4 ms·

What utter garbage. Not to put too fine a point on it, this isn’t a survey of the high IQ population; it’s a survey of high IQ losers. The sample is drawn from

by Pitarou 10y ago

What utter garbage. Not to put too fine a point on it, this isn’t a survey of the high IQ population; it’s a survey of high IQ losers. The sample is drawn from a high IQ club. You won’t find many Nobel laureates, brilliant engineers and so on in these clubs. Why would they bother? They have nothing to prove and better things to do with their time. Broadly speaking, people join a high IQ club because their performance on standardized tests is the ONLY thing they have going for them. And by the way, the average IQ of the sample was 149, so many must have been below that score. Smart, but not exactly Hannibal Lecter.

shmageggy 10y ago
To be fair, the author does acknowledge that: > Oleson is quick to point out that the results presented in his book should be seen as preliminary rather than conclusive, especially considering how rare his subjects are. Another issue is that the bulk of his gifted cohort was recruited from a private high-IQ society, and people who join such clubs might not represent highly intelligent people in general.
tajen 10y ago
> Smart, but not exactly Hannibal Lecter H.L. is a fictional character with IQ 200, and Einstein is only 160, so who would qualify as an "Hannibal Lecter" for you? If the average is 149 and the group is spread in a gaussian curve with exactly one Einstein, then the dumb guy of the group will be 138. Which is under 1% of the population, especially in US where the average IQ is 98. So the first 3 paragraphs of your criticism are well-reasoned, but I wonder why you feel the need to down-play the smartness of that group with your first and last sentence.
- Pitarou 10y ago
  > Einstein is only 160 I don't believe Einstein is ever recorded as having taken an IQ test. In any case, IQ scores quickly lose their meaning when you get to 160 or above. Try taking a physical fitness test designed to make fine distinctions across the general population, and extending it to Olympic athletes. The athletes would just laugh at you. > Which is under 1% of the population, especially in US where the average IQ is 98. ... I wonder why you feel the need to down-play the smartness of that group with your first and last sentence. It's the use of words like "super-smart" that bugs me. A US male in the top height percentile would be about 6'4". Tall, but no André the giant.
paulpauper 10y ago
often 'brilliance' is conferred upon by peers, not by absolute merit. Nobel Prize is mostly luck...many others are equally smart and talented but only a handful of people can win. Using awards and public adulation as criteria for intelligence and brilliance is insufficient.

by Pitarou 10y ago

shmageggy 10y ago

To be fair, the author does acknowledge that: > Oleson is quick to point out that the results presented in his book should be seen as preliminary rather than conclusive, especially considering how rare his subjects are. Another issue is that the bulk of his gifted cohort was recruited from a private high-IQ society, and people who join such clubs might not represent highly intelligent people in general.

tajen 10y ago

> Smart, but not exactly Hannibal Lecter H.L. is a fictional character with IQ 200, and Einstein is only 160, so who would qualify as an "Hannibal Lecter" for you? If the average is 149 and the group is spread in a gaussian curve with exactly one Einstein, then the dumb guy of the group will be 138. Which is under 1% of the population, especially in US where the average IQ is 98. So the first 3 paragraphs of your criticism are well-reasoned, but I wonder why you feel the need to down-play the smartness of that group with your first and last sentence.

Pitarou 10y ago
> Einstein is only 160 I don't believe Einstein is ever recorded as having taken an IQ test. In any case, IQ scores quickly lose their meaning when you get to 160 or above. Try taking a physical fitness test designed to make fine distinctions across the general population, and extending it to Olympic athletes. The athletes would just laugh at you. > Which is under 1% of the population, especially in US where the average IQ is 98. ... I wonder why you feel the need to down-play the smartness of that group with your first and last sentence. It's the use of words like "super-smart" that bugs me. A US male in the top height percentile would be about 6'4". Tall, but no André the giant.

paulpauper 10y ago

often 'brilliance' is conferred upon by peers, not by absolute merit. Nobel Prize is mostly luck...many others are equally smart and talented but only a handful of people can win. Using awards and public adulation as criteria for intelligence and brilliance is insufficient.