I wrote "While intelligence certainly has a role, they rely much more heavily on training".
Everything you wrote just now agrees with my statement.
Originally you wrote "All five rely heavily on intelligence". It is that emphasis on "heavily" that I am disputing. I argue that it's less important than training, though of course not un-important.
I disagree with your interpretation of [1]. You wrote "Physics and astronomy majors have an average of IQ [1] of over 130". However, your [1] shows not a measure of IQ but an approximate estimate of IQ based on the cumulative SAT.
After showing the plots, your [1] then points out the correlation is only with the quantitative/analytical section of the SAT, and not the verbal, commenting "we see why this IQ estimation is potentially misleading."
> This tells us that the original plot is actually showing preference for quantitative majors: The higher the estimated IQ, the more quantitative/analytical the major, and the fewer women enrolling in those majors.
> This brings up an interesting question of how valuable the SAT is as a standardized test across all majors, if a higher SAT score is really only indicating that the student is better at solving quantitative/analytical problems. Not all majors require a high analytical aptitude, after all.
Your source therefore does not seem to be making the statement that "Physics and astronomy majors have an average of IQ of over 130" but that physics and astronomy require a high analytical aptitude, which is correlated to how well a student does on a test for analytical aptitude, which is correlated to the cumulative SAT score, which is correlated to g factor. That's a weaker conclusion than what you described.
In any case, undergraduate study does not require the ability to identify what is scientifically interesting, which is a key point of my objection to your original statement.
EDIT: Also, your [1] points out "men and women have about the same IQ" then shows that physics and astronomy has a greatly disproportionate number of men than women. Thus, being male is a stronger correlation for those undergraduate degrees than intelligence. Thus suggests that some other factor than general intelligence is biasing the numbers.
Everything you wrote just now agrees with my statement.
Originally you wrote "All five rely heavily on intelligence". It is that emphasis on "heavily" that I am disputing. I argue that it's less important than training, though of course not un-important.
I disagree with your interpretation of [1]. You wrote "Physics and astronomy majors have an average of IQ [1] of over 130". However, your [1] shows not a measure of IQ but an approximate estimate of IQ based on the cumulative SAT.
After showing the plots, your [1] then points out the correlation is only with the quantitative/analytical section of the SAT, and not the verbal, commenting "we see why this IQ estimation is potentially misleading."
> This tells us that the original plot is actually showing preference for quantitative majors: The higher the estimated IQ, the more quantitative/analytical the major, and the fewer women enrolling in those majors.
> This brings up an interesting question of how valuable the SAT is as a standardized test across all majors, if a higher SAT score is really only indicating that the student is better at solving quantitative/analytical problems. Not all majors require a high analytical aptitude, after all.
Your source therefore does not seem to be making the statement that "Physics and astronomy majors have an average of IQ of over 130" but that physics and astronomy require a high analytical aptitude, which is correlated to how well a student does on a test for analytical aptitude, which is correlated to the cumulative SAT score, which is correlated to g factor. That's a weaker conclusion than what you described.
In any case, undergraduate study does not require the ability to identify what is scientifically interesting, which is a key point of my objection to your original statement.
EDIT: Also, your [1] points out "men and women have about the same IQ" then shows that physics and astronomy has a greatly disproportionate number of men than women. Thus, being male is a stronger correlation for those undergraduate degrees than intelligence. Thus suggests that some other factor than general intelligence is biasing the numbers.