New IQ Research Shows Why Smarter People Make Better Decisions (phys.org) 94
alternative_right shares a report from Phys.Org: A new study from the University of Bath's School of Management has found that individuals with a higher IQ make more realistic predictions, which supports better decision-making and can lead to improved life outcomes. The research, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, shows that people with a low IQ (the lowest 2.5% of the population) make forecasting errors that are more than twice as inaccurate as those made by people with a high IQ (the top 2.5% of the population).
The research used data from a nationally representative sample of people over 50 in England (English Longitudinal Study of Aging ELSA), assessing their ability to predict their own life expectancy. Individuals were asked to predict their probability of living to certain ages, and these estimates were compared with the probabilities taken from Office for National Statistics life tables (a demographic tool used to analyze death rates and calculate life expectancies at various ages). The study controlled for differences in lifestyle, health, and genetic longevity.
By analyzing participants' scores on a variety of cognitive tests, as well as genetic markers linked to intelligence and educational success, Chris Dawson, Professor of Economics and Behavioral Science at the University of Bath, showed that smarter individuals tend to have more accurate beliefs about uncertain future events - they are more skilled at assessing probability. Individuals with a higher IQ are significantly better at forecasting, making fewer errors (both positive and negative) and showing more consistent judgment compared to those with a lower IQ.
The research used data from a nationally representative sample of people over 50 in England (English Longitudinal Study of Aging ELSA), assessing their ability to predict their own life expectancy. Individuals were asked to predict their probability of living to certain ages, and these estimates were compared with the probabilities taken from Office for National Statistics life tables (a demographic tool used to analyze death rates and calculate life expectancies at various ages). The study controlled for differences in lifestyle, health, and genetic longevity.
By analyzing participants' scores on a variety of cognitive tests, as well as genetic markers linked to intelligence and educational success, Chris Dawson, Professor of Economics and Behavioral Science at the University of Bath, showed that smarter individuals tend to have more accurate beliefs about uncertain future events - they are more skilled at assessing probability. Individuals with a higher IQ are significantly better at forecasting, making fewer errors (both positive and negative) and showing more consistent judgment compared to those with a lower IQ.
in other words (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever we call "thinking", "consciousness", "mind", "intelligence", "sentience", (and I don't want to descend into supernatural/magical thinking words here like "soul") are just not well defined words from an era bygone, where we didn't even know what we had inside our heads, we were not aware of the existence of neurons etc. Those words are just very rough definitions (aka bad prediction models) for what was going on inside our heads.
Maybe we are just prediction machines at times (system2) and parrots (system1/LLMs) most of the time.
Re:in other words (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that humans mimic LLMs with respect to probability judgements. Marketers know that if you see a "fact" written in a few different articles or sources, you come to assume it's true, for example. We rely on what our culture feeds us and we internalise it as beliefs.
But the other words you mentioned are actually very difficult and deep questions which smart people throughout the ages have wrestled with and we still don't know the answers today. Sentience/the ability to have an experience is the most obvious and direct reality we each have, yet nobody knows how that works.
Yes our minds can remember things we've heard and repeat them like a photocopier or an LLM, but we don't know what is experiencing the whole show.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What was empirically shown by LLM is that reasoning and cognition is not purely "associative engine" by producing machines that are vastly superior to humans in being able to associate and yet vastly incapable of reasoning and knowing.
Re: (Score:2)
philosophy is not science, it cannot make better predictions about how the mind works, than neuroscientists
> multiple good definitions
that by itself shows they are not actually good. If there are many, it means they are not precise/accurate and the right ones.
> incapable of reasoning and knowing
those two words "reasoning" and "knowing" are two more vague terms, for which we don't have good definitions still, what exac
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that humans mimic LLMs with respect to probability judgements.
Because... and bear with me here.... humans developed the LLMs.
This is why "AI" will never develop to surpass humans. However, the way humans think, so will it.
This is why SciFi is so on point with its future predictions. Computers attempting to take over is possible, because we thought of it as a possibility and wrote it down.
It doesnt take much to logic this stuff out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I was going to add that, after all, probability is something we conceptualised, as humans, and then we built machines that work on that principle! we worried that the robot will want to kill us and what's the first thing we do when we can build drones? Use them to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
> This is why "AI" will never develop to surpass humans. However, the way humans think, so will it.
this is patently wrong. We mimicked the birds and our planes surpass them.
Re: (Score:2)
Mimicking birds didn't turn out that well, actually. Planes only became practical when we stopped trying to make the damn wings flap.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're actually interested in this topic there is a really great survey of all the different theories of consciousness called A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications [sciencedirect.com] by Robert Lawrence Kuhn (creator of PBS series "Closer To Truth").
My interpretation is that there are plenty of answers to these questions. The problem is that consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no scientific way to distinguish objectively right answers from objectively wrong answe
Re: (Score:2)
Marketers know that if you see a "fact" written in a few different articles or sources, you come to assume it's true
Eh, it makes me go and research it to see if it is true or not, quite often. When I was younger I used to annoy people for not not accepting anything without a whole load of peer-reviewed research, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is more the derivative, smarter people are better at modeling or training.
Look at the contributions that have really shaped science. Observations are important but the really high IQ individuals (sometimes the same making the observations sometimes not) are the ones that have given us models that fit those observations and of course prove their correctness and usefulness by correctly predicting future observations.
Think about atomic models, obviously this is a case of refinement vs pure insight b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: in other words (Score:2)
We never needed "AI" or LLMs to think we're nothing more than machines.
Re: (Score:2)
I work in a city that has a big university. Students like it a lot and lots of them stay there for life. It means that there are a lot of intellectuals there. I live in a small rural village. It is kind of the opposite.
Smart people make better decisions? No they don't. A lot have the tendency to overthink.
There is a difference between thinking a lot and thinking poorly. I think the hell out of everything, but am considered to have very good judgement.
Easily get lost in the world of how everything should be, slowly floating away from the world of how it is in reality. I am always surprised about how the locals in the village just get through life while while those university grads keep seeing problems everywhere.
Being an intellectual doesn't necessarily equal intelligence, and vice versa. My older sister and I test out around the same. Let's just say we test very high. I've made a pretty successful career utilizing my intelligence - against a current that had me pegged for a low skilled job or manual labor, while my older sister was the chosen one, put through college
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I have to agree - those "smart" people who get caught up thinking things will work because that is how things should work in an idealized world, when in the real world things are messier - those "smart" people are not smart at all. They are not considering all of the variables, accounting for human nature etc - in short, not thinking over everything.
My own example being the "smart" sysadmin working in a school - installed digital signage in school coridoors, with the power sockets and on switches at s
Re: Is this what passes for *science* research ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I have to agree - those "smart" people who get caught up thinking things will work because that is how things should work in an idealized world, when in the real world things are messier - those "smart" people are not smart at all. They are not considering all of the variables, accounting for human nature etc - in short, not thinking over everything.
My own example being the "smart" sysadmin working in a school - installed digital signage in school coridoors, with the power sockets and on switches at shoulder height, because "that's how it is elsewhere" Totally not understanding that with the off switches being easily accessible, the students will mess with the power and the digital signage will be off more than on. His reply "Well the students shouldn't be playing with the power switches". Would you class this guy as smart???
If people don't consider all the variables, how people act in the real world, all of it, in my books they aren't smart no matter how middle class they try and make their accents sound.
Nope, not smart at all. If I were to design such a system there wouldn't be sockets. It would be put in with conduit, perhaps two - one for power, one for data. The data lines would end up at a lockable closet (if possible)
And replying that the students shouldn't be playing with the power switches? Does he have no memory of being a teenager?
No - they aren't supposed to do that. But they damn well will.
Re: (Score:2)
Counter example. We had some sharpie pen graffiti on the door of one of our buildings. Discussing it among the board who are a range of intelligences most normal, and one brilliant guy, they got to a solution of hiring a person to re-paint the door, to getting permits and approvals from the city and state, and expecting to spend quite a lot of time and money. Interminable discussions that bored me horribly since I knew the answer was simple. I kept quiet, then went over a day later with alcohol and spray bleach cleaner and removed the graffiti. Door looks great now! In this case, I could have told them, but I wanted to get them to think a little. 15 minutes of easy work or maybe 5K of pointless expense. Probably won't get them to think, but ya gotta try sometimes.
I am firmly of the belief that most workplace interactions are really just for extroverts to pass the time. About 10% of any meeting is building consensus or decision-making. The rest of it is just people who really, really like interacting with other people (or trying to impress their boss/peers) talking pointlessly and avoiding doing any actual work. I imagine this goes double for interactions between board members, but I wouldn't know firsthand.
The fact is, if it could be solved in 15 minutes then there'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is this what passes for *science* research ? (Score:1)
Some sort of death clock perhaps...
Re: Is this what passes for *science* research ? (Score:2)
Most IQ research is bogus. IQ researchers routinely confuse the ability to quantify something with the ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Just because you can make a chart out of something does not mean your chart actually conveys useful information.
Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
But remember not every high(er)-IQ person is smart. In fact a majority probably is not. Many chose to use their skills very selectively and are wilfully ignorant on some questions.
On the other hand, some people with lower IQ are smart, because they have a realistic evaluation of their own skills, know what they do not know and hence are able to get good insights, even if sometimes with help.
Bottomline: IQ is overrated.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
And remember some of us are WaySmarterThanMost... and still believed Haitians were eating all the cats...
If you are referring to the position of President of the United States, I really don't believe anyone of actual intelligence would be dumb enough to take that job.
Hell, forget intelligence. President Biden proved consciousness is basically optional.
Re: (Score:1)
1. A woman did eat a cat, however, she was not an immigrant.
Source: https://timesofindia.indiatime... [indiatimes.com]
2. Haitians eat cookies made from literal dirt.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The leap between the two doesn't seem that massive. Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are?
Re: Duh (Score:2)
Re: Duh (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
source: Sleepwalkers [imdb.com]
Surely, we're about to close the loop, somehow..
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There area also a lot of people who say that "nobody is eating cats"
Because most people are capable of extrapolating the rest of that sentence, especially when presented in juxtaposition to the "They are eating the cats, they are eating the dogs [in Springfield]." statement.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the incident you point to happened 170 miles away, right? And wasn't Haitian? When people say "nobody is eating cats" in the context of the time, they meant Haitians in Springfield. They weren't ignoring half the facts. They were ignoring irrelevant facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what you mean by "go to the dogs", but I fail to see the problem with settling an immigrant population in a particular town. There's no question that a place will change with the introduction of a new demographic. It will gain access to new cultures, perspectives, and labor. But I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
The most economically successful places in the world have almost always been ones that attract different groups. Places that have become insular have tended to be overrun by more pol
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean by "go to the dogs", but I fail to see the problem with settling an immigrant population in a particular town.
You fail to see the problem because it is not your problem and you are not willing to listen to people affected by this problem. Such attitude within Democratic party is exactly why Trump won.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean by "go to the dogs"
Presumably those are next after the cats.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
But remember not every high(er)-IQ person is smart. In fact a majority probably is not. Many chose to use their skills very selectively and are wilfully ignorant on some questions.
Many professors didn't care for Einstein due to his inability to stay focused in school. He graduated in 1900 and spent the next several years working only part-time so that he could focus on writing his brilliant theories. Didn't even land a full-time job until 9 years after he graduated.
It appears that patience isn't a virtue when 99% of the world appears infantile in their mental capacity. I had a brilliant yet family member who came across as "mean" to most. Curt in conversation. Mind both wandering but also laser focused when probed with a question. Sarcastic as hell. He was also one of the only engineers without a formal degree to work at Sandia Labs for 30+ years. Smart people, understand how to utilize brilliant people.
IQ may be overrated, but getting people to understand how they can utilize incredible intelligence I fear is equally underrated. Forget society. It does humanity no good if the next Einstein is stuck in a dead-end job due to narcissism or jealousy.
Re: (Score:3)
Sources? I can find unsourced claims that he was employed full-time at the patent office but finished his work in half the time and so was able to spend the other half doing physics. Certainly the "graduated" of your claim
Re: (Score:2)
Sources? I can find unsourced claims that he was employed full-time at the patent office but finished his work in half the time and so was able to spend the other half doing physics. Certainly the "graduated" of your claim is his first degree; he submitted his doctoral thesis in 1905 and his habilitation in 1907. I see further unsourced claims that having obtained the habilitation he was only able to teach before 08:00 and after 18:00 because of his work at the patent office. 1909 seems to be not when he landed his first full-time job but when he landed his first academic job.
I stand corrected on the clarifications. That said, it did take him two years after graduation to land even a menial job at a patent office. This tends to support the theory that others may have had issues interacting and/or working with him.
And taking years after publishing some of the most brilliant work in human history to be hired in academia? Talk about validating the theory of general jealousy. He would have danced off the stage sporting a Harvard jersey and a $80 million dollar signing bonus had
Re: (Score:2)
But remember not every high(er)-IQ person is smart. In fact a majority probably is not. Many chose to use their skills very selectively and are wilfully ignorant on some questions.
Many professors didn't care for Einstein due to his inability to stay focused in school. He graduated in 1900 and spent the next several years working only part-time so that he could focus on writing his brilliant theories. Didn't even land a full-time job until 9 years after he graduated.
It appears that patience isn't a virtue when 99% of the world appears infantile in their mental capacity. I had a brilliant yet family member who came across as "mean" to most. Curt in conversation. Mind both wandering but also laser focused when probed with a question. Sarcastic as hell. He was also one of the only engineers without a formal degree to work at Sandia Labs for 30+ years. Smart people, understand how to utilize brilliant people.
IQ may be overrated, but getting people to understand how they can utilize incredible intelligence I fear is equally underrated. Forget society. It does humanity no good if the next Einstein is stuck in a dead-end job due to narcissism or jealousy.
You have an interesting point there. I'm not going to go into my IQ, announcing IQ has become something of an issue. Let's just say I've been tested, and am considered pretty smart.
I'm pretty good at pissing people off. Mainly because I tell people things they don't want to hear. Just as three examples, my personal experience in getting women interested in STEM careers, my post 2024 election results analysis, and the worsening divide among the sexes in the western world.
Some people simply won't take t
Re: (Score:2)
So you not being able to learn how to be able to get along with people is "pretty smart"? Seems like a smart person would be able to get their points across at work without pissing people off. Calling "emotional intelligence" bullshit is pretty telling and not at all "smart" given how much easier it makes so many things in life.
But go on, keep telling us how intelligent you are as you do any time anything related to intelligence is brought up on Slashdot. Clearly someone who tells everyone this so often mus
Re: (Score:2)
When surrounded by stupid people, it takes more mental energy to NOT correct them than to just let them realize that they don't have a clue. Honestly, why are so many people afraid of upsetting others by showing people a better way to get things done?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, why are so many people afraid of upsetting others by showing people a better way to get things done?
When it is completely possible to show people without upsetting them most of the time it's dumb to do it any other way. All you're doing is making more work for yourself because now you have to deal with upset feelings and resentment. People with at least decent emotional intelligence don't normally have problems with showing people better ways to do things and their lives are easier for it.
In other words, if you're the type of person that runs into the type of thing you talk about a lot you should be askin
Re: (Score:1)
> It does humanity no good if the next Einstein is stuck in a dead-end job due to narcissism or jealousy.
I'd imagine that throughout written history, many thousands, perhaps millions of Einsteins have wilted in dead-end jobs. In history, unless you were "the right sort", you couldn't even state a theory, let along defend one. Further, you probably weren't educated, or at least not far enough to be able to argue with the people who were "the right sort", even if they were flat-out wrong about something. I
Re: (Score:2)
Smart people, understand how to utilize brilliant people
Some may, some may not. I am not sure you have provided us with much data here other than an anecdote. I know people with high IQs (~180) who are not good with other people so would not "understand how to utilize brilliant people".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am in the 93th percental IQ-wise but still ended up with shit because of my rare psychological profile which doeasn't mix well with the regular world.
Am I intelligent? Definitely. Am I smart? Depends. If I had not been constantly busy with work and hobby from a young age and instead had learned about what makes me tick earlier in life, it's very likely my llife would be different now.
I can't predict how long I will live, and in fact brushed with death over a year ago unexpectedly when I've always felt hea
Re: (Score:2)
93th percental
Based on this, I somehow doubt that.
Re: (Score:2)
But remember not every high(er)-IQ person is smart. In fact a majority probably is not. Many chose to use their skills very selectively and are wilfully ignorant on some questions.
On the other hand, some people with lower IQ are smart, because they have a realistic evaluation of their own skills, know what they do not know and hence are able to get good insights, even if sometimes with help.
Bottomline: IQ is overrated.
However, even accounting for statistical outliers, people with higher IQs do tend to make better decisions.
The study in question wasn't trying to dispute that, the question they were trying to answer is why. If anything the small cohort of 50 is far too small for a meaningful answer, however it may be a consideration in funding larger experiments and research.
Re: (Score:2)
"Smart" is a term that doesn't have a single definition. You seem to be using it to mean skills that allow someone to succeed in day-to-day human activities or something like "common sense." But it could also mean academic abilities, high ability in some very specific intellectual skill (like playing the game of chess), deductive reasoning ability, or the ability to read and respond to social situations in an advantageous way.
IQ is simply a score on a test that attempts to measure certain cognitive skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Bottomline: IQ is overrated.
I would argue that it is merely poorly understood and reacted to at face value only. No depth to the perceptions.
Look, my IQ has been tested and it is very high... and yet somehow or another, "normal" people show me to be quite stupid often enough to eliminate much of my ego.
I have met people an order of magnitude smarter than me... and yet somehow or another, I end up reminding them to be humble.
There is SOMETHING to IQ; however, all of us are too stupid to fully detail what exactly that something is. (I s
Re: (Score:2)
Bottomline: IQ is overrated.
I would argue that it is merely poorly understood and reacted to at face value only. No depth to the perceptions.
Look, my IQ has been tested and it is very high... and yet somehow or another, "normal" people show me to be quite stupid often enough to eliminate much of my ego.
I have met people an order of magnitude smarter than me... and yet somehow or another, I end up reminding them to be humble.
Yeah, that's the thing. Nobody has all the right answers, because nobody can ask the right questions every time. Nobody knows everything, and there's always that one thing you didn't think of that, when someone points it out, makes you rethink everything.
The difference between smart people and not-smart people is that smart people probably point out those things to others more often than the other way around. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Bottomline: IQ is overrated.
It is not, but IQ != ability to reason and know. That would be wisdom. Colloquially, many very smart people are not wise and you don't have to be smart (but it helps) to become wise.
IQ is not a good measurement of intelligence (Score:1)
At best and measures your ability to take tests. But because our education system is focused on filtering out who is and isn't useful to large corporations test taking is heavily emphasized. Also it's tough to teach good critical thinking because kids want critical thinking skills come home and lay into the parent's sacred cows.
Re: (Score:1)
a lot of these folks optimize for status or narrow success while ignoring foundational truths
they’ll debate syntax but miss the system
they’ll defend fiat and tech scams while mocking bitcoin like it’s beneath them
real intelligence isn’t just pattern matching it’s knowing when something smells fake and having the guts to act on it
same reason communism appeals to peopl
Principles for decisions (Score:2)
In my complete worklife I've always run into too many people who were exceedingly bad at (1). Their first question was always "what should I do". Instead of asking and answering the real question "what do I want to achieve".
Re: (Score:2)
1. Decide what you want. lots of money 2. Decide how to get it. rob a bank
= good decision
You can make good decisions if you follow this one simple rule Don't listen to randoms on the Internet.
Clearly, the second rule should be "decide the best way to get it".
2. Learn how to rob a bank and hire yourself out as a bank security consultant for a million dollars per job on the condition that you successfully rob it.
You still rob the bank, but you don't keep the money, you don't go to jail, and they pay you a lot for showing the flaws in their security system. Repeat a few times. Retire.
From the No Shit Department. (Score:3)
In all our centuries of (alleged) human advancement, we actually needed to prove through "research" that dumb people are in fact dumb and make dumb decisions?
Was the aptly named Darwin Award we literally invented for the bestest of dummy decisions, not enough proof? Did that need to become a fucking Olympic sport or something?
We humans sure do have a way of validating our humanity. The irony of Skynet, has turned painfully obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think this research qualifies as "no shit." I think it qualifies as very poorly done and potentially wrong. Or at least the summary makes it seem that way. They asked these individuals a prediction question that existing knowledge significantly helps with. Existing knowledge that many if not most well educated people will have and people with less education probably won't. I know what the average life expectancy is for someone in the US because I have read it. I know that your life expectancy is dif
Predictions = planning ahead (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The more interesting research on this topic that I've read claimed smarter people make better decisions because they are better at deferring decisions. They are comfortable with the uncertainty because of their confidence in their abilities. There is always a tradeoff between making the decision later when you have more information and making it earlier so you have more time to plan your execution. If you need more time to plan execution, you need to make decisions earlier. And your decisions will suffer be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Predictions = planning ahead (Score:2)
If that were true you'd see it in at least some other species, and you don't.
Our survival didn't depend on beating the environment or our development would have stopped a long time ago. You don't need what we have to do that, look around at everything else that does it.
The only thing that makes sense is we were competing with ourselves, or a more intelligent predator, which doesn't exist. Like a shit ton of humans were living together and had fuck-all else to worry about but outwitting each other to survive
The More Interesting Finding (Score:5, Interesting)
Setting the obviousness aspect of this aside, there are two things of particular note to me in this story.
1. Predicting the probability of living to certain ages seems like an absolutely ridiculous test. There's no reliable way to assess the accuracy of their predictions. Comparing their answers to probabilities from established statistics seems more about the subject's education level than their intelligence or forecasting ability, unless their forecasting completely impossible life expediencies like 1,000 years. But, there were more tests as well, and this may just be a badly written article.
2. I am absolutely astonished that there is only a 2X difference in forecasting accuracy between the bottom 2.5% and the top 2.5%. To me that's a very low amount of difference between the intelligence level of the very brightest and the mouth breathers. I feel that this relatively small difference is orders of magnitude smaller than my own anecdotal observations indicate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1)There is a very reliable way to assess the accuracy. You wait for them to die. If the researchers did not do this then the study is flawed.
2)The way you breathe has no effect on your IQ. But I am also surprised especially when you consider that about 2% of people have an IQ less than 70(top 2% have IQ greater than 130)
Re: (Score:1)
One of the things I learned as an adult is that you are not given enough information to function as expected and demanded in a modern capitalist society.
A buddy of mine turned down promotion because he was told it would involve coming in on weekends and working long hours. This would have been a small pay inc
Incredibly Redundant Study (Score:1)
Having a study about this says so much about the researchers, and they didn't even realize it....
So, they're comparing.. (Score:2)
The Gumpian Conjecture (Score:1)
I don't much care for measuring people's "intelligence".
First of all, what does that even mean? All your definitions end up circular. The intelligent people are the people who scored higher on the test that measures intelligence. The score doesn't predict, in any meaningful way, whether people will behave wisely in everyday life, or make significant artistic contributions. It doesn't even predict if they'll be able to beat you at chess.
Second, the mostly meaningless conclusions that you do draw are alwa
Re: (Score:2)
> Some people act dumb. Maybe humanity would be better served by spending our time and resources teaching them to act smarter.
Is that possible? If we had no limits with the money and we can spot a dumb kid at the very early age and we put the best teacher in the world to educate that dumb kid for years. Will that make that dumb kid a smart kid? Is there an upper limit of how smart the kid can become? How much effort would that require? What would be the sweet spot?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's do a study! No, on second thought, sounds like a lot of work. Instead, let's institute a eugenics program based on astrology and blood type.
Also why the top 1% wealth are not top 1% IQ (Score:2)
100 smartest people (top 1%) look at the high risk/high reward situations and realize their chances of success are low, so none take it.
100 above average people look at the same high risk/high reward situation and say, "WOW, I GOT THIS!". 95% fail, but 5 of them make it.
For this reason, most of the 1% wealthiest people are above average intelligence but not the smartest. I am talking people with an IQ above 115, but below 130.
Re: (Score:2)
Lowest 2.5%? (Score:2)
People in the lowest 2.5% would generally be within the threshold of intellectual disability. That's getting into the level where, among other things, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled such persons cannot be subject to the death penalty because they are not capable of understanding their own actions. I would certainly HOPE that those in the top 2.5% could make better forecasts of the future than persons who are intellectually disabled.
People needed a RESEARCH to find that out? (Score:2)
I guess they too were in the lower 2.5%.
Benefit (Score:2)