SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the not-what-soylentils-want-to-hear dept.
If ignorance is bliss, does a high IQ equal misery? Popular opinion would have it so. We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness. Think of Virginia Woolf, Alan Turing, or Lisa Simpson – lone stars, isolated even as they burn their brightest. As Ernest Hemingway wrote: "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
The question may seem like a trivial matter concerning a select few – but the insights it offers could have ramifications for many. Much of our education system is aimed at improving academic intelligence; although its limits are well known, IQ is still the primary way of measuring cognitive abilities, and we spend millions on brain training and cognitive enhancers that try to improve those scores. But what if the quest for genius is itself a fool's errand?
The first steps to answering these questions were taken almost a century ago, at the height of the American Jazz Age. At the time, the new-fangled IQ test was gaining traction, after proving itself in World War One recruitment centres, and in 1926, psychologist Lewis Terman decided to use it to identify and study a group of gifted children. Combing California's schools for the creme de la creme, he selected 1,500 pupils with an IQ of 140 or more – 80 of whom had IQs above 170. Together, they became known as the "Termites", and the highs and lows of their lives are still being studied to this day.
As you might expect, many of the Termites did achieve wealth and fame – most notably Jess Oppenheimer, the writer of the classic 1950s sitcom I Love Lucy. Indeed, by the time his series aired on CBS, the Termites' average salary was twice that of the average white-collar job. But not all the group met Terman's expectations – there were many who pursued more "humble" professions such as police officers, seafarers, and typists. For this reason, Terman concluded that "intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated". Nor did their smarts endow personal happiness. Over the course of their lives, levels of divorce, alcoholism and suicide were about the same as the national average.
As the Termites enter their dotage, the moral of their story – that intelligence does not equate to a better life – has been told again and again. At best, a great intellect makes no differences to your life satisfaction; at worst, it can actually mean you are less fulfilled.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:11PM
Please stop buying into this pseudoscience. I cringe whenever I see it. As if we could provide a simple number that tells people how intelligent someone is based on simplistic tests when we don't even understand intelligence. To people who arbitrarily assume that making more money, doing better in school, or other such things equates to intelligence, IQ makes sense; to people who realize all of that is arbitrary, not so much. Even many people on sites such as this buy into the IQ scam, and it is sad.
And save the typical illogical ad hominem attacks, please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:13PM
Again, IQ is the best we have. It is not very good, but it is better than nothing. To say that IQ is pseudoscience just because it is not very good is to say that Newton was engaged in pseudoscience because he did not account for things he did not understand. It is a small step away from pure subjectivity, one that is in the right direction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:05PM
Again, IQ is the best we have.
That doesn't matter! If the "best we have" is abysmal garbage (which IQ is), then relying on it is foolish. I reject this 'solution' because it is pseudoscientific if you try to use it to measure someone's intelligence. Pseudoscience doesn't become better just because we don't have another solution; that just means we need to look for other solutions, not accept pseudoscience. That's just bad reasoning.
It's not even comparable to what Newton did, as physics isn't so arbitrary and subjective. The social 'sciences' are a joke in comparison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:03AM
You have a lot to learn. Both about physics and making do with what we have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:40AM
If what we have promotes ignorance (as pretending that IQ is a measure of intelligence does), then we shouldn't make do with it; we should scrap it, as it is actually harmful. If a new invention killed the user 100% of the time, despite there not being a 'better' invention like it, it should be rejected. We can get along fine without pretending that IQ measures intelligence, so I'm not sure why you fools seemingly think society would fall apart without this IQ nonsense.
And if you think physics is comparable to the social 'sciences', you're a damn fool. The levels of rigor, bias, and objectivity are different.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:50AM
You thought I did, and you are a damn fool for assuming it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @06:20AM
Well then, I'll simply disregard the content in your previous post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:10AM
So you reject a system because it is arbitrary and subjective by not having any system at all and being completely arbitrary and subjective. That's just bad reasoning. Look, if you are starving you would not look down on food that tasted abysmal, then why do it intellectually too? Unless you are prepared to propose a better system, your childish musings on abysmal garbage and jokes are just that.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:37AM
So you reject a system because it is arbitrary and subjective by not having any system at all and being completely arbitrary and subjective.
There is no way to measure someone's intelligence, so don't pretend there is. Since there is no current way to measure intelligence, I reject everything that claims to do this and fails, including completely arbitrarily and subjective methods (which IQ basically is anyway).
Look, if you are starving you would not look down on food that tasted abysmal
Not comparable. We won't die just because we don't use a piece of garbage like IQ and pretend it's an indicator of intelligence.
Unless you are prepared to propose a better system, your childish musings on abysmal garbage and jokes are just that.
I see it is popular to call something "childish" as a way of showing that you think it is false. All that means is that even a child can come up with objections to IQ; you have been beaten by children. Remember, arguments stand on their own merits, and labeling something "childish" does not make it wrong.
I don't need to come up with a "better" system to reject a terrible system. I believe promoting IQ as a way of measuring intelligence promotes ignorance, and is therefore overall harmful, so getting rid of this idea would be an improvement in and of itself. Nice non sequitur, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:52AM
You are truly delusional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:56AM
Syllogistic logic isn't what you think it is. Your hypocrisy and ignorance is deafening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @06:24AM
You are truly delusional.
Syllogistic logic isn't what you think it is. Your hypocrisy and ignorance is deafening.
Nice counterarguments. Or lack thereof, as the case may be. The word "hypocrisy" seems popular, even if someone didn't contradict themselves at all; using it instead of an actual argument sure does make things easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @08:43AM
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @04:47PM
As far as I know, the only method we have is IQ, which is what is being criticized here. Do you know of another method?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 16 2015, @06:33PM
IQ . . . it is not very good, but it is better than nothing
No, it isn't! And just saying "yes, it is" is not very intelligent, is it?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:06AM
Being able to realize and do things others simply can't, is beneficial. If you can make elementary particles (or energy) do things you find fascinating. Realize mathematical truths. Or just make any electronic device do your bidding right away. Or bend the financial system to benefit you. Perhaps use the social sphere to your ends. Sure cognitive ability gives you useful possibilities?