14

Jordan Peterson - IQ accurate as predictor of success, but not of ethical behavior

Posted by freedomforall 5 months, 2 weeks ago to Science
72 comments | Share | Flag

Interesting video discussion of the accuracy IQ predicts success. Comments at the end are especially interesting regarding high IQ and ethical behavior. No correlation whatsoever between IQ and ethical behavior.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m91vhePuzdo


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I will listen tomorrow, thanks Freedom.

    But to interject for a moment: This is why I surmise that IQ is mostly, (depending on the test), a measure of compartmentalized information, and what truly makes a person smart, a person with reason and wisdom, is integration. the ability to Integrate comes with having and using the Mind and once one has and uses his mind comes to know his conscience.
    It comes with the territory in my observation.

    One could have an IQ of 100 or even 120 and posses wisdom, ethics and...create value, if they can integrate information.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      I play a lot of role playing games and I think this was one area in which Gary Gygax (the creator of the legendary Dungeons & Dragons series) got it exactly right. He identified two innate characteristics and called one Intelligence and one Wisdom. I think that there are a lot of "smart" people out there in the world. I note that wisdom is in very short supply. Why? Because wisdom is the ability to think through one's actions and their ramifications by not only incorporating observation but experience. A smart person writes books about things they thing they understand. A wise person reads books about things they don't understand.

      “A true genius admits that he/she knows nothing.”
      --Albert Einstein
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        This is a false dichotomy. Not every smart person writes books at all, and he becomes smarter by reading what he doesn't already know as well as learning from experience. A "true genius" does not "know nothing".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jlc 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        I think that people (ie psychologists) overlook the millions of hours of data that results from playing RPGs. This is possibly the best simulation of the different aspects of human consciousness and abilities that has been done.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          I agree with you. The part you always have to consider in the RPG is the degree to which the plot is scripted and directed - especially in computerized versions. A completely free-form RPG like GURPS, D&D, or a variety of others can be very enlightening - and a huge challenge to the Game Master!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Conversely, one could have an IQ of 140 but cannot or does not integrate that information, they are likely to have an absence in ethical, moral and mutual behavior.
      The key here, as far as I see it, is integration. Integration enables one to self introspect, all the facets of awareness are integrated, therefore one is most likely to have a strong conscience controlling their behavior; and that control system seems to be universal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  skidance 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Carl, I've read several books on IQ over the years. My take-away is that IQ measures general intelligence ("G"), which I believe is the ability to conceptualize or integrate, as you put it. My general but unscientific observation is that people with valid IQs less than average (100) generally cannot conceptualize. That said, scores can be affected by the motivation of the testee, whether s/he had an adequate breakfast on the day of the test, etc. In the field of child welfare for 24 years, I had the opportunity to refer clients for such testing, review the results, and compare those to my own observations and guesstimations. For example, if a previous score was 60, and I noticed that the client could integrate information, I'd quickly refer for re-testing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        That could very well be, a false testing, as you say.
        However, as I included in my summation, the type of test is important as well, all IQ tests are not equal. I myself scored low in grade school because I did not care but still scored high to conceptual exercises but the IQ test I took years later in the army, after already having an asso. degree, scored very high in both areas. (above average)...laughing because that meant I wasn't stupid after all and my hyperactivity was to blame.
        But still, the testing in school and the testing in the army were very different. The one's in school generally tested accumulated information...which as I state, is a measure of compartmentalized neuron formations.
        There is a clear delineation between bicameral activity in the brain and unicameral activity in the mind.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        All humans can conceptualize and do so routinely. Most, even very intelligent people, do not properly conceptualize higher level abstractions from abstractions (more distant in the hierarchy from the perceptual level) because of lack of knowing the methods for proper integration. It doesn't seem to prevent them from doing well on IQ tests.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I wonder why someone would think they should be related.
    My understanding is that IQ is an ability to "match patterns" and/or solve problems.

    Ethical Behavior is VERY dependent on Culture. In some countries, it is ETHICAL to take advantage of someone. It is encouraged.
    Is it Ethical to sell a 10 cent pill for $12,000? It depends... If it's YOUR pill, YOU get to choose what to sell it for! (Think about the Epi Pen Idiot,
    and our corrupt government who got him on OTHER crimes! Which I find MORE unethical than what he did).

    The challenge for us in this forum is that we (as a group) tend to believe in following rules, and are by USA standards pretty Ethical.

    (And cognitive Bias allows for us to IGNORE when we aren't, or when we have cheated. I am proud to say that if I get too much change back, I make sure to give it back. I did NOT ALWAYS behave this way. It was unethical of me!)

    Being able to solve problems and THINK AHEAD is a great skill. REALIZING that the world operates BETTER with Ethics, is a DIFFERENT Skill, and AKIN to Wisdom. KNOWING that not everyone is Ethical is key! (Trusting people tend to over trust. Unethical people pick up on this. They target those people as easy prey).

    Keep in mind that our GOVERNMENT Prevents IQ testing from companies choosing employees. FORCING An Education System on us to do it for them. Unfortunately, like all Government programs, it degrades and is NO LONGER a predictor of IQ (ie, usefulness of an employee).

    It's all related to what we value... Think about it this way. IQ gives you the ability to DELAY Gratification.
    Ethics gives you the ability to RECOGNIZING if you are taking advantage of someone/something.

    And Ethics can be thrown out the window in defiance... For example, if taxes are raised to 70%, is it Ethical to shut down your business and go claim unemployment benefits to help EXPEDITE the demise of the system? I think it is, and where I would normally NEVER be a looter (I have never collected unemployment in my life, despite being eligible at times, and having paid in...) I would CERTAINLY load up the truck at the point that the system needed to break!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  gharkness 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Seriously, I had no idea that it was illegal to require an IQ test for employment. I took one in 1992 (upon investigation, I see the issue was decided in 1971) not thinking a thing about it.

      It was actually kind of fun, especially when they told me "you will not be able to finish this test, so don't be upset when the bell rings and you are not finished."

      I finished before the bell rang. :-) Got all the answers right, too.

      Anyway, the owner of the company was not overly concerned about legality. He kept a shelf-full of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead for anyone visiting who wanted a copy. Learned a lot at that job, not all of it good, but it all was good FOR me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      Ethical behavior is not dependent on culture, what is typically regarded as ethical within the culture is. Ethics is not subjective; it is a science of standards for choices proper for human life, as explained in Ayn Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics". Ethics is not "following rules" imposed by a culture or in the name of anything else; it is not "duty" at all, although that is what we are commonly told.

      We know from observation that intelligence does not guarantee ethical behavior, and should not expect it to be, but the the tests measuring correlation with IQ depend on what they claim to measure about ethics. Jordan Peterson did not define what he means by ethics. Some of it may be proper and some, such as his vague reference to "egalitarianism", is not.

      Standards that you imply, such as honesty and not stealing, are not presumed in every theory of ethics, nor presumed to be priorities, in most cultures, such as under the influence of altruism and collectivism.

      But your personal standard of not taking government payments you have paid for is not required by a proper ethics. You should try as as a matter of right to get back as much as you can of what they took from you and which you are entitled to under law. Then decide what you want to do with it in accordance with your own values in your own life. You are not the looter.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    Jordan Peterson is really cool. He just says it like it is, and he can back up what he says. No PC here !

    As to IQ, its kind of obvious that smarter people are better able to compete in a general society than people who are not as smart. I think smartness has two elements- the first being genetic in terms of how the brain works and how fast it works, and the second being cultural in terms of an element of being taught to think early in life.

    I am not sure how these two things compare to each other in importance, but in the end the smarter people get farther in life.

    As to being ethical, I would say that the smarter people just have more ability to be ethical or unethical.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      People who are not as smart have the same capacity for rationality, integrity, justice, etc. guiding their choices, but may not understand as much in applying the principles. That doesn't make them more unethical as a character trait, though errors may occur inadvertently. On the other hand a smart person of unethical character has the capacity to make faster and more subtle unethical decisions just as easily as a smarter ethical person can make ethical decisions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 months, 1 week ago
        Absolutely right. Smartness is a double edged sword. Just means you can be quicker at good or evil
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Solver 5 months, 1 week ago
          The thing about nearly every evil person is that they do not understand that they are evil. Typically they become evil “for the greater good,” which is a kind of (social) altruism
          “Walter White” is a great example, which anyone can learn from.

          Not too many “Jokers” exist In comparison.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
            Some pursue evil knowing fully well what they are doing. Others pursue it egged on by acceptance of a false morality, which is what is tearing our civilization apart now. The first kind is relatively easier to deal with as criminals defined under accepted standards.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    The IQ is only as good as the person's ability to apply it. It usually stands that those with higher IQ are better in leadership, not because of the IQ itself, but because with it comes a higher ability to perform critical thinking skills, apply that IQ. Obama's IQ was apx. 117, lower than Bush Jr., but he seemed to be low enough his critical thinking skills were compromised. Hillary ad Bill both have high IQs, but Bill seemed better able to use critical thinking. For some reason, ethnic scores for blacks vs hispanics, leaves blacks lacking. They had early access to US schools more than did hispanics, what is the reason? Why do the IQ scoers of grade school kids actually drop after up to three years in public schools? We see a lot of liberals bragging about their schooling, or intelligence, but not many flaunting their IQ.One has to wonder. My IQ is in the top 2%, our daughter in the top 1%, we seem to share an interest in almost everything, learning never stops because we love it. It does not matter which field, history, English, philosophy, science, accounting, we will read and learn and do. She is pretty right brained and creative, while i am the most left brained in our whole family. She can come up with ideas, I can analyze them. As far as ethics, I am hopelessly ethical, while she is creatively semi-ethical. I attribute that to my Catholic school education, vs her public school experience.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Most people don't know or care what their own IQ is; it's not a matter of hiding it. What is the source of Obama's score?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        I was doing a general research on IQ and professions. Preisdent's past and present kept showing up,, once source being from college records. Our daughter was tested at school request in third grade. I also was test while in Catholic school. Later, in college, my professor and advisor requested I have it tested again, and he then made a big deal about it. Before that, I had no idea that doctors were not as high as I expected. He showed me comparisons by professions. Then, a during Obama, I revisited the topic, and found average educators' IQ had dropped. Knowing your IQ, often takes the get off your butt and usie your mind excuses away, and you feel you shuld be using your mind. It also make me much more aware of the "leaders" who had faulty critical thinking skills, and research showed IQ to be a factor.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          Obama wouldn't let his academic records out. How could they get an IQ score for him? If ever too an IQ test at all he was likely on cocaine at the time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 1 week ago
            That is why there are leakers, and expects who determine it based on his writing, nor faux writing. Hillary didn't want her pro-Alinsky thesis out either, and even O'Reilly said he could not find it, yet I had a copy on my computer way way back.The truth is out there. I am sure he also did not want the Larry Sinclair info out therre, but it got out, just like his prostitution connection in his Hawaii years, complete with photos.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              I wouldn't trust an IQ score for Obama claimed to be leaked from legally protected files without knowing more about it. I don't trust Sinclair any more than the Kavanaugh accusers.

              Cackles had no right to hide her college thesis idolizing Alinsky, even though she got the Wesley College library to do it for her for awhile. Since then a lot more has come out about how she befriended him, he offered her a job as a trainer in his methods, and her obnoxious graduation speech.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 1 week ago
                Do you think his IQ is higher or lower than 117? He certainly lacks critical thinking skills. He did not know ow many US states we had. He can read, but is like a trained seal tied to a teleprompter. He was dumb enough to actually think a two page request for a FISA to spy on Trump was good enough, until they denied it and he turned it over to the FBI, to make it happen. On group analyzed his book about his father (faux daddy), and determined he did not even write that. He is certainly not the genius voters were led to think.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                  I don't know what his IQ is. It could be higher, if he weren't on cocaine when he took the test. To say that he is highly intelligent based on how highly he was regarded by the faculty at Harvard Law and his ability to manipulate people through "community organizing" doesn't mean that he is intelligent in a way that we would want and admire, let alone a genius: ability to understand and integrate abstract concepts and principles and apply them to reality.

                  His oratorical 'golden tongue' was learned at the private school in Hawaii, and though it sounds 'intelligent' and requires a degree of some kind of intelligence it doesn't mean what we think of as real intelligence the way he impressed so many voters.

                  He did know how many states there are but was sloppy in thinking about what he was saying for whatever reason, and it was used to embarrass him. But it's not a like a grade school kid who doesn't know the number or believes it's something else.

                  Most of what he did behind the scenes as President was handled by a hoard of advisors; he may or may not have been personally aware of details on maneuvers like the secret FISA court, though it's hard to believe he knew nothing about it. It isn't possible for anyone to be involved in all the activities of the White House.

                  Someone else most likely wrote that book, and as I recall the results of the analysis it was likely or could have been Bill Ayers. But that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. A log of smart people in high positions use ghost writers because they don't have the time themselves.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 1 week ago
                    You seem to want to make excuses for him, for the most part no one remembers him as exceptional at college. As to Hawaii, he learned to manipulate as he sold himself for cocaine money to white men. Mostly, no one cold figure how he got into that school, and felt he did not belong there, had Gramps not been CIA. He personally thought a two page request, by him, the emperor, would be accepted by the FISA judges, esp. with Lynch sighing off, but they rejected. He was angry at being denied, and told FBI to do whatever they had to do, but get it.
                    He learned to manipulate farther at the Institute for the study of Alinsky methods to promote Marxism. He, like an encyclopedia salesman, learned how to push a product (Marxism) and then to agitate and set race and gender against each other to create chaos, in hopes of bringing down the system and replacing it with Marxism. He was thought intelligent, because he could speak, and have we not often seen salesmen who are promoted for similar reasons, until the Peter Principle takes them down. Because he is cagey, does not equate to IQ. His advisors were mostly Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran born Jarrett. Thomas Sowell is very bright, Ben Carson also, but we got a player instead. Hi.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                      I don't make excuses for Obama. He's a horrible, inexcusable person who did a lot of damage. That does not imply he's dumb. Intelligent evil is the worst kind. Just how intelligent we don't know, but from observation he's politically manipulative, not a genius. We do know that the faculty at Harvard Law thought highly of his intelligence, even though he appears to have gotten in as an alumni 'legacy' applicant. But he has since "made it" as an Alinsky organizer and politician, not a successful attorney.

                      In all the stories circulating about his private life and education, including his own biography, it's hard to know what is accurate and objective. Some have tried to promote him, others to make him look as bad as possible. That he's a bad person doesn't mean everything biographically bad said about him is true.

                      Just be glad he's gone; we have another wave coming. What is important is the cause of that wave and what it takes over time to reverse it, not the details of the particular interchangeable bad characters.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 1 week ago
                        The real issue is the lack of IQ within the voting public. It was not hard to discover who Obama was before the first election, if on did their homework. People are not using their brains, or are too lazy and rely on others to tell them what to think. I actually was impressed with his speaking when the first primary came along, but soon learned about "Rules fro Radicals", and the similarities between Obama and Hillary. I just kept digging. Why did the FBI ignore that he operated with multiple SN numbers, when they were told before he was elected. What about likely daddy commie Davis? It all just seemed to corrupt. Even his own Gram's timely death when she began talking about his real parents. He could not have made it as a lawyer, as he had no license, after he was caught dying on his application. Michelle lost hers in exchange for not being prosecution for insurance fraud when she worked for a hospital. He was never intelligent the way way several presidents were, like JFK, Jefferson, and others who knew US history and how to draw from their learning. JFK was not the smartest grade wise, but he knew about Mahan's book on sea power, and that is significant, as China's sailors still read it to this day. Obama was lazy, let others do his thinking, went to Valerie Jarrett on foreign policy, he had no real history of the US, having lived elsewhere most of his life. He let Soros fill his head with economic manipulations. He was a trained community agitator, and little else has he bothered to learn. Constitutional scholar, no he was not. He needed a book to make him seem one with black, so Ayers came up with one, even thought he did not understand blacks, he did not live in the "hood", he was a spoiled drug user who had rich people backing him, who knew he could give a speech, if someone wrote it for him.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                          No increase in IQ or intelligence in the voting public is a substitute for curiosity and initiating the mental effort required to understand. Rationality is a virtue, not an IQ score. But nor caring to understand what the candidates are is only part of that. Without becoming characteristically rational and taking the effort to understand proper principles no collection of candidate positions, let alone embarrassing biographical details, matters.

                          If you want a more realistic understanding of Kennedy read Victor Lasky's JFK: The Man and the Myth.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 1 week ago
                            I have been reading all things Kennedy since the 60s, own most of them. Have read and possess the book you mention. I did not say he was not flawed, but in the issue of understanding the importance of sea power, JFK, knew the issues and had read Mahan. He understood compromise. He was indeed about a c student, but he knew how to apply himself when needed. I left that party some years ago, when they went socialist, could not abide it. But then Bush, elder, was without ethics in many areas. Johnson, totally corrupt. Clinton totally dishonest. Bush jr. was on world, Trans Canada Hwy. with no border checks until St. Louis. Trump, not as well read as he really should be, and likely knows global warming is a crock, but not the details. Does not speak well for out past and present leadership, does it?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                              JFK at least realized that communism was an existential enemy, but did not understand the philosophical reasons for it and embraced the wrong side philosophically, as described in Ayn Rand's "Fascist New Frontier".
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
                              Being able to win an election is not a high probability indicator of competence as president. For that reason alone, the people that are elected should have very little power.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 1 week ago
                                Elections today have become like rock star popularity contests. People are not doing their homework about what the person is about or will do when elected. They go on face value and empty promises from them.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                                  You over estimate the quality of the process! Rock stars are typically more honest about what they are doing, and voters' research would do little to help them when they don't know the proper standards, and the current intellectual state only produces bad candidates. The whole affair is a dishonest, anti-intellectual process from top to bottom.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Stormi replied 5 months, 1 week ago
  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    As Ayn Rand observed, intelligent evil is far more dangerous. And it ought to be obvious to everyone that intelligence does not guarantee virtue. Rationality, honesty, integrity, productivity, etc. must be chosen and their meaning must be understood and pursued by choice. Intelligence does not guarantee proper choices; it does not guarantee even the basic choice to focus one's mind instead of evading.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      I would agree that intelligent evil is far more dangerous than stupid evil. I think that human brains have a substantial difference one to another in terms of the relative strength of emotion and thinking. Hard to explain, but I compare it to a computer program (which is basically what the brain responds to) where some things take precedence over other things. Computer programs can be overridden, as can human brains. When decisions need to be made, emotions can be the first thing that a person considers especially if they are strong.

      I am not a jordan peterson, but I bet the data is there somewhere for what I am saying.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Emotions are automatic reactions resulting from values already accepted. But they are not infallible indications of what one thinks is right in the whole context. One important aspect of morality is to not let emotions overtake reason just because they are strong.

        The ability and willingness to do that certainly does differ between different people. The strength of thinking does, too, but it doesn't mean the intensity of emotions are less for a rational person, only the propensity for emotionalism replacing reason with emotions as a tool of cognition. Also people following their emotions are often still very much consistent with their bad ideas.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    This an interesting thread.
    There is in the discussion a view that human behavior has two dimensions-
    inteligence, and ethics. But there is as well- industriousness.

    This quote is from General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, 1878 - 1943, who was in the Hitler bomb plot-

    I divide my officers into four classes:
    the lazy, the industrious, the clever, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together.

    The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments.

    Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used
    for routine work.

    The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament
    and nerves to deal with all situations.

    But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I don't buy it. I worked my career in a profession that was overloaded with highly educated idiots. You can have book smarts and pig skins hanging all over your office but if you lack basic common sense and street smarts you really are just a smart dummy. My wife is in a job that requires a 4 year degree or the equivalent experience. Her co workers do have the degrees yet she has only a HS education and is the department director over all of them. The CEO knows that 15 years of doing it is way better than 4 years of book learning how to but never working at it to get it done. I worked with guys who graduated college with a 4.0 GPA from a good school who could not pass a promotional exam. Education and IQ are fine as long as they can be translated into real life functionality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      He talks about the group over all. He never said that having a high IQ guarantees success of an individual, He just means success of an individual with a high IQ is more likely. This is known as a fairly accurate predictor.
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Unless I am mistaking, I have taken numerous Aptitude Tests but never taken an IQ test. Not sure if they correlate with one another. I don't believe I have ever even seen a real IQ test.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          Mensa has charts of approximate IQ and scores on the SAT. Older SAT scores result in higher IQ's than recent SAT scores. SAT scores have been "normalized" a couple times in the past 40 years resulting in higher SAT scores because math SAT scores were dropping too low.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      The discussion is about IQ, not education. I agree, there are millions of "highly educated" (if a college degree is the definition of "highly educated") people who would neither succeed in a competitive, productive environment, nor have a high IQ. A high IQ test score is no guarantee, but by definition it indicates a greater ability to analyze available information; it does not imply success when the person has no knowledge of the specific context of the problem.
      College education may once have indicated a greater probability of success in the area studied, and for a few people who are diligent and have the ability to discern facts from political rubbish, that is still true, but as you said, it isn't mostly a result of education in college.
      I knew that I had a lot to learn when I graduated from college. I also had 3 years of work in my field of study (a day job while taking night classes.) That experience had informed me of some of my own shortcomings, and just as importantly of the considerable shortcomings of some of the bosses I had to work for at the start of my career. A few were great to work with and to learn from. Many(college educated or not) had already risen to their level of incompetence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Exactly what I did, worked in the field while attending college classes. I could see from both sides that some of my superiors were brainless and also some of the professors had no real expertise in what they were teaching. If you are observant and listen you will probably learn more from the 20-30 years guys who may or may not be the sharpest tacks in the box but they know their jobs.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 1 week ago
      Grades and IQ do not necessarily go hand in hand. We have a lot of ways around grades: rich daddy, big college donor daddy, daddy politician. Grade inflation. IQ helps one apply what they actually learn. Voting is another issue, if you have in IQ of 80, you are esily manipulated by candidates. If you have good thinking skills, you hopefully stand a chance of thinkng around what the politician is saying, to what he really intends. In business, good speaking skills with limited intelligence often get people to the to people stupidly think being able to speak to crowds is a sign of intelligence. It may only be a trained seal on that stage, with someone else pulling the strings..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    By rock star standards, people go on hype, personality, face value and looks. They have reached the point that the show, is what they are buying in politics as well. Obama's stadium primary production, Cortez dancing around in wide- eyed ignorance, real rock stars as back drops. It has become about the show, the personality as presented, not about substance and reality.While we used to judge performers by talent, and that is not even true now, we used to expect a bit more from our leaders, some knowledge of history and economics.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      They're not just the show you describe. They're conniving and strategizing to manipulate in a quest for power. The combined ignorance and evil looks like a spectacle, just like you describe it, and it is, but it's much worse. The intellectual state of this country and the threatened consequences are frightening.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo