What sector has the smartest people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are you comparing the smartest people in each field? Or asking overall which field is more likely to be attracted to smart people?

because, several of the smartest people I have run across are lawyers. but there is no doubt the field as a whole probably just passes average. barely, when you consider all the people out there doing divorces and traffic tickets and scamming immigrants. doctors overall are much smarter, but seemingly very few geniuses. Some. I think a lot of people in media are bright (and interesting!) but no geniuses. At all, as far as I can tell. Academia probably all very smart but it seems most of them are convinced they are geniuses. And, um, a few probably are.

I know less about straight science and tech fields. I assume the space industry if full of serious geniuses! But heck if I know. I know a couple of software engineers who are freaking brilliant.

This is spot on. People here are also conflating the intelligence it takes to solve a sector's problems (highest, I assume, in STEM) with which seetor has the smartest people (which, assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field, is probably law).

So one thing STEM teaches you to do is look for data. Here you go. Unlike most lawyers are physicists in undergrad, above is unlikely to be true.

https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

[Anonymous]

^^^ unless, not unlike

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:STEM people, especially those that have to use math in some compacity. and physics field. They are brilliant but like everything else, they may lack in social skills. If they have good social skills and can work as a team with others, they do amazing things.

Lawyers are all talk and laws. They appear to know more only because they know the law behind what can and can not be done.

I don't understand all this worship of STEM majors.

Stem majors memories rules and equations and apply them.

There isn't anything revolutionary or special about 2+2 =4.

This is a big problem in STEM. It takes until you have finished first year grad school in physics or other similar discipline before you really have the tools you need to be truly creative. But when you reach this point, you have the language to contribute to understanding the universe. It’s awe inspiring. It seems like rote stuff because the apprentice period is so long. You have to learn the math. You have to learn the “canon” so you can blow it up. Not everyone has the patience to wait. But if you think high level is rote memorization of equations, you know nothing about STEM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are you comparing the smartest people in each field? Or asking overall which field is more likely to be attracted to smart people?

because, several of the smartest people I have run across are lawyers. but there is no doubt the field as a whole probably just passes average. barely, when you consider all the people out there doing divorces and traffic tickets and scamming immigrants. doctors overall are much smarter, but seemingly very few geniuses. Some. I think a lot of people in media are bright (and interesting!) but no geniuses. At all, as far as I can tell. Academia probably all very smart but it seems most of them are convinced they are geniuses. And, um, a few probably are.

I know less about straight science and tech fields. I assume the space industry if full of serious geniuses! But heck if I know. I know a couple of software engineers who are freaking brilliant.

This is spot on. People here are also conflating the intelligence it takes to solve a sector's problems (highest, I assume, in STEM) with which seetor has the smartest people (which, assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field, is probably law).

So one thing STEM teaches you to do is look for data. Here you go. Unlike most lawyers are physicists in undergrad, above is unlikely to be true.

https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

I explicitly said "assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field." It doesn't take a STEM major to realize your data concerns the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are you comparing the smartest people in each field? Or asking overall which field is more likely to be attracted to smart people?

because, several of the smartest people I have run across are lawyers. but there is no doubt the field as a whole probably just passes average. barely, when you consider all the people out there doing divorces and traffic tickets and scamming immigrants. doctors overall are much smarter, but seemingly very few geniuses. Some. I think a lot of people in media are bright (and interesting!) but no geniuses. At all, as far as I can tell. Academia probably all very smart but it seems most of them are convinced they are geniuses. And, um, a few probably are.

I know less about straight science and tech fields. I assume the space industry if full of serious geniuses! But heck if I know. I know a couple of software engineers who are freaking brilliant.

This is spot on. People here are also conflating the intelligence it takes to solve a sector's problems (highest, I assume, in STEM) with which seetor has the smartest people (which, assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field, is probably law).

So one thing STEM teaches you to do is look for data. Here you go. Unlike most lawyers are physicists in undergrad, above is unlikely to be true.

https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

I explicitly said "assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field." It doesn't take a STEM major to realize your data concerns the latter.

So what data do you have to back up your assertion that the smartest lawyer is more intelligent than the smartest physicist or engineer? Is that really your claim??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are you comparing the smartest people in each field? Or asking overall which field is more likely to be attracted to smart people?

because, several of the smartest people I have run across are lawyers. but there is no doubt the field as a whole probably just passes average. barely, when you consider all the people out there doing divorces and traffic tickets and scamming immigrants. doctors overall are much smarter, but seemingly very few geniuses. Some. I think a lot of people in media are bright (and interesting!) but no geniuses. At all, as far as I can tell. Academia probably all very smart but it seems most of them are convinced they are geniuses. And, um, a few probably are.

I know less about straight science and tech fields. I assume the space industry if full of serious geniuses! But heck if I know. I know a couple of software engineers who are freaking brilliant.

This is spot on. People here are also conflating the intelligence it takes to solve a sector's problems (highest, I assume, in STEM) with which seetor has the smartest people (which, assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field, is probably law).

So one thing STEM teaches you to do is look for data. Here you go. Unlike most lawyers are physicists in undergrad, above is unlikely to be true.

https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

I explicitly said "assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field." It doesn't take a STEM major to realize your data concerns the latter.

So what data do you have to back up your assertion that the smartest lawyer is more intelligent than the smartest physicist or engineer? Is that really your claim??

I'm casually posting on an anonymous internet message board; I don't have data. But a high proportion of people with the highest GPAs from the most elite undergrads go to law school, whereas STEM majors are a self-selected group of twenty year olds with a specific academic interest.

To be clear, I bet STEM majors are, on average, smarter than lawyers. But I bet a bigger chunk of the smartest college students, at least historically, have chosen law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are you comparing the smartest people in each field? Or asking overall which field is more likely to be attracted to smart people?

because, several of the smartest people I have run across are lawyers. but there is no doubt the field as a whole probably just passes average. barely, when you consider all the people out there doing divorces and traffic tickets and scamming immigrants. doctors overall are much smarter, but seemingly very few geniuses. Some. I think a lot of people in media are bright (and interesting!) but no geniuses. At all, as far as I can tell. Academia probably all very smart but it seems most of them are convinced they are geniuses. And, um, a few probably are.

I know less about straight science and tech fields. I assume the space industry if full of serious geniuses! But heck if I know. I know a couple of software engineers who are freaking brilliant.

This is spot on. People here are also conflating the intelligence it takes to solve a sector's problems (highest, I assume, in STEM) with which seetor has the smartest people (which, assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field, is probably law).

So one thing STEM teaches you to do is look for data. Here you go. Unlike most lawyers are physicists in undergrad, above is unlikely to be true.

https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

I explicitly said "assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field." It doesn't take a STEM major to realize your data concerns the latter.

So what data do you have to back up your assertion that the smartest lawyer is more intelligent than the smartest physicist or engineer? Is that really your claim??

Now I know you are full of it. Highest GPA? That's because they took rocks for jocks and calculus for dummies to house GPA to get into law school.

I will give you credence that they have smarts to maximize their income via without actually having to innovate or create something, so leveraging what they do have for the most money definitely shows that type of savvy
I'm casually posting on an anonymous internet message board; I don't have data. But a high proportion of people with the highest GPAs from the most elite undergrads go to law school, whereas STEM majors are a self-selected group of twenty year olds with a specific academic interest.

To be clear, I bet STEM majors are, on average, smarter than lawyers. But I bet a bigger chunk of the smartest college students, at least historically, have chosen law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are you comparing the smartest people in each field? Or asking overall which field is more likely to be attracted to smart people?

because, several of the smartest people I have run across are lawyers. but there is no doubt the field as a whole probably just passes average. barely, when you consider all the people out there doing divorces and traffic tickets and scamming immigrants. doctors overall are much smarter, but seemingly very few geniuses. Some. I think a lot of people in media are bright (and interesting!) but no geniuses. At all, as far as I can tell. Academia probably all very smart but it seems most of them are convinced they are geniuses. And, um, a few probably are.

I know less about straight science and tech fields. I assume the space industry if full of serious geniuses! But heck if I know. I know a couple of software engineers who are freaking brilliant.

This is spot on. People here are also conflating the intelligence it takes to solve a sector's problems (highest, I assume, in STEM) with which seetor has the smartest people (which, assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field, is probably law).

So one thing STEM teaches you to do is look for data. Here you go. Unlike most lawyers are physicists in undergrad, above is unlikely to be true.

https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

I explicitly said "assuming we're talking about smartest in each field and not average intelligence by field." It doesn't take a STEM major to realize your data concerns the latter.

So what data do you have to back up your assertion that the smartest lawyer is more intelligent than the smartest physicist or engineer? Is that really your claim??

I'm casually posting on an anonymous internet message board; I don't have data. But a high proportion of people with the highest GPAs from the most elite undergrads go to law school, whereas STEM majors are a self-selected group of twenty year olds with a specific academic interest.

To be clear, I bet STEM majors are, on average, smarter than lawyers. But I bet a bigger chunk of the smartest college students, at least historically, have chosen law.

I will give you credence that they have smarts to maximize their income via without actually having to innovate or create something, so leveraging what they do have for the most money definitely shows that type of savvy

[Anonymous]

I have worked around engineers, doctors and lawyers. Lawyers are the best thinkers because law school trains critical thinking and verbal reasoning like few other fields do. The training is broad based and applies well to a whole array of problems. STEM majors and doctors may have more native raw intelligence, but they are not trained to be good critical thinking in areas outside of their field. Excellent technical training and specialized skills often doesn't translate to "smart."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have worked around engineers, doctors and lawyers. Lawyers are the best thinkers because law school trains critical thinking and verbal reasoning like few other fields do. The training is broad based and applies well to a whole array of problems. STEM majors and doctors may have more native raw intelligence, but they are not trained to be good critical thinking in areas outside of their field. Excellent technical training and specialized skills often doesn't translate to "smart."

Can’t argue with your personal experiences but I will say that by far the smartest people I know were science trained. As far as your critical thinking point, I don’t think that once you have been trained deeply in critical thinking in any one field, you can help pushing and finding holes in all other fields. Nature is a far more ruthless judge than any you will find in a courtroom.

[Anonymous]

I know some people who work on quantum computing. As a group, they are easily the smartest average I've ever met. I honestly think their brains operate on a different level. It is mind-blowing.

[Anonymous]

Bunch of attornies patting themselves on the back here

[Anonymous]

I think many people here are confusing "bright" with "genius" Lawyers tend to have the "bright" people, but not the geniuses. The true geniuses often have lower EQ, and can run rings around most people but can't really function at a dinner party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know some people who work on quantum computing. As a group, they are easily the smartest average I've ever met. I honestly think their brains operate on a different level. It is mind-blowing.

Also true of theoretical physics.

[Anonymous]

my brother and father are theoretical physicists. both incredibly smart in terms of abstract thinking, but poor emotional intelligence.