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

291–300 of 347 posts

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#291

Post by gjm11 »

WorkLifeBalance wrote: post #235
SiempreViernes wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The objection was that you can't reliably tell apart the 99 from the 99.99 percentile with a common IQ test.

The difference between 99th and 99.99th percentile is 1.4 standard deviations, a common IQ test ought to be able to be accurate to that. Otherwise it couldn't measure the difference between 100 and 120 IQ (0 to 1.4z) which it clearly can.

I don't think your reasoning is valid. A test might be unable to discriminate accurately at the extremes not because it's uniformly too inaccurate but because it doesn't have enough range.

Toy model: the test consists of one question that everyone in the top 1% can do and no one in the bottom 99% can do; one question that everyone in the top 2% can do and no one in the bottom 98% can do; ... one question that everyone in the top 99% can do and no one in the bottom 1% can do. This test discriminates very nicely and accurately throughout its range of applicability, but it will do no good at all from distinguishing a top-0.01% person from a merely top-1% person.

(Just as a tape measure 2m long will let you compare people very accurately by height provided they're no taller than 2m, but will be much less useful for people taller than that.)

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#292

Post by debacle »

cirgue wrote: post #164
Shekelberg wrote: post #155

Funny how HN is full of people with >120 IQ claiming that IQ doesn't matter. If that's really true, than why is pretty much everyone here in the top 10-15% of the population? Where are all the <100 IQ people here claiming to have successful careers in the tech industry despite their IQ scores? Remember, the average IQ is 100 by definition, so roughly half the general population is <100. What are the odds of this happ…

a) Most people here probably don't actually know their IQ scores, and claiming that most of the people here are >120 iq is silly. No one has any way of knowing that. b) Most people here also probably know people who are every bit as intelligent as they are who have repeatedly had really shitty luck and zero success. Similarly, most people know someone who is successful, but at the end of the day is pretty stupid. Reg…

a. Most people here are programmer or programmer-types. Assuming there's a strong correlation between "could attend college" and "could be a programmer," that likely implies an IQ of 115 or more.

b. Those instances tend to stand out (especially the people smarter than you with miserable outcomes), but also tend to not be statistically relevant.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#293

Post by debacle »

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.

If it makes you feel any better, my IQ wasn't as high as I hoped it would be. Not high enough to brag about, for sure.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#294

Post by madaxe_again »

dragonwriter wrote: post #205
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…

> 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 incline…

It makes understanding people easier - much easier, in fact - but it doesn’t necessarily help you use that understanding any better.

Firstly, as others have observed, it makes it hard to relate to others when the majority of people you meet seem to have the intellect of a child - I don’t mean this unkindly, rather more that one ends up looking at most folks as making grievous and avoidable errors incessantly, and almost as overgrown children. You want to help, but you can’t, because nobody likes being patronised or made to feel inferior, but if you don’t help, they resent you for not having helped. It isn’t intractable, but it’s most readily avoided by avoiding interaction in the first place.

Secondly, intimidation. Ties back to making people feel inferior, and generally stymies social interactions. It’s tough, even in a marriage, as they either know you’re playing dumb, or feel like you’re beating them over the head with your intellect. Either way you end up hurting their self worth every time you notice something or think of something and unwisely decide to share it.

Thirdly, overshoot. I tend to assign far more intelligence and cunning to others than there is, and resultabtly second, third, fourth guess their mind-state, as it’s hard to comprehend the disappointingly facile motives behind behaviour.

Finally, expectations. Once you let on that you can solve the intractable while half-asleep, you’re expected to do it day in, day out, and find that the world beats a path to your door with their petitions and demands, which feeds more than a degree of misanthropy.

I’ve met maybe three people in my life who I’ve felt on a level with, and one of them is my brother.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#295

Post by bischofs »

Shekelberg wrote: post #155

Funny how HN is full of people with >120 IQ claiming that IQ doesn't matter. If that's really true, than why is pretty much everyone here in the top 10-15% of the population? Where are all the <100 IQ people here claiming to have successful careers in the tech industry despite their IQ scores? Remember, the average IQ is 100 by definition, so roughly half the general population is <100. What are the odds of this happ…

My IQ is quite low, maybe 85 or less. I'm not smart enough to understand why a bunch of smart people would argue about how unimportant it is to be smart.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#296

Post by debacle »

HiroshiSan wrote: post #163
jacquesm wrote: post #18

I know plenty of people for whom their high IQ is actually a hindrance rather than a help. So even for them it matters (greatly) but not in a positive way. The best determinants for being successful, in spite of a high IQ or lack thereof are the ability to focus and to have stamina.

Is there any way to train focus and stamina?

The general advice is: know when take breaks. Small + often.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#298

Post by [deleted] »

madaxe_again wrote: post #294
dragonwriter wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 incline…

It makes understanding people easier - much easier, in fact - but it doesn’t necessarily help you use that understanding any better. Firstly, as others have observed, it makes it hard to relate to others when the majority of people you meet seem to have the intellect of a child - I don’t mean this unkindly, rather more that one ends up looking at most folks as making grievous and avoidable errors incessantly, and alm…

[deleted]

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#299

Post by toasterlovin »

mercutio2 wrote: post #206
toasterlovin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In another part of this thread[0], Bartweiss says that Raven's Advanced Matrices is valid up until about 150 IQ. So I was close. And my bigger point is that, though the measurement lacks precision at that level, if you lined up a bunch of 150 IQ people and a bunch of 160 IQ people, there are probably some aggregate group differences. Anecdotally, I've spent a lot of time around really smart people. There are gradations even at the top (just as there are in all other areas of talent; there's only one Lebron James, after all)

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18142638

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#300

Post by tossermcgee22 »

empath75 wrote: post #4

I always tested in the 99th percentile, went to gifted and talented classes, was a merit scholarship semi finalist, etc. I think by any measure I had a high IQ. I also barely graduated high school, flunked out of junior college and spent most of my 20s going to raves instead of accomplishing anything worth while. Meanwhile my sister, who had an utterly average iq by any measure has a masters degree and is a hospital…

Similar setup albeit perhaps a different (or just earlier?) outcome.

Failed a bunch of classes in high school and flirted with dropping out. Two misdemeanor arrests for underaged drinking and pot. Graduated in bottom quintile of my high school class, one failure shy of being held back. Managed to get into a far away college with a scholarship on the basis of a letter of recommendation from one of those once-in-a-lifetime teachers for whom I'll be forever grateful.

Did fine in college, got a 1600 on the GRE, went into dev work at startups and have since had a quite successful career.

I feel like being smart saved my butt multiple times over. I don't think I would have gotten that LOR if I hadn't made an impression on that HS teacher, wouldn't have been able to self-teach CS as a non-programmer as easily without smarts to fall back on, etc.

Maybe being smart was not a prerequisite for getting where I did, but I think it was a prerequisite for taking the winding path I took.

And also a gigantic, heaping helping of luck as well.

Post reply on HN