Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IQ Matters Less Than You Think

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 347 posts

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#201

Post by pessimizer »

cc-d wrote: post #190
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…

Feynman is a notable exception to the trend. Using a single exceptional result as evidence for decrying a trend is foolish. IQ tests obviously do not account for __every__ variable which we cumulatively call "intelligence", but IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at tasks society classifies as "smart people stuff". The difference in intelligence between two individuals is much less pronounced if both…

> IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at tasks society classifies as "smart people stuff"

Or, more precisely, IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at taking IQ tests.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#202

Post by WillPostForFood »

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…

Feynman took one test, in ~1930 when he was ~12 years old. Maybe it was a problem with the test, and Feynman actually had a much higher IQ.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#203

Post by plemer »

bjoli wrote: post #179
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.

One of the few things we actually know for sure about iq is that it has a protective function when it comes to mental illness.

Source? I'm seeing both that it has a protective effect and that high intelligence is associated with mood disorders.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#204

Post by [deleted] »

plemer wrote: post #193
owens99 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly, many findings show there is not. Malcolm Gladwell explains this well in his book Outliers. https://www.honorsociety.org/articles/trouble-geniuses-malco... “Gladwell cites studies done by Arthur Jensen that indicate the IQ level needed to successfully attend and graduate from undergraduate college is 115, after which Jensen believe IQ becomes relatively unimportant. For comparison, Albert Einstein, a wel…

Gladwell generally badly oversimplifies and mischaracterizes.

[deleted]

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#205

Post by dragonwriter »

owens99 wrote: post #181
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.

Surprisingly, many findings show there is not. Malcolm Gladwell explains this well in his book Outliers. https://www.honorsociety.org/articles/trouble-geniuses-malco... “Gladwell cites studies done by Arthur Jensen that indicate the IQ level needed to successfully attend and graduate from undergraduate college is 115, after which Jensen believe IQ becomes relatively unimportant. For comparison, Albert Einstein, a wel…

> He gives the example [paraphrasing from memory] of an individual with an IQ of 170 who was so intelligent it impaired his ability to relate to normal people and hold a job.

High IQ doesn't do that (in fact, it makes it easier to understand other people, including those of average intelligence, if you are so inclined), though people with high IQ and a problem that does impair their social interactions may be inclined to prefer to attribute the social difficulty to their strength (IQ) rather than some problem.

Some of the problems that do that may be loosely correlated with IQ, despite being distinct from it, though.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#206

Post by mercutio2 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #107
maceurt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, most IQ tests are not meant to measure intelligence past a certain point. A person with an IQ of 160 is not inherently smarter than someone who has an IQ of 150 in the same way someone with an IQ of 100 is inherently smarter than someone with an IQ of 90.

There can be measurement errors, like with any metric, but statistically speaking, a person with an IQ score of 160 will be more intelligent than somebody with a score of 150. And significantly so. 10 IQ points is a big deal (2/3rds of a standard deviation). Increasing the average IQ of any population by 10 points would be a total game changer.

Are you really arguing that most IQ tests have replicable sensitivity above 130-140?

Because that is very different than what I’ve heard. My impression is that most (perhaps not all) IQ tests are stable and highly replicable for results up to that range (assuming consistently motivated test takers, a very big assumption, particularly for bored smart people), but test scores above that range are mostly noise.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#207

Post by cpsempek »

plemer wrote: post #193
owens99 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly, many findings show there is not. Malcolm Gladwell explains this well in his book Outliers. https://www.honorsociety.org/articles/trouble-geniuses-malco... “Gladwell cites studies done by Arthur Jensen that indicate the IQ level needed to successfully attend and graduate from undergraduate college is 115, after which Jensen believe IQ becomes relatively unimportant. For comparison, Albert Einstein, a wel…

Gladwell generally badly oversimplifies and mischaracterizes.

While I agree with the intentions of your comment, it fails to be a persuasive rebuttal. Not saying you’re wrong, just saying a more productive comment would have responded to the specific claims of Gladwell’s in the comment, versus an ad hominem dismissal.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#208

Post by madeuptempacct »

ummonk wrote: post #188
madeuptempacct wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much this - average genes, hard work, and sacrifice can generally guarantee upper middle class (barring accidents). Basically, all you need to get there is being a good cog in the machine. That is to say - you come in groomed, you do your job, you study or take night classes, you don't spend your money on having a life, you don't make mistakes which come with fun. Eventually, you will get to your $100,000/year a…

You seem to be assuming there isn’t any genetic component to hard work.

Willpower can be trained: https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower.aspx

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#209

Post by pessimizer »

toasterlovin wrote: post #104
teilo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 said that the IQ measurement is itself not worth much except as a general guide in fairly broad ranges. IQ predicts about 30% of a whole host of life outcomes (mostly related to job performance, educational attainment, earnings, etc.). That might not seem like a whole lot, but it's the best single predictor of life outcomes that exists, aside from looking at a person's parents and siblings.

But IQ itself is predicted by parental earnings and parental educational attainment (and, IIRC, mostly by the sheer volume of reading for pleasure during childhood.)

There's a chicken/egg thing here that I think is a cart/horse thing.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#210

Post by pessimizer »

compcoffee wrote: post #134
teilo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 1 out of 200 people in the population have an IQ of 140+

What is that, 25 million?

Post reply on HN