Humans are rationalizing beings as much as reasoning beings--and intelligent people rationalize too. One problem is, a more-intelligent-than-average person may think themselves immune to the fallacies of others and not realize they have been rationalizing. Hence, "yeah, I know the risks of doing drugs, but I'll just be careful and not take too much too fast and laws and advice against drugs are for people who aren't smart enough and shouldn't apply to me and...." oops.

Then, humans have built-in instincts from caveman days and before--and some of them are very powerful, some of them also not all that appropriate to certain modern-day situations. These drives can make it hard to think clearly.

With experience comes knowledge of one's own limitations--and that is probably more important for judgment than raw intelligence which, as I argued, could actually hurt.

Intelligence is a capability, but not a guarantee of success anymore than having a hammer means all your nails are pounded in--you gotta use it right! And the hammerless might use screws instead and not have a problem with nails popping out.

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

Intelligent people: Good Good!
Stupid people: Bad! Bad!
Intelligent people: Us! Us!
Stupid people: Them! Them!

:-P

__________________
http://amssolarempire.blogspot.com

Sigh. Let's see if the third time is a charm. IQ tests can be one of several indicators of a certain kind of intellectual capability that depends on the individual's genetics, education, upbringing, and the opportunities that life has afforded them. What IQ tests cannot do is quantitatively measure some kind of innate, invariant human characteristic called intelligence. Such an innate invariant characteristic does not exist. I do not make this as a straw man. The developers of IQ tests thought they were measuring just such an innate characteristic and it's still sadly the way IQ test scores are casually interpreted by the public as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread.

While they can indicate intellectual capability, I stand by my statement that all IQ tests actually quantitatively measure is skill at taking tests. This skill, like others, can be improved with practice and the mere fact that one can improve test scores by study and practice argues against the interpretation that they measure an innate characteristic. If they did no amount of study would ever change a score.

Maybe this seems pedantic and quibbly, and perhaps all people here mean when they say "intelligence" is a broad capability that is amenable to change by an individual. However, the history of intelligence testing is filled with tales of its misuse over history (see Gould) to try and justify all sorts of agendas. The root of this misuse is the incorrect assumption that intelligence is an actual thing (reification) that can be quantified and not a broad set of skills and capabilities that can be developed with education, study and practice.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

And the nail-less can use joints.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Not with just two statii, no. Statics (such as correlations) applies very well to entire populations or appropriately randomized subsets thereof, not so well to stratified populations, and not at all to individual obeservations or anecdotes.

__________________
WIKIPEDIA and GOOGLE are your friends! But only if you use them.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often, not a very good one at that.

Perception is what happens between the senses and consciousness. Reality is what happened before that. If you think the two are equivalent, you've never heard of Von Claustwicz, Sun Tsu, or street magicians.

Formal Logical Fallacy List

What EtaC and Mugaliens said. Both are very good comments.

For that matter, the idea of a generalized, independent thing called intelligence seems to me to fly in the face of evolution. Whatever intelligence is, it doesn't exist outside of the local environment where it is applied and selected for. A highly intelligent Bushman might very well get himself quickly killed in rush-hour New York, and an intelligent Manhattanite might very well quickly starve to death in the Outback.

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.

Well said, Eta C. I used to hate reading Parade (a section found in many newspapers in the 1980s) because I'd always read Ask Marylin's column. Supposedly, she was some sort of super-genious, yet I kept spotting egotistical and flippant mistakes in her answers.

I wrote to the editor several times, pointing out her numerous mistakes, including corrections, and in the 90's I'd e-mail them.

I never got a response. And do you know why?

Because her column helped sell newspapers. They would never respond in any manner that might compromise their bottom line, probably out of fear that it might be printed in a competitive column.

For all I know, she may have had a 160, or even a 185 IQ, but simply ignorant of most things, or thinking she knew more in an area than she did because of her IQ but without enough knowledge in that area to detect, much less correct, her many mistakes.

My IQ is definately lower than hers, even in the highest I've ever scored, yet I could both spot, and verify through research that she was making mistakes and printing them. Evidently the editors had far less experience than she did, as her mistakes slipped right through their fingers and into print.

The point is that Eta C is right. Aptitude and experience, in the long run, far outweight IQ when it comes to anyone's contributions to society.

And while we're on the subject of contributions to society, let's talk a bit about evolutionary pressures.

A woman who has nine kids isn't any more likely to continue her gene pool than a woman who has two kids, if the two-child women's kids eat better, get better personal attention, and grow up to be more successful than the nine-child woman.

Some environmental conditions (plentiful food supply, opportunities for migration) favor many-child families. Basically, primative societies. Other environmental conditions (high food prices, steep learning curves for long-term success) favor having fewer children. Basically, more modern societies.

Amazingly enough, this is precisely what's happening throughout the world. As a society modernizes, the number of children per couple drop, sometimes by edict (China), and others voluntarily (USA). However, statistics being what it is, the correlations aren't very time-dependant. That is, it could also be said that as the number of children per couple drop, the society is able to become more modern.

The old chicken and the egg issue, although I concede that since I first looked at this issue about a decade ago much might have changed.

I knew a guy who now works for NASA. I knew him because I went through grade school. Dumbest kid on the block. Low grades. Scored near the bottom of his class on scholastic aptitude tests. Had to repeat a grade in elementary school, and again in middle school.

But he was my best friend in 7th, 8th, and 9th grades, while I was the one people in my science class had nicknamed "Brain" because I always aced the tests.

Why were we friends?

First, he was friendly! That's an aptitude, perhaps a learned one, as his parents were friendly, too. Second, he was highly adept at physical sports (innate ability), and so was I, which meant that whenever the neighborhood kids gathered for basketball, football, or kick the can, we were there. I could run faster than he could, though he was slightly taller, 2 years older, and more lanky. But he could best me at basketball (though not my much, as a center has to be shorter and quicker than the forward positions that he was playing).

Third, he stuck up for me, and I did the same for him. Fourth, few wanted to spend time with me because I was seen as too brainy (scored second out of several hundred 7th graders on a scholastic aptitudes test) and because few (though more he than with me) wanted to spend time with him because he was seen as "stupid."

He wasn't stupid.

He had insights into people that most people 32 years later still don't have into themselves, and I recall many a lunch hour spent talking about one person or another.

In those lunch-hour sections, I didn't educate him. He educated me. Our supposed IQs (as near as I can determine) were separated by nearly 50 points.

But he educated me.

He just wasn't what we call "booksmart." I tutored him in RWaA (reading, writing, and arithmetic). He could play the drums like Neil Pert, though, and did so in a band at church (well, ok, at home, not in church, where he was restricted from doing so). He taught me to play drums, and got me interested in percussion.

We'd pick blackberries by the creek.

We were friends.

Perhaps the most unlikely of friends, but given each of our unique aptitudes and learned abilities, neither of which had ANYthing to do with IQ, we became friends.

We even shared the same paper route for a while, taking over from two others who'd quit, and splitting the duties and proceeds.

Believe it or not, this fine gent has been working for NASA for the last 15 years.

Why? It's not because of his IQ. It's because of his aptitudes, which someone with a bit of genious (not the IQ kind, but the Human Relations (HR) kind) recognized, and capitalized on. He performs an honest day's work at a good salary and goes home to support his wife and three kids.

I'd like to say a few not so kind words about IQ tests at this moment. They tell so little of the side of a story of anyone's life it's not even funny. In fact, it's a travesty.

However, I'm prevented by the forum rules from doing so.

What I'd like to know is why said tests ever became a predominant theme on our landscape when dozens of other studies showed that IQ alone amounts to next to nothing, compared with aptitude and experience?

Yours truly,

- Mugs

__________________
WIKIPEDIA and GOOGLE are your friends! But only if you use them.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often, not a very good one at that.

Perception is what happens between the senses and consciousness. Reality is what happened before that. If you think the two are equivalent, you've never heard of Von Claustwicz, Sun Tsu, or street magicians.

Formal Logical Fallacy List

That's pretty insulting, Eta C. I pointed out what I perceived as a contradiction in your previous post. If you can't address that in a noncondescending fashion then forget I said anything.

No insult that I see, geonuc. I agree completely with Eta C.

So do others.

Please get off your high horse.

__________________
WIKIPEDIA and GOOGLE are your friends! But only if you use them.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often, not a very good one at that.

Perception is what happens between the senses and consciousness. Reality is what happened before that. If you think the two are equivalent, you've never heard of Von Claustwicz, Sun Tsu, or street magicians.

Formal Logical Fallacy List

Thanks, Mike. Somehow, you have the ability to reduce what I spend hours wording into a few simple sentances. Then again, perhaps we both evolved to service differing areas of the population, those who might grasp whatever concept with a hint, and those to whom it took some detail.

The good news is that feel like we're on the same approach to final, here.

__________________
WIKIPEDIA and GOOGLE are your friends! But only if you use them.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often, not a very good one at that.

Perception is what happens between the senses and consciousness. Reality is what happened before that. If you think the two are equivalent, you've never heard of Von Claustwicz, Sun Tsu, or street magicians.

Formal Logical Fallacy List

As frustrating as I find this fourth "dumb people" post by tommac, I am encouraged by many of the responses.

FWIW: hard work and good choices are much greater determinators of a person's success than merely measuring their intellect.

I'd much rather have a hard working, determined person with a 90 I.Q. on my team than a lazy, arrogant person with a 150 I.Q.

__________________
Talent develops in quiet places, character in the full current of human life.
- Goethe

Jump in with both feet!
- Me, indulging my inner eight-year-old

*** *** ***

"Are you a mad-hatter that just types what he wishes, or have you actually any physics training?"
Occam's Ghost to Grant Hutchison.

Just my opinion here, but it's not really all that nice to call people dumb.

__________________
Kai's home computer is broken and her posting may be eratic for a while - ToSeek
"The only way to explore the universe is to go and look." - Brian Cox
Well, the best way to find out is to go there and, find out. - Raven's Cry
'Evolution and science are one thing, but you don’t mess with Yoko Ono. Everybody knows that. ' - 386sx

Geez, mugs. High horse?

I wasn't complaining about Eta C's analysis of IQ tests and how it might differ from mine. I see that many agree with him, including you and Mike Alexander. That's fine.

I was complaining about that condescending intro he started out with in responding to me (the part I quoted). It wasn't necessary and is insulting.

I don't address people that way in person or on a forum and I'd rather they not do it to me. That's all.

If that were true, then evolution could not produce different populations whose members generally have different levels of intelligence, which would mean that ours is equal to a frog's or a coral's.

That's because of factors other than intelligence. It doesn't prove or disprove anything about intelligence because it's on another subject.

Where you come from, is "Bushmen" another word for the Australian people also known as "Aborigines", or did your example just go from Africa to NYC to Australia instead of starting and finishing in the same place?

Not sure your test is descriptive of the issue, Mike. How about this:

Take 1000 Mahattanites with 500 being in a low IQ group and 500 high. Put them in the outback (not together - this is an individual thing). Devise a metric to judge how well they do, say survival time. I submit the mean survival rate of the high IQ group will probably be significantly longer than that of the low group.

To illustrate the mechanism, I imagine a member of the high IQ group quickly realizing that the situation is dire and immediately thinking about survival needs: water, food, shelter, protection from things that kill you and signaling for help. He may not know much about these things, but he's smart enough to know he has to figure a way out or die. He will know to be very careful - a broken leg will mean death. The low IQ person will wonder why his cell phone has no bars and start wandering in search of better reception.

Same thing in reverse, although all 1000 of the aborigines will probably get locked up by Homeland Security before a day is up.

I don't see it that way. That's comparing intelligence within vs. between species. Substitute 'size' for 'intelligence' to see what I'm driving at. Within species (within sex for dimorphic species) there is generally a small difference in size, with some of that due to environmental factors (nutrition, for example). In the abscence of fast food, human mass range is within about a factor of two. Height has an even smaller range (excepting such outliers as glandular conditions). But no matter how hard you try you will not produce a 140 lb bullfrog.

This may be where we are divergent. I see intellectual capacity not as a thing in itself but as one of the tools we carry around as organisms to help us get through the day (As a thought experiment, it would be interesting to have a Bushman (Kalahari type) or Australian aboriginal (Outback type) devise a test of general intelligence and give it to Terman or Pearson). As I said earlier, it's the application in the local environment that will determine relative success. And since local environments must be learned, transferring beween them should be done with great caution. As an example, SAT scores in America may have a strong determination on how well you do in life, hence (in a general way) enhancing your reproductive success (smarter, wealthier). On the other hand, there seems to be a correlation between schooling and number of offspring, with higher education levels correlated with fewer children. Is this due to higher intelligence as measured by school success, or due to a shorter reproductive span due to the same schooling? Or even other factors?

A local environment may favor faster reflexes, or a good sense of balance, or a sharper sense of smell over intelligence as primary survival factors.

And as a skeptic, I am wary of any group that devises a test of relative superiority utilizing factors most prominent in that group.

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.