We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, January 2. 2019
But let's leave aside things like SATs and IQ for a minute and consider the highly-adaptive, or maladaptive, character traits which can support or interfere with the pursuit of life goals regardless of IQ. That's where Psychology's Big 5 enter the picture. Briefly, they are:
- Openness to new experience (curiosity, adventurousness, risk-taking, inventiveness)
Is it true that "character is destiny"? Jordan Peterson always emphasizes something he terms "competence," along with some physical attributes to his list of advantages in life pursuits along with IQ and the above considerations, like attractiveness, fitness, and social skills.
Back to IQ, here Prof. Peterson discusses IQ and "the Jewish question" (yes, Ashkenazi Jews average one standard deviation above other Europeans. That's a lot.)
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Measuring IQ is problematic. It is a test of what was learned supposedly based on what was taught. If someone was not taught a subject they will test lower. If they skip classes and don't pay attention when they are in classes they will test lower. It is a good measure of something.
Another problem is the paradox that the most successful people are rarely the high IQ people. There can be a number of explanations for this but none of them reflect positively on the high IQ people.
Some cultures embrace education for their children and reject Western individuality and their children often test higher, i.e. they are taught more of what is on the IQ test. Does that mean that particular culture/race/group are genetically higher in IQ? Or does it mean that their culture simply embraces choices that result in better educated children; Just as their are cultures that do not embrace those choices and that results in poorly educated children.
I returned and saw under the sun that—
The race is not to the swift,
Nor the battle to the strong,
Nor bread to the wise,
Nor riches to men of understanding,
Nor favor to men of skill;
But time and chance happen to them all.
I had a high IQ when I was young - "gifted" they called me. I got (almost) straight A's in high school, but not so much in college (long story). After a brief stint in the Army, I eventually earned an engineering degree. When I got out into the working world, I did really well solving technical problems - saved my employers millions - but I have to admit that I did poorly in dealing with other people. I was so focused on solving problems, I just didn't take much time to consider others. In my naivete, I thought that doing awesome technical things would be enough to make me "liked". In retrospect, I guess I just didn't kiss enough ass. Well, now that I'm retired, kissing ass is still not in my nature, but I do try to be gentler with people's feelings these days. Thinking back, the one class that was missing from my education was "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Learning how to deal with other people should be a requirement - especially for engineers. You know how we are (grin).
Oh, a trick question! The race is for what each individual considers success. Money, fame, happiness? What do you consider success, Bird Dog?
Learning how to deal with other people should be a requirement - especially for engineers. You know how we are (grin).
I have a long list of engineer jokes that I use sometimes with students. I went from Engineering to Medical school. My last few years teaching students involved me having a group of graduate engineers in medical school. The school where I taught now has a double degree, Phd in Bioengineering and MD.
I behaved similarly in an entirely different field. My social skills were, uh, uneven. Brilliant in some areas, offensive in others.
A large chunk of my friends are engineers, and our weekly beer night is very engineer-heavy. Please join us if you are in southern NH. Most of the people I work with who have advanced degrees do not know much about other topics. Engineers do tend to have wider interests, though they are idiosyncratic and don't care about some things they are "supposed" to care about. The others I work with are told things by their news sources. They have succeeded in the social game of knowing what sources are the correct ones, and the rest is easy. Efficient, really.
As to qualities other than IQ, I have come to believe that adaptability will be increasingly important as we go forward. Determination has always been useful, and sometimes determinative. Resilience is less-often mentioned but is enormous. Everyone fails. Getting back up is hard, but those who can have a better chance. Not only jobs, but family relationships, friendships, and group memberships rely strongly on discretion and emotional control.
I think the Medievals, echoing the Greeks, had the right idea. https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2018/12/wisdom.html
Enjoyed the link. It is certainly something anyone (including the 50% below average) can hope to strive for.
My main objection to most of the arguments against IQ is that rather than accepting it is a positive factor but only one among many (a rather uncontroversial argument as you pointed out in your reaction to NNT) they proceed from an unstated assumption that there is a secret special sauce for success *and they're sure IQ isn't an ingredient*. The examples of smart people not succeeding aren't intended to show that IQ isn't determinant of success (again, uncontroversial) but that IQ isn't a part of the special sauce and can be disregarded.
Not to start an argument but I don't see how that is possible. Don't misunderstand I easily see how it might be a stated goal for the purpose of being PC but I think it is not possible.
Also think about the irony of the statement "IQ tests are now independent of knowledge." I fully understand your meaning but the statement itself is ironic. It is like having a beauty contest and not assessing beauty. IMHO IQ tests are all about knowledge but that butt hurts the special interest groups so we have to make believe that there is some "fairer" way to assess IQ that would result in the same proportion of geniuses in all definable groups. But we know that isn't true so we have to make believe that it is.
For a few years I did ethographic studies for product marketing. I consider voice of the customer significant data, so I believe that many people with very high IQs experience a kind of mirror of Rain Man. Why else would they frequently describe a significantly common experience of not being understood or not understanding average people, even to the point of forming high IQ societies. There are also "hard number" research studies supporting the same conclusion. That there is a sweet spot where IQ is but one factor. Here is one such study. They quote Mae West before talking about a curvilinear hypothesis, so it must be a good paper ;) That said, with 7 billion + and the internet, at what point will the Uber Intelligent population form critical mass such that 170 is the sweet spot to manage 150s and 160s? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315718107_Can_Super_Smart_Leaders_Suffer_From_Too_Much_of_a_Good_Thing_The_Curvilinear_Effect_of_Intelligence_on_Perceived_Leadership_Behavior
Everyone without an axe to grind knows that general intelligence is handy and highly predictive of certain kinds of success. the problem is that IQ varies among a number of socially important groups, and that it's much easier to argue that all disparate outcomes can be blamed on illegitimate bias involving one or more of the socially important groups, if inherent IQ has nothing to do with disparate outcomes--or to put it another way, if IQ isn't inherent but instead an undeserved effect of bias.
There's a weird kind of all-or-nothing thinking here: as if we couldn't acknowledge that the secret sauce has more than one ingredient, in your metaphor. If someone thinks that social injustice is the only legitimate topic, we find him denying that IQ means anything at all, and vice versa.
As Heinlein used to say, of course IQ matters. If it didn't, you could teach calculus to a horse.
Not discussed here are the policies being pushed by the "it must be prejudice" side - which are devastating to the people they profess to be "helping". Peterson hints at some of this - the redefinition of personhood in a utilitarian direction - at the end of the clip.
The beliefs and expectations of Judeo-Christian democracy - including endowed-by-their-creator personal worth, equality of opportunity, free will, brotherhood, and personal responsibility - are the most benevolent program for those on the lower end of the IQ and social-skills scales.
Far better than the gubmint subsidized self-destruction that the Left has visited upon them.