New IQ Research Shows Why Smarter People Make Better Decisions (phys.org) 141
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:4, 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:5, 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:in other words (Score:4, Informative)
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:in other words (Score:4, Informative)
>If you study philosophy, we do have multiple good definitions of cognition
philosophy is not science, it cannot make better predictions about how the mind works, than neuroscientists
As a Philosopher... yeah I agree. In fact, I think it was Quine who suggested that if you wanted to know how the mind works you should study Psychology instead (I'm paraphrasing).
> 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.
Well, maybe. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that because we have multiple competing definitions, which can really be thought of as multiple competing theories in a scientific sense, that they are not actually good ("good" is another one of those super loaded words so what is "good" to you might not be "good" to me, unless we further clarify what the standards are). We are not in possession of all of the data as far as the human brain goes, so our definitions must be based on incomplete information. I think if you spent the time studying Epistemology you'd find the working definitions used there actually are pretty good, well thought out, internally consistent, etc. (not saying this is worth your time though). As they say, don't make perfect the enemy of good.
> 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 exactly they mean. They belong in the same set of words in my original comment
Words are... weird. To say we don't know what they mean is a bit off, because there is not necessarily any need for a word to be more than a fuzzy box around a concept that we employ in our day to day lives. Some people think that words spring up from the concepts or objects which they describe, as though there was some Platonic form of that thing which the word must truly apply to; I find this strange and too metaphysical for my tastes. As I see it, words are invented by humans to describe something we see/experience; they end up being as vague as our understanding, but they still serve their primary purpose, which is to communicate our lived experience of the world with another human. The idea of knowing something, or the idea of reasoning, they are not foreign to us: we understand what someone says when they say "I know that person" or "I reasoned that this would happen based [evidence, causal links, etc.]" even without pre-agreeing on what the definition is.
When we then set about crafting our technical definitions for use in Philosophy or Science is the only point at which we start to run into this trouble that we're talking about. Partly, I think, because we are trying to use a word to put a box around a process that we do not possess all of the data on (knowledge/reasoning). You will likely agree when I suggest that the solution to the problem is further scientific/empirical study; but, I don't think it's necessary to say that absent a complete and perfect definition we shouldn't use the best ones that we have available to us at the moment.
Re: (Score:3)
As a Philosopher...
Discussion of meaning of words when done in front of people not familiar with basics of epistemology will inevitably be misperceived as endorsement of relativism. I recommend against doing so in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
> If you study philosophy, we do have multiple good definitions of cognition
philosophy is not science, it cannot make better predictions about how the mind works, than neuroscientists
This is very low bar, because neuroscientists have no understanding how the mind works, but they do have some understanding how the brain physiology functions. These are not the same. We are very far away from coherent Hegelian proof of how the mind works, if anything LLM's notable lack of ability to know and reason is a proof to the contrary.
To demonstrate the point - we are communicating abstract ideas formed by our subjective experiences from which both of us (hopefully) derive some meaning. However, h
Re:in other words (Score:4, Insightful)
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:3)
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:3)
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)
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.
Humans also developed computers that can do arithmetic, and those computers can produce arithmetic answers at far higher rates with far higher accuracy. These arithmetic calculating machines are in no way limited by the abilities of their human creators. Perhaps one reason is that it's far easier to scale computing machines than human brains.
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: in other words (Score:2)
I agree that humans mimic LLMs with respect to probability judgements.
That's backwards. LLMs mimic humans with respect to probability judgements. But that's just a part of the "intelligence" model. And the other parts which humans utilize (to greater or lesser degrees) is sadly missing from LLMs.
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.
Not so much. Humans are pretty good at separating the volume level of a signal from its veracity. Much to the chagrin if many protest groups.
Classic "expert systems" are pretty good at validating he quality of training data. Using the technique of back propogation, the weight value o
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: in other words (Score:2)
We never needed "AI" or LLMs to think we're nothing more than machines.
Duh (Score:5, 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:2)
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
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 polyglot groups.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean by "go to the dogs"
Presumably those are next after the cats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the problem?
Imagine if a legislation passed that says every dwelling must have access to pasture with barbed wire fence around it. Such policy would not be hard to implement in rural settings, but completely infeasible in a dense urban settings. This case is just like that.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Interesting)
You haven't articulated an actual problem though. I live in a city with one of the largest foreign-born populations in the U.S., and the only "problem" I've found is having so many ethnic food options it can be hard to choose.
I'm not sure why you are demanding the Democrats pretend falsehoods are true just because people believe them. Where the Democrats failed is in presenting an alternative narrative to the false one. Instead of saying "that's a lie" you need to present your own truth. They failed to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except we weren't talking about a rural community. Springfield, Ohio is a city of over 50,000 residents and is within easy commuting distance of Dayton, which has over 125,000 residents. We aren't talking about a community of 1,000 people in the middle of nowhere.
Sure, if you dump 1,000 people into a city of 1,000, it's going to cause all sorts of issues unrelated to who those people are. But the only way that happens is if some policy maker specifically chooses to do something like that. You wouldn't get a
Re: (Score:2)
90% are urban yet we get held back by the lower 10%. Yes, I said lower. fuck them...
This is EXACTLY why Trump was elected.
Re: (Score:2)
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: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:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
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)
There area also a lot of people who say that "nobody is eating cats" and that's not exactly true either [bbc.com]. I'm personally sick of the partisan rhetoric. Talking heads blatantly ignore the half of the facts they don't like, and it's pathetic.
You're both-siding "residents of X are doing Y" with "someone somewhere did Y sometime"
Saying nobody is fucking goats in Boston is not partisan rhetoric ignoring the fact that somewhere a goat has in fact been fucked.
Those are not two "halves" of the truth unless you're fucking a goat in Boston. ARE YOU, RobinH? How do I know, because if I have to make stuff up to bring the media's attention to this goat fucking problem, I learned that skill from a highly regarded, Yale educated hillbilly that certainly kno
Re:Duh (Score:5, 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:Duh (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
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 must be a genius!
Re: Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
I have met plenty of rude idiots who explain their own shortcomings as misunderstood genius.
I used to think I was really smart. I was young, dumb, and arrogant. As I grew older I met more and more fantastically talented people and that put my own abilities into perspective. We are all on this world for a very short amount of time and the truth of the matter is that you can only be an expert in so many things, and your worldview will always be limited because it is constrained by your own experiences.
In grad school, the one thing I noticed about the top tier students was a basic humility. They were never embarrassed to admit if they did not know something or if they were wrong. In fact, they were excited when they were presented with something they did not know because it was an opportunity for learning. That is real intelligence and IQ tests do not test for it.
The burning desire to correct someone when they are wrong has nothing to do with intelligence. Children do that to assert dominance over one another. It is an emotional response that has nothing to do with intellect.
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 must be a genius!
Intelligence didn't ask to be contained within reality. Reality demanded that.
Feelings over facts, is the component that is bullshit. If you can prove otherwise within the realm that matters (reality) instead of the imaginary (your own mind), then go on and do it. As the parent clarified, actual emotional intelligence is knowing how to react to your own feelings intelligently and rationally instead of allowing feelings to do that caveman thing and go all emotional on your ass.
Needless to say, many selfis
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligence didn't ask to be contained within reality. Reality demanded that
Hahaha, "reality is the problem". I really hope that part was a joke.
At any rate, I have never argued feelings over facts. I have never once said things shouldn't be brought up due to feelings. What I have said repeatedly is that most of the time one shouldn't have to choose between the two. With even moderate social skills one can be both inciteful and not be insulting in doing so. If one can't muster up the effort to develop even just moderate social skills it's not the fault of others.
The reality is peop
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:2)
That depends on who you have to deal with. There are a LOT of really stupid people in management in most companies, and when you get pulled into meeting after meeting for really stupid things, and then you can't get your work done as a result, while it may be possible to avoid calling out the stupid managers, there comes a point where many people will tell them to go away and let you get the actual important work done. Just do what you are told, just so you don't get in trouble is what you are suggestin
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Skam240 reads a couple lines, then has a shitting hemorrhage. Reeee! Note, I have no trouble being rude to it because I have zero respect for it.
Coming from the guy completely mischaracterizing what I just said. The problem is that the two of you think that telling people better ways of doing things inherently means pissing people off. Meanwhile, people with healthy social skills don't have this problem.
Having normal, healthy social skills isn't being a "yes man" and at no point have I ever stated in any of this that people shouldn't speak up when they have a good idea. What I have said is that if speaking up regularly pisses people off the problem is very likely you and not everyone else because this isn't a normal thing for people with healthy social skills.
I also see you complaining about pissing people off at work with your "good ideas" all the time on Slashdot. It comes up pretty much every time you tell everyone how smart you are which is every single time anything about intelligence or cognitive ability comes up on Slashdot. It's like you cant wait for your next opportunity. I normally ignore your constant self aggrandizing but after a while it just gets annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Nobody has ever won a fight by announcing how many pull-ups they can do.
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)
It appears that patience isn't a virtue when 99% of the world appears infantile in their mental capacity.
Ineed. Things take time. I sometimes have good ideas years after I looked into something.
Forget society. It does humanity no good if the next Einstein is stuck in a dead-end job due to narcissism or jealousy.
But that is were we are headed. One quite alarming thing I recently learned was that new professorial positions are almost always filled now with exemplary academic performers. These are people that managed to game the publications game, never caused a stir and never did anything outside their field or risky or really experimental or really long-term. Exactly the people that have no business getting into such a position
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:3)
93th percental
Based on this, I somehow doubt that.
Re: (Score:2)
That is because you are dumb. The dumb often mistake spelling and grammar as a sign of high intelligence, because it was so hard for them to learn it. It is not. It is mostly irrelevant unless your aspiration in life is to be a bureaucrat.
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)
"The research used data from a nationally representative sample of people over 50 in England"
says "over (age) 50" not a cohort of 50.
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)
IQ is simply ability to handle complexity. It has no bearing on what to apply the ability to and what to use it for. I call that meta-ability "wisdom" and observe that most people do not have any.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, replace "smart" with "wise" in my statement and we are in agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People often confuse IQ with intelligence, but at the same time, will give more credit than is due to those with a lower level of intelligence because "they know that they don't know a lot". Knowledge vs. Wisdom. And yes, there are some very STUPID people who test well, but the initial confusion is what this "article" is based on. IQ research linked to those with higher intelligence is going to cause reactions like yours. Remember, the stupid people are the reason why fascist dictators and wannabe d
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.
It's like any other strength, having it and applying it are totally different things. Nobody uses all of their potential all of the time. It comes down to willpower and training. Like being able to paint well but never finishing a painting, being strong and not knowing how to fight or lacking endurance, being smart and buying crypto.. IQ tests are like pull-up competitions, it'll help you find strong people, not people that don't suck at everything.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how high general intelligence works. If you take two persons, one with high general intelligence and one with average general intelligence, that have the same knowledge about something - the high IQ person will be better on drawing logical and reasonable conclusions about the situation than the average IQ person. The high IQ person will also learn new knowledge faster than the average IQ person, and with this new knowledge, the difference between the two regarding conclusions will widen.
You are
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:5, Interesting)
Re:Predictions = planning ahead (Score:5, Interesting)
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 because of this.
Re:Predictions = planning ahead (Score:5, Interesting)
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:3)
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)
So, they're comparing.. (Score:3)
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:3)
Lowest 2.5%? (Score:3)
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)
tautology (Score:2)
True is true
Junk Science (Score:2)
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.
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).
So you compare two groups of outliers at the extreme of your statistical IQ model to how well they predict their position in your life expectancy model. And you "control" for differences in health, lifestyle and genetic longevity. This is comparing the group of people with IQ's under 70 that includes all the people who are mentally disabled with the group with IQ's above 135 including every genius in the world. Why is anyone taking this seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
mental retards are not disabled!
They mentally still function. Their cognition is impaired in various ways to various degrees.
Visually disabled people are blind. Visually impaired people use glasses or can't drive, etc.
Retards; for short, literally are mentally retarded by something; which literally using the meaning of the words could be temporary. The amount of drugs you take can retard your mental function...
Fuck all you ignorant PC morons! Wish you could grow up... but a moron is unable to get past the l
Chess, not Checkers. (Score:2)
This is such common knowledge there's a traditional aphorism for it. See subject.
The real benefit of this research:
"Money please!"
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:3)
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: (Score:2)
Why is the board discussing such an unimportant, mundane task? The people who work in the building should be empowered to just fix any problem they come across in their facility. That the employees either A) didn't care enough to solve an obvious problem at work or B) didn't think they were empowered to solve a problem indicates to me that this company is doomed.
One of the board members is in charge of that facility. As a 501(c)(3) organization, we don't have a lot of employees, but members. So we get into the weeds with a lot of things that happen in everyday life.
I'm the CEO - I'm interesting in the details of why this charitable organization is doomed. Because your assessment is eerily similar to their idea that we had to spend many thousands of dollars and possibly months to fix the problem, get the local code and state requirements involved. when I fixed the
Re: (Score:2)
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's nothing to discuss. That doesn't fulfil the psychological need these people have, hence the slow agonizing march towards a "solution" where everyone gets to pontificate. Doesn't matter if the solution is bad or sub-optimal, the process of getting there is their raison d'etre.
Get one of them in a room by themselves isolated from the group and they'd likely say "so just clean it off" and be eager to move on.
Egos. People who are addicted to hearing themselves talk. Very often they bring value or a skill, but can also be insufferable. There is a strong "need to be right" in people, especially those who might have some insecurity mixed in with their egos (most ego cases I know have a combo of the two)
So in this case, we got into an escalation of things that "had to be done, with everyone adding to the mix.
It reminds me of the old astronaut pen vs pencil meme. NASA wanted something for Astronauts to write wi
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.
I often assume that these kinds of situations come from lack of knowledge. In this case: " spray paint is removable from this door using spray ble
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.