4 ms·

I'm trying to figure out how realistic the mentioned concept of a "window of comprehension" actually is. This [paper? article? post?] only has one external refe

I'm trying to figure out how realistic the mentioned concept of a "window of comprehension" actually is. This [paper? article? post?] only has one external reference - to another document from the same group[1]. That short document, in turn, makes unsupported claims that "Studies have shown that there is a “window of comprehension” of about 30 IQ points." A quick Google search didn't provide anything further in support of the idea; just some references to the concept from the same group. Is this a real thing? It would be fascinating if it were, for many different contexts. [1] http://www.triplenine.org/portals/0/PublicDocs/Vidya/vidya_320-321_MF_reprint.pdf http://www.triplenine.org/portals/0/PublicDocs/Vidya/vidya_3...

Gargoyle 10y ago
The footnote in the post also references this paper for the claim- Intelligence and personal influence in groups: Four nonlinear models. Simonton, Dean K. Psychological Review, Vol 92(4), Oct 1985, 532-547 http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1986-14442-001 http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1986-14442-001
- mcguire 10y ago
  The paper is behind a paywall, but the abstract makes me wonder about this reference: "Describes 4 progressive models that provide a conceptual basis for a curvilinear relation between intelligence and an individual's influence over other group members. "Model 1, the intellectual superiority model, by assuming that influence is a function of percentile placement in intelligence, predicts that beyond an IQ of about 120 intelligence bears a negligible connection with influence. "Model 2, the comprehension factor, adds the consideration of the degree of comprehension by potential followers, yielding a nonmonotonic function with a predicted peak IQ of about 108, approximately 0.5 standard deviations (SD) above the mean. "Model 3 incorporates the criticism factor that acknowledges a group member's vulnerability to intellectual superiors, and thereby predicts a 2nd nonmonotonic function with an optimal IQ of about 119 (or 1.2 SD above the mean). "Model 4, the intellectual stratification model, expands on the fact that the mean group IQ varies across different groups and, consequently, predicts a high correlation between the group mean IQ and the IQ of its most influential member, with a leader–follower gap of between 8 and 20 points, depending on the submodel. "It is surmised that other factors besides intelligence must participate in the determination of who becomes the leader of a group. Even if intelligence is not the exclusive determinant, the models strongly imply that published validity coefficients are biased downward." I don't see any evidence for the existence (beyond the assumptions of "a model") of a "window".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
teilo 10y ago
I am highly skeptical of this as well. It is certainly not my experience. I sometimes catch myself getting impatient and irritable when I am attempting to communicate with some one of low-to-average intelligence (I'm around 150), but if anything my ability to engage in abstract and metaphorical thinking helps me paint pictures to explain complex things to people. Part of the problem, I think, is that this may well be true for people who have certain personality profiles, in particular if they have poor emotional intelligence. But I do not believe this speaks to some intrinsic "impossibility" but rather social barriers to effective communication, barriers that can, with effort, be overcome. If one is self-reflective enough to be able to recognize how arrogant they sound to to others, learns humility, patience, and the value of human life other than one's own, communication is not a problem. It just takes more effort. But I will say this: I constantly have to ask the question, "I know what they literally said, but what did they actually mean?" Because if I don't I come off like a prick.
- csa 10y ago
  I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment on emotional intelligence and communication. That said, does the ability to empathize and communicate with someone outside of that window mean that it doesn't exist? I know that when I go full speed with someone at my level, it sounds like a foreign language to some of my peers. They understand the words we say, but they don't really understand the conclusions, implications, etc. Note that I am not sure I agree with the hard interpretation of the author of the article (specifically, "no meaningful communication is possible among people not sharing a common window of 30 IQ points"). That said, I do think that there are some fundamental differences in how people outside of a 30-point range perceive the world.
csa 10y ago
I was first exposed to this idea in a book called Greatness: Who makes history and why. IIRC, one of the points was that most famous generals (at least historically) did not typically have extremely high IQs (e.g., 150+) -- the generals needed to be in the 11x-12x range so that they could be within an IQ range that was able to empathize with their soldiers (or at least the junior officers) who were likely in the 9x-10x range. I just checked the ToC on Amazon, and I think chapter 8 touches on this topic. It has been a while since I read it, so I might be wrong. I can't recall what sources the author cited, if any. On a personal level, the idea of a "window of comprehension" has helped me a lot. I used to get frustrated as a kid when people didn't see the same solutions (or even problems) that I saw. Later I came to realize that they were just seeing it from a different perspective than I was. There can be some complex social interaction to get other folks to see the bigger and more dynamic problem and solution space without coming across as condescending, but it's awesome when it happens.

Gargoyle 10y ago

The footnote in the post also references this paper for the claim- Intelligence and personal influence in groups: Four nonlinear models. Simonton, Dean K. Psychological Review, Vol 92(4), Oct 1985, 532-547 http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1986-14442-001 http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1986-14442-001

mcguire 10y ago
The paper is behind a paywall, but the abstract makes me wonder about this reference: "Describes 4 progressive models that provide a conceptual basis for a curvilinear relation between intelligence and an individual's influence over other group members. "Model 1, the intellectual superiority model, by assuming that influence is a function of percentile placement in intelligence, predicts that beyond an IQ of about 120 intelligence bears a negligible connection with influence. "Model 2, the comprehension factor, adds the consideration of the degree of comprehension by potential followers, yielding a nonmonotonic function with a predicted peak IQ of about 108, approximately 0.5 standard deviations (SD) above the mean. "Model 3 incorporates the criticism factor that acknowledges a group member's vulnerability to intellectual superiors, and thereby predicts a 2nd nonmonotonic function with an optimal IQ of about 119 (or 1.2 SD above the mean). "Model 4, the intellectual stratification model, expands on the fact that the mean group IQ varies across different groups and, consequently, predicts a high correlation between the group mean IQ and the IQ of its most influential member, with a leader–follower gap of between 8 and 20 points, depending on the submodel. "It is surmised that other factors besides intelligence must participate in the determination of who becomes the leader of a group. Even if intelligence is not the exclusive determinant, the models strongly imply that published validity coefficients are biased downward." I don't see any evidence for the existence (beyond the assumptions of "a model") of a "window".

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

teilo 10y ago

I am highly skeptical of this as well. It is certainly not my experience. I sometimes catch myself getting impatient and irritable when I am attempting to communicate with some one of low-to-average intelligence (I'm around 150), but if anything my ability to engage in abstract and metaphorical thinking helps me paint pictures to explain complex things to people. Part of the problem, I think, is that this may well be true for people who have certain personality profiles, in particular if they have poor emotional intelligence. But I do not believe this speaks to some intrinsic "impossibility" but rather social barriers to effective communication, barriers that can, with effort, be overcome. If one is self-reflective enough to be able to recognize how arrogant they sound to to others, learns humility, patience, and the value of human life other than one's own, communication is not a problem. It just takes more effort. But I will say this: I constantly have to ask the question, "I know what they literally said, but what did they actually mean?" Because if I don't I come off like a prick.

csa 10y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment on emotional intelligence and communication. That said, does the ability to empathize and communicate with someone outside of that window mean that it doesn't exist? I know that when I go full speed with someone at my level, it sounds like a foreign language to some of my peers. They understand the words we say, but they don't really understand the conclusions, implications, etc. Note that I am not sure I agree with the hard interpretation of the author of the article (specifically, "no meaningful communication is possible among people not sharing a common window of 30 IQ points"). That said, I do think that there are some fundamental differences in how people outside of a 30-point range perceive the world.

csa 10y ago

I was first exposed to this idea in a book called Greatness: Who makes history and why. IIRC, one of the points was that most famous generals (at least historically) did not typically have extremely high IQs (e.g., 150+) -- the generals needed to be in the 11x-12x range so that they could be within an IQ range that was able to empathize with their soldiers (or at least the junior officers) who were likely in the 9x-10x range. I just checked the ToC on Amazon, and I think chapter 8 touches on this topic. It has been a while since I read it, so I might be wrong. I can't recall what sources the author cited, if any. On a personal level, the idea of a "window of comprehension" has helped me a lot. I used to get frustrated as a kid when people didn't see the same solutions (or even problems) that I saw. Later I came to realize that they were just seeing it from a different perspective than I was. There can be some complex social interaction to get other folks to see the bigger and more dynamic problem and solution space without coming across as condescending, but it's awesome when it happens.