Would you trade your comparable level of intelligence with your running ability?

We are comparing a 15min 5k with Harvard and Yale law? i said I wasn't at the top of my team and my team wasn't at the top. Thats comparable to a mid to upper level public school education wise. Graduating at the middle of your class at a public college is average to maybe slightly above.

kartelite wrote:

So if someone came on here and said, "I went to Harvard for undergrad, didn't make Phi Beta Kappa, then finished around middle of the class at Yale Law, so I guess I'm around average intelligence," that wouldn't come off as false modesty to you?

I'm kinda' slow and kinda' stupid. Damn!

YYYEEESSSSS wrote:

Graduating at the middle of your class at a public college is average to maybe slightly above.

kartelite wrote:

Given that only ~ 30% of Americans graduate college, if you graduate in the middle of your class at a good public school you're probably above average (and yes I know plenty of smart people don't go to college).

Also, it is very difficult to compare running and intelligence. Consider that, what, like 1000 or so people have run sub 4. What level of intelligence would a 3:59 give you then? Smartest 1000 people all time? That's like Einstein kind of smart, maybe smarter.

Letsrunners have an unusual inflated sense of themselves, their running (although I actually believe in the PR lists, as Statman crothers does a bang up job), and intelligence. Like when someone on this board asks what was their SAT score, and 45 out of 50 say 1450 or above.

1550 or 1560 still ranks in the 99%.

1200 about 80%

1100 about 60%

1000 just under 50%

For running a 5k? These are just SWAGs but probably not too far off. Assume reasonably healthy males age 17 to 29 who actually would train for say 3 to 6 months, 3 to 6X week. (and very very few could run sub 15 or 14 on just that little amount of training).

14:00 or better - seriously probably 99.9%

15:00 - 99%

16:00 - 90%

16:40 - 80%

18:00 -70%

20:00 - 60%

21:30 - 50%

Cool question to think about...I gotta say no but do you agree? I am a Doctor in Biomedical Engineering graduated with a 3.8 gpa for all grad classes...yet there are probably 100,000? 200,000?? Doctors world wide with the same "smarts." Yet I run 2:24-2:28 regularly...Are there less than 100k runners that can run a 2:24...I am sure/think so. So it would be a bad trade.

Now if we looked within my field there might only be a couple thousand and I'm sure a 2:24 is only 25k or 30kth ranked world wide?? What do you think?

areusure? wrote:

Cool question to think about...I gotta say no but do you agree? I am a Doctor in Biomedical Engineering graduated with a 3.8 gpa for all grad classes...yet there are probably 100,000? 200,000?? Doctors world wide with the same "smarts." Yet I run 2:24-2:28 regularly...Are there less than 100k runners that can run a 2:24...I am sure/think so. So it would be a bad trade.

Now if we looked within my field there might only be a couple thousand and I'm sure a 2:24 is only 25k or 30kth ranked world wide?? What do you think?

Don't forget that there are physicists, engineers, mathematicians, lawyers, economists, veterinarians, professors of philosophy, software developers, accountants, etc. that have that have similar or better intelligence. If you're 99th percentile, that's cool and you'll do really well and rarely meet someone smarter than you, but there should be about 70 million people in the world as smart or smarter than you.

As far as running, I would seriously doubt that there are 25,000 people that can go 2:24. There are probably a lot of people with similar athletic abilities, and probably a lot more people could go that fast if they really trained for it, but I'm guessing there aren't that many people that can run that fast.

Very difficult to determine one's relative standing in either field and almost impossible to compare.

YYYEEESSSSS wrote:

Lets say you are a guy who had a 1200 SAT and a 90% average and are also a 14:00 5k runner. Would you trade? you'd probably be about a 1500-1550 with a 97% average and a 16:00 5k runner.

If smart equated success in life then maybe. However that is not the only deciding factor. So...no I would not.

This is a good attempt, and I think the intelligence part is right on.

However, the intelligence percentages include all humans (or men, since you are using mens 5k times). The running percentages only would include men who ran in high school. If you include all men, the percentages would be much lower. Even if you only look at local 5ks, the 21:30 would be top 10%. However, only a small fraction of the population even gets there. I would guess the 50% mark to be around 30 minutes. It might be a lot higher.

Think back to high school gym class. There was the kid from the track xc team who ran a 5:00 mile. There were the kids from the soccer team who ran a 6 or 6:30. There were wrestler/football players who ran 7-8:00. Then there were the other 2/3 or the class who were 10 or more. It only gets worse as they get older and fatter.

I'm pretty much in the scenario you described. A bit faster than 16:00, though. What does 97% mean? Over 1500 (or 2300 now) is higher than the 97th percentile, and so is 14:00.

Anyway, intelligence is not something you can comfortably give up. It also does not make you happy. More talent in your passion (running) with less responsible intelligence would very likely make you a happier person. I'd choose that if I hadn't become so dependent on knowledge.

I think you have to look at it as a percentage. Only a small percentage of people are runners. So if you are a 3:59 guy you are in the top 10 in YOUR EVENT and so probably a top 50 distance runner in the NCAA. Thats elite and probably worth being one of the 1000-5000 smartest people in all colleges.

Concerned Citizen wrote:

YYYEEESSSSS wrote:

Graduating at the middle of your class at a public college is average to maybe slightly above.

Given that only ~ 30% of Americans graduate college, if you graduate in the middle of your class at a good public school you're probably above average (and yes I know plenty of smart people don't go to college).

Also, it is very difficult to compare running and intelligence. Consider that, what, like 1000 or so people have run sub 4. What level of intelligence would a 3:59 give you then? Smartest 1000 people all time? That's like Einstein kind of smart, maybe smarter.

It's not like being intelligent is a free ticket to success, anyway. You still have to work really hard to get anywhere.

YYYEEESSSSS wrote:

I think you have to look at it as a percentage. Only a small percentage of people are runners. So if you are a 3:59 guy you are in the top 10 in YOUR EVENT and so probably a top 50 distance runner in the NCAA. Thats elite and probably worth being one of the 1000-5000 smartest people in all colleges.

I don't think that most people that don't run would be any good at it. Sure some would, but I'm betting not that many.

And how do you account for chicks? Would you count them only against other chicks as far as running, and against everybody in intelligence, or would you count them against everybody in running too?

And having running talent doesn't mean you're going to be fast.

Ho Hum wrote:

It's not like being intelligent is a free ticket to success, anyway. You still have to work really hard to get anywhere.

I think the Army has stats for running. 10 min time trial or 1.5 mile run...that would actually be some good data.

YYYEEESSSSS wrote:

We are comparing a 15min 5k with Harvard and Yale law? i said I wasn't at the top of my team and my team wasn't at the top. Thats comparable to a mid to upper level public school education wise. Graduating at the middle of your class at a public college is average to maybe slightly above.

How many people each year run sub-15 in the US? I'm quite sure it's under 1000. How many people matriculate at Harvard? Well more than that. The same could be said for people who have done either in a lifetime. And I'd guess the number of people attending Yale Law is roughly the same as the number of people running sub-15 each year.

Trust me, if you were a "middle of the road" guy at Harvard undergrad, you'd probably claim to feel only moderately intelligent, same as you're doing now with your running.

A lot of the time people act "falsely modest" is because they want validation from others on how awesome they are.

Runner A: Oh, so you ran in college? Me too, I mainly did distance.

Runner B: Oh cool, yeah I did everything from 800m to 5k. What was your 5k time?

Runner A: It was pretty bad, not worth really talking about.

Runner B: Oh okay. Yeah not everyone on our team was that good either.

Runner A: I mean I ran 14:35, but that's really mediocre in the grand scheme of things.

Runner B: 14:35!?! Our school record's only 15:08!

Runner A: [mission accomplished]

YYYEEESSSSS wrote:

And having running talent doesn't mean you're going to be fast.

But we're using times you've already run. If I've already run 14:00 or whatever I'm already fast. If I scored 1550 on the SAT I'm smart - I have talent - but I'm by no means successful.

I couldn't make the trade...what runner could I possibly look up to then?

Concerned Citizen wrote:

And how do you account for chicks? Would you count them only against other chicks as far as running, and against everybody in intelligence, or would you count them against everybody in running too?

When I answered, I was comparing myself only to other chicks in running and against everyone in intelligence. OTOH, if we're using high school grades and SATs, then comparing myself to only chicks in both running and intelligence would probably come out about the same as before, since there's not a big gap in grades between American high school men and women.

But if we're comparing running ability to everyone in America and not just competitive runners, we may be grossly underestimating our level of running ability. Even if you're a slow college runner, most people can't even run an entire 5K without stopping. There are roughly 307,006,550 people in America, and it's much much more likely to me that there are a million people smarter than me than a million people with a faster 5K PR.

Here's a link. Hmmm.

16:22 2 mile - 50%

12:20 2 mile - 99%

If you go by these numbers it's a lot easier to be fast than smart.