[MMX2010]

Quote:

Is IQ an effective predictor of future success?

Wrong question.

Correct question is, "Is IQ an effective predictor of future success compared to other methods of predicting success?"

One way someone could predict success is through randomness. Randomly hire people from a full list of people, including criminals, losers, and lawyers. Is complete randomness more predictive of future success than hiring based on IQ?

No, or course not. So IQ is more predictive of success than randomness.

You could also hire people by reading resumes and conducting personal interviews. Is this more predictive of success than hiring by IQ?

No, it's not. So IQ is a better predictor of success than resumes and personal interviews.

You could hire people based on how hard they work. But scientists have defined hard work as "the ability to delay gratification in the present, in order to achieve better results in the future". And they created a brilliant experiment called "Don't eat the marshmallow!" to measure hard work - (go look up the Ted talk on YouTube, featuring the experiment's designer).

The marshmallow experiment is extremely predictive of future success, which is both frightening (because the experiment was conducted on preverbal toddlers), and comforting (because the conclusions confirm our suspicions that hard work is important). Even more comforting, delayed gratification can theoretically be taught to people, like any other skill.

Most importantly, however, hard work was less predictive of future success than IQ is.

If you disagree with me, then you have an objection to Science-in-General, not to IQ-in-Particular - no matter how hard you try to tell yourself it's the other way around.

[MMX2010]

(09-12-2016 11:52 PM)Delta Wrote:  

What is the definition of "success?" If we're talking professional success, i.e. making lots of money, then the answer is a resounding yes. That is intuitively obvious, empirically proven and beyond debate.

All things considered, do intelligent people tend to lead more happy, fulfilling lives? That one I'm not at all sure about. In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if super high IQs correlate negatively with happiness. So many people who are unbelievably good at analyzing abstract concepts most people could never hope to understand, are absolute shit at utilizing their high-powered minds to get what they want out of life.

The reason that we define success as making money, is because the amount of money you have is objectively measurable. And science can most reliably study objectively measurable things.

Science can also mostly reliably study non-measurable things like happiness, but this requires turning subjective experience into something objectively measurable, like self-reported numbers.

This second path is, ironically, exactly like reducing the totality of a woman's existence into the 1-10 scale, which women ironically complain about because: (1) There isn't universal agreement over what a 7, 8, 9, or 10 actually mean. (2) There are wide ranges of opinion for every specific girl, meaning that whenever I declare Rachel Neiberding to be a 10, there's always at least someone who says, "Ewww!, she's like a 5!" or "She's attractive for sure, but she's more like an 8." (3) Reducing women's attractiveness to a numerical scale is simultaneously reductionist and demeaning, because other factors that lead to a woman being attractive are left out.

The irony is, of course, members of the RVF have an intuitive understanding of those limitations and so they avoid those limitations by using the 1-10 scale properly: as both a highly predictive guide that works because a lot of men give their opinions, creating an accurate average AND AS a non-binding guide. I will probably never get with Rachel, but anyone who tells me she's either a 5 or an 8 has no bearing on my belief that she's a 10.

The larger irony is, as should be obvious, that IQ functions in the exact same way as the 1-10 scale, but most RVF members who disagree with IQ haven't read the studies, nor are familiar with the SJWs backlash against those studies. So their objections to IQ contain the exact same hallmarks as women's objections to the 1-10 scale.

[redpillage]

"If you disagree with me, then you have an objection to Science-in-General"

"The larger irony is, as should be obvious, that IQ functions in the exact same way as the 1-10 scale"



Okay, I can only take so much. This is where I get off...

[MMX2010]

Laughter isn't an argument.

IQ turns the subjective experience of "intelligence" into a number. We use the number because it is objective, measurable, and allows us to compare two people (or large groups of people) to declare who is smarter than who, and which is smarter than which.

The 1-10 scale turns the subjective experience of "female beauty" into a number. We use the number because it is objective, measurable, and allows us to compare two women (or large groups of women) to declare who is more beautiful than who, and which is more beautiful than which.

-----

Also, I'm sure we've had multiple experiences when we're smarter and more deeply informed than a woman who assumes that she is equally well-informed. When we explain ourselves neutrally and accurately, these women always cut-and-paste parts of our argument (out of context), then snark laugh and leave, pretending that if we chase them, this proves we don't know what we're talking about.

This is exactly what redpillage did. He has no counter-arguement, but doesn't want to surrender his position, either.

[RichieP]

There are more predictive qualities:

http://www.businessinsider.com/grit-is-m...013-5?IR=T

Specifically, 'Grit'. Harder to quantify, but there's research that shows that "the ability to withstand stress and move past failures to achieve a goal is the best indicator of future success".

"She studied what types of people were successful at West Point Military Academy, the National Spelling Bee, in classrooms, and beyond. Again, she said, "it wasn't social intelligence. It wasn't good looks, physical health, and it wasn't IQ. It was grit."

Makes sense really.

IQ IMO is a good measure of something - but that something is probably "the cognitive capacity for exam performance and some forms of white-collar work", rather than "the ability to live a happy life and accumulate wealth".

[Peregrine]

Corollary: why does IQ have so much knicker twisting power? If I said race A has bigger dicks on average than race B, or race B is taller than race C, no one bats an eye. But if I say race A has higher IQs/intelligence than race B, there's always at least one person that trips out. Is it because IQ is harder to see at a glance, so easier to deny? Is it because we live in a largely mental economy, so IQ is very closely associated with value/worth in a way that physical traits are not? Is it because humans tend to associate the concept of self with their mind; therefore, statements about IQ go right to the ego?

Same seems to apply at an individual level. Tell a mate you're stronger than him and you'll get shoulder shrugs (assuming you are obviously stronger). If you say you're smarter, he's much more likely to get defensive.

Side thought, de Botton notes that there's no stigma attached to athletic trainers helping you work on your body. But there's a societal weirdness involved with visiting a psychologist to work on your mind/self.

[Delta]

(09-13-2016 07:19 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Corollary: why does IQ have so much knicker twisting power? If I said race A has bigger dicks on average than race B, or race B is taller than race C, no one bats an eye. But if I say race A has higher IQs/intelligence than race B, there's always at least one person that trips out. Is it because IQ is harder to see at a glance, so easier to deny? Is it because we live in a largely mental economy, so IQ is very closely associated with value/worth in a way that physical traits are not? Is it because humans tend to associate the concept of self with their mind; therefore, statements about IQ go right to the ego?

Same seems to apply at an individual level. Tell a mate you're stronger than him and you'll get shoulder shrugs (assuming you are obviously stronger). If you say you're smarter, he's much more likely to get defensive.

Side thought, de Botton notes that there's no stigma attached to athletic trainers helping you work on your body. But there's a societal weirdness involved with visiting a psychologist to work on your mind/self.

It seems like leftists assume that if you believe in race/IQ correlation, you must also support policies to mistreat the less intelligent race, possibly even to the point of eugenics. They project their collectivist mindset onto everyone else. The notion of treating people as individuals is difficult for some to conceive.

[Mr. Accuride]

On a statistical level (population versus population, overall versus overall), Scorpion is spot on. Given a large sample of higher IQ people versus lower IQ people, the higher IQ people will win out overall even if there are specific instances of lower IQ people outperforming higher IQ people.

On an individual level, based on my experiences with competing with many people who, during the time when I cared, I was grudgingly forced to admit that they were not only smarter than myself, but also had genius level intelligence, I have since learned that having high intelligence or high IQ is like having a computer that has more processing power. Applied to the same problem and using the same techniques/information, the computer with more processing power will beat out the computer with less processing power.

However, where you apply your processing power to matters greatly, as I have witnessed many geniuses squander their intelligence on something mind-numbingly stupid and thus have nothing to show for all that wonderful intelligence that they possess. Conversely, I ended up more successful in certain endeavors over my much smarter peers just by focusing what I had on certain problems for just a little bit longer than they did. However, I have also gotten blown out of the water in head to head competitions when they worked just as hard as I did, and the sieving element at the end of it all was natural born intelligence.

[MMX2010]

Quote:

Specifically, 'Grit'. Harder to quantify, but there's research that shows that "the ability to withstand stress and move past failures to achieve a goal is the best indicator of future success".

In science, you're always trying to determine how variable A affects variable B, or how strongly variable A correlates with variable B.

Screw ups happen when you try to determine how variable A affects variable A, or how strongly variable A correlates with variable A. This screw up is called a tautology. In words, a tautology sounds like, "Success is just the accomplishment of a goal, or series of goals."

In my opinion, calling "success" "grit" also sounds like a tautology, especially because you can't measure grit.

There's also the potential problem of "the graveyard of evidence" that N. N. Taleb explains in The Black Swan. Anytime you notice that successful people possess a specific trait, you're in danger of saying that this trait is highly associated with successful people. The danger is that it's possible for many more unsuccessful people to possess that trait. (How many mediocre singers and musicians practiced diligently for hours?) But these unsuccessful people are largely invisible, creating "the graveyard of evidence" - which means that a trait which is more prevalent in NON-successful people is wrongfully promoted as being highly correlated with success, because ONLY successful people were examined.

[MMX2010]

"Correlation is not equal to causation" is Science's equivalent of "CAUTION: The beverage you are about to enjoy is EXTREMELY HOT."

There are many ways to interpret this warning, which appears on every McDonald's coffee cup, as well as Starbucks, and probably some others.

Women and children often opt for the unsophisticated "Mommy Loves Us" interpretation. McDonald's is mommy. All of her customers are idiot three year old children. If mommy doesn't tell her children that the coffee is hot, an unfortunately large number of her children will burn themselves. (People who choose this interpretation will often get mad, complaining how arrogant McDonald's is to assume that customers can't notice how hot coffee is.)

Cynical capitalists are smart enough to recognize that lawsuits are relevant to the warnings, but they take their knowledge way too far. They insist that tomorrow at 10:42am Eastern Standard Time, a hoarde of no less than 200,000 individuals will simultaneously order McDonald's coffee, and splash it all in their faces, and then scream bloody murder. They will then sue McDonald's all at once for so much money that YOUR TAX DOLLARS will be confiscated by the government to bail out McDonald's. Except, gentlemen a heroic genius predicted this very thing would happen, and printed the warning on the cups! And so, this plot was foiled so confidently by those little words of warning that the nefarious plot shall never happen.

The correct interpretation is that each cup of coffee has a very small chance of severely burning people, and that lawyers sue companies for negligence. Since those warnings are so cheap to print, compared to losing a fluke lawsuit, those warnings area printed everywhere.

"Correlation doesn’t equal causation" is attached via implication to every scientific paper ever published, as protection against a very unlikely, but not impossible, lawsuit.

Just as there is no danger of 200,000 people deliberately pouring hot coffee on themselves to extort McDonald's, there is no danger of hoarde of people deliberately (or even accidentally) misinterpreting the conclusions of a scientific paper to extort scientists. Nor are racists inclined to read scientific studies about IQ differences between the races and be empowered and encouraged to murder brownskins. (As should be obvious, irrational desire to commit abuse along racial lines is associated with low IQ individuals, and is negatively correlated among people who read scientific literature.)

So, for fuck's sake, DO NOT remind anyone that "correlation doesn't equal causation". We already know that it doesn't, and there's no hoarde of idiots who need to be reminded of this.

[Excelsior]

(09-13-2016 07:19 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Corollary: why does IQ have so much knicker twisting power? If I said race A has bigger dicks on average than race B, or race B is taller than race C, no one bats an eye. But if I say race A has higher IQs/intelligence than race B, there's always at least one person that trips out. Is it because IQ is harder to see at a glance, so easier to deny? Is it because we live in a largely mental economy, so IQ is very closely associated with value/worth in a way that physical traits are not? Is it because humans tend to associate the concept of self with their mind; therefore, statements about IQ go right to the ego?

No, it is because discussion of IQ have been weaponized against certain non-white groups and used to justify their mistreatment, dismissal, and other forms of outright hostility toward them for a very long time. These groups are not used to hearing IQ discussed in a benign way intended to have no negative implications toward them because such discussions have historically been the exception, not the rule. When they hear about IQ, it is usually linked (or very soon to be linked) to some sort of explanation as to why they are inherently inferior to certain others and to facilitate some sort of justification of any systematic or other discrimination/degradation of their people (who are now told that their inherent idiocy is the cause of their socio-economic state and it has nothing to do with any malicious policy of any other group).

Such vitriol regarding the discussion of IQ has historically been the rule, not the exception. It is for this reason that those who tend to engage extensively and enthusiastically in such discussions have a tendency, not coincidentally, to belong to groups who have (when it comes to the topic of IQ) historically been painted in a favorable light relative to others. This is also the real reason why certain people and certain groups who have had different (read: less favorable) treatment within the context of said discussions do not trust those discussions. They really have been given no reason to do so. Don't expect them to.

[MMX2010]

Excelsior is dead right about the history of IQ discussion.

Science has two extremely embarrassing episodes.

The first is phrenology, which posited that bigger brains means more intelligence. This was proven untrue, but it used to be very strongly believed. Some researchers attempted to prove that Whites have bigger brains than Blacks, and that men have bigger brains than women.

The first problem was that the researchers knew in advance whether a skull belonged to a male, a female, a Black person, or a White person. The second problem is that they were using bird seed to measure skull volume. Bird seed is compressible, meaning that vigorously shaking the skull will cause more bird seed to settle inside of it, causing as much as a 20% volume measurement, depending on how much shaking you did. You know what happened: if the skull belonged to a male or a White dude, the researchers shook a lot; if to a Black dude or a woman, not at all. This produced the expected "Bigger brains equals more intelligence." conclusion. I don't remember how long this pseudoscience was believed, but I do know that if you measure skull volume with either buckshot or water, there is no statistically significant difference in brain size between the races nor the genders.

The second embarrassment involved the world's first official scientifically accurate drawings of the male and female skeleton. This happened when men were believed to be superior to women, and the skeletons showed significant differences between shoulder width, rib cage volume, hip width, and skull size. Sexist comments ensued, and the one I remember most was something like, "Female skeletons have smaller rib cages, because women are averse to physical activity, and their skulls resemble children's skills so that they can better relate to children."

Another researcher drew both skeletons correctly, depicting very little differences between male and female skeletons. (Yes, I know that trained professionals on TV shows like CSI and Bones can correctly identify sex via skeletons, BUT you and I certainly can't. The differences are too subtle for an untrained person's eyes.) That researcher died as a discredited scientist, despite being correct.

So Excelsior is correct, and feminists do have a point about the inherent Gammatude of many men.

[redpillage]

@MMX2010 - If you're ever in Paris. My friend Pierre has a weekly dinner and I really would love you to come.

[MOVSM]

This has already been addressed, long ago:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
President Calvin Coolidge

[ball dont lie]

(09-14-2016 07:44 AM)MOVSM Wrote:  

This has already been addressed, long ago:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
President Calvin Coolidge

The problem with this kind of thinking is that very smart people don't need to "press on" because they learn faster, make fewer mistakes and generally are in more favorable positions to begin with... due to their intelligence.

Its what was argued above by MMX2010. Studies have been done to see how much "persistence" or "grit" as you call it, how much this working hard factors into success. Its very important. IQ has been shown to be more important still. IQ is a multiplier, not an addition. That's probably the best way to think about it.

I spent my youth with a group of guys who ended up with Phds in Math and Hard sciences, with the less intelligent ones going to Penn and U of Chicago for Economics. Once you see first hand how far high IQ can take a person its laughable people argue about it. The opposite it true. My family was dirt poor. Go sit in the Govt Human Services office for 6 hours doing paperwork for food stamps and watch the people there.

But that's just good old fashioned facts of life experience. Read the peer reviewed IQ studies if everyday reality isn't enough.

[TigerMandingo]

Just to add some levity to the thread, I was recently listening to the Adam Carolla podcast and he went on a rant about how in the US we put the lowest IQ people in important public service positions. The terrible customer service we often experience at the hands of the DMV, cops, TSA can be directly attributed to them often being dumb as hell and not understanding how to properly handle situations.

I also think that the aggressive behavior of US cops is at least partially explained by their low IQs.

[XPQ22]

(09-13-2016 11:38 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

No, it is because discussion of IQ have been weaponized against certain non-white groups and used to justify their mistreatment, dismissal, and other forms of outright hostility toward them for a very long time. These groups are not used to hearing IQ discussed in a benign way intended to have no negative implications toward them because such discussions have historically been the exception, not the rule. When they hear about IQ, it is usually linked (or very soon to be linked) to some sort of explanation as to why they are inherently inferior to certain others and to facilitate some sort of justification of any systematic or other discrimination/degradation of their people (who are now told that their inherent idiocy is the cause of their socio-economic state and it has nothing to do with any malicious policy of any other group).

People only really flipped their lids when Nazi ideology came about. The theories of racial superiority of whites was certainly not anything new; Europeans had been using it to justify atrocities for centuries. The Nazi's only innovation was they stepped it up a level and claimed not only were non-Europeans inferior, there were inferior subgroups within the European White population.

Germany wanted to be a colonial power like England, Belgium, France, the US, and so forth, except due to historical and geographic reasons, those nations had gotten the jump on them and all the prime real estate in Africa, the West Indies, South America and elsewhere was spoken for. No matter - we'll just colonize our back yard instead.

Nazis: "You say there are inherent differences in racial characteristics that justified that expansionism. We agree. Let us tell you about what we've noticed about Poles, Jews, Slavs..."

Europe: "NOW WAIT A MINUTE"

[MMX2010]

Quote:

Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence.

Not true for two reasons.

The first is that he is PRESIDENT Calvin Coolidge, not EPIC SCIENTIST Calvin Coolidge. Citing politicians over scientists to discuss scientific topics is idiotic.

The second concerns tautologies. "Success" and "Persistence: the act of pressing on until you achieve success" are The Exact Same Fucking Thing. Meaning, you're measuring whether Success causes Success, or whether Success is highly correlated with Success.

Yes, they cause each other. And yes, they extremely highly correlated. But tautologies are useless. Tautologies are like telling someone who asked you, "How do I become more financially successful?" that he needs to make significantly more money. Or like someone who asks you, "How do I make my baseball team better?" that his team needs to consistently score more runs than the other team.

[MOVSM]

(09-14-2016 09:40 AM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

(09-14-2016 07:44 AM)MOVSM Wrote:  

This has already been addressed, long ago:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
President Calvin Coolidge

The problem with this kind of thinking is that very smart people don't need to "press on" because they learn faster, make fewer mistakes and generally are in more favorable positions to begin with... due to their intelligence.

Its what was argued above by MMX2010. Studies have been done to see how much "persistence" or "grit" as you call it, how much this working hard factors into success. Its very important. IQ has been shown to be more important still. IQ is a multiplier, not an addition. That's probably the best way to think about it.

I spent my youth with a group of guys who ended up with Phds in Math and Hard sciences, with the less intelligent ones going to Penn and U of Chicago for Economics. Once you see first hand how far high IQ can take a person its laughable people argue about it. The opposite it true. My family was dirt poor. Go sit in the Govt Human Services office for 6 hours doing paperwork for food stamps and watch the people there.

But that's just good old fashioned facts of life experience. Read the peer reviewed IQ studies if everyday reality isn't enough.

I disagree. Tesla died alone, in debt. Cervantes frequented debtor's jail. Shakespeare was supported by Queen Elizabeth. Diogenes the Cynic was homeless. Galileo Galilei was excommunicated. Cesare Borgia went from scourge of Italy to a hired gun in Navarra. Wright Brothers never became rich off their invention. Einstein drew a professor's salary. Meriwether Lewis (of Lewis and Clark) suicided. These are merely examples off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.
I personally ran into a PHD in Los Angeles who was homeless. My PHD friends are nothing more than engineers. John Moses Browning (PBUH) was only successful because of his brother's business acumen.
The phenomenon was well known to the ancients, as reflected in mythology--Jason of the Golden Fleece fame died while sleeping under the stern of his ship Argo, which having rotten fell on him.

Thus, the claim that very smart people don't need to "press on"--is complete and utter bullshit. If anything it is them who must press on, because they can fall into an over reliance on their ability, which may or may not pull them out of trouble. Lincoln failed to be elected to 7 offices before his presidency. Edison pushed himself for ever more inventions. His goal was always to create a small invention every ten days and a big invention every six months.

"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety nine percent perspiration." Thomas Alva Edison

I'm not disputing the usefulness of intelligence, and neither does Coolidge. I've visited welfare offices myself. But if you don't have persistence, it won't do you any good. Even the DNA research (very interesting stuff) is done by sifting through mind-numbing amount of data, and you can only get through it via sheer willpower.

Incredibly smart people can, and with stunning regularity do make horrifically stupid decisions and conclusions, sometimes in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. What Marx alone is worth.

[MOVSM]

(09-14-2016 12:33 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

"Success" and "Persistence: the act of pressing on until you achieve success" are The Exact Same Fucking Thing. Meaning, you're measuring whether Success causes Success, or whether Success is highly correlated with Success.

We may be splitting hairs here--Coolidge is not exactly making a distinction between persistence and "pressing on". He maintains "press on" is the slogan of persistence. So, yes--they are the exact same fucking thing.

[MMX2010]

Quote:

disagree. Tesla died alone, in debt. Cervantes frequented debtor's jail. Shakespeare was supported by Queen Elizabeth. Diogenes the Cynic was homeless. Galileo Galilei was excommunicated. Cesare Borgia went from scourge of Italy to a hired gun in Navarra. Wright Brothers never became rich off their invention. Einstein drew a professor's salary. Meriwether Lewis (of Lewis and Clark) suicided. These are merely examples off the top of my head,

"Examples off the top of your head" are known as Non-Random Samples. They are so scientifically flawed and so unreliable that every scientific experiment gets rid of this particular type of error, every single time.

Quote:

I'm not disputing the usefulness of intelligence, and neither does Coolidge.

The less sophisticated question asks, "Is intelligence useful?" This is unsophisticated, because everyone agrees that it is, and no science is necessary to determine whether this is true.

The more sophisticated question asks, "When predicting success, is intelligence/IQ more reliable than any other form of prediction?" This is sophisticated, because the answer is not obvious, and because science is needed to determine whether it's true, and because you need to devise an accurate and easy-to-use method of comparison.

Coolidge simultaneously chooses the least sophisticated question AND denies the answer given by scientists who have studied the sophisticated question for decades.

And so do you.

[MMX2010]

Quote:

We may be splitting hairs here--Coolidge is not exactly making a distinction between persistence and "pressing on". He maintains "press on" is the slogan of persistence. So, yes--they are the exact same fucking thing.

And because they are the same fucking thing, Coolidge's answer is useless. Tautologies are useless because they don't tell you what to do; they just recycle the same term without giving you any applicable advice.

You have to become more financially successful, by changing your decisions to acquire more money. You'll acquire more money by being financially successful. You'll know you're being financially successful when the money in your bank account is increasing. Stupid.

[MOVSM]

(09-14-2016 01:57 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Coolidge simultaneously chooses the least sophisticated question AND denies the answer given by scientists who have studied the sophisticated question for decades.

Coolidge has not answered questions since 1933.

Here is a very scientific Terman's study. Or article about it, rather. It does confirm your assertion. However:

Quote:

But not all of these high IQ subjects were so successful. Researcher Melita Oden, who had carried on the research after Terman's death, decided to compare the 100 most successful individuals (group "A") to the 100 least successful (group "C"). While they essentially had the exact same IQs, only a few people from group C had become professionals, most earned just slightly above the average yearly income, and they had higher rates of alcoholism and divorce than individuals from group A.

What could explain this disparity? If IQ predicts success, why did these individuals with similar intelligence scores fare so differently in life?

Terman had noted that as children the individuals in group A tended to exhibit "prudence and forethought, willpower, perseverance, and the desire to excel." Later as adults, those from group A tended to rate higher than those from group C on three key traits: goal-orientation, self-confidence, and perseverance.

This suggests that while IQ can play a role in life success, personality traits are also important factors in determining outcomes.

[MMX2010]

Quote:

But not all of these high IQ subjects were so successful. Researcher Melita Oden, who had carried on the research after Terman's death, decided to compare the 100 most successful individuals (group "A") to the 100 least successful (group "C"). While they essentially had the exact same IQs, only a few people from group C had become professionals, most earned just slightly above the average yearly income, and they had higher rates of alcoholism and divorce than individuals from group A.

Why did the researcher choose individuals with essentially the same IQs?

I know the answer, but I want to see if you know the answer.

[nomadbrah]

(09-14-2016 12:57 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Excelsior is dead right about the history of IQ discussion.

Science has two extremely embarrassing episodes.

The first is phrenology, which posited that bigger brains means more intelligence. This was proven untrue, but it used to be very strongly believed. Some researchers attempted to prove that Whites have bigger brains than Blacks, and that men have bigger brains than women.

Phrenology was never about intelligence = brain size, but deducing personality traits from cranial form.

Brain size pr. bodysize is obviously correlated with intelligence. It's no co-incidence that apes, dolphins, elephants have the largest brains and are the smartest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscien...ain_volume

Quote:

Overall, larger brain size and volume is associated with better cognitive functioning and higher intelligence.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that larger brains predict greater intelligence.[12][13]

Not all of the brain is used for 'intelligence' though. Neanderthals had larger brains than Sapiens, but most of the difference was made up in difference in the Occupital Bun, the part of the brain associated with visual and spatial processing. Some of the larger brains of Northern Europeans (largest in the world) is probably also used for better nightvision.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...-find.html

Quote:

While English people had an average brain size of 1,416ml, the figure in Micronesia, which lies very near the equator, was just 1,200ml.

In contrast Scandinavians, the most northerly population tested, had a brain capacity of 1,484ml - more than 20 per cent higher than Micronesia.