Links? Kind of sounds like something you just have a gut feeling on.
Links? Kind of sounds like something you just have a gut feeling on.
The flaw with the metaphor is that you can study for leetcode, whereas supposedly(can't find a good source on this) you can't really study for an IQ test. I had a weak comp sci background when I started doing leetcode interviews and would struggle with questions. I spent several months studying CLRS, cracking the coding interview, etc., and now I would say I am fine at most problems up to medium complexity.
There's no raw data to back either statement up, but both are very likely to be true via common sense.
Anyone else like this? Maybe I have a learning disability or something.
IQ isn't a universal "you're good at everything" score, even if it was an objectively good measure of intellience.
So at say 150 you would notice that you would find most tasks easier then most people then say 110 where you would find less tasks more easier.
What seems seems disingenuous to me is sometimes people can't hold and opinion without hard data. Do you really need raw data to know you shouldn't hire a person with an IQ of 45 to drive a bus?
No most people don't need data. I think what's going on here specifically is that a lot of people don't do well on leetcode and they know it and they don't like to think that it correlates with their general intelligence.
I'm truly sorry for making some people face that reality. I would say I'm not the best performer on leetcode myself. I can't deny that even without raw data it's pretty solid that IQ will correlate with leetcode performance. There are other correlative factors too like studying for leetcode specifically. And I don't need raw data to make either of those statements.