Do all the scientists have got high IQs?

Nah. 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration and all that. A lot of perspiring involved in science -- I'd say dogged determination is the most important trait.

you know, most famous scientists,like Dirac,are all gited...

are all gifted

Most scientists are not famous.

fame is important.

I think that people who make theories have high IQs.
But the ones who make painstaking observations/experiments and who go through trial and errors don't need such a high IQ.

I believe that a mathematician needs a higher IQ than a biologist.

Re: Do all the scientists have got high IQs?

I don't think so. I met lots of physicists in college, including one who would later win a Nobel price. None of them were geniuses, though all of them were smarter than average. Any "genius" aura a famous professor may have quickly disintegrates once you know the field on a bachelor level, and once you take a close look at him. Scientists are only human, no matter what they tell you on TV and in the movies. The most important trait in a scientist, certainly in an experimental physicist, isn't genius. It's resistance to frustration.

Often the choice of a career is correlated with one's intelligence and abilities. I would expect that those who choose to become scientists, would have an above average mental ability, although not necessarily of a genius level.

It seems to me that a person of average or lower intelligence would not have the desire or intellectual curiosity to do the kind of work that is necessary in the field of science.

Are you mad ?
Or do you watch more than 2 hours of TV a day ?
In fact I recommend staying away from the TV entirely.
If you think fame is imoirtant then you have serious problems with your perspective on the world.
Get out more.
Do some gardening, walk around the neighbourhood ot take a stroll along the river. Better still do some travelling and meet real people in other countries.

Fame isn't only related to TV.

And you can be a famous person in a small village too.

Fame is fame whatever the context is.

Oh.
And that makes it good does it ?
Something to strive for ?
Something to tell your children it would be good for them to do when they eventually grow up ?
Something that's going to help people overcome their problems and sort out Third World debt yes ?
30 seconds on TV grinning like a buffoon or being trapped in some big brother, camera intensive, vicarious emotional torment box is assisting in solving the general problems of the world and helping mankind improve itself is it ?

Oh yeah, silly me.
I see it all now.

All we need to do it build more TVs and TV cameras and then get busy in bed spawning more mewling cabbages to turn into sub-normal vegetative imbeceils as they become immobile hills of pure lard getting their vicarious emotional interactional kicks while goggling at a glowing box that is seemingly wired directly into what passes for their mind.
That'll help.

Exxxxxxcellent idea.
Now, why didn't I think of that ?

Sorry but I find you quite narrow-minded.
Fame = being acknowledged by lots of people = being respected by all thoe people.

When people respect you, they are more prone to follow your ideas and concepts.

After that, it's up to you to use this "power" for the good. ( ie: third world debt )

And the fact that you keep talking about TV shows that you didn't even read my previous post.

Don't apologise.
I don't bruise easily.


That may have been what fame used to mean.
Not anymore however.


Of course I read it.
I wish I hadn't but I did.
I rather stupidly got sucked into an utterly pointless and poorly spelt discourse regarding your random observations about what you think scientists are like in the brain department.

The point of my initial comment seems to have entirely escaped you.
99.999999999% of scientists are not famous.
Fame does not a good scientist make.
Most are hard working, dedicated people striving to further humankind's knowledge to the betterment of all.
Your original question asked 'is science a game only for geniuses ?'
The overwhelming majority scientists and of the people in science are not geniuses by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are they famous.
If you are basing your question and your perception of scientists on just those you have seen on TV because they are famous then you are getting a seriously distorted picture of what a scientist actually is.
And so I refer you back to my earlier comments about getting out more and meeting people.
Preferably scientists.

Helio wrote-



It's worse than that mate.

I've made a bit of a scientific study of TV over the years. I don't watch the programmes generally. I watch TV. It's going to swallow everything else up. Media really. It's all connected up. Every programme I see as a tentacle trying to ensnare me into being a mewling cabbage with sub-normal vegetative impulses, obviously imbecilic, and becoming an immobile tub of floppy lard getting off on vicarious , emotional, interactional kicks and my mind wired into glowing images of colour and movement. It is quite nice as long as you don't have guilt feelings about it.

What now passes for fame is for those who can do it best. Pop-eyed bureaucrats actually, grinning vacantly and looking responsibly stern when breaking bad news which they really love. Nepotism rife and as corrupt as corrupt gets.

Real fame-you know it when you see it. Bob Dylan.