Are you smarter than the average scientist?

[Zelig]

Do you believe yourself to be smarter to the average scientist?

How do you think the average intelligence in various professions compares to the average intelligence of scientists?

What role do you think scientists and non-scientists should have in policy decisions regarding science? How do you think people's perceptions of their intelligence, and the intelligence of scientists, affects their opinions on these roles?

Do you think the monetary compensation or respect to scientists is in line with their contributions to society?

Do you think there should be a move to increase or decrease the average intelligence, monetary compensation, or respect which is awarded to scientists? How should we go about to achieve this?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

of course Im not as smart as scientists.

 

[Bill3000]

I hope I am, it would mean good for my career to be smarter than my competitors.

 

[Arwon]

Most science people I know are smarter than me. But I'm cleverer.

 

[bombshoo]

Maybe at certain things.

It also depends on the sort of scientist I suppose.

 

[Perfection]

I do not have enough information to determine if I am smarter than an average scientist or not.

 

[SerriaFox]

That is a pretty high bar you set. I would not say I'm smarter than the average scientist. But a few scientist develop tunnel vision.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

I am reasonably close to being as smart as the average scientist. They know a hell of a lot more about their topic of study than I do.

Ideally, policy should never go against established science, but ideally we'd have a lot more intelligent and honest people in politics.

 

[Fetus4188]

I expect the average scientist to be well educated and curious, not necessarily highly intelligent.

 

[nc-1701]

Well I'm a top end math major at an average University, so I'm certainly smarter than your average science major. Now as for actual scientists doing research, I defer to them at least for now

 

[Luckymoose]

I'm smarter, stronger and sexier.

 

[Earthling]

Might have the edge on Allpass, not quite on Butterworth or Chebydshev. Also, lol social "sciences."

 

[Dachs]

The average scientist knows far more about science than I do.

I do not consider history to be a "science".

 

[Tycho Brahe]

I smell better

The average scientist knows far more about science than I do.

I do not consider history to be a "science".

I do. But in the english language it seemes like "science" = "natural science"

 

[duckstab]

I think it's generally accepted that human intelligence needs to be measured along multiple axes. By some measures I'm probably smarter than the typical scientist and by some I'm probably not. And certainly within their given specialty they're bound to have more expertise than me.

 

[Dachs]

I do. But in the english language it seemes like "science" = "natural science"

Since history is neither testable nor predictive, I don't see how it can be defined as a science at all.

 

[Xanikk999]

I like science and history very much but considering I suck so much at math and my mathematical knowledge is pretty crappy beyond algebra I am pretty sure nearly all scientists are more knowledgable than me in that aspect.

Of course what does it mean to be smart? I think it generally means the capacity to learn, acquire, and apply knowledge. If that is the case I don't think I am very smart at all. I am eager to learn and acquire knowledge but I suck at applying it.

 

[Dachs]

If application were key, then historians, paleontologists, and theoretical physicists wouldn't be "smart".

 

[Defiant47]

I consider myself smarter than the average person, but not smarter than the average scientist.

 

[Xanikk999]

If application were key, then historians, paleontologists, and theoretical physicists wouldn't be "smart".

What you don't think those people don't use their knowledge for anything? Maybe it isnt obvious but all those fields can provide useful insights to real life problems.