16 replies to this topic

[The Immortalist]

This topic is very subjective and fallacious. A person with a high IQ could very well like all the same things as a person with an IQ of 100. They may hold the same sort of jobs or have the same kind of education level simply because the high IQ person doesn't have much motivation to aspire to more. Personality also plays a role in how a person would behave and people with different IQ's of the same personality type may act very different. For example how much difference would an aggressive person of an IQ of 100 act compared to an aggressive person with an IQ of 180?

Anyways is it possible to make a generalization on what the average behavior and lifestyle of a person with a functional IQ of "x" (with no other medical or mental ailment) would be?


What would a person with an IQ of "x" be like?

85?

90?

95?

100?

105.........

140?

170?

so on an so forth.

Edited by The Immortalist, 14 June 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[The Immortalist]

I'll give it a shot:Note that this thread is more for entertainment purposes although if you want to be more serious then please give it a go!

IQ of:

- 85: your average highshool dropout, homeless person on welfare, drug addict

- 90: Factory worker doing simple tasks with no goals or aspirations

- 95: Mcdonalds worker? Waiter? Janitor?

- 100: lol I guess your average Joe or Jolina, doesn't think about anything profound, listens to music everyone else listens to, tends to not read things to increase knowledge.

- 110: elementary/ Highschool teacher? Bachelor degree graduates who do no more extra education


- 115- 129: On the verge of being gifted. Knows he is not but yearns to be. The typical Imminster on the nootropics forum . Your typical doctor who had to study his ass off in med school to even graduate.
Example: In the show the big bang theory - Howard wolowitz(IQ of maybe 129) compared to Sheldon cooper(immeasurable IQ).
Sheldon often makes fun of Howard for not having a doctoral degree and for being an engineer, referring to engineers as "noble semi-skilled laborers" and "the Oompa Loompas of science", and calling engineering "the slow younger brother of physics".
He has referred to their group of scientists as "a group of geniuses and their friend Howard".

- Anything higher than 140: You are so superior to the average human being you feel a sense of disconnectedness from the troglodytes beneath you. Typically you will have interests that are not of the mainstream. If you like sports perhaps you like archery instead of a popular sport like football, maybe you even use your advanced knowledge of biology you may have aquired to excel in a fringe sport like bodybuilding. perhaps you read scientific journals like an average man would read porno's, perhaps you write your own aps to do shit on your Iphone, perhaps you just pretend to be like everyone else, perhaps you even see your intellect as a curse or maybe you see it as a gift.
-Anyone scientist who is in the top of their fields.

- Over 200:

You are a god among humans. Lesser-greater intellects line up to feast upon your gargantuan girth of genius. You are Einstein, you are newton, your are......Sheldon Cooper?.

Edited by The Immortalist, 14 June 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[hippocampus]

Not stereotypes again, check real studies:
http://inventorspot....us_values_38259
http://www.scienceda...00224132655.htm

So higher IQ:
- monogamous
- liberal
- atheist
- nocturnal (go to sleep later)
- have sex less often (http://www.gnxp.com/...ntelligence.php)
...
Everything applies on AVERAGE. And there are many other variables, which may predict this behaviors better than IQ. However, IQ is a very good predictor of academic success, job performance (better predictor for more cognitive demanding jobs) and many other things. But - some personality factors are also very good predictors of academic succes, such as motivation, conscientiousness and so on ... IQ is important, but the world and life is so complex you can't explain it well with only one variable (which has many methodological issues, covariates that you can't control well for and so on).

also: Individuals with very high IQ are more often men, but that doesn't mean men have higher IQ on average - standard deviation for IQ is higher for men than for women - so it is also true that people with very high IQ are more often men.

Edited by hippocampus, 14 June 2012 - 09:42 PM.

[nupi]

IQ 140 is not THAT far disconnected from everyone (there is still roughly 2% of the population above that, so you are one in 50) - if you work in a sufficiently demanding area, chances are a lot of people around you will be around 140.

But yes, up further disconnection truly does start. I am however not sure if that is not in part driven by a bunch of personality disorders (which will be very hard to treat because you would need equally highly skilled psychiatrists which frankly seem to be exceedingly rare) that correlate with super high IQ - limited anecdotal evidence suggests yes, but I would be quite interested if anyone has seen studies on it.

Disclaimer:I fulfill at least one of the admission requirements for the triple nine society, so feel like I have some limited perspective at the upper fringes

[hivemind]

IQ is just a statistical concept and a theory.

Edited by hivemind, 16 June 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[nupi]

So? Most if not all things in science are, really.

At the very least, IQ has been shown to have significant predictive power (together with future time orientation but the two seem at least somewhat correlated) on school and job performance which is a pretty indication that it is on to SOMETHING to me...

[hippocampus]

IQ 140 is not THAT far disconnected from everyone (there is still roughly 2% of the population above that, so you are one in 50) - if you work in a sufficiently demanding area, chances are a lot of people around you will be around 140.

Usually, standard deviation of 15 points is used, so there is only 2 % above 130, not 140.

@hivemind: IQ is not just a statistical concept or artefact, it correlates with brain size, glucose metabolism, working memory and so on and with real life behavior as mentioned above (school, job performance, health, voting habits and so on). IQ is widely believed to be the best measure of general intelligence and you get only one general factor on most if not almost all intelligence tests - all cognitive tasks correlate with each other and so on ... Read something about it. I have a feeling that most people who oppose IQ and say that "after all it is not that important": (1) believe they have 'only' average or under average intelligence and are not satisfied with it; (2) don't know much about intelligence (why not read people?!), (3) believe emotional intelligence is much more important - which may be true for some jobs and some areas of life but not in general (besides that emotional intelligence is bad and much less proved construct than intelligence and much harder to measure - and we have better personality concepts than that).

[khemix]

Not stereotypes again, check real studies:
http://inventorspot....us_values_38259
http://www.scienceda...00224132655.htm

So higher IQ:
- monogamous
- liberal
- atheist
- nocturnal (go to sleep later)
- have sex less often (http://www.gnxp.com/...ntelligence.php)

Hmm, no.

There are many high IQ people out there who are promiscous as f*ck. The difference is that after the feat they still have the energy to get their sh*t together. A lot of them are actually against marriage on philosophical grounds as they are generally libertines. Sexual frequency is really a function of how attractive you are, not IQ, though the smarter people can probably curb the urge better when there is work that needs to be done. Seeing as either beauty or brains are rare to have, those that have both are even rarer thus resulting in the percieved reduced promiscuity of those that at least posses the high IQ. The days of your celibate Newton intellectuals are long gone with the decline of Christianity.

Higher IQ people tend to be very stubborn and set in their own ways. They are often iconoclastic and are always challenging or questioning tradition. They have an ability to focus very deeply when need be, and it is this mode than anything that seperates them as they can absorb a lot in class this way. They are very open to experience and for this reason will actually try different drugs or do stupid things when they are young.

I don't think many are nocturnal either. They usually get their work done early to avoid losing too much sleep.

What else? Hmm, most have very clean rooms and maintain good appearances (though not always in sync with popular style). They tend to be implusive. Love to read. Experience emotions very heavily but reason without them. Generally they appear cold but do have more empathy than the average person. Very agile mentally, meaning they can perform calculations quickly and retrieve facts error free.

[khemix]

IQ 140 is not THAT far disconnected from everyone (there is still roughly 2% of the population above that, so you are one in 50) - if you work in a sufficiently demanding area, chances are a lot of people around you will be around 140.

But yes, up further disconnection truly does start. I am however not sure if that is not in part driven by a bunch of personality disorders (which will be very hard to treat because you would need equally highly skilled psychiatrists which frankly seem to be exceedingly rare) that correlate with super high IQ - limited anecdotal evidence suggests yes, but I would be quite interested if anyone has seen studies on it.

Disclaimer:I fulfill at least one of the admission requirements for the triple nine society, so feel like I have some limited perspective at the upper fringes

130 IQ is 2% of the population, not 140.

Actually 130 is quite removed from the average populance. Bear in mind that 30 points in the other direction leads to 70 and mental retardation and how do average people relate to retards? Gifted people are still capable of developing proper social skills, especially if they are in classes with one another, but will never get along with someone with an IQ lower than 115 imo. As you mentioned, different pesonality disorders can affect how they socialize too. For instance, Aspies will generally have a lot of trouble making friends but say Bipolars will likely be very outgoing. But IQ doesn't affect social skills in my opinion, unless there is too much disparity in IQ in which case neither person will understand the other.

I will add that one trait that stands out among gifted people is this Type A personality of going after things without fear. There is a lot of energy and motivation to do things. It's like they are on Adderall 24/7.

[nupi]

Two points:

* I call BS on the cannot get along people below 115. Getting along should not be too much of an issue - connecting with them however might be.
* There seem to be several subsegments of high IQ Type A people: they are all striving to be the best at what they do, the fearless generally excel at whatever they do, the somewhat fearful are liable to develop GAD (because they will always have doubts and insecurities about their striving for perfection). Whether type A necessarily correlates with high energy, I am not entirely sure either (while I routinely work 65-70hour weeks, I would not consider myself high energy but I am definitely some sub type of type A).

[hivemind]

IQ 140 is not THAT far disconnected from everyone (there is still roughly 2% of the population above that, so you are one in 50) - if you work in a sufficiently demanding area, chances are a lot of people around you will be around 140.

Usually, standard deviation of 15 points is used, so there is only 2 % above 130, not 140.

@hivemind: IQ is not just a statistical concept or artefact, it correlates with brain size, glucose metabolism, working memory and so on and with real life behavior as mentioned above (school, job performance, health, voting habits and so on). IQ is widely believed to be the best measure of general intelligence and you get only one general factor on most if not almost all intelligence tests - all cognitive tasks correlate with each other and so on ... Read something about it. I have a feeling that most people who oppose IQ and say that "after all it is not that important": (1) believe they have 'only' average or under average intelligence and are not satisfied with it; (2) don't know much about intelligence (why not read people?!), (3) believe emotional intelligence is much more important - which may be true for some jobs and some areas of life but not in general (besides that emotional intelligence is bad and much less proved construct than intelligence and much harder to measure - and we have better personality concepts than that).

None of those things predict IQ very accurately. The Neanderthal-humans had a bigger brain size. IQ has meaning only if you compare humans. The IQ theory ASSUMES a general intelligence factor and uses statistics. It does not prove any existence of such a factor

I don't "oppose" IQ. IQ is just not a very interesting theory. It is not science.

Edited by hivemind, 18 June 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[hippocampus]

@hivemind: well, do I really need to bo so precise that I must say that "IQ correlates with brain size/white matter/whatever in Homo sapiens". We all know what I'm talking about, don't be meticulous.
And about factors: every latent variable (i.e. factor) exist (by definition) "only in statistics". That doesn't mean you can touch it by hand, like brain or penis. But this doesn't make it any less real. It exist as a useful concept. Such as any personality factor, such as some concepts in physics like energy, force, electricity.

And what do you mean by saying "It is not science". Please elaborate this. It it a theory, it is falsificable, it has predictive value ... it has everything you need for science.
You can say that it is a bad concept (very different definitions and so on), you can say it has low predictive value (you have to prove me that!), you can say that it has been falsified. But on what basis can you say that it's not science?
Read this: http://en.wikipedia....entific_realism and this: http://en.wikipedia....Instrumentalism
Besides that: IQ is not intelligence. IQ is a measure of intelligence.

Hmm, no.

There are many high IQ people out there who are promiscous as f*ck. The difference is that after the feat they still have the energy to get their sh*t together. A lot of them are actually against marriage on philosophical grounds as they are generally libertines. Sexual frequency is really a function of how attractive you are, not IQ, though the smarter people can probably curb the urge better when there is work that needs to be done. Seeing as either beauty or brains are rare to have, those that have both are even rarer thus resulting in the percieved reduced promiscuity of those that at least posses the high IQ. The days of your celibate Newton intellectuals are long gone with the decline of Christianity.

Higher IQ people tend to be very stubborn and set in their own ways. They are often iconoclastic and are always challenging or questioning tradition. They have an ability to focus very deeply when need be, and it is this mode than anything that seperates them as they can absorb a lot in class this way. They are very open to experience and for this reason will actually try different drugs or do stupid things when they are young.

I don't think many are nocturnal either. They usually get their work done early to avoid losing too much sleep.

What else? Hmm, most have very clean rooms and maintain good appearances (though not always in sync with popular style). They tend to be implusive. Love to read. Experience emotions very heavily but reason without them. Generally they appear cold but do have more empathy than the average person. Very agile mentally, meaning they can perform calculations quickly and retrieve facts error free.

Well, let me quote again, just for you:

Everything applies on AVERAGE.

And I posted actual studies (i.e., articles that quote real studies) and you disregard it, just with saying: "Hmm, no." Very good argument, indeed.
(and if you still don't know what I'm talking about: if something applies on average, that means there is also some variation. Of course there are people with high IQ who fuck all day long and there are also some people with low IQ who do very well in school. But - apparently - not on average.)

Edited by hippocampus, 18 June 2012 - 09:10 PM.

[khemix]

Your first study claims “Students (grades 7 through 12) who identified themselves as "very liberal" show an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identified themselves as being "very conservative" had an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.” Am I to take this for its face value? Ignoring the fact that liberal ideology is shoved down students throats and anyone who is educated therefore must be a liberal? This ‘study’ then claims that there exists corroborative data that suggests your high Iqs are monogamous.

Your second study is the same garbage quoting Kanazawa and the like. These folks like to pretend they see a pattern, and use “evolutionary psychology” to explain it.

Your third study claims that over half of all students at elite schools lose their virginity by the time they graduate. It then goes on to say higher IQ males are more likely to look for a prostitute. Do you know why that is? Because high IQ individuals only connect with fellow high IQ individuals. Seeing as they are more scarce they are less likely to run into each other unless they all congregate in the same space as is the case of elite schools, where again over half seem to get laid.

You posted popular science articles and not any studies. Plus, I don’t know if you realize how poorly done many psychology studies are to begin with, even if they are peer reviewed. I’m not saying that what these people claim might not actually be true but don’t preach to me that you source hard facts because that is not what they are. Your theory simply does not apply to most gifed people I know, and have known, and I know many.

[hivemind]

@hivemind: well, do I really need to bo so precise that I must say that "IQ correlates with brain size/white matter/whatever in Homo sapiens". We all know what I'm talking about, don't be meticulous.
And about factors: every latent variable (i.e. factor) exist (by definition) "only in statistics". That doesn't mean you can touch it by hand, like brain or penis. But this doesn't make it any less real. It exist as a useful concept. Such as any personality factor, such as some concepts in physics like energy, force, electricity.

And what do you mean by saying "It is not science". Please elaborate this. It it a theory, it is falsificable, it has predictive value ... it has everything you need for science.
You can say that it is a bad concept (very different definitions and so on), you can say it has low predictive value (you have to prove me that!), you can say that it has been falsified. But on what basis can you say that it's not science?

A latent variable is not the same thing as a pure hypothetical construct like IQ. Latent variables can also exist in real physical reality.
Maybe I should say it is not natural science, only assumptions and statistics.

The scores of an individual person will fluctuate considerably depending on which IQ-test is used, even if those tests correlate with each other.
There are zillion reasons, why the different test scores correlate.

IQ tests almost always test only speed. Is thinking speed the only sign of intelligence? I think not. IQ-tests are practical and useful in some situations, but other than that, I am not convinced that one number can sum up my intelligence.

[hippocampus]

Well, than maybe it's bad science, but it' still science.

Anyway, I think IQ may be still useful for group comparison - for example, people with higher IQ are more often atheist (on average blabla) - so we can ask - why? Or, e.g. people who lack iodine during pregnancy, have very low IQ. So here IQ shows that something is wrong with these people. And so on. It's useful.
Besides that: one number can sum up your intelligence, but many IQ test (for example WAIS) also measure specific factors (verbal, non-verbal and so on), so you can interpret different score. Maybe some people really are very good at speed, but have very low spatial intelligence, for example (WISC/WAIS measure these, I think). General IQ is used mainly for research purposes, for individual measuring specific factors are also taken into account.

[nito]

Show some love for EQ too guys will ya

[hippocampus]

EQ is a very bad concept, it lacks good theory, it has low predictive value (IQ has good predictive value) and it is very difficult to measure (I don't want to go into detailes, google it) and we have better measures that account for the same things as EQ, e.g. personality factors, anxiety, motivation and so on.
Read this http://en.wikipedia....al_intelligence - just by looking at the titles you see how many criticisms are there.

from wikipedia:

Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure personality traits.^[22] Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI – neuroticism and extroversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety. Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures.
The interpretations of the correlations between EI questionnaires and personality have been varied. The prominent view in the scientific literature is the Trait EI view, which re-interprets EI as a collection of personality traits.^[37][38][39]

Edited by hippocampus, 19 June 2012 - 09:53 PM.