Talk:Curiosity quotient

Formula is not to be taken literally
The article says: "there is no evidence to suggest that the sum of a person's curiosity and passion quotients will always exceed their IQ." But surely Friedman is not claiming that they are. He means something like "some combination of curiosity and passion is a better predictor of success than intelligence is." There may or may not be evidence for that, either, but it is a very different claim. Of course, neither claim is precisely expressed by "CP+PQ > IQ," but I presume Friedman only intends that "formula" as a mnemonic. Part of his modus operandi is to come up with catchy phrases. Eclecticos (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreeed - it is a mnemonic - but I think it needs some explanation
If an inequality appears in a separate box, I think it's up to the article's author (or someone) to explain that the inequality is a mnemonic and not literally true! This is why I added the paragraph to explain that "there is no evidence to suggest that the sum of a person's curiosity and passion quotients will always exceed their IQ."

Strictly speaking, the "inequality" is a type of visual pun, where ">" doesn't mean "geeater than" in a numerical sense, but something like "has the potential to produce greater outcomes than." Given how seriously people take mathematical formulas, I think this pun or mnemonic needs some explanation.

I am by no means wedded to the paragraph that I added, but I do think some sort of explanation about the mnemonic nature of the inequality is crucial. A Bloke Wandering (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusingly similar meanings of CQ
I think CQ also stands for "creativity quotient," as here: Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Newsweek cover story. Eclecticos (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Passion quotient
Two terms invented as part of one informal formula: one ref between the two articles, most of content overlaps. Pam D  06:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this needs to be either removed or added to another article. There may be other articles (like Curiosity) where it would fit better as a subsection, but not as its own topic, as information is so limited. Otherwise, there needs to be more sources that are current and descriptive to justify the notability of this article. Marynlayton (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)