[MOVSM]

(09-14-2016 03:20 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

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.

IDK, to have a study? Anything over 140 is a genius, so they were all geniuses. Essentialy, but not exactly the same IQ. Groups A and C thus had essentially same IQ, because they were all geniuses. They were selected into these groups because they were most or least successful in the study. What are you getting at, exactly?

Quote:

...psychologist Lewis Terman began to investigate the idea that genius-level IQ was associated with social and personal maladjustment. He selected approximately 1500 children from California between the ages of 8 and 12 who had an IQ of at least 140, the minimum required to be considered a genius. The average IQ score of the group of participants was 150, and 80 of these children had scores above 170.

[MMX2010]

Quote:

IDK, to have a study? Anything over 140 is a genius, so they were all geniuses. Essentialy, but not exactly the same IQ. Groups A and C thus had essentially same IQ, because they were all geniuses. They were selected into these groups because they were most or least successful in the study. What are you getting at, exactly?

The scientist who designed the study wanted to know whether high IQ correlates with social and personal maladjustment. (Interesting the you posted the purpose of the study last, instead of first.) So the variable called "Success in life" wasn't part of the study, and doesn't fit into the study. (While one may assume that good social and political adjustment are necessary for success in life, I think there are enough socially maladjusted people who are very successful because they don't work with people!)

So the study is fine, but your article was out of line for expanding the article's purpose beyond its intent. (And I recognized the screw up by noticing how the article spoke about IQ - which was the CONTROL variable (the one that is held constant).)

[MMX2010]

Nomadbrah,

I know that phrenology as a whole wasn't concerned with brain size's correlation to intelligence, but I also know that the flawed skull volume experiment happened as I described. My undergrad class spent an entire lecture discussing it.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(09-12-2016 07:15 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Since the Watson getting blackballed at NYU thread got derailed, here's a new thread to discuss it.

IQ when combined with various other metrics such as family background, school grades, and temperment is a moderate indicator of future success.

Genetics and culture play a part in determining IQ.

IQ is correlated to success of course.

But there is one correlaton that beats all others - your heritage, wealth and affluence. When you are born a 105 IQ average Joe to a super-powerful family and you don't sit on your hands, but study and work hard, then I can guarentee you that the likelihood of your success is 50 times of that if your were born with a 150 IQ to a piss-poor family.

There was a study done recently with regard to CEOs and super-wealthy folk. They found that 75% of them came from money. With businessmen it was a bit lower, but this self-made man myth is based on a few faulty observations. Even if you don't get seed money from your daddy, you take far greater risks and have access to better connections or even credit if your grandpa is worth 200 mio. $. Also seeing the success happen by your dad or grandfather reinforces a highly positive view about success and money.

[MOVSM]

(09-14-2016 08:58 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The scientist who designed the study wanted to know whether high IQ correlates with social and personal maladjustment. (Interesting the you posted the purpose of the study last, instead of first.) So the variable called "Success in life" wasn't part of the study, and doesn't fit into the study. (While one may assume that good social and political adjustment are necessary for success in life, I think there are enough socially maladjusted people who are very successful because they don't work with people!)

So the study is fine, but your article was out of line for expanding the article's purpose beyond its intent. (And I recognized the screw up by noticing how the article spoke about IQ - which was the CONTROL variable (the one that is held constant).)

See, this is the reason I posted the link to the study, so people could read it for themselves.
The whole maladjustment thing was the focus of Terman's original study. The success part was an offshoot that really became a study of its own, conducted by a different researcher after Terman's death. A "data exists, lets find other shit" kinda deal.

[MMX2010]

Quote:

The success part was an offshoot that really became a study of its own, conducted by a different researcher after Terman's death. A "data exists, lets find other shit" kinda deal.

I know. But in the very first article you posted, Kendra Cherry (the author) fucked up really badly by using a study that made everyone's IQ the same and commenting on the influence of IQ. The reason that this particular experiment controlled for IQ was that the experimenters didn't want IQ to have any influence.

Anonymous Bosch taught me how to play the Let's Guess What The Author Looks Like game, and I nailed it. Kendra Cherry is an average to below average woman, who is known mostly for trying new experimental techniques on problem children (not her own).

I guessed that profile because if IQ is highly predictive of future success, then her entire business model is unlikely to succeed. So she displays the importance of IQ whenever she can, even in ways that violate basic rules of scientific experimentation.

[Ezio31]

"IQ" does nothing. "I can" does everything. Cheesy as fuck, but also true as fuck.

[MMX2010]

Quote:

"IQ" does nothing. "I can" does everything. Cheesy as fuck, but also true as fuck.

Which is more heartwarming?

The fact that you're the fourth person to state this exact same wrong opinion on this thread?

The fact that you're doing so as a zero-rep member?

Or the fact that you put "IQ" in quotes, as if to imply that it's a made-up concept?

[Ezio31]

I had no idea people had already shared it. My reason to put IQ in quotes, is because it's not a dependable concept. Not entirely made up per se, but overblown.

[MOVSM]

(09-15-2016 12:00 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Anonymous Bosch taught me how to play the Let's Guess What The Author Looks Like game, and I nailed it. Kendra Cherry is an average to below average woman, who is known mostly for trying new experimental techniques on problem children (not her own).

That's kinda obvious. Taking a glance at women scientists reveals that none of them are supermodels, with exception of Hedy Lamarr.
I had a hypothesis once, until the feminists ruined it--that the uglier women had to use their brains to survive because leaning on men was not a sure thing for them.

(09-15-2016 12:00 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

I guessed that profile because if IQ is highly predictive of future success, then her entire business model is unlikely to succeed. So she displays the importance of IQ whenever she can, even in ways that violate basic rules of scientific experimentation.

Importance of high IQ was the focal point of the study, not sure how you can hold that against her... On the contrary, she showed that high IQ was not everything.

I still stand by my original claim, though I don't think there is one single predictor of success. Intelligence certainly helps, but as the above discussion shows the intellect alone is not a good predictor. Neither is persistence for that matter--stubborn follow through simply killed a lot of men without any gain in WW1. Business acumen? certainly helps, but there are plenty of failed businessmen. Game? yes, but how many millionaires are there on this forum?
Perusing through 48 laws of power, he shows how the same law succeeded and failed in different situations.
Drawing from that, it is reasonable to conclude that a better predictor would be a combination of attributes applied correctly.

[iop890]

If I see one more of these tryhard motivational-poster/dad-advice/"straight talk" posts formatted in short punchy sentences I'm going to fucking lose it.

I met a rich person once with a low IQ, what does that tell you?

Balls>IQ

Just tellin' it like it is.

*Drops mic*

^^^ Stop this shit.

[Ezio31]

@iop890, chill bro. I did not say that IQ was a made up concept, but it is overrated. Intelligence is an ordinal concept, measuring it cardinally is never going to be 100% accurate. You cannot quantify a qualitative concept. William James Sidis, the man with the highest IQ ever, was a socialist bum, who was even sent to a sanatorium once.
Pour conclure: Intelligence is a gift, the use determines the result thereof. The gift alone, and any numerical attempt to quantify it, is irrelevant.

[RichieP]

(09-13-2016 08:22 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

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.

It's not tautologous because there are decent measures of Grit, based on self-reporting of behaviors and tendencies. She boils questionnaire answers down to a "Grit Score", which turned out to correlate with success in the areas she studied. It's not perfect - accurate Grit score requires honest self-reporting - but IQ is not perfect either, and can also be distorted e.g. if someone practices IQ tests.

I like the concept of "graveyard of evidence". It's a good point to raise.

But if you look at her work, she controls for that. She studied a range of performers in each domain. She finds those with less Grit do worse, more do better, etc.

One problem Grit does have, is that it's probably just one of many necessary ingredients for success. Grit alone not enough (see: banging head against wall). Success also likely takes adaptability, intuition, strategic thinking, risk management etc.

[MMX2010]

Quote:

Importance of high IQ was the focal point of the study, not sure how you can hold that against her...

No, it wasn't!

The sentence that supports my argument is, "All of the individuals in the study had approximately the same IQ."

Here's an extended metaphor.

Let's pretend that Roosh, Giovanny, Tuthmosis, and G Manifesto are asked to make a top ten list of the most important game concepts. Though each list has overlap, there are enough significant differences between them that we can experimentally test whose gaming list is best.

Forty men between the ages of 21 and 27 are recruited to perform the experiment. Each of them is completely new to Game. They are randomly assigned to follow one of the four methods. They are all the race, and all have the same education level. For three months, they are given $2000 to spend on skin care products and clothes, and also given a link to Tanner's excellent masculine-style.com/blog. They are also instructed to follow the Strong Lifts exercise program.

Important: Notice how we're trying to equate age, race, education, style, and physical fitness for all of these men. We're equating these variables, because they are known to strongly influence female attraction, and we're equating them so that THEY DON'T influence the important end result, which is picking up women.

For three months, all four men attempt to pick up Ellen, and the results are compared. There is a clear first place winner, a clear second place winner, a clear third place winner, and a clear last place loser. The study is published and the last place loser notices that the average heights of the forty individuals isn't equal. First place = six-three; second = six-even; third=five-nine; last = five-six. Last place loser complains that the study is invalid because the heights are so different.

And he's correct. Male height is an extremely powerful predictor of attractiveness to females. The high correlation has been shown in multiple studies, throughout multiple cultures, and throughout multiple neighborhoods within the same culture, and thoroughout multiple time periods. The high correlation is so well-known that NOT equating height is grounds for being fired.

So the study you cited equated IQ so that it wouldn't influence the results. The point of the study WAS NOT to compare how influential IQ is, compared to the other variables. And making IQ constant in all individuals makes it impossible to make that comparison.

[MMX2010]

Quote:

It's not tautologous because there are decent measures of Grit, based on self-reporting of behaviors and tendencies.

Not my point.

If success is success, and grit is refusing to give up until you've succeeded, then success is grit and grit is success. That's all you need for a tautology, and no amount of self-reporting can change the fact that you've created a tautology.

If I told everyone that grit is refusing to give up until you've placated your ego enough to feel justified in complaining about the universe's unfairness, you'll probably laugh at my cynicism. But then you'll say, "No, that's not really grit. Grit is when you refuse to give up until you've ultimately succeeded." Tautology.

-----

Let's solve the tautology problem by defining grit in a way that isn't the same thing as success. How about, "Consistently performing above-average work in either the job you have, or the areas you're passionate about."?

If we go with this, the first problem is that not all jobs pay the same. So two equally gritty individuals, one with a $50 per hour job, the other with a $10 per hour job, will have very different levels of success. Worse, the top twenty paying jobs in America are clearly IQ-demanding. Which means our second definition of grit is really just IQ all over again.

If we focus on grit as it relates to passion, that's a graveyard of evidence problem, because it's easy to notice high passion among the highly successful people who stick out now. But it's very difficult to notice that high passion among the losers and the homeless who are no longer passionate.

Look at social research long enough, and you'll come to accept the beautiful efficiency of IQ testing, while also loathing the transparent attempts to elevate the unmeasurable and the minority-placting terms like "grit" above IQ. (Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of people who discredit IQ have never studied it.)

[MMX2010]

Quote:

I still stand by my original claim, though I don't think there is one single predictor of success.

,

Of course there isn't one single predictor of success. There are hundreds of millions of predictors of success, ranging from the suspect (worshiping highly unpopular gods, through expensive and illegal forms of sacrifice) to the plausible (hard work, and delayed gratification).

Imagine being a mom or a dad, and KNOWING that there are far more predictors of success than you can ever provide to your children AND KNOWING that some of those predictors contradict each other! (Tiger mommies are the opposite of unparenting mommies. YES, there is a philosophy called "Unparenting", which asserts that children fail because parents impose their biased life-approaches onto their children, and so children thrive when given zero guidance, though loving and supporting them is okay.)

More than anything, you would want the world's smartest people to non-biasedly evaluate all predictors of success, and then make a list ranked from Best Predictors of Success to Worst Predictors. Thankfully, this has been done! And while it's uncertain whether Unparenting or Sacrificing Homeless People to an Unpopular Self-Created God occupies the bottom of the list, there is no controversy that IQ occupies the second-highest slot.

You coming along and saying, "Oh there's more than one predictor of success..." is an unwinding of almost a century of devoted scientific study, so that you can replace it with what? A better predictor would be cool, but all I hear is uncertainty.

[EDantes]

I'd assume being able to turn IQ to practical use is the best measure of success. This is also what Sun Tzu in the Art of War said is what separates successful from failed generals; the latter can't turn their knowledge into practical application.

My dad was a "smart guy" but was pretty clueless about people and out of touch with reality so he just ended up working a mediocre corporate job which he hated, and marrying a selfish 'trophy wife' who was a level below his 'class'.

On the flip side I once met a guy who had an uncle who went from doing construction labor to making over 6 figures a year despite little to no formal education. Pretty much ever 'rags to riches' story I know of seems to follow this precept, whether we're talking Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, or actors like Brad Pitt.

Even though they tended to come from more educated families, they were still wise enough to know that simply going to college and formal learning were't the key to success, and that finding new and creative applications for knowledge even when they went against social convention was what it took to succeed.

Plus what determines mainstream 'success' varies by culture and era - being dumb but strong would be a much more successful trait in an African warzone, while being intelligent but wimpy might land you a decent corporate job but will likely prevent success with women. Seems that understanding the fundamental laws of the world and human nature which don't simply change with the economy and era is a better bet to me.

[MOVSM]

(09-15-2016 01:48 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The point of the study WAS NOT to compare how influential IQ is, compared to the other variables. And making IQ constant in all individuals makes it impossible to make that comparison.

I see what you are saying.
Still, intelligence is only a part in whole--Mr. Trump built an empire, while Dr. Einstein was a physics professor. As smart as he is, I'm fairly certain Trump is not is smarter than Einstein. But there is a big difference in the success of the two men.

This article talks about it:

Quote:

...the Founder Institute measures intelligence, aptitude, and psychology's big five personality traits. Each student receives a score of 0 to 5 (higher is better), predicting how well he or she will do as an entrepreneur. ... It turns out, the three statistically significant qualities are openness, fluid intelligence and age.

Read the whole thing.

A more academic source holds more faith in IQ testing than the Founder Institute, but still very much echos their findings:

Quote:

Although most of the lay criticisms against IQ tests are unfounded (yes, they do predict all of the above outcomes, and yes, IQ is more than socio-economic status), there is one important unaddressed limitation, namely the types of jobs that have so far been examined in scientific studies. Indeed, most if not all of the studies assessing the validity of IQ tests have tried to predict performance on traditional jobs -- these could be more or less qualified, differed in pay, and did examine workers from all sorts of sectors. However, there are virtually no studies assessing the importance of IQ as determinant of success in non-traditional jobs or jobs outside the formal organizational structure.

Recent data show that almost 50% of individuals will be self-employed at some point, and more and more people are engaging in entrepreneurial activities -- in industrialized nations, this increase has been triggered by recent or current recessions; in developing nations, this is triggered by a love of capitalism and a recent or current economic boom. In brief, the world has become a more entrepreneurial place, and there are now millions of self-made business owners all over the globe. Although some of these people may have started working for someone else (a big or small firm), they may have abandoned their jobs to change careers because they were fed-up, de-motivated, too creative, or hungry for more -- that is, they quit because they wanted to make a difference (either financially or psychologically).

That last paragraph and the articles' focus on entrepreneurship got me thinking however--how do you define success? It doesn't mean the same to everyone. Who is more successful--Bill Gates or Alexander the Great?

[RichieP]

Grit is the quality of perseverance. It's arguably a quality humans have in varying degrees, and it's been shown to correlate with success. I don't think that's too hard to believe.

If you want more quantitative measures - look at the studies on executive function. That is quantifiable, different from IQ, and
arguably at least as good a predictor of success as IQ:
http://www.med.ubc.ca/executive-function...in-school/

...and when you dive into the cognitive psych research and look at what these exec function tests measure... it starts to look like "Grit" is a big component.

Psychologists need to define Grit better, but to bury one's head in the sand and run back to IQ seems a little sad when the research is now pointing to other traits.

[polymath]

Plenty of smart people end up doing the same shit that everyone else does just to get by.

Clearly the secret ingredient to success is something other than intelligence.

Maybe it's grit. Maybe it's just luck.

[H1N1]

Richard Feynman allegedly had an IQ of 125. It's obviously nonsense, such a test wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It did make me chuckle to think there might be people out there walking around claiming to be smarter than a guy like that just because their number was higher than his.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-19-2016 03:32 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Richard Feynman allegedly had an IQ of 125. It's obviously nonsense, such a test wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It did make me chuckle to think there might be people out there walking around claiming to be smarter than a guy like that just because their number was higher than his.

IQ falls with age. If he tested it in his 60s, then 125 is not bad. His mind in respect to his field would still be significant, because the thinking prowess in your field is retained. The height of IQ is reached in your teens and he might have been at 150 at that time (with a test that maxes out at 155 - there are other tests that are unlimited almost, so comparing anyone above 130 has to be taken into account based on those tests - also you gotta test in the ages of 15-20 or you get partly significantly lower results).

Besides - IQ increases over the generations with correct nutrient dense food-supplements during pregnancy, lack of toxins, lack of vaccines, lack of fluoride in the water etc. My bet is that IQ can increase 10-20% with each generation if the woman is kept toxin-free and stuffed with supplements until childbirth (even alcohol consumption before the first child leaves an impact since alcohol permeates all cells including unused eggs). Besides - not marrying your family and selecting your mate k-selected aids too.

IQ can help you get rich, but it is not the main determining factor of success.

In my own opinion - those are the factors of success when assuming that success is a rise into a higher economic level than you have been born into:

1. Mental patterns -
a) correct ones that tell you that anyone can succeed if he works hard - can be seen with Chinese, Japanese, Sikhs, protestants who have these views ingrained by their families
b) simple belief in your own success - easy to see when you are from a wealthy family and see your own father/grandfather/uncles make it - being born into money at first gives you that full conviction that you can make it too since you have seen your dad do stupid stuff and fart in his chair

2. Perseverence & hard work
A 100 IQ guy can become a doctor if he keeps on studying. He will not become a reknown scientists and the best one on the block. But if he perseveres, then he will finish the course. It may take him longer to learn things than his 125-IQ peers, but it will not matter. In the end if he for example becomes a pediatrician he can make 150-200k in his practice. Simple work ethics. The same can be said in other careers - a solid plumber with his own business or strong work ethic can make 70-120k - picking a good profession and working on it can pay off easily enough.

3. Risk taking and creativity
a) the ability to take the correct kinds of risks is invaluable. Some of the advantages of born-in-money people is that they take greater risks. I know several such men whose fathers were millionaires and they took a larger credit based on own income and then made it big. What I did not realize back then is that even such a more risky attitude is based on your own family. Even if the first project would not have made it, then the family would have bailed them out. So essentially risk taking is 100 times more likely if you are born rich. Other folk have to truly risk it all.
b) creativity is connected to intelligence but not directly - a great example would be men and women - men take far greater risks and are usually far more creative even if they have the same IQ - both factors - risk taking and creativity is way more male centric, thus you will continue to see more inventors and businessmen to be male - that is how the cookie crumbles feminist tarts

4) Intelligence:
Yup - the better and faster your mind works, the better you can use it to make it big - unless you do not have the points of correct mental attitude, perseverance, creativity and correct risk taking going for you - then your high IQ is best served in fixed patterns of becoming a well-paid employee. Due to your high IQ you will still succeed. But even becoming a professor or scientists you need some degree of perseverence especially since if you are too high in IQ, you may get bored in college - many MENSA folk have that problem and do not finish university.

So there you go gents.

All factors above can be improved including intelligence inter-generationally (your own sons and daughters can have a higher one).

[RichieP]

^now we're talking. Good stuff.

Even in terms of pure brain power, IQ is arguably dwarfed by other things like attention, emotional regulation, social processing. These are all found in the frontal lobes and come under the aformentioned "executive function", which is shaping up to play a huge role in success.

[The Beast1]

(10-19-2016 04:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 03:32 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Richard Feynman allegedly had an IQ of 125. It's obviously nonsense, such a test wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It did make me chuckle to think there might be people out there walking around claiming to be smarter than a guy like that just because their number was higher than his.

IQ falls with age. If he tested it in his 60s, then 125 is not bad. His mind in respect to his field would still be significant, because the thinking prowess in your field is retained. The height of IQ is reached in your teens and he might have been at 150 at that time (with a test that maxes out at 155 - there are other tests that are unlimited almost, so comparing anyone above 130 has to be taken into account based on those tests - also you gotta test in the ages of 15-20 or you get partly significantly lower results).

Besides - IQ increases over the generations with correct nutrient dense food-supplements during pregnancy, lack of toxins, lack of vaccines, lack of fluoride in the water etc. My bet is that IQ can increase 10-20% with each generation if the woman is kept toxin-free and stuffed with supplements until childbirth (even alcohol consumption before the first child leaves an impact since alcohol permeates all cells including unused eggs). Besides - not marrying your family and selecting your mate k-selected aids too.

IQ can help you get rich, but it is not the main determining factor of success.

In my own opinion - those are the factors of success when assuming that success is a rise into a higher economic level than you have been born into:

1. Mental patterns -
a) correct ones that tell you that anyone can succeed if he works hard - can be seen with Chinese, Japanese, Sikhs, protestants who have these views ingrained by their families
b) simple belief in your own success - easy to see when you are from a wealthy family and see your own father/grandfather/uncles make it - being born into money at first gives you that full conviction that you can make it too since you have seen your dad do stupid stuff and fart in his chair

2. Perseverence & hard work
A 100 IQ guy can become a doctor if he keeps on studying. He will not become a reknown scientists and the best one on the block. But if he perseveres, then he will finish the course. It may take him longer to learn things than his 125-IQ peers, but it will not matter. In the end if he for example becomes a pediatrician he can make 150-200k in his practice. Simple work ethics. The same can be said in other careers - a solid plumber with his own business or strong work ethic can make 70-120k - picking a good profession and working on it can pay off easily enough.

3. Risk taking and creativity
a) the ability to take the correct kinds of risks is invaluable. Some of the advantages of born-in-money people is that they take greater risks. I know several such men whose fathers were millionaires and they took a larger credit based on own income and then made it big. What I did not realize back then is that even such a more risky attitude is based on your own family. Even if the first project would not have made it, then the family would have bailed them out. So essentially risk taking is 100 times more likely if you are born rich. Other folk have to truly risk it all.
b) creativity is connected to intelligence but not directly - a great example would be men and women - men take far greater risks and are usually far more creative even if they have the same IQ - both factors - risk taking and creativity is way more male centric, thus you will continue to see more inventors and businessmen to be male - that is how the cookie crumbles feminist tarts

4) Intelligence:
Yup - the better and faster your mind works, the better you can use it to make it big - unless you do not have the points of correct mental attitude, perseverance, creativity and correct risk taking going for you - then your high IQ is best served in fixed patterns of becoming a well-paid employee. Due to your high IQ you will still succeed. But even becoming a professor or scientists you need some degree of perseverence especially since if you are too high in IQ, you may get bored in college - many MENSA folk have that problem and do not finish university.

So there you go gents.

All factors above can be improved including intelligence inter-generationally (your own sons and daughters can have a higher one).

Through experience, i've found that humanity's worst tend to reside at both ends of the bell curve.

I tend to get the best results with someone who is slightly right of the median.

[H1N1]

(10-19-2016 04:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 03:32 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Richard Feynman allegedly had an IQ of 125. It's obviously nonsense, such a test wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It did make me chuckle to think there might be people out there walking around claiming to be smarter than a guy like that just because their number was higher than his.

IQ falls with age. If he tested it in his 60s, then 125 is not bad. His mind in respect to his field would still be significant, because the thinking prowess in your field is retained. The height of IQ is reached in your teens and he might have been at 150 at that time (with a test that maxes out at 155 - there are other tests that are unlimited almost, so comparing anyone above 130 has to be taken into account based on those tests - also you gotta test in the ages of 15-20 or you get partly significantly lower results).

Tested during high school, apparently as reported by R.F. himself.