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

311–320 of 347 posts

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#311

Post by com2kid »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #252
baccheion wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average IQ among intuitor types (xNxx; MBTI) is said to be one standard deviation above the norm (115+ SD15). They are also very overrepresented online. Having an IQ 2 standard deviations above the norm (130+ SD15) tends to attract problems/difficulty/friction in corporate environments. That is, companies are biased toward Te users (xxTJs) and extroverts + judgers (ExxJs) with IQs in the 115-125 range. Synthesis usua…

I'm also asking for sources here. I'm really hoping you have some, because intuitively this seems very true for me.

Posted above at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18143595

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#312

Post by com2kid »

drb91 wrote: post #243
baccheion wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average IQ among intuitor types (xNxx; MBTI) is said to be one standard deviation above the norm (115+ SD15). They are also very overrepresented online. Having an IQ 2 standard deviations above the norm (130+ SD15) tends to attract problems/difficulty/friction in corporate environments. That is, companies are biased toward Te users (xxTJs) and extroverts + judgers (ExxJs) with IQs in the 115-125 range. Synthesis usua…

Have any sources?

Posted above at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18143595

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#313

Post by yesenadam »

Bartweiss wrote: post #259
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.

There's an excellent rant somewhere about the pattern where people at the extreme margins of a trait proudly declare that the trait doesn't really matter for success. It's the rocket scientist saying he knows lots of people smarter than him, and obviously hard work and precision are what really matter in rocketry - never mind that estimates put the average IQ in the physical sciences around 125. Or the pro basketball…

the pattern where people at the extreme margins of a trait proudly declare that the trait doesn't really matter for success

I just noticed yesterday for the nth time a girl on facebook posting her pic with a caption saying how true beauty is on the inside. Can't help noticing it's only the most beautiful girls who do that, which I've always found puzzling. You've shed some light on why for me, thanks. I'll think twice before again writing on here how unimportant talent is in music! (I'm a musician.) I just don't know about that. My favourite story about talent, from Kevin Spraggett:

"I remember fondly one conversation I had a few years back with Boris Spassky. We were discussing 'THE' Victor Korchnoi...Boris and Victor had been bitter adversaries for more than 40 years at the time of this conversation, and they had played more than 60 times in official competitions..(including 2 candidates finals)... Boris [said] that Korchnoi had every quality necessary to become world champion but lacked one very essential quality...and it was precisely this quality that prevented him from attaining chess' highest title. I coaxed Boris on...He began to list Korchnoi's many qualities: ...Killer Instinct (nobody can even compare with Victor's 'gift')...Phenomenal capacity to work (both on the board and off the board)...Iron nerves (even with seconds left on the clock)...Ability to Calculate (maybe only Fischer was better in this department)...Tenacity and perseverance in Defense (unmatched by anyone)...The ability to counterattack (unrivaled in chess history)...Impeccable Technique (Flawless, even better than Capablanca's)...Capacity to concentrate (unreal)..Impervious to distractions during the game...Brilliant understanding of strategy...Superb tactician (only a few in history can compare with Victor) ...Possessing the most profound opening preparation of any GM of his generation...Subtle Psychologist...Super-human will to win (matched only by Fischer)...Deep knowledge of all of his adversaries...Enormous energy and self-discipline...

'But, Boris, what does Victor lack to become world champion?' Boris' answer floored me: "He has no chess talent !" And then he roared with laughter..."

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#314

Post by throw2016 »

IQ tests have been plagued with controversy including cultural markers and yet many continue to be obsessed with attaching more meaning to them that they can deliver.

How can we design tests and make definitive judgements about the best way to test intelligence when we do not fully understand it or even define it? What about things like curiosity, passion, emotional intelligence and team work?

Are we testing abstract thinking, visual thinking, language skills? What do they measure and how exactly do the scores translate into the real world? Without any comprehensive studies, data or evidence this quickly becomes a pseudo science.

Is there any guarantee and precision that a person with IQ of 140 is more 'intelligent' than a person with an IQ of 120? In what? In the IQ tests yes, but beyond that in what? The real world is much more than a single test in a controlled environment.

This is like claiming a student scoring higher than classmates in an english test will write a better novel or compose better prose. Does not follow, in the same way ascribing value in the real world to an IQ test does not follow.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#315

Post by corpMaverick »

mikestew wrote: post #147
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.

I know a few people with >130 IQ and they all have... No, those are just the ones you know about. You know, the kind that tell people that they have a high IQ. You probably know more people with IQs > 130, you just don't know that you do because they're well-adjusted, and they don't feel the need to tell you about their high IQ.

Just a quick calc. 130 is on the 97 percentile. So if you know 300 people then you know about 9 people with IQs >= 130. Probably more assume you tend to interact with smarter than average people.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#316

Post by benbreen »

Bartweiss wrote: post #259
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.

There's an excellent rant somewhere about the pattern where people at the extreme margins of a trait proudly declare that the trait doesn't really matter for success. It's the rocket scientist saying he knows lots of people smarter than him, and obviously hard work and precision are what really matter in rocketry - never mind that estimates put the average IQ in the physical sciences around 125. Or the pro basketball…

You should write this rant up as a blog post! I'd read it.

One factor doesn't seem to me to get mentioned enough in these discussions - call it "agreeability" or "sanguinity." Basically, ability to successfully cope with neuroses and other social/behavioral challenges that seem to be more common among intelligent people.

I put some thought into the people I've met who seemed to me to be the greatest outliers in terms of intellectual achievement. One is a famous writer, another is a classics professor, and another is a math prodigy turned neuroscientist. The commonalities between the three are a combination of 1) high g, 2) obsessive focus, and 3) the aforementioned happiness/agreeability/ability to cope with neuroses. All three of the people I have in mind are neurotic in some ways, but can channel it toward constructive channels. Haven't looked into the research on this but I would be curious if you could recommend any study that addresses this component. I agree that the Gladwellian "just practice a lot" view doesn't seem to hold a lot of weight, but anecdotally it seems to me like raw intellectual ability isn't the determining factor either.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#317

Post by ABCLAW »

JamesBarney wrote: post #256
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…

I don't think there would be too much disagreement if I said von neuman was one of the smartest 10 guys to live in the last century. But he seemed to relate to people just fine.

I don't think we're at the point of having a strict definition of 'smart' let alone a system for ranking by it.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#318

Post by npunt »

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.

An answer, by analogy-

If you yell into a microphone, the recording will come out distorted and inaccurate. Yet if you speak normally into one, the recording will sound rather true to life. This is because the microphone has been tuned to a certain level of sensitivity, and when that threshold is exceeded, what it records is clipped.

A similar principle holds for many types of human tests in education, psych, etc.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#319

Post by danans »

toasterlovin wrote: post #244
danans wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The measure is not pseudo-science, but the attempts to draw sweeping conclusions from it at the individual or societal level are pure nonsense. Ethical psychologists don't consider IQ in isolation the way that pop culture and many in forums like HN do.

You have to engage in some really convoluted thinking to have something like IQ, which significantly predicts a whole bunch of important life outcomes, and somehow convince yourself that it doesn't have sweeping implications at the individual and societal level. It would be like convincing yourself that height had nothing to do with success in basketball. Surely it's not the only important factor, but it makes a huge…

Why are you so sure that IQ isn't just a useful fiction that masks a large number of underlying factors that we don't fully understand? Why are you so sure that it is the best predictor of success in these fields. Perhaps other traits are equal or better predictors of success in a particular field, like tenaciousness, or conscientiousness, and perhaps IQ doesn't matter as much if one of those aren't present.

Perhaps you have some citations to share?

The comparison to height is quite weak, because height is a far simpler and more objectively verifiable measurement, and the causal mechanism that connects height and success in basketball is plain as day simple: proximity to the hoop.

Re: IQ Matters Less Than You Think

#320

Post by annabellish »

debacle wrote: post #284
annabellish wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is a garbage measurement that isn't predictive of future results, yes. It's more the hard work and sacrifice part I'm disagreeing with.

IQ is highly predictive of future outcomes. Where are you getting you data from?

IQ is highly predictive of the outcomes of future IQ tests, and to a degree academic performance (though much of academic measurement is based on similar theories, so this is unsurprising)

There's much less corellation when you consider "future success" in terms of things like job performance, financial success, happiness, et cetera. IQ is obviously measuring something, because IQ tests are quite reliable, but the thing it's measuring does not seem to show a strong corellation with a lot of real-world goals.

It's one of those measurements that people _want_ to use a lot, and so it sees a lot of use, but the idea that you can boil general intelligence down to one number is fallacious to begin with, so many of the things it's used for are not useful.

This is literally one of the things the post we're commenting on is saying. High IQ people are not automatically successful and whatever effect high IQ may or may not have on future success is easily lost in other, more significant, factors.

Post reply on HN