caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
I’d like to hear more about this if you don’t mind.
[RD] Discussion on IQ (split from effect of white people on America)
- Thread starter Bootstoots
- Start date
I’d like to hear more about this if you don’t mind.
Were there any specific ways that they were stupid, in which "normal" people are not usually as stupid?
I'm no Mensa member - I haven't even taken a "real" IQ test since I was 12 - but I was a physics major at a pretty good college and thought about double-majoring in math before abstract algebra scared me away, so I've definitely run into my fair share of brilliant idiots. I can think of a couple of types of stupidity I associate with "intelligent" people
In fact, I'm going to visit my favorite brilliant idiot, a friend from college, this weekend. His SAT was 1590/2390 (with or without writing section) - he missed a perfect score by just 10 points. SATs correlate well with IQ, so this would translate to an IQ of approximately 145-160 (3 to 4 SD, keeping in mind that he hit the upper bound on math). A math and physics double major, he helped me through our physics homework and is the main reason I actually got through that major. He almost got a PhD in math at UCSD, but left because software development pays better.
He's an anarcho-capitalist. Among many other issues with that ideology, he fails or refuses to understand why "defense companies" wouldn't just be gangs/warbands functioning as mini-states. Force is wrong, therefore nobody will normally use force except to defend themselves, and they will economically boycott anyone who violates this rule, you see. From within his own system, everything is logical and he can defend it really well. Anyone who brings up the way humans empirically behave, like IRL, ends up in a series of arguments that rapidly end up in his own tidy logical world, where people behave rationally.
His cats are named Ayn and Murray. After he passed out drunk (he's an alcoholic, because that's another illogical thing that happens to people with any IQ no matter how high or low), I played with Murray, killed a cockroach that he was batting at with my own fingernails whilst on all fours, and presented it to him. He seemed kind of impressed but also got all awkward and seemed kind of intimidated by me after that.
For starters, they're the most arrogant people imaginable, but that isn't the point.
Stupidity comes in all shapes and sizes, and to be truly honest, I suffer from it myself sometimes. These people, whom one could call gifted, are backward thinking, close minded nitwits. Sure they are book smart, but when it comes to the basics of life they can't function. They are socially inept and wrapped up in their own little worlds. Have you ever heard the expression "He's too smart to use a hammer?" Some of these people are like that. Get them out of a high IQ scenario and they are truly incompetent in most things in life. They may excel at math or physics, but opening a jar is a challenge for them. Now, granted, not all of them are like that. Some of them live in the real world like I do, and they get on fine. They are normal people with high functioning minds who excel in many things. I applaud them. The others are adept at bragging up their own intelligence and putting down others who don't share the attribute. They are mostly socially stupid in that they can't interact in the real world without angering and alienating people. They are adept at finishing your sentences for you, pointing out flaws in diction, grammar, or ideas, and are just generally annoying. To be quite frank, I have met mentally challenged people who are better behaved in conversation than some of these people, and the conversations have been of higher quality on occasion.
I like to think that I am not that way. I have the highest IQ in my chapter, and you know what that means... absolutely nothing. It doesn't make me smarter than a car mechanic, or a basket weaver, or a person working at Starbucks. To paraphrase Warpus, everyone excels at something. I'm good at some things, too, I like to think. But it doesn't make me better than anyone else. I am a head injury away from having an IQ of 80. I have worked with the mentally disabled for much of my life. I have compassion for them, I feel for them, and I feel with them. Some of them are better people than these people at Mensa. I think IQ is a useless way to compare intelligence anyway. I'm not smarter than anyone else, I'm just better at puzzles. When you work with the mentally disabled, you realize that IQ is really only a useful measurement to describe intellectual impairment. 90 to 110 is the baseline average for a "normal" person, IIRC. Above that is meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. The people scoring higher are just good at puzzles and taking tests, but that's my own opinion. I will, however, stick with that.
If you are desperate to know how important IQ is as a function of measuring smarts, let me give you a little bit of anecdotal evidence. My IQ is 173. I am, as a result, functionally impaired in the real world. I think too fast, I'm scatterbrained, and I'm always jumping to conclusions, among other things. If you and I start a puzzle, I will be finished before you are. Big deal. I can't fix my own fuse box. I can't do much to my car other than change the oil. I can't for the life of me understand some scientific concepts that I am really interested in (anyone who can explain string theory and Hawking's concept of P-Branes to me wins my undying love and gratitude), and I probably never will. But it doesn't matter. I don't care. I've been reading this thread, and I think that some of you equate IQ to the worth of a person (not overtly, but if you read between the lines...) It isn't so. Everyone is wonderful in their own way. Even the dummies in my Mensa chapter.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
That was beautiful, thanks.
Berzerker
Deity
sounds like you're describing Sheldon from the big bang theory
but I suspect if we track down inventions over time we'd find they came dis-proportionally from people with high IQs... People who have special insights into solving problems by thinking outside the box.
but I suspect if we track down inventions over time we'd find they came dis-proportionally from people with high IQs... People who have special insights into solving problems by thinking outside the box.
I'll echo CTD - this is a fantastic post, one I would nominate for a posting Hall of Fame if such a thing existed.
I'm pretty sure that "better at puzzles" - which is what IQ is - correlates positively with various outcome metrics below an IQ of c. 120-125, but I don't know that there's any benefit to being better at it than that. I have this internal way of thinking about it that I'm not sure makes any scientific sense, but whatever:
Linear thinking is the type of thinking that solves puzzles and gives high IQ scores. Given A then B and C, from which we can deduce D and E, leading to a solution F. This is valuable, in the sense that people who are better at it will statistically do better on income or whatever other outcome measure you choose.
Orthogonal or creative thinking breaks out of whatever box is presented and questions its boundaries, and the problem itself. Can I think of at least two solutions to this puzzle that I could defend? Why am I even doing this in the first place? This type of thinking, much more than linear or practical, correlates strongly with both creative skill and mental illness.
Social thinking involves your ability to construct a theory of mind - or rather multiple ones, all interacting - to explain and predict how other people you know along with strangers in general will react to anything you communicate. You know how exhausting it is to be in fairly large groups of people that you care about, and how it climbs fairly rapidly with the number of people, assuming you're an introvert? That's because you don't just have to keep track of how you're relating to everyone, you have to keep track of how everyone is relating to everyone else and constantly update in real time as you see and hear people interact. The computational load climbs at least as quickly as n choose 2 = n(n-1)/2, or O(n^2). But people still do have to take in how subgroups of three or four people interact too, and sometimes higher-order groups. The result is that the amount of power the brain has to expend could grow as rapidly as exponentially. I never cease to be amazed that people can handle this; I'm decidedly below-average at it. I haven't even touched on taboos and rituals and so forth...
Practical thinking is a complex process that involves weighing all the rules-of-thumb you've learned, plus elements of linear and orthogonal thinking to whatever extent they're useful, plus the incredibly complex social thinking - which is probably the majority of the thought in most cases - to deal with concrete problems. It made up most of the thinking our ancestors did, and it retains a powerful influence such that solving practical problems is an especially rewarding line of work - one that high-IQ people tend not to do.
Anyway, though, we happened to land in a society that rewards linear thinking. Linear thinking is relatively "simple" - it can actually be measured through the puzzle-solving tasks that make up IQ. Based on what we have measured so far, it is very likely that it varies genetically and it's plausible that those genes vary by the ultimately arbitrary and socially constructed thing we call "race". But this linear thinking thing is not even a very large part of what makes up someone's mind, and has little to do with any other skills or types of thinking. It just happens to be useful in the modern economy.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,588
Anecdotally, in my youth I was branded something of an academic overachiever (when I wanted/was allowed to be) but scored low on the IQ test (91) they had me do in the second grade. I don't consider myself intelligent so that fits, yet at the same time I've always had the privilege of getting things done faster and knowing things faster (e.g. being the kid who learns faster than the rest despite not studying or doing supplementary work).
I just really find it difficult to consider IQ a sound, empirical measurement. You can assign a number and compare everyone, but the foundation behind it is flawed and one-dimensional. I'm not good at puzzles and thus I scored low on something that is meant to determine what my intelligence is, but nothing in life is based on puzzles (for me). I don't see complex problems as puzzles. The questions on an IQ test are considered irrelevant because nothing in life, even after growing up in a first world environment, bears any relation to what's on the sheet of paper.
But also anecdotally, a school here had me do an IQ test last year after learning I was an early dropout with (disabilities) and I scored 131. Not sure if they used some informal thing for their own internal measurement or an actual one.
Either way, that's a huge difference between 7-year-old me and 23-year-old me. Something's funky and my money's on the merits of IQ.
I just really find it difficult to consider IQ a sound, empirical measurement. You can assign a number and compare everyone, but the foundation behind it is flawed and one-dimensional. I'm not good at puzzles and thus I scored low on something that is meant to determine what my intelligence is, but nothing in life is based on puzzles (for me). I don't see complex problems as puzzles. The questions on an IQ test are considered irrelevant because nothing in life, even after growing up in a first world environment, bears any relation to what's on the sheet of paper.
But also anecdotally, a school here had me do an IQ test last year after learning I was an early dropout with (disabilities) and I scored 131. Not sure if they used some informal thing for their own internal measurement or an actual one.
Either way, that's a huge difference between 7-year-old me and 23-year-old me. Something's funky and my money's on the merits of IQ.
Hm, what exactly have you achieved? Eg have you presented any important paper, run some experiment, proven something in science or math etc? Cause (and this isn't something i am saying to oppose you; i could just as easily have quoted some others in the thread, but i go with you because you are a mod so you aren't that likely to feel opposed) it does seem a bit funny to claim that intelligence isn't much or that (even faulty examination of it via an iq test) means little to nothing, but at the same breath write down that you supposedly have some genius-territory intelligence.
So i think it is a good question (again, not just aimed at you; you don't even have to answer if you don't feel like it) to put: what actual manifestation of a genius-territory intelligence can you point to? Published papers of note, proof of theorem, scientific experiment, patents etc. Einstein himself is said to have had an iq less than 170.
I also recall something noted by user Perfection once, in this forum: "We are all in the top 1% here".
Of course; if one assumes that it would be typical for people with an iq supposedly higher than Einstein's to have presented no work of the type asked for. Then again it would be rather bizarre to assume anything of the kind.
Lexicus
Deity
Can anyone say 'inferiority complex'?
Lexicus
Deity
Someone says what they got on an IQ test, and you immediately demand a list of their achievements?
I hope you realize how that comes across, "on the web" or no.
That isn't how this developed. Someone said they had an iq 7 points higher than Einstein's iq supposedly was. I think it is quite logical to assume that this kind of intelligence would at least push the person to present some notable work. Also, why do you think there is no chance that she does have some work of this level published? I am not.
The point that people of extremely high intelligence have nothing, though, is rather requiring some backing, and in this case we have a specific claim which would potentially provide that.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,588
It is typical for people to not achieve groundbreaking results, especially in today's world.
But again, that's the point: IQ is not a measurement of actual, workable intelligence. It also isn't direct; you don't automatically do x amount of awesome things the second you reach, for example, 150 IQ. You can generally expect better capacity as you increase in digits but it doesn't guarantee success, work ethic, accomplishment, etc.
IQ is not a measurement of accomplishment.
And, more specifically, an IQ number doesn't come with an expectation to "present some notable work". The two don't connect to each other. Why should she have to out herself anyways to satisfy your doubt?
If you had been paying attention you would have noticed 2 things:
1) this is an RD thread
2) i didn't force anyone to answer, and even noted in my question that she doesn't have to.
I don't think the point is as simple as you appear to identify it as being either. Charging at an idol of my point you made out of straw, doesn't mean anything regarding my point, which isn't on your playing field with the idol.
1) this is an RD thread
2) i didn't force anyone to answer, and even noted in my question that she doesn't have to.
I don't think the point is as simple as you appear to identify it as being either. Charging at an idol of my point you made out of straw, doesn't mean anything regarding my point, which isn't on your playing field with the idol.
Lexicus
Deity
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,588
What is the relevance of this? You're the one tossing character attacks out in the wild and then being indignant about it. You made a bold claim that immediately faced valid resistance. That seems to meet RD standards. Do you disagree?
Berzerker
Deity
Is there any correlation between ambition and IQ? I knew someone with a high IQ who died of alcoholism at a relatively young age. People had great expectations for them and they felt pressured to achieve and reacted by basically shutting down, or lacked the ambition to move forward.
ed: doh
ed: doh
Last edited:
