7 ms·

IQ is definitely not a good measure of value, contribution, quality of thought. I think it's probably correlated, and for some contributions may be a gating fac

IQ is definitely not a good measure of value, contribution, quality of thought. I think it's probably correlated, and for some contributions may be a gating factor, but I've seen plenty of smart people examining the wrong things, for sure. Meta-analysis of focus doesn't seem to come free with IQ. I think it's a skill.

mikemotherwell 8y ago
IQ is an EXCELLENT measure of "value, contribution, quality of thought". The idea it isn't is weird to me. What IQ fails at is being an ABSOLUTE measure of those things, e.g. John Nash is a genius, but his schizophrenia likely made a lot of what he did and said questionable. Just taking IQ and ignoring other factors would lead you awry. Even then, John Nash came up with the Nash Equilibrium. I think the mistake is thinking that one measure will be absolutely predictive. Nassim Nicholas Taleb's point is that IQ is a great measure of stupid people, almost absolute at < 70 IQ levels, but as you progress upwards it's predictive power wanes. Which is GOOD. Success is defined by many parts. Genetics, culture, training, hard work, timing aka luck. That there is no one metric that predicts everything is a good thing. However, while we should be clear on the limits of each of our measures, and not over state their individual value, that is not to say that these metrics are useless.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  I think it’s often understated what you say in your last paragraph: If success has multiple parts with a non-linear relationship (“more than the sum of its parts”), then we’d expect to see decreasing utility for IQ relative to having a strong secondary or tertiary talent — eg, strong leadership skills and EQ, so you can build momentum around your idea. In many senses, this is what we mean by a “well rounded person”. I’m not sure how that translates into the rant that IQ is useless, pseudoscience, etc. that Mr Taleb makes, though. Let’s look at height and NBA success. I think most of us agree distance is a measure, but it doesn’t explain NBA success. Just like IQ, it only really explains NBA non-success with much strength: there are very few successful short NBA players, and no midget ones; however, there are many non-NBA playing tall people. Naively, Mr Taleb seems to be arguing that height isn’t a real measurement because it doesn’t account for basketball skill.
  - mr_toad 8y ago
    Or, more subtly, once you focus on star basketball players, height ceases to be a useful differentiator. Beyond a certain point, increased height will not lead to increased success at basketball.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > IQ is an EXCELLENT measure of "value, contribution, quality of thought". Actually, it is not. At best, IQ is correlated with intellectual potential. However, having potential is not the same as being able to perform. Even a V8 without gas fails to perform on par with a filled 2-stroke motor.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    > However, having potential is not the same as being able to perform. But having no potential is virtually the same as not being able to perform. You can find high IQ people in the highest places in human society and in the lowest places. But you don't find low IQ people in the highest places.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      > But having no potential is virtually the same as not being able to perform. That's true, but that refers to people with a low IQ. Thise with average IQ are quite able to outperform people with a high IQ if they have able to put in the legwork or even simply have an opportunity to improve their performance when some with a higher IQ does not. The old addage that the brain is like a muscle is very orelevant: it makes no difference if a talented athlete does not train, because that only means he js squandering his talent. Meanwhile, least capable athletes that put in the hours do end up improving their performance and eventually outperform more talented athletes. Potential means nothing if it's wasted.
      - scotty79 8y ago
        > Thise with average IQ are quite able to outperform people with a high IQ if they have able to put in the legwork... Yes, average can beat high with work. But still, high can beat high with work with higher probability than average can. Average Kalenjin with just few trainings will outrun most average runners even if they were training for years.
    - ilikehurdles 8y ago
      You do find low IQ people in high places — they’re the low IQ people who have inherited wealth and social connections to those places.
- barrkel 8y ago
  > I think the mistake is thinking that one measure will be absolutely predictive And I agree. I believe I said that I think IQ isn't an absolutely predictive measure. I didn't say I thought there was one. Another commenter talks about "taste" being an essential ingredient. That's what I mean about meta-analysis of focus: applying intelligence to the topic of what you're applying intelligence to.
waterhouse 8y ago
A guy I know—who basically spends his time around high-IQ kids, seems to be on speaking terms with several Fields Medalists, and has closely studied the lives of lots of great scientists and mathematicians—says that great achievement comes from three ingredients: (a) mental horsepower (roughly measured by IQ); (b) taste, an aesthetic sense that helps one decide to work on the right things or investigate the right hypotheses; and (c) obsessiveness, such that when you encounter a project that truly is worth working on, you're likely to spend enormous amounts of time working on it. (The big-5 trait Conscientiousness may be one way of implementing (c).)
- aleph_naught 8y ago
  Anecdotally, I would very much agree with this, with an added caveat: there are diminishing returns on mental horsepower after 2 stdevs (e.g. 130 iq). After a certain point obsessiveness separates the wheat from the chaff, by very wide margins. The long-game is underrated.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    You need all three. Picking the wrong thing to work on wastes all of the time that gets spent because of obsession.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      > You need all three. Actually, you don't. It may help to be gifted on all three, but work ethics makes up for any deficit in intellectual potential. For example, MENSA membership does not correlate with intellectual elites in any research field, but you'd be hard pressed to find a leading researcher who doesn't have a strong work ethic.
      - barry-cotter 8y ago
        If you can’t hack calculus you will never be an Engineering professor, likewise close critical reading and an English professor. That puts a floor somewhere between 115 and 120 IQ on becoming a professor at a decent community college no matter how hard you’re willing to work. I guarantee you MENSA members have higher incomes and educational attainment than non members. I’m equally sure that non-members who are eligible for membership but wouldn’t bother do better because they have better social skills which are helpful for anything.

mikemotherwell 8y ago

IQ is an EXCELLENT measure of "value, contribution, quality of thought". The idea it isn't is weird to me. What IQ fails at is being an ABSOLUTE measure of those things, e.g. John Nash is a genius, but his schizophrenia likely made a lot of what he did and said questionable. Just taking IQ and ignoring other factors would lead you awry. Even then, John Nash came up with the Nash Equilibrium. I think the mistake is thinking that one measure will be absolutely predictive. Nassim Nicholas Taleb's point is that IQ is a great measure of stupid people, almost absolute at < 70 IQ levels, but as you progress upwards it's predictive power wanes. Which is GOOD. Success is defined by many parts. Genetics, culture, training, hard work, timing aka luck. That there is no one metric that predicts everything is a good thing. However, while we should be clear on the limits of each of our measures, and not over state their individual value, that is not to say that these metrics are useless.

FakeComments 8y ago
I think it’s often understated what you say in your last paragraph: If success has multiple parts with a non-linear relationship (“more than the sum of its parts”), then we’d expect to see decreasing utility for IQ relative to having a strong secondary or tertiary talent — eg, strong leadership skills and EQ, so you can build momentum around your idea. In many senses, this is what we mean by a “well rounded person”. I’m not sure how that translates into the rant that IQ is useless, pseudoscience, etc. that Mr Taleb makes, though. Let’s look at height and NBA success. I think most of us agree distance is a measure, but it doesn’t explain NBA success. Just like IQ, it only really explains NBA non-success with much strength: there are very few successful short NBA players, and no midget ones; however, there are many non-NBA playing tall people. Naively, Mr Taleb seems to be arguing that height isn’t a real measurement because it doesn’t account for basketball skill.
- mr_toad 8y ago
  Or, more subtly, once you focus on star basketball players, height ceases to be a useful differentiator. Beyond a certain point, increased height will not lead to increased success at basketball.
geezerjay 8y ago
> IQ is an EXCELLENT measure of "value, contribution, quality of thought". Actually, it is not. At best, IQ is correlated with intellectual potential. However, having potential is not the same as being able to perform. Even a V8 without gas fails to perform on par with a filled 2-stroke motor.
- scotty79 8y ago
  > However, having potential is not the same as being able to perform. But having no potential is virtually the same as not being able to perform. You can find high IQ people in the highest places in human society and in the lowest places. But you don't find low IQ people in the highest places.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > But having no potential is virtually the same as not being able to perform. That's true, but that refers to people with a low IQ. Thise with average IQ are quite able to outperform people with a high IQ if they have able to put in the legwork or even simply have an opportunity to improve their performance when some with a higher IQ does not. The old addage that the brain is like a muscle is very orelevant: it makes no difference if a talented athlete does not train, because that only means he js squandering his talent. Meanwhile, least capable athletes that put in the hours do end up improving their performance and eventually outperform more talented athletes. Potential means nothing if it's wasted.
    - scotty79 8y ago
      > Thise with average IQ are quite able to outperform people with a high IQ if they have able to put in the legwork... Yes, average can beat high with work. But still, high can beat high with work with higher probability than average can. Average Kalenjin with just few trainings will outrun most average runners even if they were training for years.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    You do find low IQ people in high places — they’re the low IQ people who have inherited wealth and social connections to those places.
barrkel 8y ago
> I think the mistake is thinking that one measure will be absolutely predictive And I agree. I believe I said that I think IQ isn't an absolutely predictive measure. I didn't say I thought there was one. Another commenter talks about "taste" being an essential ingredient. That's what I mean about meta-analysis of focus: applying intelligence to the topic of what you're applying intelligence to.

waterhouse 8y ago

A guy I know—who basically spends his time around high-IQ kids, seems to be on speaking terms with several Fields Medalists, and has closely studied the lives of lots of great scientists and mathematicians—says that great achievement comes from three ingredients: (a) mental horsepower (roughly measured by IQ); (b) taste, an aesthetic sense that helps one decide to work on the right things or investigate the right hypotheses; and (c) obsessiveness, such that when you encounter a project that truly is worth working on, you're likely to spend enormous amounts of time working on it. (The big-5 trait Conscientiousness may be one way of implementing (c).)

aleph_naught 8y ago
Anecdotally, I would very much agree with this, with an added caveat: there are diminishing returns on mental horsepower after 2 stdevs (e.g. 130 iq). After a certain point obsessiveness separates the wheat from the chaff, by very wide margins. The long-game is underrated.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  You need all three. Picking the wrong thing to work on wastes all of the time that gets spent because of obsession.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > You need all three. Actually, you don't. It may help to be gifted on all three, but work ethics makes up for any deficit in intellectual potential. For example, MENSA membership does not correlate with intellectual elites in any research field, but you'd be hard pressed to find a leading researcher who doesn't have a strong work ethic.
    - barry-cotter 8y ago
      If you can’t hack calculus you will never be an Engineering professor, likewise close critical reading and an English professor. That puts a floor somewhere between 115 and 120 IQ on becoming a professor at a decent community college no matter how hard you’re willing to work. I guarantee you MENSA members have higher incomes and educational attainment than non members. I’m equally sure that non-members who are eligible for membership but wouldn’t bother do better because they have better social skills which are helpful for anything.