Approximately what do you consider the minimum IQ to be to do genius level work?
That is hard to answer. My expectation is something along the lines of a distribution with lower IQs just being less likely to achieve ‘genius’ status. Let’s say about 120 for the border of credibility in non extreme cases. (But don’t try that in Physics!)
Do you believe it to be different for verbal and mathematical intelligence, and have you any thoughts on the interaction effects between the two?
I’m not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific?
Are there any fields that are likely to be especially fruitful in combination with other fields besides mathematics, formal logic and computer science[0]?
I’m not sure. The biggest benefits I expect for becoming an expert in multiple fields for the purpose of making a contribution in one of them are:
Potential cross-pollination.
You are able to apply highly developed thought structures and existing knowledge before your thinking in the second field becomes thoroughly entrenched in the normative habits of that culture.
Do you believe the minimum cutoff for genius level work is likely to be different for verbal and mathematical intelligence? As a sketch of an argument why it’d be lower for mathematical intellegence
Many fewer people work with math all the time in their professional lives.
We’re making very fast progress (albeit completely undirected) in math all the time, whereas progress in e.g. philosophy (mostly a very, very verbal field) has been glacial for a relatively long time, so the collection of new, potentially useful tools in math is growing much faster, and the number of people who can use those tools is vastly smaller than those who can use the equivalent purely verbal tools (not that being able to construct a god argument is all that common a skill)
The returns to investment on verbal intelligence almost certainly have a much higher median than those on mathematical, both in social success and financially
Taken together these suggest to me that if one had equivalent gifts for, and interest in, M and V, M would be on average a more fruitful investment.
On cross-pollination; can you think of a few examples? I’d nominate economics imperialism, a la Posner, though physicists seem like they should be more successful than they are given the ridiculous intelligence needed to go into that field and the massive overproduction of physicists.
That is hard to answer. My expectation is something along the lines of a distribution with lower IQs just being less likely to achieve ‘genius’ status. Let’s say about 120 for the border of credibility in non extreme cases. (But don’t try that in Physics!)
I’m not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific?
I’m not sure. The biggest benefits I expect for becoming an expert in multiple fields for the purpose of making a contribution in one of them are:
Potential cross-pollination.
You are able to apply highly developed thought structures and existing knowledge before your thinking in the second field becomes thoroughly entrenched in the normative habits of that culture.
Do you believe the minimum cutoff for genius level work is likely to be different for verbal and mathematical intelligence? As a sketch of an argument why it’d be lower for mathematical intellegence
Many fewer people work with math all the time in their professional lives.
We’re making very fast progress (albeit completely undirected) in math all the time, whereas progress in e.g. philosophy (mostly a very, very verbal field) has been glacial for a relatively long time, so the collection of new, potentially useful tools in math is growing much faster, and the number of people who can use those tools is vastly smaller than those who can use the equivalent purely verbal tools (not that being able to construct a god argument is all that common a skill)
The returns to investment on verbal intelligence almost certainly have a much higher median than those on mathematical, both in social success and financially
Taken together these suggest to me that if one had equivalent gifts for, and interest in, M and V, M would be on average a more fruitful investment.
On cross-pollination; can you think of a few examples? I’d nominate economics imperialism, a la Posner, though physicists seem like they should be more successful than they are given the ridiculous intelligence needed to go into that field and the massive overproduction of physicists.