a measure of forming patterns out of chaos. But I disagree.
Ask yourself: how exactly would you find a pattern in a field of data? Is there a method you pursue to figure out that a triangle goes after the square, or that because the restaurant is full but the wait time is 0, there must be an empty room elsewhere? Really, there is no algorithm. You just take in the data and it pops into your mind. It's weird, weird like how you can't really describe exactly how you move your arm upwards. You just do. Depending on the person, it takes longer for topics to pop into their heads. Angela has trouble figuring out how to take the integral of a two variable function, meanwhile anonymous has trouble figuring out what to say to the others at a party since he has never left his room for the past 3 years.
So, I feel IQ is a poor measure. It's based on your ability to pop abstract shape patterns into your mind, and it just so happens that engineers and computer scientists are those in high demand. But so what if your talents lie elsewhere? Figuring out the way to appear glamorous at a press conference. Knowing how to relate with a PTSD victim. Being able to identify abstract patterns in equations and shapes. They're all just schemas, applicable to different areas. IQ measures the brain popping ability for abstract patterns, and would be better labeled as such.
