from the appealing-to-a-community-of-loners dept.
A story at Inverse, covers research that concludes that Evolution Made Really Smart People Long to Be Loners:
Psychologists have a pretty good idea of what typically makes a human happy. Dancing delights us. Being in nature brings us joy. And, for most people, frequent contact with good friends makes us feel content.
That is, unless you're really, really smart.
In a paper published in the British Journal of Psychology , researchers Norman Li and Satoshi Kanazawa report that highly intelligent people experience lower life satisfaction when they socialize with friends more frequently. These are the Sherlocks and the Newt Scamanders of the world — the very intelligent few who would be happier if they were left alone.
[...] To come to this conclusion, the researchers analyzed the survey responses of 15,197 individuals between the ages of 18 and 28. Their data was a part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health — a survey that measures life satisfaction, intelligence, and health...
Intelligence is believed to have evolved as a psychological mechanism to solve novel problems — the sort of challenges that weren't a regular part of life. For our ancestors, frequent contact with friends and allies was a necessity that allowed them to survive. Being highly intelligent, however, meant an individual was more likely to be able to solve problems without another person's help, which in turn diminished the importance of their friendships.
[...] That certainly doesn't mean that if you enjoy being around your friends that you're unintelligent. But it does mean that the really smart person you know who spends much of their time alone isn't a sad loner — they probably just like it that way.
In my estimation, the community here is above-average in intelligence so I am curious: How many of you are loners? Do you prefer the company of yourself to the company of others?
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday December 19 2016, @05:35PM
This does not mean that all loners are really smart people. :)
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @05:37PM
Correlation... causation... meh...
something... something... get off of my lawn and leave me be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:25PM
We don't even have a reliable, provable way of measuring how intelligent someone is. Rubbish.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Nuke on Monday December 19 2016, @08:27PM
We don't even have a reliable, provable way of measuring how intelligent someone is. Rubbish.
Intelligent people can always recognise other intelligent people. Can't you?
(Score: 3, Funny) by forkazoo on Monday December 19 2016, @08:55PM
The great thing about being a loner is that when you assert that you are the smartest person in the room, there is nobody around to argue with you.
That said, I am pretty intelligent by most measures, and I am definitely very introverted. I usually like to have at least one day a week where I don't talk or interact with anybody in person.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Monday December 19 2016, @05:40PM
That's why I like text, the writing process helps people filter some of that noise out.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:14PM
> That's why I like text, the writing process helps people filter some of that noise out.
And to make up for it you use the most unreadable font to inject your own noise into the text.
Does being a loner also make you a narcissist?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @07:05PM
If anything, monospaced fonts are more readable...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @11:42PM
The entire history of typography says you are wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @08:55PM
Does it hurt to be that stupid?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @09:18PM
Not a very clever troll. I see GP's text in same font as other posts here (although I do remember seeing his stuff monospaced back when SN first started). You must have your font selection messed up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:08AM
More like your system is missing a full complement of monospace fonts and is falling back to a proportional spaced one when this site specifies monospaced.
Try it yourself, try to use the code or tt tags to make a monospace posting like the way that ahole does.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @07:11PM
That might be more like ADHD...
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday December 22 2016, @12:49AM
Speaking from the nominal top 0.1%, I enjoy my friends' company, BUT -- for every hour spent with others, I need 2-3 hours alone to decompress. Being with people all the time is stressful and tiring. So I hear ya there -- text works around the issue.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Monday December 19 2016, @05:41PM
smart people don't necessarily want to be isolated and alone, we just really hate being bothered by dumb people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:50PM
I have no clue what you're talking about ... oh, wait ... a dog with a puffy tail.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @07:21PM
Totally agree.
I LOVED my graduate university days spent in an office with a table tennis table and 140+ IQ office mates who were as nutty as me. We had a ball and spent as much time together as possible.
Then I went to the corporate IT world where I was very successful and even ended up in management but hated every minute of it.
The sad fact is that VERY highly intelligent people (and no, this board is not populated by mostly this category) tend to be treated like freaks because they operate in a head-space and at a pace that bewilders other people. At best people try to control them for their own purposes as they see the value in their intelligence and feel the need to use them like a tool, being tools themselves. I have to constantly be dumbing myself down and taking a breath to make sure I was operating slow enough for others to keep up.
It was tiring. It was draining. It was like swimming in a swamp.
And don't trot out that tired old stereotype that I was anti-social with a low emotional IQ and unempathic - quite the opposite which I why I gravitated towards management. I DO have my many, many, MANY faults its just those are not among them.
And don't bother replaying with the snarky retort you have in your head right now mouth breather. I will purposely not be coming back here to read it...going to spend some time alone instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @07:28PM
140+ IQ
While those office mates might well have been very intelligent, don't confuse IQ with intelligence; there's not enough significant scientific evidence to support that.
low emotional IQ
That's (emotional intelligence) not just a tired old stereotype: It's more garbage from the social sciences.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 19 2016, @09:13PM
The nose. You hit it squarely.
I can hang regularly only with people with a 130 IQ or higher. Even that's mathematically equivalent to an average person picking their friends from the short bus though. The very few good friends I have are all 145 or better and exceed me in some area that it would take me years to pass them up in expertise; rather than the weeks it would take me to surpass a normal person in their signature mental endeavor.
That's not at all to say I look down on people for being less intelligent. I don't. I make a conscious effort not to. Unfortunately that effort is exceedingly tiring over the span of days or weeks, so many things in life are just out the flipping window for me.
This may be why I enjoy fishing so much. It's just me and the fish. Fish rarely say anything insanely stupid. Also, there are so many highly influential variables to having a productive day of fishing on any given day that it's one hell of a mental pursuit, while at the same time being enjoyable anywhere along the skill curve. Unless it's raining harder than a drizzle. Fuck a bunch of that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Uncle_Al on Monday December 19 2016, @05:41PM
A loner, wanting to be by himself.
Then, one day...
HE SNAPPED!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:04PM
SoylentNoose: The Evolved Killer
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Monday December 19 2016, @05:43PM
I was going to do a mealy-mouthed half attack on this based on the abstract, and how strong the conclusion was given the nature of the evidence. Then I read the full paper and it's garbage in terms of actually supporting the conclusion.
this image is really telling [wiley.com]
Look at this chart. Everyone is happier with lower population density, low and high IQ. And the difference is bigger for low-IQ people. How does this even remotely support their hypothesis? How?
They had an ad-hoc evo-psych theory that doesn't even explain the data they actually collected except in the fraction 0.002 overall effect size for intelligence*popdensity(with admittedly a real p value). The evidence collection of this thing is fine. Their methodology is okay, but seriously, the conclusion has no bearing on any of it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @05:53PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:04PM
Are you referring to Figure 1 on page 11 (document page 685) of the pdf [wiley.com]?
If so, I would have this interpretation: Smart people are, overall, unhappier than dumb people; however, smart people can find more happiness in a dense population, probably because they are able to simulate a lower population density by escaping into the seclusion of their own minds.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Nerdfest on Monday December 19 2016, @06:04PM
You're just jealous because you have friends.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 19 2016, @06:11PM
(Score: 2) by jcross on Monday December 19 2016, @06:57PM
Yeah, this headline avoids Betteridge only on the technicality that it's phrased as a statement.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @07:35PM
I don't know -- what I see (skimming the paper) is that one small result from a complex study is being hyped in news coverage simply because it's the most newsworthy, thus misrepresenting the study's conclusion. I'm not real impressed with the "savannah theory of happiness" (it strikes me as the sort of framework on which one can hang justifications for almost any result), but I think you're conflating the two parts of the study dealing with substantially different variables.
The first part, Study 1A, shows that, as you say, population density is negatively correlated with happiness, and that this correlation is stronger for lower IQ. They also pull out the interesting result (in Figure 1, which you linked) that high-IQ people are happier than low-IQ in cities, while high-IQ people are less happy than low-IQ in rural areas (but still happier than high-IQ urbanites), in something like these numbers:
IQ| Urban| Rural
--+------+------
H | 4.15 | 4.21
L | 4.12 | 4.26
Study 1B, on the other hand, moves on to socialization, which is distinct from population density, and in this study was measured with the question:
In the past 7 days, how many times did you just "hang out" with friends, or talk on the telephone for more than 5 minutes?
The overall result is, unsurprisingly, that there is a general positive correlation between frequency of socialization and happiness. However, the interesting bit (and the part that makes headines) is that this correlation is not merely stronger at low-IQ and weaker at high-IQ (like the population density <-> happiness inverse correlation from 1A), but is very strong at low-IQ and flipped for high-IQ -- those who have high IQ and frequent socialization are less happy than those who have high IQ and infrequent socialization.
Since this study only shows correlation, they're careful to point out that it doesn't prove that happiness is an effect of socialization frequency (as their savannah theory suggests). Moreover, their data shows that, despite the (negative, for high-IQ) correlation between socialization frequency and happiness, high-IQs have higher socialization frequency than low-IQ individuals (for whom the correlation is positive). Given a causal link, one might expect low-IQs to engage in more socialization, and high-IQs less, each to maximize their own happiness. The explanations offered are that people may not be aware of the presumed causal link* and that people may not have complete control over their socialization frequency.
* If this is true, then TFAs claim that "really smart people long to be loners" is not strictly true -- more like "really smart people would be happier as loners but are too really not-smart to realize it". I'm being flippant, but it's certainly conventional wisdom that one cannot become happy by seeking happiness, which is another way of saying we as individuals don't understand what aspects of our lives are causing unhappiness, or how any changes we might make would affect our happiness. IMO a big part of this is in a sense down to dynamic range -- so many things are characterized by a short-timescale "spike" effect on happiness, which makes it very hard to see whether the post-spike response decays to zero, positive, or negative.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday December 19 2016, @07:47PM
A fair deeper analysis, but it's still pretty much bullshit to attribute that, sans evidence, to genetics, and the genetics, in turn, to a dual-mode selective pressure.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 19 2016, @10:16PM
talk on the telephone
Its not 1970 anymore and I suspect legacy analog phone use is not flat across socioeconomic strata or flat when corrected for IQ.
Hopefully a simplification of something more elaborate and less precise but more useful, like google hangouts, facetime, the twitter periscope if thats still around, whatever the facebook video thing is called, etc.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @05:48PM
I can't stand being around stupid people. I have to smoke a reefer, which lowers my IQ about 50 points, to socialize with people.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:18PM
Sounds about right. Cannabis makes my thought process go all haywire so even though it's therapeutic, I prefer to be alone while high. My social drug of choice is a few strong shots. Same effect, brings the IQ down to where I can socialize. I think there was even a study with better data that supported that smart people like to drink a lot.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:50PM
You two are full of yourselves. You aren't any different from "dumb" people.
It isn't about "lowering your IQ" its about dis-inhibition.
Intoxication has always been used to facilitate socialization. Liquor isn't called a social lubricant for nothing.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Monday December 19 2016, @07:45PM
Fanciful thought, what if Einstein avoided the Neils Bohr summer get togethers because even all those wildly smart physicists were too far beneath him. Even with all the free beer [ixquick-proxy.com]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @10:14PM
proper image link, [nww2m.com] without the hella funky non-functional proxy redirect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:53PM
What a coincidence. We have to smoke some weed just so we can tolerate you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @05:55PM
I think you mean that the community here believes themselves to be of above average intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @07:22PM
But do they? I haven't seen any scientific evidence of that.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday December 19 2016, @09:21PM
I think the community here is definitely above average, overall. I think part of the problem with such a statement is that most people think of "below average" as some sort of insult. I still recall a little while back when I was describing a family member to a friend and referred to her as "below average" intellectually. Another friend was aghast -- "How could you say that about a family member??" I simply replied, "No -- I don't mean she's mentally retarded or something. I mean below average. Maybe 40th percentile or something. Just definitely not super intelligent." Similarly, just as "below average intelligence" doesn't mean mentally retarded, "above average" doesn't mean "genius." It just means mostly in the top 50% of the population.
(And before someone starts ranting on how I'm really referring to "median," please note that the English word "average" has a long history of referring to measures of central tendency in general and does NOT always refer to "mean" in general parlance. When the median and mean are relatively close, it's perfectly normal to casually refer to stuff above as "above average" and vice versa.)
Anyhow, as someone who has taught at the secondary and tertiary level, I feel like I've seen a reasonably good sample of what the general population is capable of in terms of reasoning, writing ability, etc. The community here may not be a bunch of geniuses. But "above average" overall? Yeah, I think that's pretty accurate. Even many of the trolls.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 19 2016, @10:38PM
Even many of the trolls.
Trolling is hard work. The people who think its easy haven't done it in earnest or think saying the "n word" is some kind of Shakespearean epic worthy of worship. Meaningful engaged participation on /pol/ is only possible for the cognitive elite.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday December 19 2016, @10:50PM
Even many of the trolls.
Trolling is hard work. . . . Meaningful engaged participation on /pol/ is only possible for the cognitive elite.
Amen! Preach it, Brother!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday December 19 2016, @11:29PM
Meaningful engaged participation on /pol/ is only possible for the cognitive elite.
Huh. I've never heard someone define trolls as being involved in "meaningful engaged participation" on anything, even a board semi-devoted to trolling. Common definitions of online trolling generally have to do with disruption of whatever discourse is going on. If you're "meaningfully engaged," even in some sort of apparent troll-fest, that doesn't sound like trolling to me. It's kinda like going to a nude party. If you went into a normal party without any clothes on, you'll probably be a disruptive influence. But if you're "meaningfully engaged" by being nude at a nude party, though, your attempt at disruption is no longer violating norms and therefore becomes the normal.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday December 21 2016, @12:25AM
Special snowflakes often assume that somebody is trolling because they got their feelings hurt or somebody slaughtered a sacred cow in a snarky way.
Real trolling is like Dr. Bob md, from the blue site. Just close enough that people get sucked in, but in retrospect obviously not serious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:44AM
saying the "n word" is some kind of Shakespearean epic
Othello was a big cuck nigger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @11:10PM
Welcome to Soylent News, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:38PM
All the women on SN are Olympic medal-winning athletes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:46PM
(And before someone starts ranting on how I'm really referring to "median," please note that the English word "average" has a long history of referring to measures of central tendency in general and does NOT always refer to "mean" in general parlance.
This was redundant. Intelligence falls on a bell curve, the mean and median are the same in this case. If someone rants about you meaning median rather than mean in this context, then just call them an idiot and move on.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday December 19 2016, @10:05PM
Of course I'm of above average intelligence. I mean, the vast majority of living beings are bacteria. Do you know the intelligence level of bacteria? I mean, I could be the dumbest person in the world, and still would be of above average intelligence!
You just have to choose your ensemble appropriately. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @11:20PM
Aren't some of those bacteria in the whitehouse? That explains even more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:01PM
Not yet.
(Score: 1) by dvader on Monday December 19 2016, @06:46PM
Evolution Made Really Smart People Long to Be Loners
I don't see how evolution "made smart people loners". That would imply that the "intelligence gene" would somehow up or downregulate the "reward from social activity" response. To do that, there would have to be an evolutionary BENEFIT from being a loner if you also are intelligent and a benefit to be more social if you're dumb. That is, your chance of surviving (and copulating) should increase if you modify your social activity depending on your intelligence. After a quick glance through the article it seems it has not shown anything like that at all. Also, as far as I know, there is no "intelligence gene"...
What they seem to be saying in the article is that intelligent people may have an easier time accepting "new" (non-savannah-like) environments than dumb people. That is, evolution didn't "make" anything, smart people just have an easier time adapting to new envirionments. As for the loner/social part, I assume more intelligent people just don't get as much of a intellectual stimulus from talking to dumb people... seems rather obvious really...
There's also a lot of talk about the Savannah principle and claimed deductions but I can't be bothered to go into the details...
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Francis on Monday December 19 2016, @07:38PM
People misunderstand evolution all the time. Evolution doesn't make people or organisms do things so much as it punishes things that get in the way of reproduction.
If a given trait doesn't impact the ability to reproduce, then evolutionary pressures don't apply. If you can get laid by being very good looking or by having a lot of money with equal ease, then evolution isn't going to pick one set of traits over the over the other. But, given somebody who has no money and is also ugly, the factors that led to that are going to disappear over time.
(Score: 2) by migz on Monday December 19 2016, @10:02PM
You have a good point, it seems like this study has things backwards. The evolutionary pressure comes from being intelligent being of survival benefit if you are a loner. If you are dumb and alone, you are less likely to survive than the smart.
This would correlate alone seeking genes with intelligence genes. This also explains why mobs are dumb. There is survival benefit to being in a mob, unless you are intelligent, in which case the environment will select against you.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 19 2016, @10:05PM
Also, as far as I know, there is no "intelligence gene"...
There's a whole wikipedia article on the topic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ [wikipedia.org]
There's lots of creationist theory masquerading as progressive political values that only environment matters, but the numbers don't lie.
However its transmitted, genes or star wars midichlorians, statistics seem to show intelligence can be measured in multiple different ways and they all kind fall in between heritability of depression (pretty darn high like 0.4) and heritability of height (like 0.8 fraction). With a lot of hand waving about multiple studies its around 3/4.
Your claim that there's no gene for it is spurious in that no one has run a study implying anywhere near zero as a factor. Some political theories require that, sure. Is it merely half or over 0.8 is where the debate seems to lie.
So there's a non-constructive mathematical proof that an intelligence gene exists or more likely there's a great cluster of genes that taken together as a set cooperate to make a smart person. But the non-constructive aspect means it obviously exists but we have no idea what specific chromosomes are involved. Either that or the math has proven there's some kind of mass creationism going on with every fetus being intelligently designed to merely almost mimic its parents performance however high or low that might be. Or space aliens, etc. Eh I'd put my money on genetics being more likely.
Its actually kinda similar to race. There's no single "white" or "black" gene and albino black folk don't look white any more than white folk with sun tans look black. Big ole cluster of genes relating to all manner of things from vit D processing to melanin production to sickle cell anemia danger to lactose tolerance.
(Score: 1) by dvader on Tuesday December 20 2016, @09:51AM
There's a whole wikipedia article on the topic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ [wikipedia.org]
Thanks! I learnt something today. Statistical heritability was new to me and it is an interesting topic. I'm obviously new to this topic and there's a lot of surprising things, like, how the heritability increases with age (0.2 as kids and 0.8 as adults) and how the heritability for some traits like memory is much lower (0.4) than the heritability of general cognitive ability (0.8).
Actually, my (sloppy) argument was that there is no single intelligence gene but rather a bunch of genes controlling various traits which together make up or cognitive abilities. Even comparatively simple cognitive abilities like memory does not seem not to be controlled by a single gene. It is likely that intelligence is like a finely tuned piano where "more string tension" is not always better. Each trait must be tuned in relation to the others to produce a good result. This tuning would of course be inheritable but it would be very hard to "read" the final result.
For there to be evolutionary selection pressure, there must be an optimal level of social activity which maximizes your chance of reproducing and depends on your intelligence. If intelligence is not controlled by a single gene, you can't just "read" that gene and then up or down regulate the social activity based on the result. Intelligence and social activity could co-evolve but then we would have ethnic groups of intelligent loners and others of stupid socialites (which there is little evidence of).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @08:01PM
Every time there's an article related to "intelligence" there are pages of posts of 1st person accounts explaining how intelligent the author is. Particularly when it involves having to put up with the rest of us tiresome plebs.
This is a polite reminder to STFU. Your a moran.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @08:21PM
You're*
Some of us are smarter then all of us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @08:52PM
* also, "moraine"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:43AM
She died when she fell through the red door :(
(Score: 1) by Ken on Monday December 19 2016, @10:25PM
"than"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:12AM
Muphry's Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law [wikipedia.org]
Its obvious to me that OP did his two "typos" deliberately to provoke exactly that kind of revealing response from a smarter-than-thou idiot.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday December 19 2016, @08:04PM
Not to be pretentious, but I know I am above average intelligence, but my biggest problem is not socializing with others but having to explain myself in terms others will grasp, as a metaphor or to go back and explain the logic I used to help others to see the conclusion I came to. I play pen and paper RPG's with a group that over the years has come to contain people whose intellect and opinions' I respect. I have a great deal of fun with this group because you can pose a problem and get a variety of answers and know that the group follows your logic or derives their own that is understandable.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Monday December 19 2016, @08:16PM
This. I blame it on Mechanical Engineering Lab II. Dr. Wilkinson [usf.edu] never tolerated an imprecise description of the task at hand.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Monday December 19 2016, @08:47PM
Yeah, I think my experiences run parallel to yours. I have a handful of friends who I truly enjoy spending time with. I've known most of them for about 15 years. We all enjoy a similar train of thought most of the time with enough variations that it's quite insightful to run things past them. We usually meet, also, to play RPGs around a table in someone's basement.
Meanwhile, 'others' are kind of painful to have to interact with, because of all the going back and explaining what I'm trying to talk to them about. I don't know if that's intelligence or if it's just having such common interests, though we come from pretty different backgrounds. There are a handful of people I work with who are the same way, but they're few and far between. The guy I sit next to basically nods and smiles at most of the projects I talk about, while I nod and smile when he tells me about the TV show he's been watching lately. On the other hand, my team lead talks to me about her projects (which are usually things out of my areas of expertise) but we can have those conversations in an intelligent manner that, far as I can tell, doesn't leave either of us groaning afterward.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday December 19 2016, @10:06PM
It looks to me like you would benefit from more editing. Not censorship, mind you. It's my gut feeling that people of above average intelligence are used to their raw stream of thought passing as coherent throughout their educations. People below average, however, had to train themselves to form coherent thoughts. As a result, when comparing a smarter person against a dumber person talking about the same thing, the dumber person will be easier to understand because the content will have been better edited.
I say this because it's clear that your comment is mostly a big run-on sentence streaming from your unedited thoughts. A dumber person may have made a less insightful point more coherently.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:31AM
That could very well be true. I was always penalized for not showing my work in math. It always seemed so self-evident. While I was young and a cop we were taught to write as simply and directly as possible, but I do have a habit of just spewing forth a stream that seems linear to myself but not always so to others.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @11:48PM
"I like to hang with people who think like me."
That has nothing to do with intelligence, by the way, regardless of how smart you mom says you are.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:42AM
Actually one thing I enjoy most about the group is the diversity of opinions. I will likely get a differing opinion/view and have it justified by a coherent train of thought. Discussion and/or debate is better when properly spiced by variety. Hearing the same views echoed gets boring very quickly. If I was looking for the echo chamber I could just stay at home and listen to me, myself and I agree on everything. That is one of the reasons I really like this place, a huge range of views and opinions, from a wide variety of unique characters.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday December 19 2016, @08:40PM
Dancing delights us. Being in nature brings us joy. And, for most people, frequent contact with good friends makes us feel content. That is, unless you're really, really smart.
I don't understand the nature bit (link is broken), because unlike dancing and contact with friends, that does generally involve being alone. I am happiest when walking alone in a forest - perhaps I'm not really smart therefore. I'm not a great fan of "good friends" though, and wouldn't know whether dancing delights me or not because the few times back then when I asked a girl to dance I was told to fuck off, and I never bothered again.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 19 2016, @08:45PM
Now, disclaimer: I consistently test in the 140-150 range when taking IQ tests, usually right smack in the middle around 145. I also prefer to be with a small group of close people, preferably around the same mental level as me. And yes, being around stupid people is draining and painful. But alone? No. As much as I look like the stereotype of "scary six-foor loner chick" I actually don't like being entirely alone for very long.
But...define intelligence. What is intelligence in this context? Are we speaking only of verbal and mathematical skills? Because I'm a lot better with the former than the latter, almost completely useless at anything artistic, and barely even average kinesthetically aside from having a good proprioceptive map of myself. This article, I'm guessing, speaks of the logical and mathematical components of intelligence only, right?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @08:56PM
> What is intelligence in this context?
Not getting caught. Ted Kaczynski started his bombing spree in 1978 and didn't get caught until 1995. Smart man! Going to be the science advisor in the new administration.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday December 19 2016, @09:09PM
Now, disclaimer: I consistently test in the 140-150 range when taking IQ tests, usually right smack in the middle around 145.
Can I ask where you are "taking IQ tests"? When I hear most people say this, they're often referring to the multitude of online tests, which are mostly completely BS. Real IQ tests require detailed statistical analysis of population samples and norming -- something that basically no 20-question online IQ quiz is capable of. The online tests almost always give you a number FAR above what a standard IQ test would, either because they're trying to sell you a full "report" or because they want you to share the test with your friends to get ad revenue, and they know if half of people are getting "below average" scores, fewer people will share the test on social media, etc.
I remember a few years back reading about somebody who wanted to see exactly HOW bad these tests were. When guessing randomly without even looking at the questions, he got a 110. When he deliberately chose a wrong answer for every single question, he got a 98 or something. If 100 is defined as the standard average IQ, obviously there's likely something wrong there.
Not saying you aren't above average or even significantly so. But unless "when taking IQ tests" refers to official normed tests administered and scored by a competent person, any supposed IQ numbers you've been quoted are likely quite suspect.
But...define intelligence.
Yeah... there are all sorts of problems with IQ or any supposed measure of general intelligence too, which is even more of a reason to view any such metrics with a lot of qualifiers.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 19 2016, @10:34PM
A specific critique I can see is in purely analog telecom RF world trying to use 20 questions to transmit a number between 0 and 200 but probably in an unspecified narrower range is going to result in a low signal to noise ratio. How correct of a floating point number can you send with one symbol of 16QAM or in this case some kind of weird 20QAM signal? Or if you prefer programming analogies quarter or so precision 20 bit format has not really swept the programming profession by storm.
Looking at sites like
http://colloquysociety.org/col83eqv.htm [colloquysociety.org]
Maybe that site is "fake news" but looking at my actual ASVAB and ACT scores those are professional tests taken almost the same time of my life decades ago, but the scores diverge by quite a few IQ points.
When I was in the Reserves it was a widely held belief that your ASVAB GT score was your actual IQ and that page implies its a bit inflated.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:45AM
If the ACT, GRE, and SAT scores they list there are any indication then 140-145 is a perfect fit. But what's the point? A high IQ and $2 will get you on the bus here, but if you don't have $2 you end up walking anyway.
One of the biggest lies I was ever told, back when I was young enough to believe it, is that a combination of intelligence and hard work will take you far in life. Bullshit. Intelligence is an active liability in most places in this country and if you're not in the right position the only thing you get from hard work is tired. We go from the playground to college back to the playground, it seems.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @10:04PM
I look like the stereotype of "scary six-foor loner chick"
And every time you mention it, someone blurts out, "that's my fetish!"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 19 2016, @10:13PM
Yeah for some reason a lot of guys seem to like that look. I don't know why. I've got permanent, Grumpy-Cat-tier RBF and wear almost no color but black or navy blue, like ever. What's the appeal?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @10:36PM
So smart, so genuine, so ... dominant. Oh stop, you're turning me on.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:34AM
I'm not at all dominant, that's the funny thing. Maybe it's like how really big dogs are pretty laid back and the smaller yappy ones are all like "You wanna fight me? YOUWANNAFIGHTME?! I'LL KILL YOU! I'LL KILL YER WHOLE FAMILY ARF ARF YAP YAP YAP!"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:01AM
The appeal is that you're big enough and strong enough to beat up an average man, not that you're violent enough to start a fight.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday December 19 2016, @09:24PM
can't see where they dealt with B.O. as a confounding variable.
Loner lonely, but smelly is likely to be alone, no matter what their IQ.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by migz on Monday December 19 2016, @10:05PM
I think that would be a more interesting study. What is the relationship between BO and intelligence. I expect a U shaped curve with dummies and Einsteins on the smelly edges.
:P
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday December 19 2016, @09:38PM
This is a serious question. Already I see lots of comments here quoting exact IQ thresholds -- "I only hang out with folks 130 IQ or over," etc., etc.
I've only taken two actual IQ tests in my life. One was in elementary school and given by a professional psychometrician, whom my school district brought in once a year to administer individual private tests to candidates for a "gifted" program. The other was a form of the Raven Advanced Matrices I took while in graduate school as part of a study. No one informed me of the exact results of the first test; I only knew I was selected for the gifted program. And I only found out the number because I once sneaked a peek at the files of my "gifted" program teacher -- it was general policy NOT to give out the actual scores to students, I think to avoid weird competitions or inaccurate assumptions (like the fact that a 5-point IQ difference is actually meaningful or that the tests are even that accurate in pinpointing general intelligence). Perhaps they told my parents... I don't know.
And when I participated in the latter study, I actually asked whether I would be informed of the results, and I was told (correctly so) that the particular subtest I took was not broad enough to give me a score on a general IQ battery, so telling me a number there would be potentially misleading.
Only a small subset (maybe ~5-7%) of students in my school district ever took a full IQ test, and nobody actually knew their results. I've rarely met people who actually have taken a standard normed test and actually knew their results. Most of the people I've ever heard talking about their "high IQ" seem to be talking about something some stupid online test told them.
How is it that everyone here seems to not only know their IQ but the IQs of a lot of people around them? Or are you all just referring to online test results? (which are pretty much known to be BS)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ayn Anonymous on Monday December 19 2016, @09:50PM
You know that you are smarter than most other people when you have almost always a solution for a problem that all other not ever have recognised as a problem.
That simple.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @11:04PM
If the others have not recognized a problem as a problem, then by fixing it, you just became the problem. Too smart for your own good, why you gotta change things when everyone else was perfectly happy with the way things were! You're on thin ice, stop making problems, or you're fired, smartass!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday December 19 2016, @11:50PM
You know that you are smarter than most other people when you have almost always a solution for a problem that all other not ever have recognised as a problem.
Yeah, I can understand that. But unless you're some sort of master demographer who does population sampling in your spare time, exactly how can you then extrapolate that to IQ = 130 or whatever? IQ of 130 implies two sigma above average, which puts you in the ~98th percentile. It takes quite a bit of data and observations for someone to personally identify yourself as the smarter than 49/50 people, rather than smarter than 40/50 or 45/50 or whatever. That's why we have normed tests that have data from tens of thousands of people.
At least a couple of posts here were mentioning IQ of 145 or above, that's 3 sigma above mean, nearly 1 in 1000. Is everyone here a high school valedictorian? (Actually, given the size of most high schools, 3 sigma probably means you aren't just the smartest person in your class, but probably smarter than the valedictorians of classes around you.)
Believe me -- back when I was in my early 20s I spent a while thinking about how awesome my own intelligence must be, and I started thinking, "Hey, maybe I should use my test scores to get into some of those high IQ societies." Then I actually met some people from some of those societies. I never wanted to be associated with high IQ folks again....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:02AM
I was in education for some time and I took a few SBs and was able to see the results. I also went back to my high school and got my SB results from when I was 16. When I was 16, my results were 127. After 7 years of college and spending a lot of time studying music composition, arranging, and performance, my SB was 142. I haven't taken one in 30 years, but I assume it would be around the same place now. (I want to point out that, to my memory, many of the items on the SB are arbitrary and a bit capricious.) I do believe that just using a number is bullshit; you need some practical life experience to back it up. I also believe that I had much better reasoning skills after grad school than in high school and that may have accounted for the increase in the numbers. The bottom line is, I am a fairly smart fellow. I do not tolerate fools. I do enjoy being alone rather than in a group or crowd. OTOH, I have a few friends with about the same mental/emotional capacity, and we get together occasionally and have a good time. I also enjoy playing competition bridge, chess and jazz performance. At this moment, my wife and I are sitting on the couch, a fire in the fireplace, Christmas jazz playing on the stereo, and would not want to be anyplace else. We have few friends; of those, most (if not all) would be considered acquaintances. We are quite happy with this lifestyle. Neighbors pick up on that pretty fast.
This entire conversation reminds me of a great story; one day I was watching a "biography" of a famous(?) porn star, no recollection of her name. In any case, she was sitting on a stool, starkers, while answering questions. When asked what her favorite hobby was, she responded "on-line IO tests"! When pressed for her "IO", she shyly said "170"! I could not catch my breath for laughing. The internet. And anyone wonders how we ended up with Trump as president. It's an amazing world...
(Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:50AM
And you know she was wrong, how? There does seem to be a correlation between intelligence and distain for societies sexual mores. I cannot provide a reference to that but I have heard it many times and seen much apocryphal 'evidence'. Seeing as it fits my model I give some limited credence.
(Score: 2) by Ayn Anonymous on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:34AM
The number does not really matter.
Because this number does not measure accompanying skills like:
- Quick and efficient learning
- Resistance to social engineering / peer pressure
- Non verbal language understanding
- Observation skills
- etc.
That accompanying skills are a large part of the 'package' that make the difference between a "useless" intelligent person and someone who can actually successful
apply his IQ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @09:54PM
A lot of people will trust any random online IQ test when it gives them an answer they like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @10:02PM
I took the standard IQ tests of the time back in the 1960's in school. Yes, they told us the results. I guess the politically correct police have put a stop to this nowadays.
(Score: 1) by Ayn Anonymous on Monday December 19 2016, @10:08PM
Look around. The world full of idiots.
The lambs are silent.
They let the self-proclaimed Sheppard push them into the slaughter houses without recognising that they are stupid sheep.
Let alone seeing the problem of being "lead".
And not even scratching the solution to it.
No hope for 75% - 95% of the sheep. They will die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @11:12PM
Find a MENSA chapter near you and sign up for the next entrance exam - which is an IQ test.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:40AM
Personally? Through MENSA testing. Cattell III test I believe.
(Score: 1) by helel on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:59AM
My school district was different, or rather the culture was different then you describe. Everyone gets tested for the gifted program unless their parents specifically requests they not be and most parents share the results with their offspring. It was pretty much our alternative to dick length growing up.
(Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Tuesday December 20 2016, @05:17PM
Without failure every person who has ever made a big deal about IQ was not as smart as they thought. Even those who supposedly took accurate IQ tests.
People who are actually smart have better things to be proud of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @09:38PM
Whenever Crowfard is not posting about how smart he is, everyone should be asking, Where's Crowfard?
Crowfard does it right. Shameless attention-seeking self-promotion is the way to do public relations. If you blog, and you linkedin, and you become a local celebrity in your niche, you will succeed. Be sociable and tell everyone you are valuable and everyone will value you because you are sociable.
If you work alone and slave away at problems that no one else wants to solve and you don't actively seek attention, your work will not be valued, you will be ignored, and when anyone notices you, they will demand to know why you dare to exist.
Be Crowfard
Be Social
Don't Not Be Social
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @09:43PM
Here's Crowfard [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @09:53PM
I never looked at Crowfard's blog before today, and as I expected it's an advertising brochure for his software business, but this quote really takes the cake.
Be Social!
Don't Not Be Social!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:01AM
I'm now in my 30s, but not really a 'go getter'.
Everybody comes to me for computer help (although sometimes they are less than satisfied with my solutions), or sage-like knowledge on other topics. But almost nobody puts in the effort to actually socialize with me on a regular basis (unless I am communicating with them, rather than them getting in touch unsolicited.) I am also an extremely private person, have little to no social networking footprint etc.
As such even my family has forgotten about me, except when *THEY* need something, whether it is bodies for a family event, advice, or to bum someone for presents.
Getting back on the loner part of things: I would have been happy to expunge all of those people decades ago, but I was falsely lead by immediate family, and society in general to believe that there was a benefit to family, traditional social relationships, etc which in my experience only happens when 'popular', or if you're very lucky, when you network into a group of higher functioning individuals who act as a positive social network for you. (Most of my family isn't 'stupid' per-se, but they are not what you would call 'original thinkers'. They are split politically and intellectually become agitated if you debate/question their worldview, even if you have factual resources to back it up. Their method of education had always been 'believe us' or 'that is just the way things are.' I have finally after many years conclusively proved that is just lazy people's way of thinking.)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Ayn Anonymous on Monday December 19 2016, @09:42PM
They mostly talk about stupid things.
They never thought a second about things that are interesting you.
They can never help you solving a problem you have.
They like it "simple". Everything need to be simple.
The are emotionally. They make decisions with they guts.
Most of them suffer from this mental disorder called "religion".
Why should one enjoy the company of stupids ?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @10:47PM
Stupids are nature's trolls. They learn just enough about you to manipulate you emotionally, then they ridicule you constantly. If they decide they can't use you for their own benefit, they use what they know as blackmail to get rid of you.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @11:15PM
Yeah!
They do mostly talk about stupid things.... science, D&D, sci-fi.....
They do never think a second about things interesting you or anyone remotely normal.... they're too busy in their otaku worlds to care about your regular one.
They can never help you solve a problem you have. They're too interested in solving problems NOBODY normal cares about.
They do like it "simple" in their social lives because they think their brains are so complex. God help them if you give them cognitive dissonance.
They are emotional. So hyper-sensitive that you can't fart in their general direction wtihout giving them a panic attack.
Most of them do suffer from a mental disorder.... The religion of science. Blind belief without ever actually doing the experiments themselves - they trust the tests were done and results accurately reported. They don't "do" science they "believe" it.
Why should one enjoy the company of.... the "intelligent?"
[Oh, and I'm one of them too. Shame on you for throwing out the same stupid generalizations about "normals" that they do about you!]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 19 2016, @09:54PM
There are plenty of comments above about correlation and causation. More comments regarding measuring intelligence. All I know is, when I'm alone, I'm never lonely. I enjoy the company when there is no one else around. Some people go bug-shit if they have no one else to talk to. I just don't care.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:35AM
You're about the only person who can stand you for long periods of time, so this is not exactly surprising :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 19 2016, @10:02PM
I have always done best shuttling between solitude and small groups of smart people. They challenge me to go beyond my mental habit trail, and then I withdraw to cogitate. When I arrive at a conclusion or a new hypothesis, I return. Too much alone time can have you flying in circles; too much together time can induce claustrophobia.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by gringer on Tuesday December 20 2016, @09:49AM
I prefer being alone, but also acknowledge that my biggest leaps in creativity come from discussions with other people.
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday December 19 2016, @11:15PM
Or perhaps I'm just remembering Tevya in Fiddler on the Roof singing "Tradition!".
Smart members of your troop on the savannah can be dangerous. You've successfully been doing the same thing for umpty thousands of years and this upstart gets you to change. Most likely, it's going to be negative. Oh, it may help out in the short term, but something turns up that you're more vulnerable to due to that "great idea"(tm). (Ex: Yeah, the rains have been good, so moving farther from your main water source seems ok. But then they stop after some years and another troop has taken over that old area. You die, your kids die, everbody dies. All due to that know-it-all).
Now, on the other hand, sometimes there really are situations where a clever solution is what's needed. In a mostly static environment without our lightning fast modern social evolution, it's rare. But, it's still good to hedge your bets. After all, it's not just a matter of life and death, it's a matter of something really important. Gene propagation over the long haul.
So, there's an obvious best of both worlds solution. You have an occasional superbright one as a secret weapon, and then you make him an outcast and less popular. You express that later when you move to more social evolution than genetic evolution by having a strong anti-intellectual streak.
Voila. You get the benefits of having that egghead you don't like all that well while not having to put up with the mistakes (and my word the time he tried to teach ALL the kids how to whistle in that annoying way he came up with. You had to whomp on him several times to get him to shut up. And his Nth generation progeny still created the Crazy Frog vids.))
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:07AM
Otherwise, it makes for too much stupid in the room.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:04AM
I've never cared much for company or solitude. I'm perfectly fine not leaving the house except to buy cigarettes and food for 6 months, and I'm just as fine with going out every night for the next 6 months and not seeing my own bed or being alone during them. Might just be because I don't talk much so I don't feel the urge to have conversations? So I'll let stupid people talk at me, I'll let smart people talk at me, and I'll get fucked up with anyone who wants to drink. If it weren't for sex, drugs, and alcohol I'd probably be a hermit though.