A high IQ. Why does it matter? Is it Overrated ??

[thepainterdoug]

In recent posts I keep seeing mention of people being really bright. such as,
"He is one of the brightest" or "they are some of the brightest people we have on this "etc.

I recently read some criticism on the I Q test that everyone is so impressed with/
some things to consider/

~IQ tests don't measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence. IQ tests also don't assess rational thinking, such as making the right decisions or dealing with a difficult client at work

~The value of IQ tests is that they measure general cognitive ability, which has been proven to be a fairly accurate indicator of intellectual potential. There is a high positive correlation between IQ and success in school and the workplace, but there are many, many cases where IQ and success do not coincide.

~ In fact, one study found that the kids who scored highest on IQ tests were the ones who were most motivated to do well on the test – and that a monetary reward made them try harder. In other words, an average IQ and determination could be more important for success in life than a high IQ and little motivation.//

I believe I have an average IQ . i have always been bad at tests and so not good in school. Being dyslexic didnt help I guess. I quit college as well. So I could be considered uneducated in many circles .
But i have always known im very smart in ways that are not recognized or rewarded.

I have to laugh about a friend who used to say,"I never watch television, the TV is for morons "
And I used to watch TV all the time. I was raised on it.

In the meantime, he never accomplished much of anything being so self satisfied as an armchair quarterback, while I the moron, was very productive, very creative, very engaged with people, their problems and problem solving for anyone and everyone

Having a high I Q doesn't mean much to me if it isn't applied to the road of usable reality .

[JackMcThorn]

Everyone does something dumb from time to time no matter how smart they are. The thing is this dumb thing will set in a deep disappointment in the smart person and those who think highly of them.

This is why I have a similar thought regarding 'talent'. People often say; "Oh such and such is so talented!" as if their display was a gift from above.

Nary I say, it is not talent; but experience! Experience is what sets 'it' apart. 1o,ooo hours of experience will trump talent any day - at least the majority of the time. Save that one in a million rare individual who indeed has a gift. But even he or she will benefit from experience or lose their gift.

A high i.q. just adds more pressure to an individual to demonstrate it as a fact and maybe those who get listed in Mensa International demonstrate a low e.q.; quite possibly a narcissistic quality along with it.

But me; I would rather observe high experience and it is easy to spot. Think of all the lessons from that pile of mistakes that do not just complete tasks but even keep people alive longer.

[Bill Ryan]

Yes, absolutely overrated!

We have a couple of related threads that may be well worth while to read:

• All about IQ tests
• Why humans are unintelligent: it's all about belief

[Ewan]

At 19 I was told my IQ was higher than 98.5% of the population, which of course made me feel good - for all of about 18 months as I came to realise it meant jackshisht. In traditional terms I never amounted to anything. I never knew what I wanted to do and as a result I tried literally dozens of different jobs. Once I learnt how to do something I would grow bored with it and look for a new challenge.

That said, all my experiences with life led to a great depression/disillusionment and onwards to a spiritual awakening. So I guess at the end of the day my life was just right!

[grapevine]

I was reading this thread while listening to a video about Nag Hamdi on the Matrix Revealed thread, posted by Truman Cash, and the following quote from David Icke seemed so apt:

"This society worships the intellect. The intellect is the village idiot compared with Knowing, with wisdom that comes from Here (inside), and therefore the whole education system, the media - all of it - all the sources of information, are directed at the intellect not the True Self. And so we celebrate scientists because they have a great mind, but do they have a great consciousness beyond mind? And we can change that whenever we choose because we're in control. The idea that some external force is in control is completely illusory; it is in theoretical control because it's persuaded us we have no power and no control over our lives and no control over events and while we believe that, that will be our experience. We can change it tomorrow, we can change it Now, it's just a choice."

Regardless of IQ, if you have no commonsense (which isn't all that common), then it's largely wasted. Ditto conversation. There are many savants and autistic people who are locked in to their intelligence but who cannot communicate with others.

[Tigger]

I don’t know what my IQ is. I was never tested. Sometimes I hear that ‘intelligence’ is synonymous with academic performance. I do know that my academic performance was very mixed. But let me tell you something about my ‘academic’ credentials:

I graduated from University as a B.App. Science (Biotechnology), (1993) and a M.App. Science (Coastal Resource Management) (1996).

That sounds intelligent, doesn’t it?

In common terms, I am well-learned in my field. But that doesn’t make me intelligent. Not by a long-shot.

If I was truly ‘intelligent’, I’d probably be working within the ‘scientific’ (or what passes for it) institutions, and I would not have a moment of concern if my work would impact the well-being of society, let alone the morality of what the ‘science’ was all about.

I don’t really know if I’m all that intelligent or not. But, shortly after I started working for the [un-named] company, I did understand the wider implications of the work I was asked to perform as a scientist. I made the conscious and moral decision to quit, throwing my entire academic credentials to the wind. Was that an intelligent decision, or a moral one?

I never worked in that field ever again - at a terrific cost to my career. Probably not the most ‘intelligent’ decision: all I had to do was keep working and keep my mouth shut and I’d be guaranteed a high income, benefits and a good retirement plan. But I didn’t.

I spent many years afterwards working as a theatre lighting technician, a DJ, and a customer service representative, much to my late father’s dismay (may he rest in peace).

And do you know, upon breaking free from the ‘science’ cult, I spent many years learning about myself, and re-defining myself. I learned more than I ever thought I COULD learn, and I eventually used those new skills to get where I am today. In hindsight, was that an intelligent decision, or a moral one? I still do not know the answer. All I know is, after all the “trials and tribulations“ I experienced following that decision, I like to think I’m well ‘above the curve’ when it comes to being ready for the trials of the next decade.

And, I’m doing very well, thank you. I’m also helping others. I think I like that life-course better than peddling va***nes to a manufactured market-base.

I still don’t know what “intelligence” really means. I do understand WISDOM though. I think that both have a place in society.

I am constantly learning. Sometimes I am very wrong. But I’ll always learn from my mistakes. Does that make me intelligent? I don’t know for sure. I’ll be satisfied that I am open to continual learning, and I’ll endeavour to share my experience with future generations if it helps them navigate life more easily.
</end rant>

[Mike]

Hi Doug, a high IQ is the strongest predictor for success in the world. So it's a big deal. The second strongest predictor is conscientiousness, which is a trait marker for hard work.

So not so surprisingly, the most successful people in the world are smart and hard working.

Like you I probably have an average IQ, or slightly higher perhaps. You don't need to be a genius to be successful if you're willing to work hard, so that's the good news. But you can't be an idiot. You need to be able to grapple with complexity to a moderate degree at least to enjoy any kind of success in this world, regardless of any other attributes you may possess. There will be exceptions of course, but they represent the minority.

[Tigger]

Posted by Mike (here)
<snip>
…a high IQ is the strongest predictor for success in the world.
<snip>.

I’m going to respectfully ask for clarification from you on this one, Mike. But only because you say that “a high IQ is the strongest predictor for success in the world.

What “world” do you mean? Intelligence is a subjective term IMO. For example, social intelligence is very different to emotional intelligence, and very different from cognitive (IQ) intelligence. How are we defining intelligence?

I just want to understand what we’re defining, because I feel that I might have misunderstood the context.

[thepainterdoug]

Hi Mike. Tigger / Im going to add to your question to Mike and ask what is success? Is that a dollars thing? Usually it is in some form. Recognition?

definitions can be tricky.

[Strat]

I think IQ tests have their place in the world. They aren't a rule like high IQ = genius and low IQ = unintelligent. From what I understand it's the most accurate indicator available to us to determine how well someone will do in academia. Didn't all the 'household name' scientists have high IQ's?

I prefer other qualities over IQ but like I said, I do think it's a handy tool.

For what it's worth, here's an interview with a man who has the highest IQ in the world. I disagree with the title 'smartest man in the world' or 'most intelligent' that's just clickbait but anyway he's an interesting person

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9miVG2xT5jY

[thepainterdoug]

Strat/ I have seen this interview and have spoken to chris a few times. I can say he's a very descent man and wants good for the country. He struggles to get traction in his accomplishments in the brainiack community . I dont think hes part of the club.

[norman]

Has anyone in this discussion bothered to investigate the origins and design of the "I.Q." testing concept, and the people involved ?

I know what my own sniff test tells me, but that doesn't count, I guess.

[Listkov]

Posted by norman (here)
Has anyone in this discussion bothered to investigate the origins and design of the "I.Q." testing concept, and the people involved ?

I know what my own sniff test tells me, but that doesn't count, I guess.

The short answer is British imperialists and American eugenicists needed a "scientific" justification for their belief of their superiority over what they perceived as economically or racially inferior population groups. One of several methods developed during that time, but it's the one that survived because it's a little more subtle than getting out the skull calipers (Physiognomy and Phrenology) , which was mostly contested because it classified the French (as well as the Irish and mountain dwellers, but France had the universities) as subhuman because their faces weren't as long as the English. i.e. "Brachycephaly"

"Proving" the superiority of a population group is the only use case for an IQ test because it seeks to measure the "G factor" or general intelligence. Meaning the ability to learn any task. But if you were assessing if someone was suited for any specific role, it would be better to test them for their aptitude in that specific role. A modified version is kind of useful for sorting military personnel but not as much as the stress resilience test.

IIRC it was Galton who attempted to simplify the test by correlating measured IQ scores with reaction speed. But it was later discovered the correlation was much stronger between reaction speeds and the functioning of the thyroid gland than between reaction speeds and IQ. What IQ seems to measure as much as the "G factor" is socialization/indoctrination. So children always "get dumber" (lose iq points) during summer vacation. Despite the theory of IQ as an immutable property (like race).

About a hundred years ago, a sample question for English schoolchildren was to group animals based on which were more closely associated with each other. Posh and highly educated children got it right while poorer children got it wrong. Because the right answer was to group the animals together by taxonomic group (a construct you learn in school) and the wrong answer was to group the animals by which ones interacted together in the wild. There is something called the "Flynn Effect". I.e. why children "get 10 iq points smarter every generation". I doubt the people of 1900 would have bought the glop that the media feeds people today.

A survey trip once went to a remote African village with a modified test to evaluate the IQ of illiterate tribal elders. (Paraphrasing) They asked: "If you were an eskimo and you had 10 snowballs-"

r: "I'm not an eskimo and I've never seen snow, so I can't speak on behalf of any eskimos on snow."

"Ok, if you had 10£ and the tax collector came and took half, how much would you have left"

r: "10£, because I'd bury it out back"

So it was determined the elder had an IQ of 0 points. Perhaps later, his grandson would mysteriously inherit an IQ score 80 points higher. Must've been the improved nutrition.

[thepainterdoug]

Listov/ good stuff. thanks ! and up to today it's certainly a big elitist ego thing.

[Mike]

Posted by Tigger (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
<snip>
…a high IQ is the strongest predictor for success in the world.
<snip>.

I’m going to respectfully ask for clarification from you on this one, Mike. But only because you say that “a high IQ is the strongest predictor for success in the world.

What “world” do you mean? Intelligence is a subjective term IMO. For example, social intelligence is very different to emotional intelligence, and very different from cognitive (IQ) intelligence. How are we defining intelligence?

I just want to understand what we’re defining, because I feel that I might have misunderstood the context.

Good questions.

Before I answer let me just say that I'm not really heavily invested in IQ scores and so forth. I just recognize the real world value. Like I told Doug, my IQ likely hovers around average. The closest thing I ever took to an IQ test was an S.A.T., and I predictably bombed the math portion but did well on the critical reading and writing. Honestly I wouldn't be excited about taking an IQ test out of fear that it would reveal my secretly held suspicion that I'm a complete and utter moron.

When I say "success" I mean a good job, a good salary, personal and professional accomplishments, securing a mate, starting a family, and all the things you can imagine that may accompany all that. Of course those things aren't important to everyone. But I think it's safe to say that most people prioritize those things.

Obviously it's very important and advantageous to be emotionally mature and grounded, and socially skilled(using your examples). Both will increase your chances of success. But first and foremost you require at least a decent IQ. It all begins there because if you're unable to problem solve and grapple with some complexity, you won't be able to secure a good job, and therefore will not make much money, and therefore will have limited opportunities to meet a mate, start a family, and so forth.

As you slide down the social hierarchy you become emotionally dysregulated, and your social opportunities become limited. This is just another way of saying that IQ is foundational. Everything else is born from it, more or less.

I can test your IQ pretty easily, but I can't test your emotional or social capacity, so I don't consider those things to be "intelligences".

[HopSan]

Tigger:

> I don’t know what my IQ is. I was never tested.

> Shortly after I started working for the [un-named] company, I did
understand the wider implications of the work I was asked to perform
... I made the conscious and moral decision to quit ...

> I never worked in that field ever again - at a terrific cost to my
career. Probably not the most ‘intelligent’ decision: all I had to
do was keep working and keep my mouth shut and I’d be guaranteed a
high income, benefits and a good retirement plan. But I didn’t.

> I spent many years afterwards working as a theatre lighting
technician, a DJ, and a customer service representative, much to my
late father’s dismay (may he rest in peace).

> And do you know, upon breaking free from the ‘science’ cult, I spent
many years learning about myself, and re-defining myself. I learned
more than I ever thought I COULD learn, and I eventually used those
new skills to get where I am today. In hindsight, was that an
intelligent decision, or a moral one?

Wow, thanks for writing that, so that I don't have to.
Some words changed, that is my earlier life.

After the change of my life-direction (immensely painful),
I very slowly began to THINK.

I was 'smart' before that, but when completely alone, and everyone
around me more or less against, the real core of me became visible.

IQ is useful (as physical power or beauty or any other talent),
but after the fights, a deeper quality is much more important.

What is it that we we work for?
Do we work for hate or love?
Are we bitter or humble?

[Ernie Nemeth]

When my parents were told of my high IQ and that they should consider putting me in a 'gifted' class, they said no, they didn't want me to be stigmatized by the teasing I would get from 'regular' classmates.

they suggested advancing me two grades...

[Valknut3301]

I've always seen the IQ test as nothing more than a way to test how well trained a person is by the school system. It doesn't have anything to do with real intelligence, just whether or not a person can recognize certain learned patterns, and these patterns have little to nothing to do with real problems one might encounter in daily life.

The IQ test can only be used to determine a persons intellectual intelligence, but it completely ignores emotional and instinctual intelligence, both of which are just as important, especially in dealing with other people, which is something we do a lot more than try and discern rigid patterns.

There's a guy, I forget his name, but he's often called 'The smartest man alive', or something similar. I think he has an IQ of 200, or something around there. People go on about this guy like he's the most brilliant person who's ever lived, but he hasn't done anything as far as I can tell. I listened to an interview with him a few years ago, and it seemed to me he was just really good at talking, but he didn't say a damn thing the entire time. A lot of words but no substance.

So, no, I don't like the IQ test, and just to be fully honest, I've never taken it. I'm sure I'd get a really low number

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I wavered over whether to add this, but ultimately decided it would benefit the conversation and add some useful insight.

At 19, I took a Mensa accredited IQ test at Bath University. I only went along because my mate was doing it. He was studying at the University -- me, being a dullard, was not; I didn't do well enough at school to qualify for Uni; upon leaving, I went straight into work.

At that age I was a bit of a ditherer, and rarely took anything seriously. My life was girls, football, and beer, possibly in that order. And doing just enough work to afford all three.

Going into this test, I wasn't at all optimistic.

About twenty people crammed into the classroom. Hard wooden seats, austere decor, exactly as it had been in school. At the head of the room stood the grim tweed-wearing Invigilator. He read us the rules, then passed out the papers. I was thinking, 'what the hell have I got myself into...' One thing was different though. Unlike school, I was acutely aware of the lack of external pressure. There were no consequences for flunking this test. I think that's why, in the end, I went at it differently: for once, it was with gusto.

What started out as a laugh became a semi-serious self-appointed challenge, with a touch of friendly competition.

The problems got progressively more taxing, I recall that much, sweat-inducing in parts -- we were up against a ticking clock.

It lasted three-hours (maybe three and a half), and it whizzed by. I hardly noticed the time. Coming out, I thought I'd actually done okay, and my mate was equally, if not more, optimistic. But not enough to think we'd aced it, far bloody from it. I was just hoping for three digits.

Can't remember how long it took for the result to arrive -- maybe a week.

That result I did not expect.

At school, I was an idiot. Not a stupid idiot, just a fooling around, not-taking-it-seriously kind of idiot. The subjects bored me, the teachers bored me, and I went at my work half-arsed. I didn't apply myself. That's what all my school reports said, and looking back I agree with them. My father, being an academic, couldn't have been more disappointed in me. I never scored highly in any of my exams, barely scraping a pass in some of them. But I clinched that IQ test, and I was invited into Mensa. My mate, I recall, scored 138, and not enough for Mensa, which added a sour note to his congratulations, but I don't think he held it against me.

After two years, I dropped out of Mensa. At the time, I needed beer money, and the subscription fee ate into it.

Which is pretty much the moral of this story.

As a young bloke, I was a bum. I wasted many good opportunities that came my way. Raw intelligence means nothing if you don't have the aptitude to use it. I didn't, or just didn't know how, and it would take me many more years to find a groove and get somewhat aligned with it, and even now, I can't say I'm all the way there yet.

[grapevine]

The 1% Club

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yzOiWnhDJd8

(45 mins)
The 1% Club is the only TV programme that we watch together at our house. We often get the 1% question right, but can slip up on the easier ones, usually as a result of not listening properly. Here's one episode for your enjoyment.

Edit: Questions start at 4.14