Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders (scientificamerican.com) 677
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: Intelligence makes for better leaders -- from undergraduates to executives to presidents -- according to multiple studies. It certainly makes sense that handling a market shift or legislative logjam requires cognitive oomph. But new research on leadership suggests that, at a certain point, having a higher IQ stops helping and starts hurting. The researchers looked at 379 male and female business leaders in 30 countries, across fields that included banking, retail and technology. The managers took IQ tests (an imperfect but robust predictor of performance in many areas), and each was rated on leadership style and effectiveness by an average of eight co-workers. IQ positively correlated with ratings of leader effectiveness, strategy formation, vision and several other characteristics -- up to a point. The ratings peaked at an IQ of around 120, which is higher than roughly 80 percent of office workers. Beyond that, the ratings declined. The researchers suggest the "ideal" IQ could be higher or lower in various fields, depending on whether technical versus social skills are more valued in a given work culture. The study's lead author, John Antonakis, a psychologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, suggests leaders should use their intelligence to generate creative metaphors that will persuade and inspire others -- the way former U.S. President Barack Obama did. "I think the only way a smart person can signal their intelligence appropriately and still connect with the people," Antonakis says, "is to speak in charismatic ways."
They talk funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They talk funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it as an outsider is that Gamacho would be an improvement. I mean, here's a man that recognized his own limitations and did his best to get the smartest man alive to try and solve the issues they're facing because he knew he couldn't do so himself. That's actually a quality many leaders lack.
Meanwhile, Trump's a guy who bragged about passing his health exam. Dude recognized some animals from pictures and he know holds himself to be a certified genius that's 'like, really smart'. Because if there's one thing we know about smart people it's that they constantly tell everyone how really super duper smart they are.
Re:They talk funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, Trump's a guy who bragged about passing his health exam. Dude recognized some animals from pictures and he know holds himself to be a certified genius that's 'like, really smart'. Because if there's one thing we know about smart people it's that they constantly tell everyone how really super duper smart they are.
The problem with being really smart is that one does not need to telegraph it. It telegraphs itself through their every action. Only a fool would become an actor full-time (having to act dumb to make manager) for a promotion. That's no promotion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I despised Obama but I'm going to disagree with you.
He is smart. He was smart enough to out-maneuver Bill and Hillary Clinton to secure the Democratic nomination. He was smart enough to out-protean the ever protean John McCain and win both the electoral as well as popular votes.
He was smart enough to evade or lie (call it pivot or evolve if you like) about his true feelings about guns, abortion and same sex marriage until the political climate was right for him to declare the position that he held the entir
Re: They talk funny (Score:3, Insightful)
He was smart enough to take full advantage of the legions of dumb-as-rocks supporters out there who would believe everything he said and repeat every lie he ever told.
Wait, I thought you were talking about Obama rather than Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
I still have fucking morons on Facebook telling me that I actually got to keep my doctor, when in reality my insurance plan was canceled for being illegal under the ACA and I had to find a new doctor.
Maybe you should have had an actual insurance plan instead of a scam.
Re:They talk funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re: They talk funny (Score:2, Informative)
He was smart enough to out-maneuver Bill and Hillary Clinton to secure the Democratic nomination.
Maybe. Or maybe the DNC conlagomarate thought "gee, it sure would appeal to our core voting group if we ran a minority candidate", and Barack happened to be the right guy with the right skin colour at the right time.
Re: They talk funny (Score:2)
It's safe to say he did very little. I like the guy on a personal level, despite the race baiting and some of his foolhardy decisions. He seems like a good person. I don't think he was a horrible president; just a largely irrelevant one. The DNC pulled his strings and he pretended to be a real boy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And he challenged Trump to become president, and see how that turned out.
Yeah and like idiots enough of you supported the trumps revenge quest as he tries to piece by piece both destroy everything obama did and make himself even richer than before. Impacts on America be damned, with the shocking state of lots of countries these at least things aren't as bad as they are there. President Trump is the joke that keeps on giving.
Re:They talk funny (Score:4, Insightful)
"Use Occam's Razor. Which is simpler. Is Trump a genius pulling the long con."
Given his long and vast reputation as a con man, I think you just disproved yourself. (And you don't have to be a genius to pull a long con. The guy is obsessed with media attention, and how do you get more than being an unstable and chaotic POTUS?)
Re:They talk funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's this thing where Trump doesn't pay his contractors and employees, has been sued in court 60 times for it, and apparently loses the lawsuits. So that's a con man's behaviour. http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
The guy lies constantly. Like, nearly every statement out of his mouth is demonstrably false; I'm not even talking about the things that are up for interpretation. He makes statements that have no basis in reality and are repeatedly shown to be false, like his polling numbers, the number of people that voted for him, the size of his electoral college victory, the effectiveness of his administration in passing bills, etc. He also hasn't been good about keeping his political promises...but we'll leave that out for now because that's never a meaningful measure of a politician.
Not to mention that his properties are making a lot of money because people want access to him and other politicians. https://www.theatlantic.com/po... [theatlantic.com]
The CNN link you posted shows his net worth went down, and the claim was because of a rough real estate market in New York--it's not clear that his presidency has any effect on that at all. That is, he probably would've lost money in a bad market regardless.
There's no long con here, just a con.
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatively, he never planned on winning, but intended it to be a publicity exercise to strengthen his brand, just like other times he threw his name out there [wikipedia.org] and said he was thinking of running.
Now whether the long term financial gains associated with the presidency (e.g., millions of dollars in book deals and speaking fees) will offset what it cost him is another question. I am willing to bet "yes, he will be richer for having been president". For one thing, he no longer pays for his frequent travel to
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rights getting trampled by the left? You're kidding right? You don't know a single thing about civics (considering your single-axis view of politics). Authoritarian attitudes, regardless of economic policies are what strip rights away, and as of right now, people who have more Conservative mindsets are the ones doing the stripping.
Re: They talk funny (Score:3)
the first symptom of corruption is arrogance
No, you can't eat the lead paint.
No, dammit, take it out of your mouth.
For fuck's sake, listen ... it's bad for you OK? It causes brain damage.
Whattayamean "if it tastes good it can't be bad"? Seriously? Were you dropped on your head as a child?
I'm a "corrupt elitist"? ....
Fuck ... fine ... whatever .... let me get you some salt.
Re: They talk funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody looks down on intelligent people, they look down on arrogant asswipes who think they know it all. I've known intelligent people far smarter than me and had no problem with them. They talked to me like I wasn't a simple minded idiot for one thing although to them I probably seemed like one. Far too many people on slashdot don't seem to be half as smart as they think they are yet insist on telling you how brilliant they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, people do. People dislike other people who can easily understand things that they struggle with...because it points out their inadequacies.
Now, it's made over 9000x worse by the more intelligent people showing off or being smug in their interactions...but often intelligent people substitute their smarts for social skills. You don't need to learn how to get a friend to help you with something you're not smart enough to do...when you're usually smart enough to do it yourself in less time than aski
Re: (Score:3)
I think if the election were held today, trump would win. There are a lot of voters who lap up hos every tweetâ"and rely on that as their source of news and commentery.
I donâ(TM)t understand it and it frightens me, but it allears to be widespread.
I think if the election were hypothetically held today Trump would win because there is no clear opponent. You have several Democrats trying to get into position but so far no clear winner. In the end, the Democrats may well shoot themselves in the foot with a shutdown over illegals. The general public is not in favor is mass immigration and more than they are in favor of huge tax cuts for multi-nationals. It's a competition of who can mess up less sadly and both parties are really good at messing up.
A
Re: (Score:3)
I think if the election were held today, trump would win.
Of course, why shouldn't he? Virtually every aspect of America has improved since he was elected. Stocks are up, unemployment is down, welfare is down, and fewer illegal immigrants sneaking in. If Russia did this we should be thanking them for the help and if Obama planned all this to happen after he left we should have voted him out 4 years sooner.
Re: (Score:3)
that horrid cunt Shitllary
Just curious. Why do you have to say that? Why such incredibly demeaning language and phrasing?
I disliked Hillary, I didn't vote for her, but.. why do we have to be so dehumanizing? Why is this a thing now? Where did civility go?
Paradox of intelligence (Score:2)
The upside, though, is that those who didn't fit in can honestly say, "I guess I was too smart to work for company X," or "I was too smart to work in the ___ industry." While that won't help anyone find work, perhaps it will help some to sleep at night.
Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it is a matter of appearing "too wise". I have known several people with IQs from 140 to 160, and while they were not Rainman, they all had some significant personality disorders. I think it is those socialization problems that keep many high IQers from being good leaders rather than just being "too smart".
The human brain is a balanced organ, and if too many neurons are devoted to doing well on an IQ test, then not enough are left over for things like empathy, and social skills.
Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score:4, Interesting)
Beyond autism, which is a neurological condition, I've noticed intelligent people often develop particularly bad attitudes and ways of interacting with people. (Some of these attitudes have been codified as "personality disorders".) It's easy for them to feel like they are above other people, and for that conception to shine through as taking a condescending tone when talking to people. I was the same way early on in my youth. Some people develop the maturity to grow out of it, others don't. Well, I still maybe talk that way sometimes on Slashdot. But in contexts where I'm interested in maintaining a positive relationship with whoever I'm talking to, no.
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine an ordinary person getting over being asked to them obvious questions and having to repeat themselves, explain the obvious over and over to the same person and to different people.
If that's part of the job then it should be done with good grace, not irritation.
As an example I regularly explain and re-explain what my (start-up) business is up to, in terms that anyone can grasp, and have done for many years, and my own understanding has grown in doing so. (And I don't think that I have the highest IQ in my business!)
Rgds
Damon
Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score:5, Interesting)
The simple fact is that people generally do not accept "leaders" who have IQs more than about 20 points higher than their own. And the reason -- according to current theory -- is that they just don't understand how each other think.
This has shown to hold for IQs between about 70 and 160.
Someone with an IQ of 70 does not well understand someone of IQ 100, someone of IQ 90 does not well understand someone of IQ 120 and someone of 120 does not well understand someone with an IQ of 150.
There is a rather large body of study and evidence to support this. It is no great mystery.
Re: (Score:3)
Which in the end means that democracies cannot have good leaders, as the average IQ + 20 points does not make for anybody smart enough to actually manage a country well. A pity, but does match observable data (and "leaders").
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
A representative democracy (which you call a "republic") is a form of democracy. You might want to read what these words mean before using them :)
Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score:5, Informative)
Nope.. I'm afraid that thinkwaitfast was correct. It's a republic (a representative one) rather than a democracy - at least in the technical sense. Two things keep it from being a democracy:
1. Not everyone has the right to vote.
2. There is a constitutional limit placed upon the majority will. As a result, the government representing the majority vote is unable to necessarily enact their will if doing so violates the constitution.
The differences are subtle, though, in modern democratic republics:
https://www.diffen.com/differe... [diffen.com]
https://keydifferences.com/dif... [keydifferences.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a republic (a representative one) rather than a democracy
Republic and Democracy are two different, and not mutually exclusive, concepts. A country can be either or both; the US is both.
Both of your points 1 & 2 are irrelevant, there are many ways to define a Democracy besides your pure everyone-votes-on-everything-majority-rules form.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
Social skills, contrairily to popular believe, have nothing to do with IQ or EQ, but with teaching young people how to behave properly. And many don't learn over time with age to become better.
I learned to be more social due to martial arts. The 'concept' is very simple. You behave like everyone else expects you to behave and you are fully integrated.
Funny, that you bow now to your teacher, training partner or a picture at the wall, but felt humilated when your mother asked you to say hello to a visitor.
Anyway, I travel lately mostly in Asia, and in Europe mostly in Scandinavian or Romanic countries ... being simply polite gets you everywhere.
The stupid idea of 'freedom' and 'the others' have to 'cope with me' is the reason why people are blamed for having a bad EQ. They don't have a bad EQ ... they never learned or accepted to learn basic human behaviour.
Look at a group of apes in the morning ... all the young ones walk around and greet the old ones. In our world this is considered 'old fashioned'.
Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score:4, Interesting)
Many smart people who are not a psychologist might believe that leaders can contribute much more in ways other than communications and signaling.
Like oh, I don't know, making wise decisions? Organizing people and their work? Fitting people into roles which will best take advantage of their capabilities?
"Speaking in charismatic ways" from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland sounds like the logic which awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for getting himself elected.
Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
Shame about all the military action undertaken under his purview, and he flat out lied about closing the torture camp in Cuba.
Biggest way to discredit the Nobel Peace Prize imaginable. It now has no worth at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, one of my former GFs applied for joining the policce in Germany around 1990.
She got rejected for having an to high IQ.
I would have rejected her for a to low EQ :) ... not joking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score:5, Interesting)
Kind of like Super AI? (Score:3)
Re: Kind of like Super AI? (Score:2)
God, what if 120 is the universal peak, and smarter and smarter AIs will be too incompetent at leadership to do anything?
I'd prefer the GCUs (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about looking at IQ in behavioural terms. The greater ability to learn faster and understand their existence, how does that affect 120 plus, 130 plus and 140 plus. Do they perform differently because, they live in a different world, one of greater understanding and their goals are different as a result.
Like being happy, what is it to be happy, well, brain chemical flows and thought frequency rates are in what feels like the positive zone and short, medium and long term planning indicates that current
Different things triggers different reactions (Score:5, Insightful)
To a smart person with they see the world in a particular way. So when they try to explain themselves to the public they are talking above their comprehension. This is often insulting to the other person because it sounds like you are using your vocabulary and more advanced reasoning to show that you are better then them.
Someone else with a lower intelligence, works more off of instincts, which does have the advantage of making faster decisions which are more often then not correct. However to a higher IQ person this is just ignoring factors which should be addressed. And such reactions is insulting for not listening to the rational argument.
A high IQ person leading people with low IQ often creates conflict because the low IQ people just fail to see the big picture or know to follow the more abstract steps. They want right and wrong. Not careful balance of what is going on and actions based on situations.
Re: (Score:2)
The IQ test includes a test of verbal acuity. If someone who is 'traditionally' intelligent is unable to communicate their "comprehension", then perhaps their verbal intelligence isn't as high as whatever else is providing them with the insight they are trying to communicate. There are good arguments that the three areas tested by the IQ test are far from the only forms of intelligence. Social or emotional intelligence might help prevent someone feeling as though they are being treated with condescension.
Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Different things triggers different reactions (Score:5, Insightful)
These days politics has been reduced to sound bites and tweets. Intelligent statements often can't be reduced to a 3 second clip. Effective solutions often require explanation, where as simple but ineffective ones like "build a wall" or "ban Muslims" don't.
We need to find ways to communicate good ideas in this new age, or somehow force a change away from politics by tweet.
Re: (Score:2)
it has been years since i wanted mod points, and i wish i had them.. you nailed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do metamoderating and you get mod points when ever you want them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Interestingly, he has a very solid point, despite his grammar errors. Your response comes dangerously close to an ad hominem fallacy. Though, I don't think it is, as your intent seems not to be counter-arguing, but rather, simple insult.
I would like to point out that any idiot can spot grammar errors and fling insults. Making salient points, however, requires at least a modicum of intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
I would venture to say there is a difference between "seeing" and "comprehending' the big picture.. I work with managers+ all the time, and they can all "see" the big picture, but if a piece of the puzzle is missing they are at a loss to draw it in. then you have some who "comprehend" will take the gap as an opportunity to make it their own, and tailor it. they are two very very different things.
People like to think (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, a significant portion of the population really, really hates to feel talked down to; and, well, it's easy to rile these folks up, drive them to the polls and get them to vote you into office. Clinton (Bill) used to do it. When he talked to old people he dyed his hair gray. Young folks got a brown dye. And his southern drawl pretty much vanished when he wasn't on the campaign in the South.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:People like to think (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with "common sense" is for the most part, its neither common, nor sense. Theres a lot of things that "common sense" says is right , but reality disagrees. Things like migration , crime and punishment , foreign relations, military tactics, climate change, and so on, all having counter intuitive truths behind them that defy "common" sense.
Its a problem thats been recognized all the way back to the ancient greeks. Plato though a good alternative was the Philosopher King, putting the smartest man in greece in charge (presumably, him). Fortunately for democracy later thinkers noted dictatorships tended to favor military experts rather than civil experts, and kindoms favored heredity.
Re: (Score:3)
My solution to the problem is to make every vote a write-in. The ballot would be a sheet of paper with the offices listed with a blank line after each. The voter would have to legibly print the full name of each candidate they were voting for. If you can't be bothered to learn the candidate's name, you have no business voting for that office, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton (Bill) used to do it. When he talked to old people he dyed his hair gray. Young folks got a brown dye. And his southern drawl pretty much vanished when he wasn't on the campaign in the South.
Nice observation.
That would explain it (Score:5, Funny)
I wondered why so many people dislike a stable genius.
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered why so many people dislike a stable genius.
Or, because he is, in fact, neither?
Maybe it's the smart leaders who dislike the peopl (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference between the average person (IQ 100) and and a legally retarded guy in a helmet (IQ 70) is the same as between a bright college guy (IQ 115) and a really dull witted convict (IQ 85) is the difference between a professor (IQ 130) and average guy. Maybe the gap becomes too big for the brainy prof to care about winning popularity contest?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IQ is measured in standard deviation based units, not an absolute "smartz" units.
15 IQ is 1 standard deviation, so 70 IQ is 2 standard deviations below the median.
If you have a relatively small number of actually brain damaged people (a few percent of the population), they'll "fill in" the slots at below average IQ. 70 IQ is 2 standard deviations below the mean. If actual large-scale brain damage (congentital, chemical or injury based) covers 2% of the population, then that level of brain damage becomes 7
Re: (Score:3)
bah bah (Score:3, Interesting)
ipso fatso (Score:2)
Now we know why the libs hate Trump so much. After all, he scored highest on his cognitive tests.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-... [thehill.com]
And also because he was the best baseball player in New York in the early 1960s.
https://www.sportsgrid.com/as-... [sportsgrid.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well since he's the first president ever to be subjected to this test..
Here it is: https://pdbp.ninds.nih.gov/sit... [nih.gov]
It's really hard. The hardest! And Trump aced it!
Re: (Score:3)
That's what I'm saying. He's #1 and has the best words.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we know why the libs hate Trump so much. After all, he scored highest on his cognitive tests.
Yes. He was able to correctly name drawings of (a) a lion, (b) a rhinoceros and (c) a camel.
(scroll down article [straitstimes.com] for test sample)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to read your link, to not spoil the fun.
But I bet a one year wage that the 'Camel' was not a Camel but a 'Dromedar'.
Which makes me wonder how americans cal a real Camel.
Correlation / causation? (Score:3)
Social experiments are difficult. Did they correct for the issue that very smart people are likely to lead groups with different functions than moderately smart people? Maybe there is a correlation between high intelligence and leading groups that work under very large time pressure or under poorly - defined constraints?
wrong problem (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
Public sphere difficulties that can be solved by mere supergenius level cleverness are eventually taken cared of, albeit usually by incremental efforts of many individuals instead of one savior. Then we stop calling then controversies, and the are relegated to boring stuff in the history books.
The intractable problems are controversies exactly because there exist fundamental disagreements about how to frame the question(s) for making decisions about what price must be paid or value that must be com
TL;DR version (Score:5, Informative)
Some people are dumb as shit and don't like you because they cannot comprehend the message you are attempting to convey.
IQ specialization (Score:2)
IQ focuses on a very narrow measure of intelligence: prowess in things like match, science, and reasoning. Good leaders need much more than this. They also need prowess in dealing with politics, getting people to be enthusiastic about their work, dealing with difficult people.
Often, those with very high IQs have specialized (intentionally or not) in only the traditional subjects measured by IQ. It's no accident that many brilliant people have trouble with human relationships.
To a degree, mental energy and s
There has to be a better way (Score:5, Insightful)
Mitt Romney is one of the smartest presidential candidates this nation has ever seen, as well as a fundamentally decent human being. People tore him to bits over offhand comments and talked endlessly about his unforgivable sin of having - 30 years prior - taken his dog on vacation. (One New York Times columnist published no less than 86 columns talking about that incident, which seems like obsessive enough behavior to qualify for institutionalization.)
Donald Trump is one of the least intelligent presidential candidates this nation has ever seen. Blatant lies, boasts about sexual assault, and so on only served to feed his campaign. At least a third of the country is still really excited about having this "stable genius" lead them even though he clearly struggles to understand any of the issues a President faces.
Look at Churchill's speeches or FDR's fireside chats. Now look at Donald Trump's twitter stream (MY EYES! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!). This is the evolution of civil discourse in just one lifetime.
I get that sometimes someone who speaks blunt falsehoods rather than complex truths can be seen as a "man of the people." I don't think this has to be so. I don't think this has been true in all cultures and at all times through human history. I don't know how we can overcome the anti-intellectual pressures that have been building in this country for 70 years, the politicization of journalism and education, the degeneration of political discourse at all levels into dick jokes and cursing, and so on. But if we don't find some way to overcome it our civilization will collapse.
Re:There has to be a better way (Score:5, Funny)
The lying, misogyny, insensitivity, bellicosity, narcissism and over-compensated inferiority complex have nothing to do with intelligence. Those are simply indecies of maladjustment. According the the smartest guy around, Donald Trump is the smartest guy around. He is, in fact, way, way too smart to be a good leader or President. The job of POTUS is just not good enough for the Donald. He should be conferred Supreme Doctor of Thinkology, Universitartus Committiartum E Pluribus Unum. All hail the mighty Trump! We tremble under the lash of your intellect!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does Mitt Romney being smart have to do with anything? He was running against the most charismatic candidate in modern history, who was also enormously intelligent. His opponent took office at a time when the economy had just collapsed and the country was mired in multiple never-ending wars from the outgoing president. People didn't want another plutocrat Republican. Being smart and "fundamentally decent" doesn't mean he would help the poor.
actually (Score:3, Insightful)
it's just smarmy, arrogant, narcissists that people hate NOT smart people.
How many Americans hated Einstein? None that I can recall.
Interesting that Obama is cited... an arrogant narcissist who divisively attacked half the country repeatedly as hicks who cling to guns, religion, etc and did not understand the brilliance of the socialism he adored (remember his attack on "joe the plumber"?). What's interesting is that we have no evidence that he is smarter than or better educated than Donald Trump. Obama proved his ability by winning the presidency, as Trump has done, but unlike Trump all of Obama's academic records are sealed so we have no idea what classes he took, what grades he got, etc. and in fact the general public has seen interviews with classmates and professors of people like Ted Cruz, Ronald Reagan, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, the public has never seen interviews with Obama's professors, classmates or even the students he is supposed to have taught. I allege no conspiracy here (other than the curious apparent desire of tram Obama to hide such stuff) and only point out that all the claims of Obama's supposed genius are apparently just the confirmation bias of liberals assuming anybody who agrees with them must be super-smart. I have seen Obama stutter mercilessly when his teleprompters hang, and have seen him use TWO teleprompters to talk with a group of elementary school kids - meanwhile Sarah Palin gave her entire GOP convention speech on live national TV with NO teleprompters (they failed just as she began talking) and NOBODY in the public noticed (go watch the YouTubes of that event and be stunned).
People need to stop being manipulated by the pre-washed pre-spun narratives of the media. A guy like Obama might look great on TV but it's not evidence he is smart. A guy like Reagan or a gal like Thatcher can be mercilessly portrayed by the press as a dottering old fool while winning a decades-long cold war (without firing a shot) and freeing more people from tyranny and political oppression than any other person in history - pretty smart in MY book.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But how smart was Einstein really? Yes, we know he produced the Theory of Relativity. But was that a result of extraordinary intelligence, or the result of a serendipitous insight, similar to the creative insights artists and musicians have (people that aren't exactly renowned for their intelligence).
While Einstein did produce the Theory of Relativity, I've also heard that Teller and Oppenheimer excluded him for the A-bomb project because, Theory of Relativity or not, they just weren't that impressed with h
*What if God was one of us?* (Score:2)
*Just a slob like one of us?*
Let's question some assumptions (Score:4, Insightful)
The assumption of the article is that higher IQ is "better". By what metric? If higher IQ is necessarily more advantageous, why did humans evolve to have average IQ's of 100 rather than 180? You would think if the higher IQ was more advantageous, the 180 IQ people would have displaced the lower IQ ones. Yet, that hasn't happened.
Nor do I see that the people with the highest IQ's are the most successful in their fields. There are plenty of virtuoso musicians I can think of that are actually drooling idiots when they put down their instruments, and plenty of geniuses that can't carry a tune in a bucket.
Perhaps our problem here is the assumption that intelligence in the end-all and be-all of human achievement. Perhaps it ain't necessarily so.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of virtuoso musicians I can think of that are actually drooling idiots when they put down their instruments, and plenty of geniuses that can't carry a tune in a bucket.
Simply put, Intellectually Gifted and Talented are not the same thing. A person can be one, the other or both - and to varying degrees, within the objective definitions. (My wife was a Gifted Education and English teacher.)
Re: (Score:2)
Motor skills are not all their is to musicianship. If they were, Robert Fripp would be considered a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix (some people do, but not many - including Robert Fripp himself). And practicing motor skills does not give you a particularly great understanding of harmony, rhythm or melody, nor how to apply them. And the principal applies elsewhere as well - that was the point of the TFA.
I understand perfectly well how IQ scores are standardized. But the point remains - regardless of the
We can't judge their effectieness ahead of time. (Score:2)
Mere intelligence is not enough, you also need to know that someone is trustworthy. If someone is a little bit smarter than you, you can understand what they are saying and therefore comprehend their plan when they explain it. You don't need to trust them, you can understand that by making abortion legal, you can expect population growth to slow.
But when someone is a LOT smarter than you, you can't do that. You literally are not smart enough to understand their plan, even if they explain it slowly. I
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops, I did the math wrong their at the end, it was supposed to be people of an IQ of 140 trust those with an IQ up to 160.
Guess my IQ is not 160.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess my IQ is not 160.
It probably is....it's so high you've transcended math and the rest of us aren't able to follow it.
Well known: 2 sigma gap (Score:5, Informative)
"IQ positively correlated with ratings of leader effectiveness...The ratings peaked at an IQ of around 120"
If two people have an IQ difference of more than 2 sigma (2 standard deviations, or about 30 IQ points), it becomes very difficult for them to communicate with each other effectively. [scribd.com]
I would have this was pretty well-known and well accepted by now. TFA specifically looks at office workers of various types, so it's a good bet that the average worker will have an IQ in the 100-110 range. So a manager with an IQ of 120 is just enough smarter to do the job well, but not too smart to run into communications problems. A completely believable "sweet spot" for your typical office. But probably not for JPL or a construction site.
If you get beyond 2 sigmas: For anything more than small talk, the smart person feels like they have to "dumb down" everything they say, and even then it's hard to get across anything complex. Meanwhile the lower IQ person realizes that they're being "talked down to", that they are being seen as dumb, and they resent it.
Re:Well known: 2 sigma gap (Score:5, Funny)
You sound like one of those eggheads. I don't like you.
Don't you have a car analogy or at least one that's funny?
Selection Bias (Score:2)
I can't see the original paper so the authors might account for it, but it strikes me that they have a huge selection bias problem.
I basically see three reasons why people become leaders.
1) They're connected.
2) They've got great leadership skills.
3) They're extremely competent in the field.
The connected people are probably of average intelligence and leadership skills.
But as to the other two groups, you're comparing group #2 selected for their leadership skills to group #3 selected for their brains. An inve
It's Charisma (Score:2)
But the smart people don't relate as well. Either you dumb yourself down, or others will notice. That's the same reason good car salesmen look and act dumb. If they are dumb, then you'll feel you got a good deal.
That's why there are so many Autism diagnoses. Parlty Munchausen by Proxy, and part belief that
People dislike feeling dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
Mary: It's okay to be smarter than everybody else, but you can't go around pointing it out.
Sheldon: Why?
Mary: Because people don't like it!
Sorry for the quote. It's rare that BBT-quotes are on topic, so let me have that moment.
People don't dislike smart leaders. They dislike people that make them feel stupid. And with half of the people that's pretty easy to do if your intelligence is even just average. What they like is people that make them feel smart and superior. And that's easy to do for someone who comes across as an idiot.
That might have been true for Bush Jr., but not for Trump. Trump is an asshole, but he ain't stupid. He doesn't even fake being stupid. Then why does Trump "work"? Well, mostly because Hillary didn't, but even that's secondary. Trump offers easy answers to very complicated question. Answers that can be understood by anyone, and as long as nobody questions them or even has to implement them, that's fine.
Unfortunately that only gets you so far. That's basically what fell the Soviet Union. Lots of rhetoric but very little substance in the end, and the smokescreen of martial words and promises eventually evaporates.
Re: (Score:3)
Mary: It's okay to be smarter than everybody else, but you can't go around pointing it out.
Sheldon: Why?
Mary: Because people don't like it!
Sorry for the quote. It's rare that BBT-quotes are on topic, so let me have that moment.
People don't dislike smart leaders. They dislike people that make them feel stupid. And with half of the people that's pretty easy to do if your intelligence is even just average. What they like is people that make them feel smart and superior. And that's easy to do for someone who comes across as an idiot.
That might have been true for Bush Jr., but not for Trump. Trump is an asshole, but he ain't stupid. He doesn't even fake being stupid. Then why does Trump "work"? Well, mostly because Hillary didn't, but even that's secondary. Trump offers easy answers to very complicated question. Answers that can be understood by anyone, and as long as nobody questions them or even has to implement them, that's fine.
Unfortunately that only gets you so far. That's basically what fell the Soviet Union. Lots of rhetoric but very little substance in the end, and the smokescreen of martial words and promises eventually evaporates.
Trump "works" because he is a bullshit artist. Most certainly not stupid.
That, and to quote a very smart man, George Carlin:
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that!"
This argument has been BS for 200 years (Score:4, Interesting)
Because Thomas Jefferson.
The argument that "too much" intelligence makes for a bad leader is always made by someone who is trying to rationalize the unpopularity of his own pet ideas.
Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Smart leaders tell you what's really going on not what you want to hear to make yourself feel good. In order to be competitive, you need good intelligence to formulate effective strategies. If all you want is people who tell you what you want to hear regardless of reality then you will ultimately fail because you won't be making decisions based on what is actually going on in your company and in your market.
It feels good for awhile with all the "yes people" and positive vibes then the money runs out, the doors close and it's time to find a new pasture to do it all over again
Emotional Intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why I hate social sciences (Score:3)
Studies like these are why the social sciences really bug me. The whole thing is built upon weak premises, such as using IQ as a metric and contrasting it with whatever method they had for rating the effectiveness of these leaders. When none of your variables are concrete, how can the results of the study really tell us anything? To extrapolate a conclusion from this hodgepodge of data would be foolish.
When it comes to social sciences, I'll take a holistic, less scientific approach such as Malcolm Gladwell's or Steven Levitt's. Some studies just don't fit well with the scientific method, and misapplying it leads to nonsense research like this where the researchers can't see the forest for the trees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps with other narcissists.
No, I'm serious and not trolling. You state that the 'masses' are limiting you. You clearly value the things that "matter" to you above those that matter to the masses, and are using intelligence ("smart[ness]") as the justification. There's a reason that this sort of attitude is treated like a teenager's rant - many people go through this sort of thinking/feeling in their teens, then grow out of it. If you are still experiencing the world in this way, perhaps you are less dev
to be fair... (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump DID beat something like 17 supposedly very well qualified Republican opponents who had that Washington DC establishment stamp-of-approval.....
and then he beat Hillary Clinton, who Democrats told us was the smartest and most-qualified candidate ever (at least now that Obama was ineligible to run again) even though she rigged her primary and outspent Trump by something like 7-to-1 AND had ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,PBS,CNN,NPR and nearly every newspaper on her side - oh, yeah, and a lot of the Republican establi
Re:What about dumb people? (Score:5, Insightful)
I too, chose to be a one-percenter, and it has paid off.
Boy is it funny how none of the problems the commonfolk choose, affect my life at all!
I get taxbreaks all the time, yet the paupers keep whining about a couple thousand dollars out of pocket. That's just chump change, who even cares.
All these folks choose to work multiple gruelling minimum wage jobs and insist on paying way too much rent and then choose to be unable to afford food or healthcare or a proper Harvard education for their kids! Then they choose having no retirement or even a portfolio so instead they keep crowding the streets with their homeless smelly asses. Stupid shit I tell ya. They even drive cheap shitty cars and never wear Armani.
Losers. Everybody should just choose to be a billionaire, that would solve all the problems they complain about.
Re:What about dumb people? (Score:5, Interesting)
You could simply choose *not* to suffer under the administration. ISIS is all but defeated, jobs are coming back, taxes were reduced, many people are getting bonuses, North Korea is coming to the Olympics, and we're no longer in the TPP.
Not to mention, if you happen to live in Puerto Rico, free paper towels.
Who doesn't love free paper towels?