IQ Is Real, And It Matters

I'm too lazy to get links to back all of this up, so feel free to tear me a new one if I'm wrong.

High IQs make people happier and/or more successful...
A lot of MENSA members work menial jobs and are always on about what they'll do "someday." They generally *aren't* happy or successful. Also, depression may be higher in smarter people, too. Hemingway is always the first example that comes to my mind (though, his family has an extreme history of suicide).

Intelligent people are more able to disassociate themselves from their primal urges...
Probably not so. Einstein was a cheater, and I think Franklin liked a little strange every now and again, too. I've read that a lot of geniuses do their best work in their thirties, when their biological urge to reproduce really kick in. They get competitive, and get busy proving themselves as sensible mates. Oddly (or not), this applies to criminal geniuses, too. Let's not even get started on geniuses and other visceral pursuits like alcohol.

I'd actually argue the opposite of much of this. People with higher "social IQs" (whatever that is) are probably happier. Getting on with our peers is a much more satisfying situation that being good at math, physics, or the arts.

Personally, I think the root of unhappiness that high-IQ people suffer has to do with being told their smart. What they frequently don't understand, at a deep level, is that work itself should intrinsically be a reward. When told, "you're smart", such people tend to find easy things to do to get that reward again, never working on something harder. It's as though, if you're smart, teachers and parents are telling you success will be automatic. Sit back, and wait to reap the rewards of your superior intellect--it's all unavoidable. Oh, how wrong. People who value the effort of work over the instant, easy gratification of acknowledging their intellects tend to be more successful, happier people, and they don't have to be brilliant to do it. They make the best grades in college, but rarely understand topics beyond the superficial layers, and they go onto great jobs where they perform monumental amounts of work, but never exhibit much in the way of new insight.

"And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."

Ecclesiastes 1 13-18

-- Arik

Arik,

I am aware of the dangers inherant in thinking you know everything:

http://dmiessler.com/archives/25

...and given both of our religious beliefs, I find it slightly ironic that you quoted the Bible. :)

It was poetic, though. The Bible's awesome in that regard.

Hey, I think King Solomon was an Atheist, and Ecclesiastes was patched later on to portray some sort of religious belief. Read Ecclesiastes again and look for style inconsistencies. They had a hard time accepting a book that says:

"The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.

Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.

For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool."

Same 2 14-16

The Hebrew version is better. It actually says in 14: "The same fate will find them both" (my translation).

Don't confuse the bible with religion, and don't let religious people tell you they own this literary and historical masterpiece. We all own it.

-- Arik

Daniel said we all know a high IQ isn't a guarantee of success or happiness. Happiness seems to be more of a state of mind or an attitude that may or may not be dependent on external realities. I guess he meant by "making life easier" in no. 2 is that it is easier to make a living with a high IQ. I totally agree with that.

Whether or not a higher IQ means a greater aptitude to be kind and considerate I don't know. If you think people are kind and honest because they are smart enough and mature enough to realize it's in their own best interest, then ya, it is tied to you intelligence (maybe not how we typically measure it). This makes the most sense to me....like Socrates who thought that no one would knowingly do bad to themselves.(I guess to others to by extension) If they do, then it is because of lack of knowledge. I realize that this doesn't work in some situations, but I am happier when I think that everyone is innately good. They only behave badly because of lack of knowledge.

Then I watch a special on National Geographic about Columbine and I am baffled at how some people seem to be just plain evil.

**sigh** I wasn't going to post and have this float in the aether forever, but WTH, I should give back some sort of meandering thoughts to those who have made me think and laugh.

I believe the "average" IQ of the population (world) is somewhere around 90 or so, with a standard deviation of 15 or so. This means that around 85% of the population has an IQ of less than 110 or so.

Those "gifted" (I use that term in a darkly ironic way) with elevated IQ have a twofold issue to deal with.

1) They are told to "live up to your potential", but they are not supposed to feel superior or be condescending towards those who aren’t as heavily endowed, and are constantly "harped upon" to integrate socially in a "normal" way. Well, I'm a 4 sigma deviant and I KNOW I don't integrate socially in a "normal" fashion. I also don't tend to be disparaging for those who cannot keep up with me mentally, but I do get annoyed when it takes them significant time to grasp something that I already know. Especially when they need to grasp it for me to continue an explanation.

2) There is a disproportionately large burden placed upon these individuals because of their increased potential. This flies in the face of Number One logically, which tends to confuse and infuriate the intellectually superior High IQ person. Logic says if I do more, and the work is harder, than I should be compensated (which for many is not money, but respect and recognition of good work).

Whether this burden is placed upon these people via societal pressures, or personal acceptance of the duty to use your increased intelligence for "something", High IQ's tend to bring depression, manicness, bi-polar disorders, and a whole slew of mental and emotional issues that relate. Even worse, many of us find that treating these problems tend to has the side-effect of lowering your intelligence, talk about a repercussion to treatment!!

I agree with Jason in the sense that many High IQ examples fail to really tap into their abilities, instead simply synthesizing ideas by combining stuff that already exists in their environment. Truly creative insights are difficult and involve a lot of failure, something that many highly intelligent people have serious issues facing.

Once I was asked if I would trade places with someone that had a relatively normal IQ of roughly 110 or so. I replied No, but said the offer was tempting.

Can you imagine the peace and quiet of your brain not constantly processing?

People with high IQs love to tout the merits the IQ test. This is the self-serving view that allows one to justify one's feelings of inherent exceptionalism (e.g. I succeeded where they failed because I am *naturally* superior to them). This fallacy is the product of two well known cognitive biases 1) fundamental attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attrib...) and 2) selection bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias).

Thus, we should all be skeptical of claims of inherent superiority given their biased and self-serving nature.

"Can you imagine the peace and quiet of your brain not constantly processing?"

Michael,

I suggest you learn some sort of way to get yourself into altered states of consciousness - Meditation, self-hypnosis, martial arts, TM - would be my first choice, and then there are practices like sweat lodges or isolation chambers or use of chemicals (either synthesized or from plants) - which I recommend you stay away from.

It is possible to get that state when your brain is not constantly processing without lowering your IQ, and it's a very rewarding and peaceful experience.

-- Arik

Corporate, military and political consultants have studied this up one side and down the other for decades at least. The optimal IQ for personal success is about 1 standard deviation over the group you are in. More than that and the group can't understand you and you can't relate to them and performance goes down.

They've shown that it's true in everything from office managers to field officers to the most popular presidents.

They've also shown that over the long run, the group with the higher average IQ almost always outperforms the group with the lower IQ.

There's also psycological issues like high IQ people tend to assume people who fail are lazy and should try harder and low IQ people tend to assume that people who succeed either cheated or just got lucky. This is not to say that there aren't both lazy people who fail and cheaters who succeed but rather that people's perceptions outstrip the actual percentages of each.

When I took the ASVAB, I recognized IQ test questions, so I agree with Daniel about that. The veil was THAT thin. The recruiter told me the purpose of the ASVAB was to help you choose a career. Yah, right. I didn't know what I wanted to do with myself, so I took it. I scored a 97 and Gomer tells me "Well goooolley, you kin do purt much anythang you won't too" (except nukes...it wasn't open to women at the time.)
But I do have a question. I can't seem to find an equivalent anywhere and I kinda wanna know. There was an article in the Sun Sentinal that said
".... are now accepted who score between 16 and 30 out of 99 on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (similar to an IQ test, an ASVAB score of 30 equals an IQ of about 92). "
That doesn't sound right to me.

When I was a kid, I was already having issues fitting in and the TAG group consisted of a girl who wet her pants practically everyday, another social leper and a marginally acceptable boy. Besides, they had to do all that extra work!

A short time after I was caught repairing the family piano, I found myself in a room with the vice principal answering a bunch of questions. Yes, I successfully put it back together, so mom, a teacher at my school, was impressed. Anyway, I was given no explanation why this man was asking these stupid questions, but I figured it out. So, I botched a bunch of them and ended up with a 138. Holy cow, my mom when apeshit. She was screaming at him down the hall...."BUT IT'S ONLY 2 POINTS!!!!" But it was too late to say "Ooookaaaaaay, dog is to canine as cat is to feline"
I normally scored in the 99th percentile on the standardized tests, but my performance was around average. That got me in more trouble than I even WANT to remember.

So what I want to know is has anyone done some kind of ASVAB/IQ equivalency? Does anyone know what an ASVAB score of 97 would be? How high could it be? My idiot brother scored a 96! LOL

Iq is bullshit. All the test does is measure regurjitation ability which is prized in western culture. Solving real world problems is more than just IQ. It requres the ability to wonder what intelligence is, selectvely register information, confidence, motivation, a creative spirit. Test bias is elusive, but the best explanation is that children are not actually developing intelligence at the same rate. While IQ tests are accurate measures of information 'capacity', the test never actually, definitively, demonstrates a persons intelligence.

Problems with measuring intellgence via IQ.....

1) The ability to solve complex problems is vague
There are problems with known algorithims and problems with unknown algorithims. The latter is what 'I' consider to be real problems, and reflectve of real intellgence.
The IQ test conveniantly equates the IQ component of human potential with intelligence. YOU might not think the above mentoned factors are important to intellgence, but others may.
Because it equates generic problem solving abllity (problems with known solutions) to be THE problems intellgent people can solve. - REAL WORLD PROBLEMS THAT DON"T HAVE KNOWN SOLUTIONS - they usually require deeper, more time consuming analysis, and experiences as well - not just steps you copy out of a book.


2)Assumes that because a person with a higher capacity can solve problems with 'more steps involved in the future, is acutally smarter than the person who has already solved problems with less steps involved in the present. So if a 20 year old can solve problems of quantum physics and differential equations, they are not smarter than a person with a slightly higher IQ who comes to solve tham at a time - even though in the future, almost everyone else can solve them to(perhaps years later)

3) Assumes the breadth of problems is a persons real intelligence, it ignores depth of problems. A genius was historically a person who solved a SINGLE real world problem for their time. Many times this problem did not require more knowledge(the highest IQ), but rather insight. IQ is always about more more more.... It ignores depth.


4) IQ ignores innate personailty factors that aid intelligent thought
People with APSERGER"S/AVOIDANT DISORDER/BIPOLAR DISORDER/SCHIZEPHRENIA, despite their disability can be at an advantage. Or even just highly motivated, garden variety nerds.


On a IQ TEST GENIUSES such as MICHAEL JACKSON, TUPAC SHAKUR, EINSTEIN, DAVINCI, ERIN BROCHIVICH, RICHARD FEYNMAN ect.... are underrated, because on some level these people, intuitvely, smarter than their IQ'S would suggest

Of course Mensa is full of people holding down boring, unchallenging jobs. This is because career success is not due to IQ alone, but depends on such things as motivation, energy, self-confidence, financial resources,social skills, and pure luck. But the fact remains that a high IQ can be an important factor if some of the other attributes and conditions are present. What I have noticed as a Mensan is that an ability to solve problems, acquire knowledge and use it effectively gives me greater choices and opens up more routes to success should I wish to pursue them. Naturally it annoys me that people with much lower IQs seem to do better than me in areas of life in which I wish to be successful, but I comfort myself with the knowledge that these people will probably make more mistakes in life than I will.
As for the commonly held belief that along with high IQ go a tendency to depression, suicide, unhappiness etc etc , there is no scientific evidence for this whatsoever. Those who don't believe me should consult the recent works of Joan Freeman, a UK psychologist, who has studied gifted children for 40 plus years.

I don't know what IQ is either but I know that some people have an easier time learning and and easier time avoiding/not repeating mistakes. And aside from all the other issues mentioned in this forum, the main issue is the life results with various individuals, and the quality of such results. In my opinion, high intelligence confers CHOICES, which is a prime commodity in this 21st century western civilization...maybe not so in other historical periods (eg: western middle ages) With more choice, one has more personal self-control, therefore more ability to influence one's own circumstances. And that's the crux of the issue. Personal choice is almost synonymous with personal FREEDOM, in the sense that nobody can really confer freedom on another that can't be maintained by the individual him/herself. And so in that sense alone, IQ is not a value-neutral concept. To the extent that we value our personal freedom, it would seem to follow that a high level of intelligence (whether or not the test really measures it...) is a relatively desirable asset in a person. And then to the extent that intrinsic learning ability is to a large extent conferred by blind destiny....people have a hard time setting the issue to rest, and instead concentrating on how we can "all just get along" in spite of our innate differences.