Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Science

Why a High IQ Doesn't Mean You're Smart 808

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the but-not-all-idiots-are-savant dept.
D1gital_Prob3 writes "How can a 'smart' person act foolishly? Keith Stanovich, professor of human development and applied psychology at the University of Toronto, Canada, has grappled with this apparent incongruity for 15 years. He says it applies to more people than you might think. To Stanovich, however, there is nothing incongruous about it. IQ tests are very good at measuring certain mental faculties, he says, including logic, abstract reasoning, learning ability and working-memory capacity — how much information you can hold in mind."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why a High IQ Doesn't Mean You're Smart

Comments Filter:
  • by Icegryphon (715550) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:21PM (#29980920)
    Book smart, Street stupid.
    You can't buy or read about commonsense.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:24PM (#29980984)

    As a member of mensa with a rather high IQ (160 on the cattel 3B), I know that my IQ is in at least the top percentile. However, my organisational skills are atrocious, and while I can remember something well short-term, I tend to forget things long-term. This led to my nearly dropping out of university because while I can write a decent essay, I often forgot to do so. Once I understand a mathematical concept I can do it well, but I tend to forget formulae, so I only got a middle-of-the-road grade in maths.

    A high IQ means very little, and I'm not saying that because of jealousy; I'd rather be well-organised and "only" average in the more abstract ways of measuring ability.

  • by techsoldaten (309296) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:24PM (#29980994) Journal

    Friend of mine, his father is a senior researcher for NIH. One of the smartest fellas you will ever meet, has multiple PhDs, charming and really has his act together professionally.

    Came back from a concert one night, there was a note taped to the door. "I owe you a microwave." Inside, the house smells like burning compost, his Dad still forgets he can't microwave food with a fork inside. Has never been able to operate a microwave oven and this is about the tenth time he has done it.

    His Dad owns a lot of land in Montgomery County, Maryland. He has made a lot of money off real estate investments. He has had a lot of disasters over the years as well, for things that would have seemed apparent to anyone else. Like not leaving untreated wood lying in pile all winter, not parking a backhoe at the top of a pile of dirt, not purchasing residentail land and trying to have it rezoned for multilevel commercial, etc.

    It's not just forgetfulness, he has a hard time processing these realities of life. Without his family, I don't think he could function.

    M

  • by x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:27PM (#29981042)
    Based on no research and absolutely no scientific data I have come to measure a person's intelligence by how creative they are and how open to new ideas (especially ideas in conflict with their own belief system) they are.
    I am a conservative, white, heterosexual, Christian male (source of all the world's problems according to many) and yet I understand that there are things I am probably wrong about and there are people who have radically different beliefs than I do and I can definitely learn from them. I consider myself pretty intelligent and yet understanding that I can learn from others is very key to my intelligence growing.

    People who have closed their minds to new thoughts/ideas and who do not exercise their creative potential get stupid fast. I have met a LOT of them (in my white, hetero, Christian, male society) and I am the first to admit that my peers tend to be pretty dumb. TFL starts off bashing on George Bush and how his IQ is pretty high yet the author has obviously decided Bush is an idiot (an earned reputation) and he fits right into my category of society.

    What I feel is important to note is that in American progressive society MY ethnicity/religion/political views/gender quickly get thrown into a category that I really don't thing I've earned. I try not to complain of racism/sexism/whateverelseism but it gets old some times.
  • Re:This is news? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rolfwind (528248) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:36PM (#29981216)

    I read this analogy yesterday, where you can think of level of intelligence like the brightness of a flashlight, what you choose to aim it at is another matter.

    Fits rather will with Sagan's candle in the dark illustration.

  • Re:This is news? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:37PM (#29981232)

    Mensa and testing agencies have been making it clear for a couple decades now that IQ only measures your ability to take tests.

    I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. When I was a kid (10, 11 maybe) I took a MENSA "entrance" exam and was subsequently accepted in with an IQ score that was almost off-the-charts. But I do NOT do well at most tests. I sucked at remembering stuff for undergrad/grad finals and consequently got bad grades in those classes while getting all A's in "practical" classes. The MENSA tests are easy for me because I don't have to remember 'facts' -- I just look for the patterns, do the math, etc, which is usually incredibly simple for me. I do agree with your second point though -- a high IQ means very different things for different people.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:44PM (#29981400)

    We're all familiar with Isaac Newton's brilliant accomplishments, but his superstitious beliefs are less well-known. The most interesting one is his fascination with the number seven. (That's why we have ROY G BIV instead of ROYGBV; Newton thought there SHOULD be a seventh color and included it despite the fact that the human eye doesn't see it as particularly distinct from its neighbors.)

  • by johnlcallaway (165670) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:44PM (#29981406)
    My ex-wife had an amazing memory. She could remember names and phone numbers of people she had only met once. She could remember all the SKU numbers when she worked part time at Sears. When she got her RN license, she filled her head with drug information and could spout interactions on request.

    But she wasn't so good at things like programming a VCR or directions. I noticed that while she had a great memory, she was terrible at spatial type tasks. Where I was just the opposite ... I have a terrible memory but can write code like crazy because I can keep several parts of a program in my head and understand the requirements, interactions, and dependencies. I never memorized math formulas, but the idea behind them.

    Cooking was very telling. I'm a passable cook, but not very inventive. She was a better cook, but had problems when she had to cook more than a couple of items at a time in getting the sequence of the various recipes merged so that everything was ready at the same time. That part, I was very good at.

    The telling point came one day when we were talking about taxes. We owed a lot because she had started working part time as an RN and we didn't pay attention to the amount being withheld from her paycheck for taxes. When I did the taxes normally, i.e. married filing jointly, we owed $3,000. She came back to me a few days later and said that if she filed as married, filing separately, she would get $1,000 back. I explained that I always did our taxes both ways and then when we did it that way, she did get $1,000 back, but I ended up owing $5,000. I was never able to get her to understand how the tax brackets worked and why this was the case. So I gave in and took it to HR Block. Guess what, the best way to file was married, filing jointly. For years she thought I was trying to cheat her out of money and refused to increase her withholding to the same percent of income as mine, so I had to withhold even more from mine. Which meant she had to put more into the household account in order to pay bills, so the end result was the same anyway.

    As I told my son at the time ... there are some battles that just aren't worth fighting. Because even if you win ... you lose.

    I remarried three years ago, and my lovely wife can talk with me about such matters. It's a wonderful thing to find someone that is smart, beautiful, and thinks sex is only dirty when it's done right.
  • by mweather (1089505) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:49PM (#29981484)
    Some of the wisest people I know have Down Syndrome.
  • by TheLuggage2008 (1199251) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:52PM (#29981536)

    It doesn't, however, mean you're observant, grounded, emotionally stable, possess common sense, have even average social skills, or even an interest in using your intelligence for anything of consequence.

    TFA references G. W. Bush, stating his IQ is estimated to be at or around 120 but even those close to him had concerns about his decision making skills, and "Bush himself has described his thinking style as "not very analytical"." Seems to me this is connected far more to his personality, shaped by his upbringing and experiences. IQ is an indicator of intellectual potential; if someone tests consistently in the 70 - 80 range, no amount of positive thinking or assistance is getting you through medical school; if someone tests in the 160 - 180 range (let's assume an accepted standardized scale, such as Wechsler), this indicates that academically there is nothing they are not capable of understanding if they applied themselves. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume someone with that level of intelligence *will* become a doctor or the like, only that if circumstances are right, they *could*.

    It is not unusual for people with high IQs to fall short of their potential for myriad reasons, the one I think is most impactful is the significant difference between intellectually gifted (meant generically) and the average person. To qualify for organizations like Mensa, you need to be 2 standard deviations ahead of the average in intelligence, which is the same difference between the average person and someone considered to be retarded. People who are that far removed from the median (on either side of the scale) experience the world in a very different and often times alienating way. Perhaps the perceived "stupidity" of people with high IQs is simply the manifestation of their inability to communicate effectively with "little brains".

    While many people with high IQs are perfectly functional and move among us unnoticed as braniacs,(Mensa members must be in the 98% percentile of the population which sounds lofty, but it means that roughly one in every 50 people are smart enough to make the cut, so you probably have a better shot at getting into Mensa than you do of winning a beauty pageant) some people with high IQs may never learn how to interact successfully with those around them... robbing them of the kinds of experiences that teach the very skills TFA suggests smart people don't manifest in a consistent manner.

    Raw brain power isn't enough to guarantee success or even a base level of competence at anything, including living.

  • Re:It's true (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stimpleton (732392) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @01:54PM (#29981594)
    Yes, good example. I have a friend similar to yours. PhD and very smart. But coordination problems like those seen in someone with mild MS(Multiple Schlerosis), yet tests reveal nothing. That is, generally clumsy but can get thru life fine. He is 42 but must walk, as he knows if he drove someone would be killed.

    He is a good table tennis player too, yet has impeded ability:

    - Cannot use a tin opener
    - Fumbles for upto 30 seconds trying to get a key in a lock
    - Must tip a fried egg from the pan, as using a spatula is impossible.
    - Difficulty get dishes into dish washer.

    I was a representative table tennis player for my region, yet he could give me a run for my money. Its the wierdest thing.
  • Re:This is news? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:01PM (#29981754) Journal
    That's a pretty good analogy. And, taking that further, IQ measures the brightness at 630nm. If you shine it on something red then you see it clearly, but that tells you nothing about how good the flashlight is at revealing things that are green or blue.
  • by mikael_j (106439) <slashdot@pa[ ]urk.info ['ntb' in gap]> on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:04PM (#29981812)

    Well, from what I've seen it seems that the whole "high IQ => fails in the army" thing could be better described as "people who try to think for themselves, are creative and question authority generally have trouble with starting at the bottom of strictly hierarchical organisations where you're expected to just conform and follow orders no matter how stupid the orders may be".

    (Most people I've known who started military careers and have risen through the ranks were great at following orders and just doing what others told them to do)

    So I doubt it's just an IQ thing, it's more that in the military (any military) you're expected to conform and just do as you're told, someone for whom it comes naturally to try creative "outside the box" solutions to problems or who simply has a higher than average ability to analyze problems and figure out solutions is likely to not fit in, something that is true in any organisation that tries to fit everyone into a Lowest Common Denominator role.

    /Mikael

  • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:09PM (#29981892) Homepage Journal

    This is a common defensive reaction on the part of people who are just kind of all-around dumb. "Well, I may not have all that book-learning, but at least I've got street smarts!" No, sorry, you really don't.

  • Reminds me... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Talisman (39902) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:10PM (#29981902) Homepage

    Reminds me of a quote I heard years and years ago, that I never thought was particularly useful, until now.

    "Everyone thinks dogs are smarter than cats, until you ask a dog to climb a tree."

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:21PM (#29982130) Homepage

    It's because it is not what you know but WHO you know.

    Rich = well connected.

    Smart typically = antisocial loaner.

    yes there are some incredibly rare exceptions, but typically the frat party boy that can chat people up will be rich while the quiet hermit with 4X the IQ of the frat boy will discover amazing things quietly and poorly in his basement.

    Charisma, being able to bullshit very well, and how to schmooze is how you get rich.

  • by maxume (22995) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:23PM (#29982194)

    It probably isn't completely unreasonable as an argument. For the sake of argument, assume that 25 iq points are rarely overcome by friendship, then someone with an iq of 100 might be friends with people with iqs between 75 and 125, which is about 90% of the population, whereas someone with an iq of 125 might be friends with people between 100 and 150, which is about 50% of the population. At 135, it is 25% of the population. So even if 100 and 135 are fairly equal in their intelligence based discrimination, 135 is going to have a harder time of it.

    I wouldn't necessarily put that argument above your argument of self-fulfilling arrogance, I'm just not sure it boils down to thinking of others in terms of a number.

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jaydonnell (648194) * on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:24PM (#29982224) Homepage
    I know a number of rich .com people. They aren't that smart (above average for sure but not super smart), in fact most of the non rich geeks that built their systems are a lot smarter. I'm convinced that intelligence isn't the prime factor, or even in the top 3, of becoming rich. Ability/desire to take risks may be the top factor. Singular unhinged focus on "business" to the exclusion of all kinds of things like their family seems to be another. Both of these are above intelligence as factors determining wealth in my experience. I also know a lot of really smart people that are just middle class. They have a terrible time functioning in a structured environment and prefer to spend their time pondering whatever whim interests them at the moment. This isn't a recipe for wealth, but it is a recipe for intelligence. So I have two anecdotes to your one. Does this mean anything?
  • by that IT girl (864406) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:40PM (#29982596) Journal
    I am also a member of Mensa, with an IQ of around 150. My experience with it, at least int he workplace, is not what most would call exemplary. I have a strong work ethic and am very self-motivated. I can get absorbed in a project and have it done very well and in record time. However, I am also artistically inclined, and (stereotypically) can be fairly disorganised. I also have trouble seeing the big picture--it's easy to get so focused on the task right in front of me, I don't see what's a mile down the road, so to speak. This leads to it being hard for me to advance beyond doing some of the most labour-intensive, but least-paid jobs in this industry (currently IT/tech support).

    Being highly intelligent can also lead to being easily dissatisfied, because you have a higher awareness of things around you. You see how things could be done better and are frustrated when people can't or don't want to change how things are done. This is often perceived as anti-sociability or worse, arrogance and narcissism. That, in turn, makes it hard to be successful in a job where you must work closely with others, such as the office environment.

    The challenge I am currently trying to overcome is the feeling that I have this "gift" (after all, I didn't choose to be born this way any more than someone chooses to be born mentally disabled, and I am thankful and humbled because of it) and I want to use it to help, to make a difference to a person or company where it will be appreciated and utilised. Even now, in this office, my efforts to better myself and the department are being thwarted by mundane corporate politics, and a pair of managers that are a bit thick, and very resistant to change and to anyone they perceive as a threat (this is not my opinion; pretty much the whole department feels this way).

    I suppose this was a bit off-topic since it isn't directly related to IQ versus 'smartness', but the way those things affect an individual and their ability to succeed in the workplace is at least timely given the economy and job situation... right?
  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:42PM (#29982652) Homepage

    What? That working class trash (or the poor) like to beat up each other for fun and especially pound on the bookish kids?

    This isn't merely limited to the "south side of Chicago".

    Nor is the "Connecticut boarding school" experience limited to the children of DAR members.

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hey! (33014) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:46PM (#29982732) Homepage Journal

    I will relay a story my scoutmaster told me about a troop of young inner city scouts he led, many, many years ago. They'd never been out of the city, so he took them camping all he could.

    One time he took them to a boy scout camp that happened to be next to a girl scout camp. He should have known that would be trouble, because there was one scout who used to go up to every girl he met, and say the same thing: "You wanna fuck?" So the scoutmaster walks into camp, and all the guys are teasing Kid Wannafuck about how his dick is going to shrivel up and fall off, and he realizes his mistake. So he sits them all down and has a long talk about STDs, pregnancy, birth control and condoms, because *these* kids parents aren't going to bother doing it.

    One of the many morals of this story is that sometimes persistence counts for more than technique. It really does connect to the whole 419 scam; this kid knew that he had almost no chance with any particular girl, but if he asked *enough* of them sooner or later he'd get lucky.

    Getting back to the value of wealth as an indicator of intelligence, I won't argue that intelligence has no instrumental value in becoming wealthy. Obviously it does. But priorities also matter. I know artists -- not quite starving, but not rolling in dough either. If they put the energy and creativity they lavish on art into making money, they'd probably do pretty well. The one thing I've noticed about people who've made fortunes in their lifetimes (sometimes made and lost several) is that they're driven to perform wealth-generating activities. It may be that wealth is the end goal of those activities, or it may be that wealth is a by-product. Personally, I think the people who become wealthy as a by-product seem much happier than people who pursue wealth as its own end. It appears to me there's something puny and pinched in the character of people who are obsessed with wealth as its own end. The difference between wealth and, say, sex is that you can never get enough wealth. But if you are persistent enough in pursuing either of them, sooner or later you'll get some.

    I like to think of this thought experiment. Suppose you are a young unattached man with modest prospects, and you have a bit of good fortune above your station: you are about to interview for a job that could mean fame and wealth. As you eat lunch, you strike up this conversation with this amazing woman; she's beautiful, smart and interesting, and as you chat you realize that you're starting to get somewhere with her. You are not quite to the exchange of telephone numbers stage, when you realize for your horror you're about to be late for your interview. You have to leave RIGHT NOW, you don't even have time to say a decent goodbye. What do you go for, the job or the woman?

    Well, I can tell you as an older guy who's had both love and money slip through my fingers (then return later), I wouldn't have a microsecond's hesitation. I'd go for the woman. Money is just a proxy for the experiences you can buy with it. And some experiences you just can't buy.

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hallucinogen (1263152) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:47PM (#29982752)
    The other day I watched this documentary "Race and Intelligence" in which they asked the same question (and also why certain Asian Americans score higher than European Americans). In it they didn't deny that there's a genetic component to IQ (as measured by IQ-tests). Twin studies clearly show that genes play a part. However they argued that the difference was mostly due to sub-cultural differences (like for example blacks might refer reading books as a white thing and thus don't really do it as much as whites). In the documentary they talked about Flynn effect (rise of IQ-test scores over generations) and how African Americans are gaining on European Americans (their scores are rising more). Is this a reflection of black and white American cultures becoming more similar?
  • Re:Reminds me... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by value_added (719364) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:49PM (#29982786)

    "Everyone thinks dogs are smarter than cats, until you ask a dog to climb a tree."

    I'd suggest that if there is a change of opinion, it reverts to the original when the cat gets "stuck" in the tree.

    Either way, animals have little need or use for logic and abstract reasoning, but instead, devote their energies to learning how best to respond to a world that's filled with irrational behaviour and emotions.

    In that sense, having a dog or cat as a pet serves as a reminder that our capacity for thinking and ideas isn't as useful as living in the moment.

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jackspenn (682188) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:49PM (#29982790)

    Some rich people are stupid

    The largest common factors I have noticed between those who are self-made wealthy is this:

    • They work hard.
    • They save money, budget, evaluate costs to benefits, plan for long haul (know people who make $28,000/year and have paid off reliable cars, own thier house, and are in process of building retirement accounts)
    • They are risk takers
    • They take individual responisiblity

    The largest common factors I have noticed between those who are poor is this:

    • They don't work hard.
    • They spend money irresponsibly, they live for the moment (I know people who make $75,000/year and are in debt)
    • They are collectivists, socialists, communist, etc. They need others to support them, whether they admit/accept this or not, their actions (or lack of) hinder their ability to grow wealth.
    • They blame others.
  • Re:This is news? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:55PM (#29982904) Journal

    And some of us DON'T know how to solve problems, but we have really good memories so we can recall having read in some book in college of a previous solution - and then just go look it up.

    The human brain is very flexible. I recall one time in college we were given some kind of word quiz, and the hint said "white blood cells". I of course had no idea but then remembered watching Isaac Asimov's Fantastic Voyage as a child, and they used the word "corpuscle" so I wrote it down. My 2 girlfriends asked how I knew that. I just said I remembered.

    I did much the same through all my engineering classes - once I see a solution I rarely forget it. In fact I get annoyed with people who tell me to "figure it out". If you already know the answer just tell me so I can apply the solution and move-on to the next task.

  • Re:GiGo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bat Country (829565) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:57PM (#29982952) Homepage

    It might be worth suggesting that the only valid measure for intelligence should be whether or not you are capable of determining and willing to determine if the input you are given is garbage by comparing it against other input.

    Or whether you are capable of adjusting a belief when you discover inconsistencies between realities and your construction of it which forms the basis for that belief.

    If you believe Von Braun invented rocketry, you would be expected to revise that belief when learning of hwacha [wikipedia.org] if you were to be considered intelligent. If you instead denied that it ever happened and clung to your belief, you would by that metric be regarded as less intelligent than average.

    See Holocaust deniers, biblical literalist creationists and other individuals who cling to ideas solely by denying the truth of all evidence counter to that belief. If, however, either party had by rational process discounted the relevance of that evidence, while some people might consider them a crank, they would nonetheless at least be exhibiting some measure of intelligence by that proposed metric.

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:4, Interesting)

    by StormyWeather (543593) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:58PM (#29982976) Homepage

    Self made rich people act a certain way, it has very little to do with IQ. Society looks at all millionaires as investment bankers, entertainment stars, or trust fund babies. The opposite is actually true. Most millionaires are just hard working people that set a savings goal, put that savings goal at the top of their priorities, and stick to it every month. You can call this whatever you want, pay yourself first, budgeting, whatever, but that's what they do.

    Thomas Stanley has some great research into how millionaires, and deca millionaires become wealthy, including IQ, inheritances, living expenses etc. I've read the "Millionaire Next Door", and the "Millionaire Mind", and I'll be reading "Stop Acting Rich: ...And Start Living Like A Real Millionaire" when it drops under 10 bucks.

    One of my favorite examples in his books was a millionaire giving his wife a huge pile of stock in the company for a present at the kitchen table. His wife said "thank you, this means a lot to me, it really does" and went back to cutting coupons.

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nathrael (1251426) <nathraelthe42ndNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:59PM (#29982992)
    Raw abilities that are studied and trained in one culture and neglected in another.
  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tixxit (1107127) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @02:59PM (#29983008)
    I don't know if I would call them intelligent or rich. There was a story in the paper of a guy who fell victim to one of these scams. He didn't have a lot of money, instead he went out and borrowed from the bank, maxed his credit cards, and got money from his family. All in all he put his family out over $50k, and himself out about another $20k or something. These are life savings of blue collar workers we are talking about, not the pocket cash from a wealthy family.
  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @03:02PM (#29983070) Journal

    Actually about 80% of American millionaires are First Generation Rich. Meaning they did not inherit their millions, but made it themselves.

    My question is, is being a millionaire enough to make you "rich"?

    A million dollars ain't what it used to be.

    What about the people who are worth 10 million dollars? What percentage of them are first-generation rich? How about 100 million?

    $1 million isn't "rich" anymore.

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday November 04 2009, @03:14PM (#29983352) Journal

    I saw TFA yesterday (almost submitted it but submission is borked on my work browser). It answers the question "if you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

    It doesn't, however, answer the question "if you're so rich, why ain't you smart?"

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crmarvin42 (652893) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @03:15PM (#29983360)
    I have to agree with you.

    The Valedictorian of my graduating class was not the smartest person in our class, just the hardest working. I remember a conversation in which she admitted as such. She gave me a list of people that she believed to be smarter than herself, but that didn't apply themselves as much as she did.

    A friend of mine was on that list and he was notorious for not turning in homework assignments, despite being capable of doing the work. She never missed a due date, did all the extra credit she could, and spent far more time studying than anyone else in our grade. That application was the difference between being in the top 20% of our class (as my buddy was) and the top 1%.
  • Re:419 Scams (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Damek (515688) <adam@dLIONamek.org minus cat> on Wednesday November 04 2009, @03:17PM (#29983412) Homepage

    Me, I'd communicate to the woman as an equal human being that, hey, I like where this is going but I need to get to a job interview for a job I'd really like to land. "I'd like to resume this conversation when we can; Unfortunately I can't reschedule a job interview the same way."

    Why? Because women aren't jobs, they're people. And I wouldn't want to spend my time forging a relationship with another person who doesn't understand that she's not a commodity I'm supposed to win, but a person with whom I'm hoping to share some nice experiences.

    But that's just me.

    Sorry - I liked the rest of your comment, I just balk at the ease with which people equate women with things or events rather than simply treating them as other people. Nevertheless, I appreciate the point you were making. (Although I'd also nitpick the idea that you can get enough sex. Some people can. Some people can also get enough wealth. Some people are also happy with limited amounts of power. Others can't get enough of any if not all of these.)

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:4, Interesting)

    by socrplayr813 (1372733) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @03:17PM (#29983414)

    I know you're joking, but I didn't feel like responding to the troll. Two things:

    1) A big part of the money thing is personality.
    a) Some people (personality types) simply don't care about money. With me, for example, money is how I survive from day to day. More money is nice to have, but what really drives me is working on my projects, solving problems, etc. It doesn't even necessarily matter if I finish my projects. It's the pursuit of knowledge that matters to me.
    b) Some personality types are more suited to more money-oriented careers, such as business or management. While I get along fine with people and could do those jobs, I generally have no interest in them and am just as happy (or happier) working alone, half inside a machine and covered in grease.

    2) There are different forms of intelligence. Some people are naturally strong in math and/or sciences. Some people are more language or arts oriented. Still others are good at organizational skills and less so at academic subjects. I'm much more math and science oriented than the others, which drives me to somewhat less money-focused careers.

  • Cart and Horse (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @03:37PM (#29983826)

    Which is the cart, and which is the horse? Being dumb, or being poor?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2009, @03:38PM (#29983840)

    ...almost nothing, in fact.

    I graduated high school 3rd out of a graduating class of 650, and if it weren't for the fact that I was lazy, I could have almost effortlessly beat out the number 1 and 2 people, both of which have frequently and openly stated (without any prompting or boasting from me) that I was way smarter than them. Math and science were subjects that I mastered with almost zero effort. Got accepted into the EECS program at U.C. Berkeley right out of high school, and thought for sure my superior IQ would result in things just falling into my lap, without me having to exert myself physically or mentally.

    You can probably guess how this story played out. I got my ass handed to me at Berkeley. Not because I lacked the mental capacity to understand the course material, but because I was utterly lazy and unmotivated. I spent 3 years there trying to muster the drive and motivation required to succeed, and watching my grades see-saw between A's and D's, before finally dropping out one year shy of graduating.

    I learned a hard lesson about what it takes to succeed. A high IQ and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, but if you're lacking in any number of other qualities (not least of which are discipline, determination, strong work ethic, imagination, etc), you're no better off than anyone else, regardless of IQ.

    I used to think IQ was what it was all about, and I thought the guys with the big IQs were gods among men. Not so anymore. Nowadays, the people I really admire, and try to emulate, are those who have the discipline to make the best out of the cards they've been dealt. I look at people who are doing menial jobs, yet have a really strong work ethic, and I think to myself "That person is a better human being than I'll ever be." Having a high IQ and lacking the ability to put it to good use is a complete waste.

    It's been nearly 20 years since I graduated high school, and I've worked hard to learn all those valuable life skills I was so lacking in back then. My self-discipline and work ethic are vastly improved, but I'd still gladly trade 20 IQ points to be truly passionate about something, or to have a stronger imagination, or to have the drive and determination to actually follow through on any of the numerous half-finished projects I've started over the years. And I'm still blown away by people who might only have 80% of my IQ, but who have all those other qualities in spades.

  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by butalearner (1235200) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @03:47PM (#29984008)

    That, or US voters. How can such a highly educated, technologically advanced citizenry lose all sense when it steps into the voting booth?

    I agree. Why else would they elect democrats constantly, who basically piss the budget down the drain and do no good?

    Why, there you have your answer, GP. A lack of long term memory. How lucky for the politicians that the populace always forgets how badly their party screwed everybody over last time, and come election time are always convinced the non-incumbent party will fix everything. It's like we're all just suffering from an undiagnosed but widespread Stockholm Syndrome.

  • by Valdrax (32670) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @04:30PM (#29984822)

    Yet until mid-20's, I was lazy as hell. Once I turned that around, life has become very easy.

    For the love of God, HOW? This still plagues me today, and I could use some advice (at least better than "Just do it," which is effectively saying, "Quit pretending it's a real problem.")

  • by MyLongNickName (822545) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @05:23PM (#29985898) Journal

    In all seriousness, give me a few days to think on this. I think it is an important question, yet I am not sure how to distill it to words. I promise you a response by weeks' end.

  • Re:Western IQ Box (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ring-eldest (866342) <ring_eldestNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Wednesday November 04 2009, @05:27PM (#29985990)
    That is a common argument... but just because a test is not "culture free" doesn't mean it's worthless. If we measure the IQ of the son of an immigrant Kalahari bushman and it's, say, 79, that is an important measure despite being "ethnocentric" (and quite frankly not everything that is specific to one culture is bad). It is still useful information when you want to know things like how well the boy will do in an American school system.

    Does it mean he's stupid? Not at all... A skill set valued in the desert (let's say, fast reaction time and a concrete approach to problem solving) is simply undervalued in the school system here. Should we redefine the tests to suit his cultural background, where in all likelihood he will score higher, just to assuage whatever bad feelings we have? I think that would be pointless--whereas knowing that the child is NOT using those skills that we value in our society, those skills that tend to go along with good grades and a good job, is a useful thing indeed.

    So yeah, if the ultimate goal of IQ tests is to put value judgments on people you're absolutely right. It is not fair to label the kid. But if the goal is to devise teaching interventions to help him succeed in our schools and in our culture it is kind of nice to be able to see where he is deviating from the norm.
  • Re:419 Scams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lena_10326 (1100441) on Wednesday November 04 2009, @06:39PM (#29987120) Homepage
    I've worked with and known several people who become millionaires and owners of corporations. The personality aspects they shared (in addition to being risk takers as you mentioned) were:
    • When asked if it can be done, they don't start with "no".
    • They worry about implementation and funding issues later and focus on developing the concept first.
    • They eagerly delegate what they can't do, can't do quickly, or can't do well.
    • They have some willingness to entertain stupid ideas and quickly prune ones that obviously won't work.
    • They reduce their risk by testing and prototyping rather than diving in quickly.
    • They have focus, drive, and motivation.
    • When they have time off, they tend to work or research.
    • They apply strategy. They think about verticals and horizontals.
    • They don't let mistakes get them down.
    • Their mental health is stable. They aren't depressed or immersed in personal drama.
    • They are extroverted, unafraid of confrontation, and personable.
    • They have a network of friends.
  • Re:Cart and Horse (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrchaotica (681592) * on Wednesday November 04 2009, @07:06PM (#29987588)

    If you're going to go back that far, you might as well keep going: what caused Sub-Saharan Africans to become enslaved in the first place? Why did they never build empires or develop technology (on the same scale as civilizations like the Romans, Arabs, or Chinese)? Why didn't they [re-]discover the New World and go enslave the Europeans, instead of the other way around?

For most men life is a search for the proper manila envelope in which to get themselves filed. -- Clifton Fadiman

Working...