Is this actually true?

So much mother has told me the problem with going into academia long term is that the professor/professors take credit for your work and it's all corrupt.

So hypothetically if I went into biology chemistry physics or maths and I came up with a revolutionary break through nobel price winning stuff or in the case of maths the fields medal. Apparently I wouldn't get credit the professor would have his name put in front of mine and he would always be known as he genius that had the breakthrough even though it was me?

I mean previously I thought I could never do this because I only scored 144 on the official iq test which may seem high but it's not the iq of Nobel price winners etc.

There were problems with the testbso I should have scored higher but even then I am only scoring at best 160 ish again high but not Nobel price winner stuff.

However I have recently discovered a lot of weird things in the last year specifically in the last few months of last year and this really may be able to get me over 180. At which point I would be in the IQ range to do that.

So I have to wonder is his actually true wouldni never get credit for my ideas should I choose that path etc?

Most areas of science these days are so complex and resource-intensive that the days of "lone geniuses" is over. I think you've got a fairly romantic view of science in your head which might have had some kind of resemblance to reality a century ago, but these days science is intensely collaborative. Whilst there are exceptions to this (since some fields are more collaborative than others), it is likely that you would be working in a research group and papers would be published as the research group. In that case, the principal investigator would generally be the person who has their name first in the reference. And yes, the principal investigator is generally a more senior academic. But you've got to understand that an awful lot of academia is just hard, repetitive grinding in a lab or in front of a computer, it's not a young prodigy dressed in tweed sitting in an armchair and shouting "Eureka!". You go into academia because you're intensely interested in your subject and are willing to suffer low pay, poor job security and a terrible work-life balance for the ability to study a field of knowledge that you love, not because you want to become famous and win the Nobel Prize.

Also, please stop talking about your IQ, you are just embarrassing yourself. There is no minimum IQ required to get a Nobel Prize.

However the harsh reality is that people with an IQ of below 170 are just not smart enough to grasp and come up with the really complicated ideas that would win those prizes.

A key part of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. So as someone who's ambition it is to win a Nobel Prize in science, I hope you have some evidence to back up this claim.

Actually I want to pursue maths I was just mentioning the other things as examples. I thought maths was about proofs

So you want to get a Fields Medal, which on average is won by 1 person per year. Don't you feel like the odds of getting one are so low that it's not worth even considering the chance that a professor will "take credit" for your work? Just keep doing what you're doing and enjoy the maths!

Having said all this, I admire your ambition. What level of maths are you at? Have you entered any mathematical competitions?

I know their is no minimum standard of IQ required for a Nobel prize In theory someone with an IQ of 80 could get a nobel prize if they came up with a brilliant idea. However the harsh reality is that people with an IQ of below 170 are just not smart enough to grasp and come up with the really complicated ideas that would win those prizes.

That's just absolute nonsense. I don't want to sound rude but I don't think you have the slightest grasp of what IQ actually is.

Okay I am aware their is the odd exception such as Feymen etc but then I had a lower iq when I was younger that's quite common in autism it seems for iq to change significantly in life. Just not sure if it changes much after 31.

Feynman may have scored a low 125 when he was younger but I I am pretty sure if he was tested again after he won that Nobel price he would exceed 160 min.

I don't count Nobel peace prices because that's just politics and anyone could get that etc. I'm talking about for the sciences etc.

Even if Feynman was tested again and still scored below 130 he'd be the exception not the norm.