high IQ waste of life?

Fi wrote:

Many with high IQ have ADD/ADHD, learning disabilities and so on. Some research say as much as 50% with iq above 130. Many of them go untreated because their IQ compensate. So it can definently be a curse

This resonates with me. We had no choice back in the 70s in elementary school to take the Stanford-Binet IQ test, which partitioned us from our peers into “Mentally Gifted Minders,” which I believe evolved into something else. Anyway, I was “hyperactive” and the consummate underachiever in school, even though I was “fluent” in math.

While I had a decent running career, I never had a great deal of self-worth, probably partly cultivated by being labeled as different early in life, naturally shy, and just generally scattered as far as interests and aptitude.

The vagaries and vicissitudes of life have had a way of tossing me around like a rag doll, but I will say I was blessed to marry a woman who is likely smarter than me, and our two offspring are doing remarkably well thus far, at least by societal standards of achievement. They are probably the only worthwhile thing I have produced in life, besides just trying to help people and practicing random acts of kindness.

The post about charisma beating intelligence is very accurate, which is somewhat unfortunate, because I find the most charismatic people to be less than genuine and always trying to peddle influence to get things they want. Very fake and vacuous, but such is our society.

I think giving a kid an IQ test is one of the worst things we can do in education, because it brings an enormous burden of pressure with it. For me, it caused me to retreat. Frankly, nobody gives a crap what your IQ is.

Interesting q and I’m sure it happens a lot.

My brother was tested in the 80s in elementary school and scored 160.

Very booksmart, valedictorian, less socially apt but not autistic. went to Harvard planning to go into medicine and was overwhelmed there - “small fish in a big pond’. Would have done much better in a state school. Changed major from biology to history and is now a high school teacher. Hardly a ‘failure’ but got discouraged easily and did not want to put in the work to succeed at Harvard or in medicine.

I’ve found in most professional fields, hard work w a baseline level of IQ and EQ trumps raw intellect. The EQ stuff can be learned by some even w introvert tendencies if they’re motivated. Not getting easily discouraged and taking risks are also important factors.

163 when tested in junior high, which I subsequently skipped. Read fluently by age 3 and got a full ride to college at 14. Fast forward 30 years and I’m doing something completely different from my original degrees. Unfortunately, a high IQ in the traditional sense doesn’t necessarily translate into a high social IQ, though you get a better shot at mimicking having one and can very successfully cheat personality tests.

A wasted life? No. Was life easier for my spouse who has a sky-high social IQ but hated every second of school? I think so. We both got advanced degrees and successful careers but I think it cost me more emotionally. Overthinking everything isn’t necessarily a gift.

Having a high IQ is like testing for world class running potential. Meaningless unless you train.

I'm glad you've found something that works for you, even if it took a while.

I'm not sure about today precisely, but most of the original recentering in 1994 affected the verbal test. After recentering, the one question you presumably missed on math might have still been a 780 or 790, or it might have been an 800, depending on which instance of the test you took. A perfect verbal section is legit, though.

Since we're all doing this, I got a >+3SD IQ equivalent SAT (it's probably not any more certain than that so far from the mean), also with a perfect verbal score (every question right, not 5 questions wrong/blank and still getting an 800). Missed a few on the math section. Every teacher I ever had would have figured I was a "math and science person", whatever that means. Go figure. I've never taken any other IQ tests. Funny enough, Mensa stopped accepting SATs before I took it, so I'm not qualified for them, but I am for more obscure and exclusive ones, though I've never bothered joining. With a >=1560 pre-1994 SAT, you could join the +4SD Prometheus Society, assuming it hasn't fallen apart since I last looked at it, but I don't know why you would.

I'm doing OK, using the degree I staggered over the line of despite never really learning to study, but not really as far along in my career as I'd like to be. Better than many, and I get to work with reasonably smart people, so life isn't bad.

I'm in MENSA, have top IQ and GMAT scores, etc. I also have ADHD. When I was younger, I needed medicine. Today, I manage without it (though at times it is difficult.)

I got a PhD right after undergraduate and, in contrast to my peers, took a position at a teaching school. I do minimal research, which isn't required at a teaching school, and I put in (at most) 15 hours per week. I still make decent $, and I can fully enjoy life.

I find that high IQ folks take one of two paths: (1) They find their passion and make it their life (say, some of the tech folks, equity/currency traders), or (2) they take the easiest position that they can find (WAY below their potential) and put in minimal effort. In general, you'll find that they are the CEO ("the firm is my life") or the firm's front desk security guard (put in your hours, leave, and enjoy life); they don't get "stuck" in the middle (50-60 hour weeks, email on the weekend, etc.)

On what rational basis would you think that someone with a high IQ (assuming that such a thing is real) likely would have more learning disabilities or ADHD than someone with an average IQ?

That makes no sense.

Fum Duck wrote:

Having a high IQ is like testing for world class running potential. Meaningless unless you train.

A little true except IQ (the make believe construct) doesn't measure potential, it measures current functioning. Genetics combined with your history of enrichment and cognitive development equals IQ.

It's ironic that an organization for intelligent people cannot create a test to accurately predicts human output, which by itself may be challenged. Do you measure it in terms or degree/education or career field complexity, net worth, social-political power/influence, or self-reported happiness? That aside, I am sure that there is correlation between scoring high on intelligence test and doing well academically but although there would also be with being "successful" in life, I don't believe it holds as well. Since most people like to use net wort and influence as measures, I doubt top 100 richest men and and women in the world, who are self-made, have also the top 100 IQ scores! They may be above average, which I predict, but definitely not the top. If high IQ people and MENSA used and talk about this intelligence measure as strictly a predictor of performance in classroom or in careers that are based on similar tasks as in the test, then that would be appropriate. Otherwise, it is usually sold as an all-encompassing test for human aptitude, which again is ironic. For example, IQ of 70 is near mental retardation yet many African countries supposedly average here. Do you think the average African can not carryout daily functions such as conversations, cleaning, training for a job etc.? How does this test measure account for emotional intelligence and grit? I usually look at my primary and high school buddies (I come from a system that used national rankings, so everyone on the same year can be compared directly to each other) and while its not an IQ test, I only see great correlation in terms of pursuing difficult degrees/careers and not necessarily much else. For example, I see a lot of average kids who have well-paying stable jobs and good families. I also see some high achievers who don't do much but have 3 masters degrees and a Ph.D. while others met substances that they abused and are now barely working despite being of superior intelligence. Personally, I think, based on the measures most used, all you need is above average IQ and street-smarts and you are set for life (excluding bad luck). Street-smart people know what to do at multiple scenarios and are great at reading their environment, which will probably taking you a longer way in surviving as an organism than being able to recite 18th century poem or to perform a differential equation in the shortest time in a room. The way I think about these test is that they are analogous to determining the a vehicle has a high engine capacity, or better, horsepower, and simply stating that that vehicle will be the fastest without taking other consideration such as the build/weight, design, type of tires, who will be driving it etc.

I have a question for all you brilliant plus 150 IQ posters out there.

What is the most accurate and precise definition of IQ?

Hendry wrote:

Do not listen to killer mike. He has no clue. The ACT, for example, is testing a combination of learned information and problem solving. It is by no means an IQ test.

I did not say it was an IQ test. I said it was a decent proxy for IQ. I posted a well-done study that found a correlation coefficient greater than .6 with actual IQ tests. How is that not a decent proxy?

There is some correlation between IQ and some kinds of success but it's far from absolute. If you go to almost any high school and give IQ tests you'll find that maybe the kids in the 80th percentile of IQs are around that same level in class rank and that kids in the 20th percentile are around that level in class rank. But it's not an absolute correlation, i.e., the kid with the highest IQ is also first in class rank, the kid with second highest is second in class rank and on down to the kid with the lowest IQ is also last in the class. And there will be outliers, kids with massive IQ scores who are maybe no better than 50th percentile in class rank and many kids with "average" IQs cracking that 80th percentile.

Depending on how you define successful or wasted lives, IQ is only a partial factor. Personality and temperament are at least as important if not more. What matters to a person makes a huge difference. Someone else wrote that people with high IQs tend to be either CEOs or the company security guard and I think that's a great observation. I don't know Woody Allen's IQ, but he's clearly very smart. I saw a quote from him once to the effect that if he wasn't making movies and doing comedy he'd probably have ended up doing something very menial. I think he mentioned being a messenger. I've known some very smart people who want to go to grad school but for no particular reason other than being very interested in learning and who have no particular plans to translate what they've learned into any sort of "success" as most would define the term. I once knew a guy with a Ph.D (can't recall what in) who drove a taxi and was very content doing so.

I can I agree with some of your post and you seem to know much about IQ and what its correlations. Now tell me what this thing you posted all about is.

Truth b told wrote:

old math professor wrote:

The scope of an IQ test may be limited, but I can assure you that I can out-math anyone on this planet with an IQ less than 100, and the vast majority of those individuals with an IQ less than 150.

And likely you can "out math" many of those with much higher "IQs" than you. Professor, you just proved my point.

And, I'll bet I can out-logic them as well.

Oh, I know, logic is an artificial construct.... Blah, blah, blah.......

truth-b-told wrote:

I have a question for all you brilliant plus 150 IQ posters out there.

What is the most accurate and precise definition of IQ?

It's probably defined as the score you obtain on an IQ test :) I don't really believe one number can summarize a person's intelligence or anything like that. Just think about all the people you know with different verbal and mathematical ability -- how can one number summarize a person with one and not the other?

I have two comments:

First, this thread is selecting for people who feel like they are a waste of a life, so there aren't going to be too many successful people commenting. Plus it's Letsrun. But I wanted to say that I'm a scientist, I work with lots of scientists, most of us seem pretty happy with our choices. Lots of people aren't and they do other things after grad school.

Second, my understanding is that most IQ tests aren't calibrated to be very accurate at the very high or very low ends of the scale. If you're in the tails of the distribution your score will have a larger uncertainty/error bar (there will be a wider range). Think about an extreme case: it's possible to get everything right on a test, in which case you might have a lower limit, but you can't possibly have an upper limit. So most standard tests (even most ordinary IQ tests) aren't well-calibrated above a certain point.

I'm not sure what my IQ is, but a Buzzfeed quiz told me that I should be in the Slytherin house. So I have that going for me.

This is me in spades

145 IQ

Barely graduated from a pretty selective LAC. 2.7 GPA

Totally screwed around for my 20s. Crashed out of a grad school program.

When you are smart, you tend to be a very good BSer, as I am. I talked my way into a high paying industry. I didn't last long. 10-12 years depending on who is counting. But I invested in startups, and one hit. So I haven't really worked since I was 40.

I have a lot of regret about how I screwed around. But one thing I have concluded is that being very smart is a handicap. Inevitably, you have contempt for those who are not as smart as you, but think they are. This is why I didn't last in consulting - lots of hard working people who are just not that smart. It is hard to keep your mouth shut when you are surrounded by people who just do not get it.

re: MENSA, the people in it are really not that smart. The top 2%. You can use your SAT scores to be admitted.

You seem to have figured out what I posted about so I'm not sure why I'd need to respond to your last sentence.