Comments: [Biumped] A significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded
Being smart has always solved a lot of problems, but the social conundrum ain't among 'em. Learning how to dumb yourself down for acceptability sometimes seems useful as a way to fly below the radar.
Posted by Rob De Witt at April 10, 2015 6:40 PM
It is more likely that they are self-excluded.
Posted by james wilson at April 10, 2015 6:48 PM
Those with very high IQs also seem to tend to be unstable.
High IQ and common sense often seem antithetical.
Posted by Fred Z at April 10, 2015 6:51 PM
I told my father I was gonna make something of myself. I should have been more specific.
"For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despite their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something
They invest in." Dylan
Posted by chasmatic at April 10, 2015 8:38 PM
Very high IQ people get bored quickly in school and tend to start paying less attention. They figure out very rapidly that they can get good grades with a fraction of their attention and effort, which sort of damages ambition.
They also will tend to have so many opportunities and possibilities for their abilities and become paralyzed by too many decisions and options. Its hard to get a really, really smart person to focus on one thing and get particularly great at it. They're often so good at just about everything they do that when something especially challenging comes along, they become impatient and frustrated. None of this adds up well for a hardcore professional job like doctor.
Posted by Christopher Taylor at April 10, 2015 8:56 PM
Like I said, "Learning how to dumb yourself down for acceptability sometimes seems useful as a way to fly below the radar."
For example, look at the unmitigated envy and projection displayed in this comment stream. A kid with the poor judgement to be born smart is gonna eat this crap for breakfast every fuckin day of his life.
Posted by Rob De Witt at April 10, 2015 10:00 PM
"... unmitigated envy and projection ..."
My observation? It is not what you have but how you use it. I disagree with those that couple high intelligence with emotional instability.
I tested one fifty-five on the Stanford-Binet several times consistently. My high IQ got me into some trouble but it also saved my shaggy butt a number of times.
I survived a Government job of hunting humans which included a number of lethal-force encounters and I managed to find the spiritual path, keep me walking in the Light.
People of Faith have a logical idea of what Life is all about.
Posted by chasmatic at April 11, 2015 6:02 AM
People of Faith have a logical idea of what Life is all about.
Amen, brother.
Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
Twas Grace that brought me safe thus far,
And Grace will lead me home.
Posted by Rob De Witt at April 11, 2015 6:19 AM
@ Chris: "get bored quickly in school and tend to start paying less attention." No they figure out that most of what they are being given is crap, stuff they can look up when needed. They rather explore their minds and imaginations. All I ever heard is "What's wrong with you?" (147 IQ and graduated 72/74) the only thing I wanted out of school was me.
@ Rob, Chas, you're speaking to ethics. Boil the verbiage out of the Big Ten C's and that is what is left. If anyone takes some time to read a bit of Taoism, one will find it centers around ethics. Purely, cleanly and totally. It requires one to be truthful, ethical and correct in dealings with others and to leave any place where one is required to act corruptly to survive.
The difference is I have to bring my own four D-cell light for my path.
Posted by Vermont Woodchuck at April 11, 2015 6:54 AM
You don't need an IQ of 140 to experience the problem first-hand. Merely taking the time and trouble to comprehend the concepts involved in what you're doing, is enough to get you in a lot of trouble.
You start to see contradictions others haven't even bothered to try to detect, and there you are, stuck, trying to figure out how to resolve some ambiguity that isn't on anybody else's radar. While the "by rote" kids just barrel on through and score 100%.
Posted by mkfreeberg at April 11, 2015 7:52 AM
Do we *really* want Sheldon Cooper running things?
Posted by leelu at April 11, 2015 9:13 AM
Whodafuck is Sheldon Cooper?
Posted by Rob De Witt at April 11, 2015 10:01 AM
As I said, high IQ carries characteristics that are self-exclusionary. For many different reasons.
It is a curious fact that the IQ sweet spot for chess greatness is 135. Bobby Fischer was a notable exception, and probably an example conforming to people's prejudice against very high IQ, a prejudice which may be as true as it is petty. Almost no one is awarded a great asset without a great liability.
Posted by james wilson at April 11, 2015 10:09 AM
James Wilson,
Probably true about compensation, assets vs liabilities - although I've believed always that it goes the other way, that God gave me talents to compensate for the shitty mess I got born into. Had no choice but to survive with no teaching, but got the intelligence necessary to do that. Kicking and screaming, but still.
A shrink finally told me after years of work that I'd been raised to be a serial killer, but something enabled me to dodge that bullet. Not a criminal, not a rageball, not a drunk. Grateful for the gifts I've been given, however painful and lonely the world in which they have to be employed.
People don't choose to have a high IQ, any more than they choose to be black, or male, or short. Only imbeciles blame people for things over which they have no control. Unfortunately there's a lot of stupid people around.
Posted by Rob De Witt at April 11, 2015 10:25 AM
The only way "high IQ carries characteristics that are self-exclusionary" can be true is if someone is monkeying around with the definition of "intelligence." Of course even if we're doing an admirable job of showing fidelity to the true meaning of the word, there are bound to be different strains of it; lots of people can register highly on one metric of it by coming up short in the other.
But if any interpretation of it has any honest meaning at all, it should have something to do with the ability to nimbly adapt. All legitimate applications of the word should share that common overlap.
One of the tragedies of the times in which we live, is "intelligence" is all to often used to describe a *reluctance* to do this adapting, and it has become common for groups of people to "reach" a consensus by ostracizing whoever refuses (or merely hesitates) to get "on board." In such a situation, which is becoming increasingly common, yes the "intelligent" will be illegitimately excluded in favor of "mediocre," the sycophantic, and the gullible.
And that is not dealing with subtly different sub-definitions of intelligence. That is dealing with oppositional definitions; usurpations of the true meaning of the word.
Posted by mkfreeberg at April 11, 2015 10:54 AM
Morgan,
Hear, hear.
Posted by Rob De Witt at April 11, 2015 11:04 AM
Well, Morgan, you quoted from IQ and went on to define something that is quite possibly not the same--intelligence. I didn't define IQ as intelligence. This post was about high IQ individuals. Pretty sloppy.
Posted by james wilson at April 11, 2015 3:51 PM
Well gee, james, since "IQ" is an abbreviation for "Intelligence Quotient," maybe you'd better give everybody else the benefit of your own definition of "intelligence."
There's pretty obviously something about this concept that threatens you on some level.
Posted by Rob De Witt at April 11, 2015 4:25 PM
This isn't about my definition, it's about Morgan's. I didn't offer one. Who is threatened?
"But if any interpretation of it has any honest meaning at all, it should have something to do with the ability to nimbly adapt. All legitimate applications of the word should share that common overlap."
The ability to nimbly adapt can be a good thing or a bad thing. But I am unaware that it is a characteristic of high intelligence.
Posted by james wilson at April 11, 2015 8:57 PM
Semantics, dancing, devolved into adversarial discourse.
IQ, intelligence quotient, is an agreed upon measure of intangibles. No objective values. Subjective and relative only. To say "he has a higher S-B score, he must be smarter than xyz" means little.
Might as well contend that pigs are smarter than cows and bantam chickens are smarter than horses.
Intelligence only has value when it yields some material result.
Posted by chasmatic at April 11, 2015 10:20 PM
"Intelligence only has value when it yields some material result."
Yup. Like "nimble adaptation," as a perfect example. It's one reason why some animals survive longer than other animals.
Posted by Rob De Witt at April 11, 2015 11:29 PM
Well James, let us presume I am absolutely sloppy and IQ, in some context, carries some ramification entirely removed from true intelligence. I guess the question that emerges is, what would that context be? How could it possibly be useful? Patient X, lacking any of this nimbly-adaptive capability whatsoever, scores 170.
Not to say that that doesn't happen, but what useful assessment are we making there? It isn't that I disagree with your attack on IQ tests, if that's what I'm interpreting it to be ("high IQ carries characteristics that are self-exclusionary"). But you said "for many reasons," which seems to suggest you're including actual intelligence in your characterization. And my only point is, that can't work because it's an inherent contradiction. If one wants to be included, and one possess intelligence, but this intelligence is motivating one to do things that get him excluded, it is reasonable to expect this person to figure out what's going on and stop doing whatever it is.
Posted by mkfreeberg at April 12, 2015 8:46 AM
"I doubt the efficacy of teaching, though it's noble indeed to attempt it. Witness the enormous learning, wit, and insight of so many wonderful bloggers whose voices can now be heard. Still, as entertaining as their efforts are, it seems to me that the effect of their work in defeating the liberal, grifter enemy is marginal." Colonel B. Bunny
Hey Rob, you hear the one about the talking dog? A perfect example of intelligence put to work. A, um, how shall I say it? A nimble adaptation.
If pressed I can relate some anecdotal evidence regarding IQ in bantam chickens, thanks to my uncle Letsgo's punctilious note-keeping.
It has been said that Earl Scheib could not read nor write.
Posted by chasmatic at April 12, 2015 9:48 AM
Not only that, I've known a many dog who was smarter than his human - and was kind enough to keep that to himself. Couldn't any of 'em read or write, though. Or I don't think they could.
I agree with Morgan that intelligence is largely signaled by the triumph of adaptation over adversity. Acourse in this crowd I just got a little one, at 140.
It's always been big enough, though. And I'm still here.
Posted by Rob De Witt at April 12, 2015 11:11 AM
Earl Scheib Also had the good sense not to paint a soup can or a house. No dummy he.
Posted by Vermont Woodchuck at April 12, 2015 11:57 AM
OK, Morgan. But I'm not attacking IQ tests, or high IQ, or people with high IQ. The point of the original post was that there must be some discrimination going on against high IQ people or they would be better represented in contributing to society. I think the idea that high IQ people are underachieving due to being held back by others is ridiculous. Being held back by others is the normal human condition.
The "many reasons" which I wrote of are not faults caused by a person's intelligence, but rather the gap between his intelligence and his defects. Even when his defects are ordinary, the gap now becomes extraordinary. Those souls are a-symmetrical, and people apparently love symmetry.
"If one wants to be included, and one possess intelligence, but this intelligence is motivating one to do things that get him excluded, it is reasonable to expect this person to figure out what's going on and stop doing whatever it is."
Intelligence is not reasonableness, it is only a tool. Intelligence may be even more facile in warping understanding than advancing it.
I rely on high IQ people to make my life interesting. And they have, all precious few of them who are full of nimble reasonableness.
Posted by james wilson at April 12, 2015 11:59 AM
I was out running errands, standing in the line at Walmart for meds. Behind me comes this guy, looked like he was on a Polack bowling team.
Mid-forties, wouldn't know matching colors if they bit him in the butt.
"Whassatcha got?" He asks, pointing to the cafe curtain rod I'm holding.
I spoke not a word, showed him.
"Oh" he sez, "thought it was one a them canes. My buddy has one with four feet".
"Yes, when we get older we lose equilibrium." I said (my mistake).
"Oh" he sez, "I lost my equilibrium when I had that aneurism, back in '97."
"You're lucky to be alive" sez I.
"I dunno, I'm waiting for them to come get me. Y'know, go up into space".
"I'm five foot ten." I said with finality, "you won't need any money up there."
He nodded sagely and I saw behind his eyes he'll be chewing on that for a while.
The art of conversation, one of my strong suits.
Posted by chasmatic at April 14, 2015 8:04 AM