5 ms·

Is there data on that? Perceptions of intelligence are variable to practice and preparation if the measure is nonrandomized convergent standardized tests, whic

Is there data on that? Perceptions of intelligence are variable to practice and preparation if the measure is nonrandomized convergent standardized tests, which is not IQ but is the more accepted assessment of intelligence. IQ only seems to matter up to 135 after which other factors become more dominant in determining success.

paulpauper 5y ago
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11683192/iq-testing-intelligence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11683192/iq-testing-intelligen... I look at it like this, for creative, intellectually demanding work IQ is a necessary but perhaps insufficient condition. You need to be smart to achieve success cause you are competing with other people, so smarter people will have an edge. Google is not hiring people with 90-110 iqs. So having a high IQ is needed to at least be sufficiently proficient in coding, to be considered for a good paying job, but not guarantee you will be hired, but being smart sure helps.
- the_dune_13 5y ago
  > high IQ is needed to at least be sufficiently proficient in coding, Should I even bother on what's the source of this claim?
- rkk3 5y ago
  Google hires no one within 1SD of the Avg IQ? This I find hard to believe.
  - paulpauper 5y ago
    for technical postitions, i am sure IQs cluser around 125-140
    - austincheney 5y ago
      I find it interesting that people are willing to invent data on the spot to qualify a bias.
      - barry-cotter 5y ago
        Or they could know something about the intelligence literature. There are very few people in professional careers, lawyers, doctors, engineers etc. with measured IQ below 115. It’s close to impossible. The demands are just too high.
        rkk3 5y ago
        I doubt it, less than 115 is 85% of people. Aside from the low end IQ really isn't that predictive.
        barry-cotter 5y ago
        81%. Yes, a large majority of people are incapable of becoming lawyers, doctors or engineers. IQ is predictive at the low, middle and high end. There is no evidence of a threshold at which more ceases to be better. Emphasis below not in originalz > Can You Ever Be Too Smart for Your Own Good? Comparing Linear and Nonlinear Effects of Cognitive Ability on Life Outcomes > Despite a long-standing expert consensus about the importance of cognitive ability for life outcomes, contrary views continue to proliferate in scholarly and popular literature. This divergence of beliefs presents an obstacle for evidence- based policymaking and decision-making in a variety of settings. One commonly held idea is that greater cognitive ability does not matter or is actually harmful beyond a certain point (sometimes stated as > 100 or 120 IQ points). We empirically tested these notions using data from four longitudinal, representative cohort studies comprising 48,558 participants in the United States and United Kingdom from 1957 to the present. We found that ability measured in youth has a positive association with most occupational, educational, health, and social outcomes later in life. Most effects were characterized by a moderate to strong linear trend or a practically null effect (mean R2 range = .002–.256). Nearly all nonlinear effects were practically insignificant in magnitude (mean incremental R2 = .001) or were not replicated across cohorts or survey waves. We found no support for any downside to higher ability and no evidence for a threshold beyond which greater scores cease to be beneficial. Thus, greater cognitive ability is generally advantageous—and virtually never detrimental. https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2021-brown.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2021-brown.pdf
    - rkk3 5y ago
      Top 2-3% of IQ seems very high... Remember everyone with IQ above 100 is above average and like you said in your other post, it is for the most part a threshold/satisfying criteria.
im3w1l 5y ago
Here's a thought. When you reach IQ 135 you start becoming "io-bound". But this is a function of the complexity of our society. As our society and technology gets more complicated the "skillcap" will shift upwards, and a higher IQ will be needed for full performance.
- epivosism 5y ago
  Check out SMPY - here's an image of their results showing that academic output, patents, tenure, income continues to increase well beyond IQ 135. Details in the later links. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4b8ThyfDgzs/U29nQEBAQTI/AAAAAAAAE40/iu0AgfuHE8E/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/smpy_odds.png https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4b8ThyfDgzs/U29nQEBAQTI/AAAAAAAAE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_Mathematically_Precocious_Youth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_Mathematically_Precoc... https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/ https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/ The obvious question is, if IQ (or whatever SAT is measuring) is irrelevant, why is it so predictive of lifetime academic output? Also, people try to attack the SAT as nothing more than test prep - but I don't think that argument works well because it supposes you can produce kids who score 700 on the math SAT before age 13; such a training program has never been observed.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Some amount of test prep is surely helpful in terms of understanding the test format and strategies, but it does seem (almost?) obvious that the SAT is actually measuring something other than test prep. NB: SMPY qualifications for at least the early cohorts of the study are “before 13” (so, 12 or younger).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
barry-cotter 5y ago
More IQ is better at all levels. There’s no evidence of a threshold effect. > Can You Ever Be Too Smart for Your Own Good? Comparing Linear and Nonlinear Effects of Cognitive Ability on Life Outcomes > Despite a long-standing expert consensus about the importance of cognitive ability for life outcomes, contrary views continue to proliferate in scholarly and popular literature. This divergence of beliefs presents an obstacle for evidence- based policymaking and decision-making in a variety of settings. One commonly held idea is that greater cognitive ability does not matter or is actually harmful beyond a certain point (sometimes stated as > 100 or 120 IQ points). We empirically tested these notions using data from four longitudinal, representative cohort studies comprising 48,558 participants in the United States and United Kingdom from 1957 to the present. We found that ability measured in youth has a positive association with most occupational, educational, health, and social outcomes later in life. Most effects were characterized by a moderate to strong linear trend or a practically null effect (mean R2 range = .002–.256). Nearly all nonlinear effects were practically insignificant in magnitude (mean incremental R2 = .001) or were not replicated across cohorts or survey waves. We found no support for any downside to higher ability and no evidence for a threshold beyond which greater scores cease to be beneficial. Thus, greater cognitive ability is generally advantageous—and virtually never detrimental. https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2021-brown.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2021-brown.pdf

paulpauper 5y ago

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11683192/iq-testing-intelligence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11683192/iq-testing-intelligen... I look at it like this, for creative, intellectually demanding work IQ is a necessary but perhaps insufficient condition. You need to be smart to achieve success cause you are competing with other people, so smarter people will have an edge. Google is not hiring people with 90-110 iqs. So having a high IQ is needed to at least be sufficiently proficient in coding, to be considered for a good paying job, but not guarantee you will be hired, but being smart sure helps.

the_dune_13 5y ago
> high IQ is needed to at least be sufficiently proficient in coding, Should I even bother on what's the source of this claim?
rkk3 5y ago
Google hires no one within 1SD of the Avg IQ? This I find hard to believe.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  for technical postitions, i am sure IQs cluser around 125-140
  - austincheney 5y ago
    I find it interesting that people are willing to invent data on the spot to qualify a bias.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      Or they could know something about the intelligence literature. There are very few people in professional careers, lawyers, doctors, engineers etc. with measured IQ below 115. It’s close to impossible. The demands are just too high.
      - rkk3 5y ago
        I doubt it, less than 115 is 85% of people. Aside from the low end IQ really isn't that predictive.
        barry-cotter 5y ago
        81%. Yes, a large majority of people are incapable of becoming lawyers, doctors or engineers. IQ is predictive at the low, middle and high end. There is no evidence of a threshold at which more ceases to be better. Emphasis below not in originalz > Can You Ever Be Too Smart for Your Own Good? Comparing Linear and Nonlinear Effects of Cognitive Ability on Life Outcomes > Despite a long-standing expert consensus about the importance of cognitive ability for life outcomes, contrary views continue to proliferate in scholarly and popular literature. This divergence of beliefs presents an obstacle for evidence- based policymaking and decision-making in a variety of settings. One commonly held idea is that greater cognitive ability does not matter or is actually harmful beyond a certain point (sometimes stated as > 100 or 120 IQ points). We empirically tested these notions using data from four longitudinal, representative cohort studies comprising 48,558 participants in the United States and United Kingdom from 1957 to the present. We found that ability measured in youth has a positive association with most occupational, educational, health, and social outcomes later in life. Most effects were characterized by a moderate to strong linear trend or a practically null effect (mean R2 range = .002–.256). Nearly all nonlinear effects were practically insignificant in magnitude (mean incremental R2 = .001) or were not replicated across cohorts or survey waves. We found no support for any downside to higher ability and no evidence for a threshold beyond which greater scores cease to be beneficial. Thus, greater cognitive ability is generally advantageous—and virtually never detrimental. https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2021-brown.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2021-brown.pdf
  - rkk3 5y ago
    Top 2-3% of IQ seems very high... Remember everyone with IQ above 100 is above average and like you said in your other post, it is for the most part a threshold/satisfying criteria.

im3w1l 5y ago

Here's a thought. When you reach IQ 135 you start becoming "io-bound". But this is a function of the complexity of our society. As our society and technology gets more complicated the "skillcap" will shift upwards, and a higher IQ will be needed for full performance.

epivosism 5y ago
Check out SMPY - here's an image of their results showing that academic output, patents, tenure, income continues to increase well beyond IQ 135. Details in the later links. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4b8ThyfDgzs/U29nQEBAQTI/AAAAAAAAE40/iu0AgfuHE8E/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/smpy_odds.png https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4b8ThyfDgzs/U29nQEBAQTI/AAAAAAAAE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_Mathematically_Precocious_Youth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_Mathematically_Precoc... https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/ https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/ The obvious question is, if IQ (or whatever SAT is measuring) is irrelevant, why is it so predictive of lifetime academic output? Also, people try to attack the SAT as nothing more than test prep - but I don't think that argument works well because it supposes you can produce kids who score 700 on the math SAT before age 13; such a training program has never been observed.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Some amount of test prep is surely helpful in terms of understanding the test format and strategies, but it does seem (almost?) obvious that the SAT is actually measuring something other than test prep. NB: SMPY qualifications for at least the early cohorts of the study are “before 13” (so, 12 or younger).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

barry-cotter 5y ago

More IQ is better at all levels. There’s no evidence of a threshold effect. > Can You Ever Be Too Smart for Your Own Good? Comparing Linear and Nonlinear Effects of Cognitive Ability on Life Outcomes > Despite a long-standing expert consensus about the importance of cognitive ability for life outcomes, contrary views continue to proliferate in scholarly and popular literature. This divergence of beliefs presents an obstacle for evidence- based policymaking and decision-making in a variety of settings. One commonly held idea is that greater cognitive ability does not matter or is actually harmful beyond a certain point (sometimes stated as > 100 or 120 IQ points). We empirically tested these notions using data from four longitudinal, representative cohort studies comprising 48,558 participants in the United States and United Kingdom from 1957 to the present. We found that ability measured in youth has a positive association with most occupational, educational, health, and social outcomes later in life. Most effects were characterized by a moderate to strong linear trend or a practically null effect (mean R2 range = .002–.256). Nearly all nonlinear effects were practically insignificant in magnitude (mean incremental R2 = .001) or were not replicated across cohorts or survey waves. We found no support for any downside to higher ability and no evidence for a threshold beyond which greater scores cease to be beneficial. Thus, greater cognitive ability is generally advantageous—and virtually never detrimental. https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2021-brown.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2021-brown.pdf