Mindset, Intelligence, and IQ

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

The use of IQ tests is an entirely seperate issue than how accurate they are. One reason I'm not arguing this, besides time, is that I don't agree with how IQ tests are used. That, and there are quite a few problems IQ tests even for research purposes.

I'm of the same opinion on personality tests, however. I think every flaw with IQ tests can be reflected with personality tests... often to a worse degree. That puts it in perspective to me... These tests are good for research, for understanding people... but life is complex and tests simple.

(Again, though, I'd say the same for the ACT or SAT tests... there has to be some level of testing, however unfair... I'm just not able to draw the line.)

I think we may have been in much more agreement than I thought, all along. Just like as in personality theories (and I agree there is less cause to believe these than IQ) where we don't want to create pigeon-holes and stereotypes usigng OCEAN or MBTI, we don't want to create pigeon-holes for IQ quartiles (percentiles, whatever). In the end, human will is too strong and chaotic a variable (pragmatically speaking, even if the is no real "Free Will").

[FDG]

Originally Posted by Veneti

IQ and intelligence

Its all in the definition. You're only as smart as your ability to achieve whatever makes you happy.

I've seen unemployed people being "bums" at the beach and surfing. I've seen highly educated people busting their "ar*es" to replicate the life that the "bums" have already achieved.

Truth. Honestly speaking, I've always been happier surfing at the beach than getting high grades. But I've also felt that the latter is useful in order to gain the money that will make me able to live the rest of my life surfing at the beach, lol.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by FDG

Truth. Honestly speaking, I've always been happier surfing at the beach than getting high grades. But I've also felt that the latter is useful in order to gain the money that will make me able to live the rest of my life surfing at the beach, lol.

You can surf? I am impresed! I haven't even been able to get up on water skis.

Anyway, I don't know if this was posted already, but here it is:

Smarter people are no better off - being-human - 25 April 2007 - New Scientist

[FDG]

Originally Posted by ygolo

You can surf? I am impresed! I haven't even been able to get up on water skis.

I'm far better at sports than at most intellectual pursuits, I think.

Anyway, I don't know if this was posted already, but here it is:

Smarter people are no better off - being-human - 25 April 2007 - New Scientist

Actually, given that though smarter people are able to spend more in absolute terms than less smart ones, isn't the true result of this research more on the line of "More money doesn't make you any happier"?

[Veneti]

Originally Posted by FDG

I'm far better at sports than at most intellectual pursuits, I think.

Actually, given that though smarter people are able to spend more in absolute terms than less smart ones, isn't the true result of this research more on the line of "More money doesn't make you any happier"?

The thing with IQ, is that all it does is provides the "owner" the ability to perform tasks and undertake things that require certain types of thought processes. In a selfish context then its real use is to provide economic benefits for the owner.

More money makes me happier as it takes more "financial risk" out of my life and gives me greater resources (Tools) to do more things that I wish to do.

Many people get caught up in what I'd call the wealth reflection trap which essentially means they lose sight of what "wealth" is. They work extremely hard to obtain resources to be better than their neighbours (or keep up with them).

So, yes, I'd rather have a high IQ than not, but I'd also want to not get sucked into that "wealth reflection/materialism" trap.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by FDG

Actually, given that though smarter people are able to spend more in absolute terms than less smart ones, isn't the true result of this research more on the line of "More money doesn't make you any happier"?

That's pretty much it. Being smart doesn't make you any happier.

In any case, IQ is like SATs. It is highly probable that if you do well in one (which normally means both), you will go on to higher education, and you will earn significantly more in your lifetime. This is true if it is natural (high IQ, natural learner) or because you work hard (study for the SATs)... and at the extremely high end, you almost always are both (above average and very dedicated... IOW, high IQ and "J".)

Hence the two major factors that predict academic success across all fields - IQ and C+ ("J"). When you break it down into what works where, there are places were Fs and Ns do better than S and Ts... but that's more particular.

It just doesn't mean much. A lot of successful people are of average IQ (although very rarely below 100) but work incredibly hard and are extremely motivated. For predicting millionaires and such, despite the higher IQ, it is the hard work that is most powerful. Without it... nothing happens.

[ygolo]

Audiblox: Overcoming Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, Learning Difficulties

Their principles of learning:
Principles of Learning: 3 Learning Principles for Successful Teaching

Their claims:
Optimizing Intelligence: Research at a School for Deaf Children

IQ Increase After 40 Hours of Cognitive Training

[substitute]

Originally Posted by ygolo

I tried convincing kids that they could do better with some practice, but all I'd get is some version of "That's easy for you to say".

Funny... and yet when I suggest the same concept regarding emotional toughness, I'm considered 'mean' and 'harsh' if I suggest that people who shunt all the burdens onto "the strong one" could just as well learn to be "strong" themselves if they actually dealt with shit instead of hiding under the blankets and letting tougher people take the front line. If I suggest that those tough people didn't get tough overnight and weren't born that way, but learned their toughness by gritting their teeth and dealing with their own shit all their lives, again, I'm "mean".

The number of times I've had it said to me,"That's easy for you to say, but I'm not strong like you, I can't do that" beggars belief. And really pisses me off.

Do you think there's a correlation between the tendency to do that, and the tendency to give over all the 'intelligent' tasks to people who are 'cleverer', rather than exercise their own brains in order to become intelligent themselves? Could it in fact be said that low IQ and also low EQ are as much a result of individual laziness (the motives for which could make interesting discussion), in a way, as they are down to nature/nurture arguments?

[Santtu]

Combining the results of IQ to person's success (gathered from various sources) and that of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, I conjecture that about half of person's intelligence, where it differs from the average of their environment, benefits his/her society (value added) and the other half him/herself when measured objectively.

If I considered intelligence as a economic resource, I would say that the intelligent people could do a better deal with using their intelligence. They could withold it from improving the society unless they get paid for it. Too many intelligent people give their intelligent ideas away, diluting the economic value of intelligence, because it is being made a commodity that way.

Well, on the other hand, I might say that hard-working people are giving the efforts of their work away half-free. Just as an example, in my old work, those working twice as hard got about 15% greater salary than the rest. It was considered a good incentive to work harder.

Perhaps it is with many talents, that in a society, the talents end up benefiting the person themselves and the others in proportions that are determined by the demand/supply of such skills and the bargaining power of respective parties.

I have thought a lot about this. I think it might be more useful to be one having bargaining power rather than to be one holding a set of skills. That's how people regularly do in my country. They stack up 100,000 people who are collectively responsible for keeping the horse manuer off the streets (figuratively speaking), then once they have the people in position, they announce "double our salary or we quit". It works, and absolutely no skills are required. This is why I understand that labour unions are not seen in such a good light in USA.

It seems like the skilled people are benefactors to society (and for themselves) whereas the bargainers reap the benefits, as a net effect. For individual profit, it would be best to belong to the both groups.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by substitute

Could it in fact be said that low IQ and also low EQ are as much a result of individual laziness (the motives for which could make interesting discussion), in a way, as they are down to nature/nurture arguments?

I think so. I would say this is more true for EQ than IQ, but true for both.