IQ Matters Less Than You Think • Hacker News Board

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#131

Post by Miltnoid » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:35 PM UTC

closed wrote: post #51

It's funny, the article says that none of Terman's Termites became examplars of genius, but Lee Cronbach is definitely in the top 1% of most influential psychologists. To name a few accomplishments.. * If wikipedia is correct, he was the "48th most cited psychologist as of 2002". * He has an extremely popular metric named after him (Cronbach's alpha) * President of American Psychological Association. Maybe what he is…

Yeah, the article talked about "only" becoming Stanford professors... maybe the author doesn't realize how incredibly hard and rare it is to be a professor at a tier 1 research institution, not to mention being as prolific as Cronbach. The kids didn't become Nobel laureates but... so? That's an insane expectation for high achievement.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#132

Post by toasterlovin » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #95

toasterlovin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's also probably a big difference between the top 0.01% percent and the top 1%. The difference between the top 1% and top 2% isn't very important for most types of talent. Being in one of those categories for athletic talent, for instance, wouldn't get you into a professional sports league of any kind.

True but you are assuming the IQ test is inifinitely precise which I doubt it is. It is only a measure of intelligence.

I'm not really assuming it's very precise. It's more that there's a huge difference between 99th percentile levels of talent and 99.99th percentile levels of talent. For instance, I am easily better than 99/100 males at basketball. I'm 6'6", reasonably athletic, and I played semi-competitively when I was young. But I am nowhere near being better than 9,999/10,000 males. And no amount of hard work or persistence is going to change that.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#133

Post by Brockenstein » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

kiliantics wrote: post #119

cm2187 wrote: post #89

The title is a bit misleading. The study is basically comparing the path of the top 1% to the top 2% of the IQ distribution and arguing that it doesn't matter that much in term of extraordinary achievements (nobel prize, etc). If you compare the top 20% to the bottom 20% of the distribution I bet there will be a strong correlation to professional sucess.

That correlation does not mean that people's IQ caused their success or lack thereof. I would bet both are caused by economic circumstances, among other things, especially access to resources like good education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan high IQ, but still might be a total crank and crackpot.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#134

Post by compcoffee » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

teilo wrote: post #80

account2 wrote: post #28

I wonder how many IQ test misclassify intelligence? Feynman had a score of 125 and many people here have a high score than that. I bet no one here with a higher score of 125 are actually smarter than Feynman though. I think this is just one of many possible such examples where IQ test miss the purported people they were suppose to capture. Feynman’s score wouldn’t even qualify him for MENSA. I wonder how many IQ exam…

I'm around 150, and I don't consider myself smarter than Feynman. And I'm no savant, am socially well adjusted, and not on the autism scale. This, among many other data points, has led me to question the entire concept of IQ. The measurement of IQ borders on pseudo-science. It measures something, but what exactly? Everyone has a different answer. Ok, sure, intelligence. Now try to define "intelligence" empirically. W…

>I'm around 150

Good old HN: 1 out of 200 people in the population have an IQ of 140+, but half the people in this thread do.

Can't wait for the ironic "But HackerNews is filled with such smart people!" comments.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#135

Post by adwn » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:41 PM UTC

kiliantics wrote: post #123

jlawson wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to "define" it in some philosophical sense to use it. Compare "mass". What is mass? Can you really define it? You can say what it does, but what "is" it? Well, nobody can define it, except in terms of the things that it does . Because those are all we see of it. We can measure it, we see those measurements let us predict other outcomes. So we can use our knowledge of mass in practical, predictive ways…

You're not measuring; "intelligence". You're measuring someone's ability to perform well in a very contrived test. A test that no one could even take without a very specific education experience. So in that context, I'm sure the results are robust. But I don't think that means much

> You're not measuring; "intelligence". You're measuring someone's ability to perform well in a very contrived test. A test that no one could even take without a very specific education experience.

You're not measuring; "mass". You're measuring an object's ability to attract other objects in a very contrived test. A test that no object would even undergo outside a very specific physics experiment.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#136

Post by k__ » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

waylandsmithers wrote: post #128

k__ wrote: post #10

I know a few people with >130 IQ and they all have executive disfunction and anxiety problems. So yes, the best CPU doesn't help if the IO is constantly blocked.

Yes, exactly. The car analogy I've always heard is that a huge engine is good, but how much horsepower can the car actually get to the rear tires? I think the way we can measure "outcomes" is also highly debatable. Is becoming a wise monk with no possessions good or bad? What about a successful and influential CEO who is miserable?

Yes, I often heard people complain about stuff like "If they are so smart why are they doing such useless stuff?"

The answer to that is often "Well, go on and tell a person who is much smarter than you that you know better what they should do with their time!"

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#137

Post by jlawson » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:44 PM UTC

teilo wrote: post #91

jlawson wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to "define" it in some philosophical sense to use it. Compare "mass". What is mass? Can you really define it? You can say what it does, but what "is" it? Well, nobody can define it, except in terms of the things that it does . Because those are all we see of it. We can measure it, we see those measurements let us predict other outcomes. So we can use our knowledge of mass in practical, predictive ways…

I never claimed that intelligence is nothing. I said that the IQ measurement is itself not worth much except as a general guide in fairly broad ranges. Intelligence is certainly something. It is relevant. But it is not precise, and is useful, as I said, only in the broadest strokes. And like all psychometrics, the manner in which it is measured is itself not stable. But comparing intelligence to mass or any other phy…

I think it's worth separating out different tasks in terms of how g-loaded they are (that is to say how much they require intelligence).

General life success is g-loaded but not to an extreme degree. As many have noted, it's certainly possible to have success without great intelligence by working around one's limitations and finding other strengths.

But consider other tasks like "invent a new theorem in particle physics and get it published in a top journal" or "improve a mature database/load-balancing system to save a million dollars a year for a large computing company". These are extremely g-loaded tasks. Intelligence, as measured by IQ, is an absolute requirement to be able to do these things at all in my opinion. My sense is I don't think anyone could ever do such things without scoring 120+ IQ at absolute minimum and probably much more, though I'd be happy to hear counterexamples.

That's an example I'd say where intelligence as a concept and measure is useful in narrow strokes: When you need such a task to be done and done well, you can use intelligence measures to filter who does it (the same way you'd use stature to filter who you put on your basketball team).

In any case, however useful intelligence is, it's the most useful of all psychometric measures. Everything else is worse. That makes it not a great tool necessarily, but the most generally important among the tools we have.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#138

Post by wufufufu » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

majidazimi wrote: post #100

Well, I like to think persistence matters more but getting into top 1% of everything requires more than determination. 1. Going from bad to good requires x amount of effort/persistence. 2. Going from good to best requires 1000x amount of effort. When you've put 800x amount of effort, you'll realize this harsh bitter fact. You have already given up on your hobbies, family, social life, ... and you are still considered…

There are still plenty of fields where you can start late in life and not come from wealth but still be the best in the world. It's only the most popular and rewarding fields that require a life optimized to be the best to actually be the best.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#139

Post by hackinthebochs » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

dEnigma wrote: post #41

RickJWagner wrote: post #11

"If you think your IQ is 160 but it's 150, you're a disaster. It's much better to have a 130 IQ and think it's 120." - Charlie Munger

Could you please explain the meaning of that quote to me?

It's about expected necessary effort vs actual necessary effort. It's better to wrong that you needed more effort than be wrong that you needed less effort.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#140

Post by k__ » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

neutralid wrote: post #75

k__ wrote: post #10

I know a few people with >130 IQ and they all have executive disfunction and anxiety problems. So yes, the best CPU doesn't help if the IO is constantly blocked.

Extending the computer analogy, what would be ideal characteristics for the software architecture of a successful scientist?

I have no idea, haha.

I also know 2-3 people who are very smart AND don't have anxiety/executive problems, but they have social issues. They tend to burn out themselves and the people around them because they think their intelligence and work ethic is the base-line and the rest of the world is just dumb and/or lazy.