Do you need high intelligence to do research?

[Casey]

A balance between intelligence and vitality, with decent DPS, will get you through most research missions.

[apache]

concise and right on. great summary in less words than it would take me to get past a third of me trying to get past your first point .

 

Here is my impression of research in general. To be a big shot in research,

 

First, you need to be extremely hard-working. Intelligence won't get you far if that's all you have going for you.

 

Second, you need to be extremely lucky. Big discoveries often come from luck.

 

Third, you need to be a good network person. In the age where collaboration is the new keystone of science, you need to have a strong network of colleagues (and enemies).

 

Fourth, you need to be intelligent.

[Bede]

Here is my impression of research in general. To be a big shot in research,

 

First, you need to be extremely hard-working. Intelligence won't get you far if that's all you have going for you.

 

No, you need to work smart. Long hours may be important, but I know a lot of really hard working unproductive researchers.

 

Second, you need to be extremely lucky. Big discoveries often come from luck.

 

No you don't. Luck is for the one time Nature author- they aren't big names. In my field guys like Chris Dobson, Teplow, Tycko, Glabe, etc publish all their stuff in really good jorunals. They aren't lucky, they're just really good and have a lot of practise with what they do.

 

Third, you need to be a good network person. In the age where collaboration is the new keystone of science, you need to have a strong network of colleagues (and enemies).

yes and no. If you publish good research, people don't care that you're a jerk. They want your name on their paper and will invite you to review the manuscript for second last author status. They get more papers, more research funding and the cycle perpetuates it's self.

 

Fourth, you need to be intelligent.

Probably true. I recently discovered that I'm not that bright (poor comp exam), but I'm reasonably productive. I'm a half decent PhD candidate, but that's probably where it will end for me. I'm not prof material and I'm not going to toil as a post doc for half a decade to confirm that belief.

[Wayward son]

i got a really comprehensive assessment done, it reported multiple iq's for different aggregates of things... individual tasks... and a grand amalgamated one... i've also done others for the government and stuff... sometimes the aggregate one is a good illustration of the straightfaced, authoritive manner in which you're delivered a waste of money... the aggregate... i exclude the few bottom one percentile abstract spatial reasoning tasks usually... unless i'm writing the dat, they're not really necessary to thinking, ironically in the end it didnt tell me much more than what i already knew... except that i really really suck at extrapolating what two sides of a 3 dimensional image would look like from a third view, rather than just suck...

 

Thanks for the answer. I appologize for asking my question at a time when I was pretty sure that, due to time constraints, it was unlikely for me to log back in for a week or two. That is very bad form on my part.

[apache]

no worries, have a good one

 

Thanks for the answer. I appologize for asking my question at a time when I was pretty sure that, due to time constraints, it was unlikely for me to log back in for a week or two. That is very bad form on my part.